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.
Latest comment: 10 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
[1] Trump was convicted in NY a month or two ago, with sentencing scheduled for September 18. He is trying to get sentencing delayed til after the Nov. election, saying he plans to appeal as soon as sentencing is handed down.
Question: does something stop him from appealing before there is a sentence? Appeals are about arguing that the trial court made mistakes amirite? And those would have been made during the trial itself, regardless of the sentence. Trump still has a request pending to have the trial court throw out the charges on immunity grounds, but if that happens, he could drop his appeal.
In general, a final judgment is required before a party can bring an appeal. There are exceptions, under which a party can bring an interlocutory appeal. But those are limited exceptions for certain kinds of appeals. To appeal a case as a whole, Trump needs a final judgment, and for a criminal case finding guilt, a sentence is required for finality. John M Baker (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Question is:How far incidences of 1967 can be corroborated through news in then news media or RS books specially about any alleged misbehavior against women?
Naxalbari uprising: 1967 an ultra left (communist) violent farmer/ tribal agitation was going on in West Bengal state, India.
1969 April 6, A scheduled musical night in Kolkata (Draft) (earlier spelling Calcutta) went haywire with ensued violence that allegedly included en masse misbehavior against women. The violence and the controversy was further politicized.
An investigative journalist's report that I got translated from a Wikipedian about 1969 April 6, incidence goes as below.
.. According to weekly Manus माणस dated 17th May; a session of robbing, firing, rapes, murders etc completed with the farmer riots in 1967. The offenders were arrested. Fortunate for them, Jyoti Basu became Deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister in 1969 and released all these men. These men were the organizers of the 6th April event.[1] ..
The investigative journalist probably is speaking of the 1967 Naxalbari uprising. In cases of crime corroborating investigative report remains difficult and 1967 - 1969 is too old story.
But still How far incidences of 1967 can be corroborated through news in then news media or RS books specially about any alleged misbehavior against women? Bookku (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can think of no other way of doing so other than to research deeply all the available records from the era dealing the subject and see what emerges. A considerable task, perhaps suited to someone who intends to write a book on the topic.
Given the nature of the events, it is likely that much was not published in newspapers (which have no brief to be comprehensive and which don't like to say what people don't want to read), or stated publicly by officials (who may have similar self-interested scruples), so official reports, perhaps not published at the time, may have more. In the UK and other countries there is the Thirty year rule, which annually causes the release of previously sequestered documents that journalists and others can study. Is there a similar procedure in India? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your inputs. As you say the topic would necessitates some deep dive.
As such I suppose Naxalbari uprising (violent communism) is reasonably reported and academically studied topic.
For example " 'The Goondas' Towards the reconstruction of Calcutta Underworld" by Das Suranjan, Ray Jayanta K. (Department of History University of Calcutta) 1996, explains linkages and distinguishing factors between common criminality and political violence. Das and Ray seem to have taken note of crime of some criminals mentioned by above said investigative journalist, same time conspicuously silent about 1969 criminal incidence.
Another problem for that era is most sources though of Indian origin are in Western and US libraries and not available on Wikipedia library or google books. Deep dive seem to need some support from who have physical access to those libraries too. Bookku (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Bookku. I'm not sure exactly what is your question. What would be the linkage between Naxalbari uprising and the April 6 event? Surely none, and what is stated from Manoos would have been a fringe view at the time. --Soman (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since the Manoos's investigative journalist seems to have traveled all the way from Maharashtra to Kolkata specially to investigate specific April 6 incidence.
I did not write off totally since was not sure that the journalist specially traveling long distance in 1969 would have done false reporting for the sake of it. We do not know if his sources so I thought better to get confirm.
On side note one of the later, the same year, a column of The frontier complains selective reporting of media about Rabindra Sarobar stadium incidence but does not report on similar incidence Rabindra Rangshala Delhi same or previous year. When I searched for Rabindra Rangshala Delhi haven't got much news sources, but curiously a 2019 fiction novel mentioning some incidence to have happened at Rabindra Rangshala Delhi in those times. (Of course there is no question of giving credence to any descriptions in any novel)
^Majgoankar, Shrikant, ed. (17 May 1969). "शापित द्रौपदी"(PDF) (in Marathi). No. 51 (51 ed.). Rajhans Prakashan Maharashtra India. p. 14. Retrieved 23 December 2021.
The former I'm not familiar with, but the latter is usually mentioned as the handful of known Sassanian musicians: Āzādvar-e Changi, Bamshad, Nagisa (Nakisa), Ramtin, Sarkash (also Sargis or Sarkas) and Barbad. I know Āzādvar-e Changi's name is given as simply Azad sometimes, but I'm not exactly sure who they are. It would not be too suprising if they were the same, since Nagisa and Barbad, for instance, are only really known from colorful depictions in later literature—more focused on the story than their musical importance/history, which seems to be the case for Azadeh (Shahnameh). Aza24 (talk)00:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
According to Azadeh (Shahnameh), she was associated in story with Bahram-e Gur akaBahram V (who lived 400–438), while according to Nagisa (harpist), Āzādvar-e Changi aka Āzād seved in the court of Khosrow II (ca. 570–628), so assuming these facts are accurate the two cannot have been the same person as they lived nearly 200 years apart.
However, since Shahnameh was written around 1000, about 400–600 years after the two allegedly lived (if they really existed at all), and is openly based partly on myths and legends, its reliability as to dates and identities is presumably questionable.
I am reminded of the popular legend of the Trojan war refugee Aeneas and his famous love affair with the Carthaginian Queen Dido, which ignores the fact that plausible dates for the two place their lives around 400 years apart. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm having trouble finding "Kish, 1924, 799 Obv. 1 16." The reference found in S Langdon's Babylonian Menologies, page 111. I tried "Report on the excavation of the "A" Cemetary at Kish, Mesopotamia" by Ernest Mackay 1925-1931, where the page numbers don't go that high.
Temerarius (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
If I follow you, you're thinking that that's a page reference, but it's actually a reference to an archaeological find from Kish excavated (or perhaps catalogued) in 1924. In this paper by S. Langdon, we read on page 70 that "Kish 1924-799 (excavated by the writer) is the upper right corner of Tablet XV of HURRA = hubullu", whatever that means. "Obv.", the same paper makes clear, stands for "Obverse". There's a diagram of that tablet on page 71. --Antiquary (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Great! Thanks. The detail I was seeking was on page 74. I wish archive.org wouldn't restrict download of these old papers that are in the public domain now. https://archive.org/download/fieldmuseumoxfor28fiel/fieldmuseumoxfor28fiel.pdf Here's another by Langdon on Kish with some interesting finds. The early pictographic script has comic book-like panel divisions, like the undeciphered "bonus" Deir Alla inscriptions. There's an ancient solid copper frog, which I don't think I've ever seen before. And by ovens, they've got cup holders like Macalister's Gezer's High place. Different from cup and ring marks.
From the Section Burial in the article you link, "His undisturbed tomb was rediscovered by French Egyptologists Pierre Montet and Georges Goyon in April 1940, just a month before the Nazi invasion of France. Montet had to stop his excavation until the end of World War II, then resumed it in 1946 and later published his findings in 1958. . . . On the mummy were found two gilt funerary masks, two pectorals, necklaces, bracelets, rings and a cloisonné collar. Four of these items bore the name of Psusennes I.[18][19] The funerary masks depict the king as young, although Goyon stated that at the moment of discovery the masks had an expression of suffering and pleading, later softened after restoration.[18] The mummy and funerary goods are now in Cairo Museum."
The Article's References cross reference to its Bibliography, which details various volumes, including Goyon's 1987 La Découverte des trésors de Tanis. Perséa. ISBN 2-906427-01-2, though not Montet's 1958 publications. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
That "softened after restoration" comment is quite suspect, don't you agree? Did Goyon (or Montet) ever fall under rumors of fakery?
Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Years ago I read about the English translation of Yasutaka Tsutsui's novel What the Maid Saw. The translation was notorious because at one point, there is a quotation from T. S. Eliot's poem "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", but the translator seemingly did not recognize the quotation and instead translated Tsutsui's Japanese translation back into English. Eliot's original text read as follows:
I grow old ... I grow old...
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think that they will sing to me.
But the English translation of the novel rendered the text as:
The years are taking their toll.
It’s time to roll up the cuffs of my pants—
Time to part my hair from the back—
Time to eat peaches.
I put on my white flannel pants and walked on the beach.
I heard mermaids singing to each other—
Mermaids who would never sing out to me.
However, I seem to recall reading later that this (i.e. the English translator not recognizing the poem and translating it on his own) was an urban legend. And, indeed, I can hardly find any references to this online. One of the few I can find (https://aclanthology.org/1997.mtsummit-workshop.6.pdf) cites it to "a 'clipping' (undated) from the New Yorker", that is, one of the "snippets containing amusing errors, unintended meanings or badly mixed metaphors ... used as filler items, accompanied by a witty retort", which doesn't seem to be a particularly reliable source.
So my question is: Did the English translation of What the Maid Saw actually include the mistranslated quote from "Prufrock", and if so, was there any explanation other than the translator not recognizing the poem? -- Metropolitan90(talk)07:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Urban legend, I think. According to the New Yorker clipping quoted in the Helmreich article you link to, the translator, Adam Kabat, renders Tsutsui's Japanese as "Katsumi had come across the image of the peach in a poem by an American poet. The years are taking their toll [etc.]". But in this 2011 reprint of the original 1990 Kabat translation we have something very different:
Katsumi had come across the image of the peach in a bit of verse by an American poet.
The poem also used images of mermaids, the beach and a necktie, but it was the symbolic line about eating peaches that had left the most vivid impression on Katsumi...
There is no quotation from the poem there. I wondered whether the 2011 reprint might have corrected this passage from the 1990 original, but only a 1990 copyright date is given for it, so seemingly not.
The 1990 edition is available on Archive.org. It does have the "The years are taking their toll..." version on page 82. See here (registration required). DuncanHill (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago19 comments8 people in discussion
In Graves book "Goodbye to all that" he mentions a song that soldiers sang, I translate it back to English, it's "Whiter than white cocaine", "Brighter than white cocaine" or something similar.
Presumably "Oh wash me in the water that you washed the Colonel's daughter, and I shall be whiter than the whitewash on the wall" Sung in "Oh! What a Lovely War" here. DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't know that WW1 British pilots called their airplane "the bus" until I looked at that file. Many of the soldiers in Robert Graves' unit were from rural Wales, and he found that they would rather sing melancholy songs than aggressively anti-German songs... AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am curious to know, 2A0D, which language you've found Graves's book translated into. The translator seems to have misunderstood "cokernuts" rather badly. --Antiquary (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Admittedly, "cokernuts" is a non-standard phonetic representation of the way Graves's men pronounced the word "coconuts", so the translator couldn't have got much help from any dictionary. And few translators get paid enough to be able to spend much time solving such problems. --Antiquary (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure that ordinary WW1 trench soldiers without a medical background would have been familiar with cocaine in a white powder form anyway. Burroughs, Wellcome & Co. did manufacture and market (legal) "Forced March" tablets to soldiers, which apparently contained significant cocaine. A song which actually does mention cocaine is I Get a Kick Out of You (original lyrics)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
See "cokernut" on Wiktionary, dating from at least 1913, a year before WWI started. Coincidentally, I have been devouring "Goodbye to All That" (yep, that physical Penguin edition), and it's one of the best reads I have ever come across, where poetry and prose intermingle endlessly. The sudden and wholly unexpected (and very British) humour in the midst of unbelievable suffering is astounding. I found his relationship with other well-known anti-war figures (eg Siegfried Sassoon) to be especially revealing. I wonder if the OP was aware of any jokes at all in the book, if "cocaine" is par for the course. MinorProphet (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Prince Radziwill is mentioned here as serving with the Russians: "There is no doubt that Cardigan overran the Russian battery as he was recognized there by Prince Radziwill whom he had know before the war." There is also an unreliable forum post which claims that Radziwill ordered that Cardigan be taken alive. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am reminded that I watched this film around three or four years ago, and my personal comment in the talk page was deservedly reverted. Nevertheless,
Sadly...
...this article fails to demonstrate what a load of self-indulgent twaddle this film really is. A deserved box-office bomb. If you think you might enjoy Trevor Howard grumpily yelling his tits off for an hour or so, and Harry Andrews growling his tits off back at Howard for a further hour and a half, coupled with David Hemmings slowly—very slowly indeed—seducing his best friend's wife, and John Gielgud's disappearing act, please watch this film. The genuinely exciting action sequences pre-date Waterloo by a couple of years, in which Rod Steiger's scenery-chewing knocks everyone's performances here into one of those proverbial cocked hats. On the other hand, Hemmings gives some stylish lessons in how to sit a horse.
Conversely, I found Letters from Head-Quarters (vol. 1 • vol. 2) remarkably refreshing, and makes it plain how much more the French suffered; despite the military 'victories', it demonstrates exactly how war should not be carried on with a so-called ally. MinorProphet (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Going back to the original question, I have deleted mention of the Heavy Brigade, since we won't be misleading anybody by stating that he was a Polish officer. I have also added a link to the Polish WP article. Alansplodge (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Back when American railroads ran predominantly coal fired locomotives, they must have had quite the supply operation to keep the tonnage moving. What im curious about, and cannot find information on, is what percentage of total coal haulage went to the railroads them selves versus regular customers in industry and electricity production or export? 1%? 5%? Thanks,L3X1◊distænt write◊02:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I must have watched too many Westerns, I thought they burned wood... Although not directly related, when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 the total of 'housekeeping' (wirtschaft) trains (which included trains with coal for the railroads' own needs, rather than military supplies and troops) amounted to approximately 10% of the total.[2]MinorProphet (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
A critical factor you didn't mention is home furnaces and other smaller-scale building heating. [All statistics I'm citing come from this preprint by three US researchers.] Between 1920 and the mid-1940s, the majority of US homes were coal-heated, and bituminous coal was used by 2/3 to 5/6 of those homes (page 2). In 1920, per capita consumption of bituminous coal strictly for heating (whether residential or otherwise) was over 0.7 tons, a figure that fell to a little over 0.6 tons by 1940, and anthracite users consumed nearly 0.5 and 0.2 tons per capita in the same years (page 36). The latter page says the following: Retail (as opposed to sales for electricity, industry, coke, and railroads) sales of anthracite coal are not available until the 1950s. At that point, they were 20 percent of retail coal sales on a tonnage basis (Minerals Yearbook). Estimates in the mid 1920s suggested that 65 percent of anthracite was being used for heating.Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, there's a complication if we look at sales, because many companies were vertically integrated. For example, the coal town of Wheelwright, Kentucky was operated by a steel company for 36 years — so the company wouldn't account for much of sales — and our article on the anthracite coal strike of 1902 notes that the Reading Railroad was then "one of the largest employers of miners", so the railways wouldn't have been buying coal from mines they owned. Maybe you could look for something from the Minerals Yearbook (cited in that paper I quoted), a USGS publication; the University of Wisconsin Library has many of them digitised, including some from the late steam era. The earliest volume, for 1934, doesn't have solid figures for shipping, but based on railway and river-barge shipping reports, it estimates that all US coal production in 1932 was 359,565,000 net tons (page 385 of the 1934 statistical report). I don't know where to look for railway coal consumption, but at least now we know how much was being produced. If you can find reports on railway haulage totals (maybe from the Interstate Commerce Commission?), you could work it out. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
PS, I don't have further time to look, but you might check the 1934 statistical report to see if it has a table estimating how much coal production went to various uses. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have included following citation in a article Draft:Rabindra Rangshala under development. The book seem to be well catalogued so date of Publication may not be too crucial still less the confusion better hence requesting help in confirmation if possible.
First edition available on Archive.org (archive.org PDF link) does not show year of publication. But google book seem to show year of Publication 1991 but rest of preview is not available on google books. One entry at google books from Library of Congress seem to show question mark [1991?]. En WP article about book editor Gurbachan Singh Talib seem to show Talib's year of death 1986.
Talib, Gurbachan Singh, ed. (1991). "Chapter I : An account of the Guru Nanak quincentenary celebration within India". Guru Nanak Commemorative Volume (First ed.). Patiala, India: Publication bureau, Punjabi University. p. 2.
I couldn't find anything beyond what you found already, except that the first reprint was from 1993 ([3]). Worldcat also shows "1991?". Since it's good enough for Worldcat and the Library of Congress, I'd suggest also using "1991?" in the references. Dekimasuよ!08:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Invalid dates will likely get flagged as an error in a tracking category, now or future. Suggest 1991, with an inline comment and/or talk page discussion to this thread for more information. Like people, we sometimes don't know for certain when a book was born/published. You could also use {{circa|1991}} (c. 1991) -- but it would be an oddball case most tools and bots wouldn't know what to do. -- GreenC00:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rabindra Rangshala, Can be ranked amongst largest amphitheatre?
Indian WP:RS media seem to claim that Rabindra Rangshala amphitheatre was one of world's largest in modern times. As of now I have not included the claim in the article. Can the rank or claim of being one of world's largest confirmed? Bookku (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. We have list of contemporary ampitheatres. 8,000 seats would sort very far down that list: however, the picture might be different if it was possible to filter out every "theater" that doesn't put on dramatic performances (not counting pop music or football), and to further filter out any built later than 1968. There's also the matter of ancient theaters still in use. The Ancient Theatre of Epidaurus is on that list (but should possibly be removed?) with 14,000 capacity, while Verona Arena is absent (but should possibly be added?) with 22,000. The ranking doesn't look great for Rabindra Rangshala on the face of it. Perhaps "constructed with the intention of being among the world's largest" would be easier to source. The number of acres on the site is large (about ten times that of the Verona Arena), but presumably nearly all of that is outside the structure. Card Zero (talk)13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Phaistos disc is a characteristic example of what tends to happen on Wikipedia. If there are questions of authenticity, the page will say there was some debate, but scholarly consensus has aligned in favor of the item's authenticity. When that's not the conclusion to be found in the papers cited. I don't know why the articles are written with such a bias toward finding things authentic. In fact, there are almost no fakes in Wikipedia, only occasional (amateur) hoaxes. The Phaistos disc is ugly, anomalous, and egregious. I don't know how these scholars can look at it without laughing. I've read the papers weakly arguing it's genuine. I don't get it at all. Such an item should come with exceptional, or at least the usual, proof of verity.
It was excavated by a professional archeologist in a datable context (being amongst 'garbage' under a layer of debris caused by a known earthquake, in a long-buried cellar of a palace). To assert its inauthenticity as an ancient artifact, one would have to assume that the archeologist deliberately fasified his excavation records. This is of course possible.
Its relative crudity is evident, but let's remember that it was apparently discarded. (I conjecture that it was a practice piece.)
It appears less anomalous now than when it was discovered, because subsequently other, presumably authentic, artifacts of the culture have been found with similar features: carvings of some of the same symbols, jewellery with the same design of an inward spiral of (different-script) symbols.
Against that, there is a much later (Etruscan) object which it rather resembles, and which the archaeologist must already have been familiar with.
In fact stamps of the same symbols. There are "shield" and "rosette" stamps on pottery, with 8 petals and 7, uh, shield-nubs, just like on the disk. And there is the "comb", which although drawn with 6 teeth on each side instead of 4, still has these two comb-like parts joined by a T-shaped handle. Does such a sign crop up by chance, is the corpus of decorative Minoan marks big enough for that kind of selection bias in noticing similarity? I don't think so: I haven't seen a gradient of progressively less similar comb-like marks, only these two closely matching ones, like matching signatures. Though, of course, I'm not being shown all the failed near-matches that may for all I know exist. But I'll assume there aren't any, which makes these "combs" non-coincidental and persuasive. Ah, but of course there are 40 or so distinctive signs, which makes 40 opportunities for such a coincidence ... Card Zero (talk)19:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
On the disc they were stamps (which I assumed everybody knows), on the other artifacts they were carved (or engraved), which I deliberately indicated. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah yes, the famous Cretan motifs of goatse, screwdriver, 8-ball rack, kewpie doll, kewpie doll with mohawk, "Keep on truckin'" guy, and chocolate chip cookie. Okay, maybe I spoke a bit oversure. I hadn't seen those other stamped goods. The parallels aren't cased closed, either. Now the James ossuary, those underworn letters look like they were made by somebody who learned modern Hebrew script in kindergarten.
We have articles on some famous fakes/forgeries that were later revealed: Piltdown Man, Cardiff Giant, etc. Certainly, many archaeologists have had their work scrutinized (perhaps excessively) because it was thought that their findings were in error. For example, any New World sites that purport to be earlier than about 13,000 years old go through very public criticism because earlier dates go against entrenched wisdom. See here for a particular example. I don't think anyone claims those were fakes, though. There are many archaeological ideas that are... unlikely (Solutrean hypothesis) or not provable (Aquatic ape hypothesis), but like in every other science, bad ideas are not nearly so bad as bad data. Matt Deres (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
James Mellaart: After his death, it was discovered that Mellaart had forged many of his "finds", including murals and inscriptions used to discover the Çatalhöyük site.
Lady of Elche has a section on Contentions of forgery.
I have been a Northern Californian for 52 years and Drake's Plate of Brass has been a source of both controversy and amusement for a very long time. The self-published book industry has benefitted greatly, and it has contributed to tour guide lore. Accepted as genuine by prominent academics half a century ago, its authenticity has been debunked, and it is now seen as a practical joke that got out of control.
I've just been reading the updated edition of Turin Shroud by Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince. A most fascinating read. They demolish the theory that it's the burial shroud of Jesus (which in itself was disproved by the 1988 carbon dating which showed the age of the cloth to be 1200 years too young); they demonstrate that it's a 15th-century forgery using what is essentially a photographic technique perfected by Leonardo da Vinci; they maintain, quite credibly, that the face on the shroud is none other than Leonardo himself; they prove that the face and the body belong to different people (and the body seems to be of a man of height 6 feet 8 inches) and were very crudely pushed together. They're on slightly shakier ground when they talk about modern-day scientists and their testing and their (so the authors claim, incorrect) conclusions about the unexplained unique characteristics of the image; but many of them seem to be devout Christians and believers of the Jesus theory (not that there's anything wrong with that per se, but it doesn't always sit comfortably with disinterested scientific accuracy, particularly when they maintain those beliefs in the face of the evidence that they themselves and their fellow scientists have discovered that flies in the face of such a belief). So much more engrossing stuff. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I thought I remembered something about Howard Carter; the article says his misdeeds were to do with genuine artifacts, stealing them.
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
From the ground, one would observe that the vista follows a series of man-made survey monuments that mark the border along the northern 49th parallel, the Alaska/Canada border, and the non-linear eastern border.
The 20-foot wide clear cutting of trees is clearly visible on google maps on the border between the contiguous 48 states and Canada. However, I can't seem to find any traces of clear cutting on the border between Alaska and BC/Yukon.
Yes. For example, looking at Google Earth, you can see the cut marking the boarder between the Alaska panhandle and BC is clearly visible just west of Stewart, BC. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, taking off the ref-desk librarian hat to give a personal opinion for a moment, I think if you see the anger itself as the problem you want to resolve, you're pretty likely to get stuck. Then you get to feel bad about not making progress, and maybe that makes you more upset, etc etc self-reinforcing cycle. You're more likely to get somewhere if you can identify why you're angry in the first place. Then you can try to avoid being angry at all (rather than just trying to be less angry when you become angry). You might also discover that you're trying to deal with anger on a much higher difficulty rating than most people - for example, a lot of physical/mental health conditions can cause you to become angrier, or angry more often. I'm rarely angry (lucky me), and one of the more recent times I can recall being so, it was because I had run out of a daily medication that I couldn't get refilled in time - I found the anger a real surprise! You might be living that way every day and not have noticed because you've "always been that way". Bodies are messy and minds are part of them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I see from your userpage that you're in high school. In this case you're probably stuck with "the typical collection of hippie stuff" for now. Teenage emotions are just really... loud. Eventually, you get older. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
How and when did the word "Taiwan" become the common name in English of Republic of China?
Latest comment: 1 hour ago18 comments12 people in discussion
I speak Chinese and in Chinese the word "Taiwan (Chinese: 台灣)" more commonly refers to the island (as you can see in Chinese wikipedia 台灣 is the island), the location or Taiwan Area (a term both available in PRC and ROC, which means a region with its own law, and a way to avoid conflict with no emphasis on belonging), which are neutral words and do not emphasize unification or independence. Taiwan is Taiwan and ROC is ROC, which are their original meanings. But in English the word "Taiwan" is regarded as the common name of Republic of China and it seems to be described as a common sense for I can't find reliable sources talking about it.
How and when did the word "Taiwan" become the common name in English of Republic of China? Does this give people the feeling that Taiwan is already independent as Taiwan equals to Republic of China and there is no need to announce independence? By doing so, are people who claim "Taiwan" is the common name in English of Republic of China supporting Taiwan independence?
The use of "independence" for Taiwan can be ambiguous. If some supporters articulate that they agree to the independence of Taiwan, they may either be referring to the notion of formally creating an independent Taiwanese state (Republic of Taiwan) or to the notion that Taiwan has become synonymous with the current Republic of China and is already independent (as reflected in the concept of One Country on Each Side).
By the way, as I am too interested and bold in Taiwan topic, I am not allowed to edit the topic right now. If you think there is something needed to edit, just do it. ZeehanLin (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm old enough to remember when it was called Formosa almost as much as Taiwan. (Perhaps more when referring to historical events, the age of Spanish and Portuguese exploration, lives of the early Christian missionaries etc. But I'm old enough to have been taught those things.) -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]17:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
For everyday habitual use, English-speakers need a country to have a short one- or two-word name without an internal preposition. "United States of America" is too long (and has a preposition); "United States" by itself is OK, but many people prefer "America". "German Democratic Republic" and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" were never useful for this purpose (which is why "East Germany" and "North Korea" are preferred), and "Republic of China" isn't either. If abbreviating "Republic of China" as "China" is blocked, then what's left is "Taiwan", which in that sense is quite natural as an English short form. It may be awkward in some respects, but is still much better than "Chinese Taipei" used by the Olympics! AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
North Korea and South Korea, West Germany and East Germany were established at a similar time. But the relationship between Taiwan and China seems to be more complicated. It doesn't seem quite appropriate to compare them. ZeehanLin (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's actually harmless to say this in spoken language, but it seems that everyone uses Taiwan as a formal common name, which can easily conflict with the island. ZeehanLin (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's no such thing as a formal common name. If you are using common names, you aren't being formal. There are formal short names, which often match the common names, but the two things are different.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 09:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, how could it "conflict" with the island? If you have list of "Germany, Peru, Kenya, Taiwan", anyone who seriously believed that "Taiwan" in that instance referred to the island would have severe cognitive deficits. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
When I was in grade school, we called the island "Formosa" and the country "Nationalist China". Those seem to have gone by the wayside. Work colleagues of mine who were from that country tend to call it "Taiwan". As to stuff like "Democratic Republic" of communist countries, those terms are seldom used except in a formal or official sense, because they are seen as propaganda put forth by totalitarian dictators. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Occasionally people will say Free China, but obviously this conveys a particular political position. I haven't heard it in quite a while, maybe because the implicit subtext is that the ROC is the legitimate government of the whole of China, which (quite irrespective of whether it would be desirable or not) does not seem to be a realistic aspiration at the current moment. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
OR: I lived and worked in Taipei during the transition. Prior to the 1980s, it’s all politics. If you prefer the KMT, it’s ROC; if you like the CCP, it’s Taiwan (or, in international conventions, “Taipei, China,” or “Taiwan Province of China.”). From the 1980s, Taiwan was commonly used by anyone not pro-CCP, or forced by the PRC to use one of the "polite" titles I cite above. And, since the ROC includes many small islands that are not Taiwan, using Taiwan also began to mean “we really, really don’t want any Mainland government to have the least bit of control over our lives.” DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 hours ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Are there sources for the long-term real estate (or raw land) prices across the world? I'm especially interested in "new" settlements such as Tel Aviv, Singapore, and Dubai from the 1950s or 1960s to Dubai. I'd like to compare them to neighboring cities (Cairo, Beirut, Damascus, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Riyadh, Jeddah, Kuwait City, etc.). I can't find anything... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Technically true, but the real discrepancy is not that great. Per the articles:
"Prior to Raffles' arrival (in 1819), there were only about a thousand people living on the island (of Singapore]", and
"Kuala Lumpur is considered by some to have been founded by the Malay Chief of Klang, Raja Abdullah, who sent Chinese miners into the region to open tin mines in 1857, although it is unclear who the first settlers were since there were likely settlements at the Gombak-Klang river confluence prior to that in the 1820s."
@DOR (HK): yes but that's not the point. I'd like to see the price increase since the "boom"/"birth"/"independence" of these cities. So for instance, 1948 for TLV, 1965 for SG, 1971 for DXB and 1980 for Shenzhen (even though it has "this area has seen human activity from more than 6,700 years ago, with Shenzhen's historic counties first established 1,700 years ago"). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Tel Aviv became a substantial urban settlement starting in the mid-1930s, but I really would not expect much correlation between property values there and in Jerusalem (which has an entirely different geographic location and cultural history), much less cities in hostile foreign countries (as Egypt was before the late 1970s, and Lebanon and Syria still are). Maybe there could be a correlation between property values in Tel Aviv and Haifa... AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm interested in this lack of correlation: you bought a piece of land in the mid-1930 (or 1940s) in TLV, Cairo, Beirut, Damascus, Alexandria, Gaziantep, Limassol, Sharm El-Sheikh, etc.: what are they all worth today? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
While there may well be pre-WWII sales prices for some real estate in those places, there is almost certainly nothing comparable to the city-wide averages (or similar) we have today. Apples and mangoes. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Sources must exist, presumably there would have been adverts in newspapers and magazines. Presumably people had to disclose value of properties for taxation reasons, at least in some of these cases. --Soman (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
![[4]](https://imagenes.elpais.com/resizer/v2/PX5BBWVAAJCFNLB4COR4KM2LJA.jpg?auth=0fb8babac50c259a66a448eb8bfb56ff3619622e6de1d24a08f47c0ed6f8a6b2&width=980){kind=link}