Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 3

USA midterm elections 2022

Re: USA midterm elections 2022. Let's say that the Republicans gain control of one chamber; and Democrats, the other. So, we'd only have two possible scenarios. Scenario "A": Republicans win the House and Democrats win the Senate. Scenario "B": Democrats win the House and Republicans win the Senate. As a practical matter, is there any real distinction between Scenario "A" versus "B"? Or, in effect, is it essentially all really the same thing? If different, what would be the major differences ... from a practical (and legislative) perspective? A bill -- a proposed law -- needs both chambers to approve. So, at the most basic level, it seems like Scenario "A" and Scenario "B" are essentially the same exact thing. (Essentially.) But... are there some subtleties or nuances that make Scenario "A" and "B" somehow significantly different? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There are several differences, this isn't an exhaustive list. As you point out, there would likely be gridlock in both scenarios, but there are a number of differences between the two chambers. Let's say the Republicans won the House, and the Democrats won the senate. That would probably lead to the House January 6 Committee being shut down. The House also has the sole power of impeachment, so the House could start an impeachment trial if they so voted. However, the impeachment jury is the Senate, so the Senate would likely acquit in that case. On the other hand, let's say the Dems held the house, and the Republicans took over the Senate (this is less likely according to current polls). In that case, the Jan 6 committee probably stays around. It also affects the presidential succession: the Speaker of the House is next in line assuming the President and Vice President were to resign or otherwise leave office at the same time. The numerical margins also make a difference. Right now the Senate is 50-50 (actually it's 48 D, 2 I that are caucusing D, and 50 R, but there are several conservative Ds like Joe Manchin that have a lot of leverage and power currently), but theoretically, even if Democrats lost the House, but won the Senate, and if they gained more votes in the Senate than their current margin, Dems could still try to pass legislation with the votes of "more liberal" Republicans such as perhaps Adam Kinzinger, or the 24 Republicans who voted for the CHIPS bill[1]. If Dems lose votes in the Senate, they will have a tough time passing legislation even if they have House votes, because of Mitch McConnell controlling the schedule whipping his votes to filibuster. Andrevan@ 04:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Kinzinger is not running. Where a Democratic senate becomes of greater importance is in the area of selecting judges, especially for the Supreme Court. If a SCOTUS judge dies or retires, Biden would have an easier time getting his candidate through. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point about Kinzinger, bad example on my part. And yes, the court confirmations are another very important role of the Senate, good point. Andrevan@ 07:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Bugs is correct. Kinzinger is not running for re-election, which frees him to act unimpededly as a Republican Congressional critic of the GOP/MAGA cult until January 2023, and then as an independent analyst after his retirement becomes effective. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Senate approves the President's judicial, cabinet secretary and ambassador nominations. Senate also ratifies any multi-national treaty. The House does none of that. If Congress is split, there would be a persistent legislative gridlock for the whole term, so legislation would usually die in either chamber. But with a D House + R Senate, even judicial appointments can be held hostage by Majority leader McConnell like that of Merrick Garland, not just for SCOTUS but for dozens of lower courts. So, winning the Senate is a more favourable outcome for Democrats, if they want to fill up vacancies in courts, ratify treaties, etc. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that one advantage Trump had when he came into office was there were a lot of lower court nominations he could fill because the Senate wouldn't accept Obama's nominations. But note that it can get more complicated than simple an opposite party Senate holding up appointments. For example, Trump was able to nominate a lot of members of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service after a dispute between Sanders and McConnell when Sanders blocked some of Obama's appointments and McConnell refused to allow the rest [2] Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

See here for some discussion of the first point [3] Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

On the flip side of the Senate's unique powers of being the sole body to approve presidential nominations; the House is the only body that can originate revenue bills; in a practical sense this means that an opposite-party House of Representatives can hold up a Presidential budget plan. While a Senate also needs to approve such a plan in the end, it would never get to the Senate if the House didn't approve it first. --Jayron32 12:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great replies / information. I really appreciate it. So, there are some functions that the House can only do (and not the Senate) ... like impeachment and introducing revenue bills. And, vice versa, there are some functions that the Senate can only do (and not the House) ... like confirmations, judicial appointments, treaties, etc. Got that. Thanks. Now, I want to focus on passing laws. It is my understanding ... correct me if I am wrong ... that this is the basic process. Either chamber starts the bill ... that chamber approves it ... then, the other chamber has to approve it. Then, the president. Then it becomes law. That's the basic road-map, leaving out all of the minutiae. So, from that perspective -- of passing legislation -- is Scenario "A" and "B" essentially the same thing? The bill starts at one chamber, gets approved, and then ends up at the other chamber and gets approved. (Potentially.) So, in that "road-map" ... that is, the idea of getting legislation passed ... does it really matter if the bill starts at the House and moves to the Senate ... or, vice versa ... starts at the Senate and moves to the House? In other words, from this perspective ... isn't Scenario "A" and "B", in essence, the same thing? Thank you. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, they're same. Bills can go in either direction, and then to the President. Except revenue bills, as Jayron said above, which always have to start from the House. Sometimes, however, certain bills get amended in the second chamber, so there could be back and forth with it, as both chambers must pass identical bills. This CrashCourse video on YT might be helpful for a brief of the lawmaking procress. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that looks to be about it. It must be noted that identical bills have to be passed by both houses; either house may amend any bill; any such amendments cause the bill to get sent back to the other house for approval. Only when the identical bill passes both houses does it get sent to the President for signing. --Jayron32 18:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a note about Jayron32's point above. While it's true the House must originate revenue bills, the Senate is free to amend any revenue bill that has been passes by the house to completely change the purpose via a substitute amendment. This is briefly mentioned at Money bill#United States. For example, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 originated as the TARGET Act or "Targeted Rewards for the Global Eradication of Human Trafficking" [4]. This is still reflected in the long title. In this case the original bill was kept in the modified one [5] but the bill was still changed from one making limited changes into a major part of the 2018 United States federal budget. Another famous example is the Affordable Care Act which originated in the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009". In that case, the original bill was eliminated in the amended bill [6] [7]. Likewise, the CARES Act originated as the "Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2019" which was also eliminated in the final version [8] [9]. The end result is that if the House really wants to stop the Senate from passing the Senate's version of a budget, they cannot pass even minor money bills like these unless they're certain the Senate is going to pass them in similar form, or at least not dare amend them so drastically. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)08:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

August 4

Role of travel guides and encyclopedia for travelers

Greetings, Thanks to all for inputs to discussion on previous question Pre Wiki Encyclopedia audiences, few questions.

In the same sequence I wish to understand, whether and if yes then in what percentage of pre and post 21 century travelers (Leisure/ business/ administrative/ military/ educational) might have used / use encyclopedias or written tourist guides before visiting a new place for safety and well-being in a new place they would be visiting first time, specially overseas. And what percentage travelers simply depend on oral guidance by acquaintance and do not consult written material.

• Are there any notable past / present travelers who consulted info in encyclopedia or written tourist guides specially in relation to safety and well being.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• One very notable guidebook written expressly for the safety of travellers is the Green Book, a travel guide written expressly for African-American travellers so they would know how not to be brutally murdered as they tried to visit beautiful places in the U.S. with their families. --Jayron32 14:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the earliest published travel guides were the Murray's Handbooks for Travellers and the Baedeker guides. The information aimed at sightseeing tourists. Inasmuch as it was practical, it was more about saving time and money than about safety. There is some more information in Guide book § History.  --Lambiam 14:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• The publisher Ward Lock & Co. also published a range of tourist handbooks for British visitors to areas of the Continent, and also attractive areas of Britain – I suspect many other prominent British publishers did similarly, as no doubt did publishers in other countries.

I happen to possess Ward Lock's Handbook to Belgium, specially aimed at visitors to cities, towns, battlefields and cemetaries associated with the Western Front of WWI: so many British and Commomnwealth soldiers died there that such visits were a major sector of the travel industry between the two World Wars (and they still go on to this day). Despite it being (now) around 90 years out of date (it's the 9th edition, and undated as is the practice with many travel guides), and hence useless for matters like train fares, hotel locations and prices etc., I still found it a fascinating and instructive companion during several visits to Belgium in the 21st century.

With regard to your general question of usage, Bookku, I suggeat that you visit (assuming you can) a large general bookshop or two, and take note of the size of their Travel section. Usage of books – as opposed to online sources – is something that has doubtless been undergoing rapid evolution recently because of the relative newness and protean nature of The Internet, and statistically will be heavily dependent on the age of the users. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.46 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The key matter of his query however is not "Are guidebooks a thing", but rather "Are guidebooks with a focus on safety and well being a thing". I think the OP recognizes that travel guides existed in the age of dead tree literature. The two immediate posters above have both mentioned guidebooks, but these are general travel books with a mind on "Here's cool stuff to go do and see when visiting" and not "Hey, when you go visit places, here's how not to get killed by the locals". The Green Book was expressly written for that purpose. --Jayron32 18:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

An introductory sentence may also be deemed sufficient. "Rome contains not only magnificent monuments and priceless art treasures, but also Italians" (1936). Or rogues could have gotten hold of travel guides, shared them amongst themselves, and come with specific strategies based upon their advice. --Askedonty (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The question whether any notable travellers consulted encyclopedias or tourist guides specially in relation to safety and well being appears to be more about the behaviour and motives of travellers in consulting such literature than about the content of encyclopedias or tourist guides per se.  --Lambiam 09:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Inputs from all the users and certainly @ Jayron32 are certainly helpful

• "Are guidebooks a thing", but rather "Are guidebooks with a focus on safety and well being a thing". This understanding is correct.
• 'behaviour and motives of travellers in consulting such literature' is also correct.

Over all reader behavior and motive (academic) research writing is scarce and specially for encyclopedic literature. After quite a bit search I could get access to Chapter 9 'Readers and Users of Encyclopedias' in 'The European Encyclopedia ..' there also author Jeff Loveland has considered other motives but traveler curiosity out of safety concerns has not been considered. My personal guess is traveler going to unknown lands and their near dears may be checking on literature for safety concerns at least to some degree. But I can not validate my own guess/ inference without credible concurrence.

Thanks to all of you for valuable inputs. Regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

While guidebooks dedicated solely to safety were and are probably less common (see, for example, the Green Book mentioned above), it's certainly not unusual for travel guidebooks to touch on relevant safety issues in one way or another: "Pickpockets are common around National Attraction X"; "Tap water is not safe to drink in Region Y"; "Roads are poorly lit and maintained, with narrow shoulders and steep dropoffs near Canyon Z"; "Watch for corrupt cops/civil unrest/military checkpoints/kidnapping in country W"; etc.

Randomly pulling my 2010 7th edition Lonely Planet Iceland guide off the shelf behind me, there are three pages on health issues (both general travel-related issues, and Iceland-specific concerns like frostbite) and how to get medical care, along with a section titled "Dangers and Annoyances". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there any Term for phenomenon of retributive discipline (psychology and jurisprudence)

This question is not related to previous questions by me.

In many cases I observe a phenomenon where in a person, otherwise , not serious in following any certain rule; once disciplined / policed by some one/ authority, not only starts following rule but also joins assertively disciplining others (Without necessarily understanding purpose and nitty-gritty of rules). Idk if that is kind of retributive disciplining. I wish to understand whether this phenomenon is studied and if any alternate term is in use in fields of psychology, sociology and jurisprudence.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know of any concept that is exactly what you are describing, but social pressures to follow rules have been explored, somewhat controversially and famously, in things like the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment. Neither directly matches your scenario, and both were highly controversial, but they are vaguely related. As is Stockholm syndrome, which also involves a person changing their attitudes and behavior based on their social environment (though again for entirely different reasons than your scenario). Also possibly Identification with the Aggressor. --Jayron32 13:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• There is also the phenomenon of people with a desire to engage in deprecated behaviour X either refraining from X, or doing it in secret, while in public actively berating, legislating against, and/or persecuting others who openly, or are discovered to, engage in X. Leaving aside real world examples many of us will be able to think of, this was even a plot point in Terry Pratchett's novel The Fifth Elephant. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.46 (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

See also kick the cat and displaced aggression. Alansplodge (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Although in the case of Kurt Zouma there was apparently no ulterior motive [10]. 2A00:23C5:C719:7201:D96A:3555:4022:9D37 (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

August 5

Passing a bill in the U.S. Congress

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

Simple majority in both cases.[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Per Cullen, the nominal numbers are 50% +1 votes among the members present to vote at that moment. That number varies depending on the number in the room. In the Senate, for many votes, this is 60% +1 votes, and that is because of a concept known as the filibuster, since while it takes 50% +1 votes to pass a bill, it takes 60% +1 votes to end debate on a bill, so if you can't get 60% +1 to vote to end debate, you can't ever get to the actual vote. In practice, many votes are done by unanimous consent, in which the chair proposes to pass a motion by consent, and if no one calls for the vote, the motion passes. But for formal votes, it is always 50% +1 to pass (and 60% + 1 in the Senate to break the filibuster). Since, on any given day, not all members may be present (due to illness, death, not feeling like showing up, etc. etc.) the actual number will vary. --Jayron32 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

The basic question really is how the government defines it. As noted here,[12] the government doesn't explicitly discuss percentages, it simply states what a majority is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If you find the explanation confusing, then replace the "50% +1" with "the next highest whole number of humans strictly greater than 50%" and the "60% +1" with "the next highest whole number of humans strictly greater than 60%" and it should fix your confusion. --Jayron32 15:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Generally yes. Only very recent (since 2020) have they allowed committee meetings and testimony via zoom meeting; for actual honest to God votes, you have to actually honest to God be in the room to vote. No remote voting, no voting by proxy. There was a TEMPORARY measure, in the House of Representatives only, that allowed proxy voting during the pandemic, but AFAIK, they are back to normal operations. See [13] --Jayron32 18:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I could be wrong about that being rescinded. The most recent report was that the measure was extended to February 2022, I can't see if it was left to expire, or if it is still in effect. This says the most recent extension was to expire on February 13, 2022. No idea if that took place. I also don't believe the Senate every passed a similar rule; I think they still require in-person voting. --Jayron32 18:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This says it was extended to March 30, 2022. Still looking to see if it was extended again. --Jayron32 18:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This says the most recent extension was set to expire on June 28, 2022, and it was expected to expire for good at that point. Still looking. --Jayron32 18:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Make that August 12. So it is still allowed, but every extension has been more and more controversial. We'll see if it makes it past that point. --Jayron32 18:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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

We're playing too much of the "what-if" game. The normal rules for both Houses of Congress are that one must be present bodily, in the chamber, in order to vote. The House of Representatives (but NOT the Senate) instituted a temporary rule to allow remote voting and committee meetings in light of the COVID pandemic, but the rule was temporary, and though it was renewed a few times, is set to expire August 12. Those just are the rules. Each House of Congress is given very broad powers to set their own rules of order, so while they could do a literal infinite number of improbable things in the future, we can only reliably tell you what the rules are not what they could be. And, the rules are (excepting the temporary rule in the House), in order to vote, your ass needs to be in the chamber. --Jayron32 15:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Again. We're talking "could" things happen. The future is always filled with any infinite number of possibilities. Congress does not currently make such accommodations, and no court of law has yet determined that its operating procedures are in violation of any federal law. Unless and until that happens, your question is unanswerable. --Jayron32 15:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not paid by the dead; that's paid by the person who received the inheritance. --Jayron32 16:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Yes, but the person who writes the check is the living person who inherits the money. And it doesn't have to come from the actual property inherited; the value is fungible. If I inherit a big stack of bills from my dead uncle, and I owe the government $100 for the inheritance, the government doesn't care if the $100 bill I owe them comes from my pocket or the big stack of bills. They just want me to give them $100. But it's still me paying, not my dead uncle. --Jayron32 18:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most complete complete Mafalda

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

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

Mathematics and music

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) Do you mean, "a provable neurological or psychological connection"? You may find this article interesting: "Bach as mathematician". It has been observed that many mathematicians are also gifted musicians,^[14] but I am not sure the evidence is more than anecdotal. If true, the most likely connection is in that both draw on shared functionality in the brain.  --Lambiam 01:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Another word of caution: studies demonstrating a neurobiological maths–music correlation, such as the so-called Mozart effect mentioned in the student paper^[15] linked to above, are generally not replication-proof.  --Lambiam 11:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

August 6

United States presidential line of succession

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

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

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

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

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

• Something else to consider… the Vice President of the US is also the actual “President of the Senate” (as opposed to President Pro Temp)… So… you could say that the order in terms of honor is Senate… then House… then back to Senate. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Here's a head scratcher for you IP. The House speaker or the Senate president pro tempore, have to resign (both their offices & their seats) & cabinet members 'also' have to resign, before assuming the presidential powers & duties. But, once they resign? wouldn't that remove them from the line of succession. FWIW, this 'quirky' reading of the 1947 Succession Act, hasn't been tested yet. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  If both the president and the vice president died, the speaker of the house would instantly become president. Their subsequent resignation as speaker would have no impact on the line of succession. Cullen328 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  As for the issue of a change in the political party running the executive branch, the US Constitution never mentions political parties. Cullen328 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Speaker of the House has been a vastly more powerful office throughout US history than Senate President Pro Tem. The most powerful person in the Senate is the Senate Majority Leader. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

August 7

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

-- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

References

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

The answer to 'or what' can be found in this post: I don't know english language.[16] User Karsen Chandra seems to be using Google Translate to create articles in a language they don't understand, citing sources they don't understand either. I don't believe it is in Wikipedia's best interests to encourage this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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

US Presidential Election 2024 / Nominees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 8

Francis Pearson, barrister's clerk

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

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

Taiwan's cessation of semiconductor export to PRC

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

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

Don't be fooled. Neither the PRC nor the ROC has any interest on stopping the exporting of semiconductors. The spice must flow. What politicians say or do to meet their political needs is one thing, but the leadership of neither country is interested in destroying their own economy over the issue. No one is flushing that much cash down the toilet because of "principles". Mainland China accounts for over 1/4 of Taiwan's economy, and the electronics manufacturing sector accounts for 7% of China's national GDP, again neither country is stupid enough to jeopardize that. --Jayron32 15:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Tensions may be escalated without intending to launch an all-out military assault. It's part of the political dance. The spice must flow. Taiwan may want to respond in someway, but without anyone to buy the stuff that is making up 1/4 of their economy, they ain't doing shit. No one else has the capacity to buy the semiconductors that China does, and there is no where else for China to get their semiconductors. Politicians only do what the businessmen that keep them in office allow them to do. --Jayron32 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and the WWI angle is not apt. The global economy we live under now had no analogue 100 years ago. Saying that "this is the thinking that led to WWI" doesn't make any sense because we don't operate on a 1910s economy, we operate in a 2020s economy, and the scope of international trade coupled with the depth of specialization is something that didn't happen in 1910s. The 1910s were still largely a mercantilist, extraction-based, colonial world economy. We don't live in that world anymore. --Jayron32 16:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The new law for "reducing inflation"

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

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

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

See Veto power in the United States. Specifically, for the 118th United States Congress to repeal the legislation, assuming Biden would veto any such attempt, that would require a 2/3rds majority of both houses (the next whole number strictly greater than 2/3 of the members of that house. For the Senate that requires 67 votes, and in the HoR, that requires 291). That seems unlikely to happen in the next election; current predictions at 538.com indicate that the Republicans are only likely to take control of the HoR, though there is about an equal chance that the Democrats retain control of both houses of Congress. There's basically next to no chance that the GOP takes enough seats to control a veto-proof supermajority in both houses. --Jayron32 19:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Religious fountains?

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

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

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

Baptismal font --Jayron32 19:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

August 9

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

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

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

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

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

Colleges are an organization, similar to a corporation or a company, and there are multiple ways that a company or organization can be used in a movie. 1) The company or organization can pay the producers for product placement; which is basically a form of in-universe advertising. 2) The movie producers can pay the company or organization a licensing fee to use the name in the movie; the name and logos of an organization are trademarks of the brand, and there are generally restrictions on their use. 3) For brief mentions or incidental uses, there may be a claim of fair use, though fair use has become more restrictive over time. 4) The producers may just use it anyways, and hope no one objects. I think that covers all of the bases, and I'm sure one could come up with any number of examples that meet each of them from the thousands upon thousands of movies that have been made throughout history. --Jayron32 18:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Another Baroque keyboard question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a cool thing! Yes,that's a C clef. Here's another transcription, in more modern notation and a trilingual commentary. The same volume has, at the end, an "explanation of the signs and ornaments of Couperin." [17] --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Dame?

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

"Dame Commander" is a higher rank than "Commander." 92.31.140.208 (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

I only learned that Olivia had passed when I followed your link. Some honours are in the personal gift of the Queen (e.g. the Order of the Garter, Companion of Honour). Otherwise, she follows recommendations from committees or members of the public. 92.31.140.208 (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The Order of the British Empire is not one of those in the personal gift of the Queen, the awards are made by the Honours Committee and its various sub-committees. Newton-John's DBE was awarded "For services to Charity, to Cancer Research and to Entertainment" [18] This is a British honour as Australia has its own system. As Newton-John was born Cambridge, she may have retained dual-nationality, or perhaps Australians don't really count as foreign. Foreign citizens are often given British honours, but they cannot use the titles that go with them. Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, Lulu's CBE was awarded "For services to Music, to Entertainment and to Charity". [19] Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A bit more digging reveals that citizens of countries that have the Queen as the head-of-state are allowed to use British titles. [20] Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Why does the OP believe that Lulu is not entitled to use the style "Dame". They appear to have come to that conclusion with zero evidence. No where can I see where here CBE is any different than any other CBE, and as such, she should be entitled to use the styles allowed to the holders of the honour. Order of the British Empire states "The senior two ranks of Knight or Dame Grand Cross, and Knight or Dame Commander, entitle their members to use the title of Sir for men and Dame for women before their forename." (bold mine). Lulu is allowed to use Dame, and the OP has asserted, without any evidence, that she isn't? Can the OP please indicate where they read that she is disallowed from using the normal style? --Jayron32 12:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

That's not what the OP said. The OP said "How come ... Lulu (CBE) is not?" They have not provided any evidence that she isn't. This has nothing to do with what is written in Wikipedia, which I must note is Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If the OP has drawn a conclusion about something from a Wikipedia article without verifying it with an outside source, that's a bad idea. But the fact remains, the OP has still not said where they read that Lulu is not allowed to use Dame if she so chooses. I can't find that conclusion anywhere. --Jayron32 12:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Ah, yes, I screwed that up horribly as well. The ranks are MBE, OBE, CBE, K/DBE, and GBE, and only the highest two are entitled to "Dame". Lulu, as a CBE, which is not a rank that earns a "Dame". Olivia Newton-John was a DBE, which does get to use "Dame". Please ignore my earlier posts. Much clearer now. I feel stupid. Sorry all. --Jayron32 14:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

August 10

Is this a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

Similarity of exonyms and endonyms

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

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

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

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