The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
I remember reading somewhere that there was something in the Gilded Age I'm searching for. It went something like, when the ballot box doesn't work, use the stump, when the stump doesn't work, use the gavel, and when the gavel doesn't work use a gun. The term was like "the four truths" or something. Does anyone remember what this could be? Google is useless. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom, the eldest son of a peer is entitled to use one of his father's lower titles (usually the second-highest) as a courtesy title. Does that mean that Prince George of Wales could in principle be called Duke of Cambridge and/or Duke of Cornwall, since his father's highest title is Prince of Wales? Our article never implies he does use those titles, but is there any legal/constitutional/traditional reason he couldn't? —Mahāgaja · talk14:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, members of the Royal Family with royal styles ("HRH" and "Prince"/"Princess") don't generally use courtesy titles. For example, the current Duke of Kent was known during his father's lifetime as HRH Prince Edward of Kent, rather than as the Earl of St Andrews (as his son is now styled, because he does not have a royal style). The only case I can think of in which this has happened involved someone entitled to a royal style but not actually using it: the Earl of Wessex (formerly Viscount Severn), who is technically HRH Prince James of Edinburgh (and before that was technically HRH Prince James of Wessex). So Prince George would only need a courtesy title if he dropped his royal style, and that sounds astronomically unlikely for someone who is in direct line to the throne. Second, the question as to whether "Prince of Wales" counts as a peerage title higher than a dukedom, such that the Prince of Wales's heir apparent can use a dukedom as a courtesy title, is not one that has ever needed to be answered (for the first reason above), so is entirely theoretical. (Until recently, I would have said that the answer was that Prince George's status as his father's heir apparent relates only to his father's hereditary titles, so the most he could be is Earl of Strathearn as heir apparent to the Dukedom of Cambridge; Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester and Earl of Carrick are all titles which would not pass to him were his father to die, so they should be discounted for these purposes. But then the Earl of Wessex mentioned above is so styled despite that being his father's highest hereditary title, the Dukedom of Edinburgh being a life peerage, so who knows any more.) Proteus(Talk)15:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I think that titles used by the royal family are all as agreed by the monarch - for example Princes of Wales only become so when the monarch says. "Entitled" doesn't really enter into it. Of course they then don't necessarily have to use the title. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wales and Chester are created anew by each monarch; the other titles of the heir apparent are automatic. Or so I misunderstand. —Tamfang (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The use of HRH and Prince/Princess titles is governed by letters patent which grant them automatically to people in certain categories (e.g. children of the monarch); people falling into those categories are indeed "entitled" to those styles. Proteus(Talk)15:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Has this changed over time? IIRC from various reading, the younger sons of George III were and are generally referred to by their ducal titles. Or did they not have titles as princes? -- Avocado (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is Duke of Sussex because his grandma said so. It's not automatic (though his son's succession to the title will be). —Tamfang (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see where you're coming from. I wasn't commenting on the automaticity or otherwise of Sussex's title. Just confirming Avocado's comment "the younger sons of George III were and are generally referred to by their ducal titles" still applies today. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference to me at least is that I've basically never heard/read any of George III's sons (other than George IV when Regent) referred to as "Prince", only as "Duke of <Clarence, Cambridge, etc...>". Whereas I've basically never heard Prince Harry referred to as "Duke of Sussex", only "Prince Harry"; similarly for Charles III's siblings. So (at least from the POV of this uneducated American) it seems like convention -- even if only vernacular convention or popular media convention -- has changed. -- Avocado (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he gets Prince Harry a lot. But not exclusively. Certainly he and his wife are usually called "the Sussexes". It may depend somewhat on where in the world you are, and who's bringing you the news about his/their latest doings. Americans sometimes struggle with British titles: they seem to have come up with the term "belted earl" all by themselves, and knights and dames are as often as not called "Sir Smith" and "Dame Jones" rather than the correct form "Sir John Smith" and "Dame Elspeth Jones". Curiously, it's more correct to use only the given name than only the surname: Sir John and Dame Elspeth were caught in an especially piquant debauchery in flagrante delicto. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]00:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it could just be be the way American media reports. And at this point, they probably have no choice but to do it that way because most Americans would have no idea who they were talking about if they mentioned "the Sussexes" (I know I wouldn't have prior to this thread). Granted, I also don't read gossip columns, I mostly only hear about the British royal family when something is going on with them that's big enough to reach the front page of major aggregators. -- Avocado (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this chart, the public-held debt stayed at about $5T from 2006 until late 2008; there was an increase, but percentagewise it was quite small. However, the total debt increased from about $8T to well over $9T, so it must have been in the intergovernmental holdings. Why would this accounting concept have seen such an increase? Nyttend (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean intragovernmental holdings rather than intergovernmental holdings. If so, that means the government borrows from its own trust funds to fund its spending. Stanleykswong (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agencies such as the Social Security Administration, veterans' pension funds, etc., need to hold very large amounts of very secure financial instruments. This is due to the need to protect the value (including from inflation, if possible) of their holdings against future obligations. The stock market is way too risky, and corporate bonds don't meet the requirement, either. So, they buy U.S. Government debt: T-Bills (and similar "agency paper). There is nothing that is considered a more secure / less risky store of value. This creates a situation where one part of the government "lends" money (buys T-Bills) to another part of the government (Congress, via the Treasury and Fed). DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: I am not so sure about your premise. The chart is based on this official government dataset. According to that dataset, on Jan. 3, 2006 (the first business day of the year), the public held $4.72 trillion of the public debt and intragovernmental holdings were $3.44 trillion. On Sept. 12, 2008 (the last business day before the failure of Lehman Brothers), the public held $5.53 trillion and intragovernmental holdings were $4.16 trillion. On Dec. 31, 2008, the public held $6.37 trillion and intragovernmental holdings were $4.33 trillion. So the intragovernmental holdings were not really the dominant factor. John M Baker (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been clearer — I was talking about the spot immediately before the debt jumps in late 2008, which probably corresponds to 12 September or a little closer to mid-year. But I'm pretty sure that the chart shows the intragovernmental holdings increasing much more than the public holdings. Do you think the chart is wrong, or do you think I'm misinterpreting it? Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that either the chart is drawn with insufficient accuracy or precision, or you are misinterpreting it. In the 32-month period from January 2006 to September 2008, the public’s holdings increased by $0.84 trillion, or 18%, and intragovernmental holdings increased by $0.72 trillion, or 21%. So intragovernmental holdings increased proportionately somewhat more than public holdings, but not dramatically or surprisingly more. John M Baker (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
In reference to: 13th Infantry Regiment (United States) Of the 8th infantry Division.
During the Cold War...The 1st Battalion was posted at Baumholder, FRG; and the 2nd Battalion was posted at Sandhofen, FRG. They were there from 1969 until 1990. In late 1990 they became responsible for training brigades in the United States.
I was stationed in the 2nd Battalion from 1978 until 1981 at Sandhofen, FRG at Coleman Barracks. I am in a Facebook group of 8th Infantry Division Veterans and there are several vets who can provide evidence. Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Thing is, we are not looking for “evidence”, but rather written “verification” by a reliable source. The two concepts (evidence and verification) may seem similar, but they are actually different. Basically we need something that has been published so we can cite the publication.
Hopefully one of your fellow veterans has written a book, published a story in the newspaper or (best) published an academic paper that mentions where they were.
Hello editors, good evening! On March 25th, I asked for your help in finding the best sources that I could use in my article about the Russian Invasion of the Khanate of Astrakhan, and with your answers I was able to use not only sources from your suggestions, but also other bibliographic sources that I found during my research, and I am immensely grateful to you! However, I would like your help again with a final evaluation of my draft, so that my article can finally be approved, especially regarding the references, since my article had been rejected precisely because of this. Before the first evaluation, I had only added 5 sources on random websites in Russian to complement my article. This time, I added almost 45 sources, which I am almost certain are considered reliable, and so I am sure that I have improved, but I would like an early review from more experienced people, like you. Thank you very much for your attention, good evening! Marcus Vlasov (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The strength of the Reference desk responders is to find answers, not to assess adherence to the encyclopedia's policies. Just let our good reviewers do the work. It is not dishonourable for a draft to experience multiple rejections; the feedback should enable the submitter to improve it. That said, it is conventional to cite the titles of books in a non-Latin script not only in transliteration, but first in their original script followed by a transliteration, like История государства Российского (Istoriya gosudarstva Rossiyskogo) and preferable also a translated title (History of the Russian State). I further do not understand the role of the asterisks in the references ("9. ^ * Spiridov, Matvey Grigorievich", "12. ^ * Penskoy, Vitaly Viktorovich", "14.^ * Filimonov, Lyapun", ...). ‑‑Lambiam11:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You can use "author-link = :ru:Спиридов, Матвей Григорьевич" (twice) to get a link to the article on the Russian Wikipedia. ‑‑Lambiam11:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because he will do anything - and there are literally zero exceptions to this - to get attention. It's not as if we were all living under rocks and were unaware of him. We know him only too well. He's the POTUS for *** sake! But he still craves attention and will make sure he does or says anything that will cut through all the international complexities and become the main story every day. Hence, we're talking about him now. He just won. I let him win because I chose to contribute to this thread. But my preferred approach is to not to talk about him, and not add to the oxygen of recognition he needs. I recommend it. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]22:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far, an exception has been dousing himself with gasoline on the White House lawn and setting himself ablaze, an act guaranteed to draw attention. But one can remain hopeful. The upcoming Easter egg roll offers an excellent opportunity. ‑‑Lambiam11:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some confusion over on the talk pages for the Danish Realm and the Kingdom of the Netherlands over what symbols represent them. The problem is that sources don't really distinguish between the sovereign states as a whole and the constituent countries of Denmark and the Netherlands, so it's hard to tell if a symbol represents just the constituent country or the kingdom as a whole. In this case, the national symbols in question are the flag, coat of arms, motto, and anthem.
My gut instinct is that the national symbols of the constituent countries are equally applicable to the kingdoms as a whole. After all, they are the dominant parts of the state, and they even share the same name. However, I would like some kind of source that definitively states which symbols represent what. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put an end to a discussion about the colours of the national flag, a royal decree of 19 February 1937 determined once and for all: "The colours of the flag of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are red, white and blue" (my emphasis by underlining). But note that at the time the Kingdom consisted of just one constituent country, that had several "overseas territories" (read: colonies), which still included the Dutch East Indies. When Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten were declared to be constituent countries, this did however not change the status of symbols representing the Kingdom. So now, in fact, while the Country of Aruba, the Country of Curaçao and the Country of Sint Maarten each can sport their own flag, the Country of the Netherlands must do with a shared flag. ‑‑Lambiam23:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RCPI had contested Santipur in every election since independence, and within the Left Front seat-sharing arrangements Santipur was one of the constituencies assigned to it. But here the RCPI candidate came in fourth place. Whilst its possible that there could be a different local dynamic than state level results, it seems like CPI(M) locally would have supported the independent candidate rather than the official RCPI candidate. I've been trying to locate sources on this, but came up with nothing. Anyone knows an online archive for West Bengal newspapers for this time period? -- Soman (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Blackstone's ratio we are enjoined "Never to convict any person of murder or manslaughter till at least the body be found dead; on account of two instances he [scSir Matthew Hale] mentions where persons were executed for the murder of others who were then alive but missing." What were those two instances? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did Blackstone follow this injunction in cases when witnesses observed someone being killed in a manner that didn't yield a dead body? Imagine two men fighting aboard a ship in a storm, and one throws the other overboard in full view of the witnesses; or imagine a man being beheaded in full view of witnesses and his body then being burnt in a large fire. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the first case, the victim's death cannot be certain, so the charge ought not to be murder. In the second, reliable witnessing of the body's destruction (and surely some remains could be recovered) would be taken as sufficient proof – I suggest. I'm sure criminological enthusiasts will be able to instance some actual cases of these kinds.
But it does show that, contrary to Blackstone's ratio, murder convictions can and do occur in such situations. Conviction is based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, not on absolute proof, and the system has to allow for some doubt or no one would ever be convicted of anything. (Even in the case with many witnesses, it's possible - just incredibly unlikely - that they are all part of a massive conspiracy to set up the accused. And frankly, even where there's a body, it's possible that it's the body of a doppelganger or long-lost identical twin rather than the alleged victim.) Speaking as a lawyer, I can't see "yes, I pushed him off the ship into the raging seas in the middle of the storm and he hasn't been seen since, but it's theoretically possible that he didn't die" getting you very far - you're definitely going down for murder if that's all you've got. Proteus(Talk)09:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah! My eyes, my eyes! Some colorblind devil must have chosen brown as one of the colors. Replaced with a somewhat less hideous light blue. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
I'm recently lookging for a textual location and I hope that you may help me. Somewhere in his work, Aristotle wrote about either democracy or politics that they are merely a sensation, a happening, for the ordinary people. Do you know where he wrote this in his work?
I looking forward to any help to find the location of this words in the text. 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:993:675E:44B7:7A38 (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm not an expert in Aristotle's philosophy either. But I believe if Aristotle were in modern times, he would not like our democracy because he would consider it an unstable system. He might prefer timocracy ("democracy" as a rich men's club) or even oligarchy. I think Aristotle's eight books of politics could be a good starting point if you would like to dig deeper. Stanleykswong (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is your dissertation or thesis, I suggest you consider, from the Aristotelian view, who is “qualified” to vote and who is “qualified” to be voted for. Stanleykswong (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a practical side, I recently found out that a text like Aristotle's Politics, coincidentally or not, will be easier to read on a narrow support, similar to the usual wax tablet rather than in taking advantage of the full width of the modern computer screen. --Askedonty (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now also available on Commons. US government report, notably used as a prop by Donald Trump in his 2 April 2025 Rose Garden tariffs speech. All the best: RichFarmbrough21:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Looking at Newspapers.com (pay site), he seems to have been a city official, a clerk of some kind, for Brooklyn around that time frame. The 1884 Brooklyn city directory gives his occupation simply as "clerk". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the international community recognize Eritrea as an independent country, but refuse to do the same for Somaliland, which seems to have a similar case? The government seems to be more stable than Somalia's, at least in the recent past. Rojomoke (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for consistency in international relations might be a lost cause, but one key difference is that Eritrea obtained recognition from Ethiopia, while Somaliland has not done so with Somalia. CMD (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much of anything about the relative situation, but remember that countries often grant or refuse recognition based not on stability, functional independence, or similar metrics, but for their own political purposes. Rhodesia was independent and stable in the late 1960s and 1970s, but many foreign countries refused to recognise it and sought to destabilise it (by supporting rebel movements) because of their opposition to its internal politics. Nyttend (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think CMD has it nailed… Ethiopia was willing to let Eritrea go (even if grudgingly)… Somalia is not willing to let Somaliland go. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A well-known anecdote about Sir Moses Montefiore has him sat next to an anti-Semitic nobleman at dinner. The nobleman remarks that he has just returned from Japan, "where they have neither pigs nor Jews". Montefiore replies "In that case we should go there together, so they may have one of each". The anecdote is usually marked as "possibly apocryphal". Can we find a firm citation for it, or at least its earliest appearance, who was the bigoted peer, and also is it true that Japan at the time (Montefiore died in 1885) had neither pigs nor Jews? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Domestic pigs were introduced to Japan "in prehistoric times", but as further explained here were not common, or commonly eaten, until the 20th century because of Buddhist beliefs.
I'm sure someone else will do better, but I can't find any mention of the story before 1935, fifty years after Sir Moses' death. As with other early appearances of the story, the one I've linked to has a Russian Grand Duke, a relative of the Tsar, as the anti-Semite, and a dinner held by the Lord Mayor of London as the location. Later ones, almost inevitably, make it Buckingham Palace. --Antiquary (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article Sarah Forbes Bonetta, and this article from Brighton & Hove Museums, her husband erected "a granite obelisk-shaped monument more than eight feet high in her memory at Ijon in Western Lagos". Do we know the exact location of the obelisk, does it survive, and are there any pictures of it? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the general geographic area, as well as features in the photo (notice the electrical pylon on the left, the wires going roughly in the same direction as the photo perspective, the pole right next to the obelisk, and the general dense foliage), I think it might be somewhere around 6.563572, 3.203350. However, Google Street View isn't able to quite get that area through all the foliage, and some parts of the perspective (notably, the buildings) don't quite line up, so I'm not sure. GalacticShoe (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons has two additional photos of the obelisk, one from the same angle and one from the opposite angle. I think that, in the latter photo, the building on the right (6.563733, 3.202955; note the windows) and the water tower (6.563802, 3.202529) confirm the general location as mentioned above. The obelisk itself might be closer to somewhere around 6.563566, 3.203215. GalacticShoe (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are electric transmission lines overhead; they are also overhead at (6.5635738,3.2028165) and (6.5636397,3.2036353). The location of the obelisk is on (or extremely close to) the line between these points. (The shadow of a pylon can be seen in Google Satellite view at (6.5636124,3.2034791)). ‑‑Lambiam10:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing its shadow though and it would be small and not obvious, but its also likely hidden too, for the obelisk stands under a couple of small trees which are right next to it. However, there is an alignment of the buildings' roof corners, which once located in overhead imagery, puts the camera somewhere on a line about here in agreement with GalacticShoe's estimation. Modocc (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that GalacticShoe's estimate triangulates pretty well since it also falls along a line projected from the side of the apparently broken-down bulldozer that is peeping through in the photo and that is aligned with the corner of the larger building's rusted roof. All of these points can be located in the satellite images. Modocc (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, I think you've narrowed it down as well as can be, short of someone going out with a plane table and theodolite. I think a quotation from a recent book would be appropriate:
Today, Ijon is unrecognisable. Most of the forest has been cleared, the cocoa trees have long disappeared, and nothing is left of James Davies's house or the small church he built on his estate. Even someone who knew the original village would be unable to identify its exact location had not one durable signpost survived. This is the granite obelisk James Davies erected to commemorate the death of his wife, Sarah, in 1880, the year he started his farming enterprise. Although plant growth laps at its plinth, the memorial stands tall and upright, just as Davies hoped it would.
Economic policymakers debate things like raising vs lowering interest rates, and since any change will produce winners and losers, let's take for granted that they decide things without always being transparent about their reasoning. Despite that, there is reasonable public understanding of why the decision makers might want such outcomes. Tax cuts for the rich are another thing like that.
My question is whether engineering a recession on purpose would fit within that framework. Would the idea be to produce some corrective effect that the policymakers see as desirable? Obviously this is about Trump but I'm hoping that there is some kind of existing theory for understanding it, rather than asking refdesk editors to make something up. I guess shock doctrine is one possible idea. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:5B3E:8816:9BBD:50BA (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Economists debate changing the level of policy rates because of many factors, among them (a) we don’t know what is happening in the economy right now, only what the data tell us happened in the (not so) recent past; (b) the data we have available is neither infallible nor comprehensive, which means we must extrapolate (opine) a narrative that suggests a course of action; and (c) the politicians are going to do what they want with our suggestions for their own partisan reasons, and then blame the economists if it doesn’t go well. As for engineering a recession, such as happened in the Volcker era, that was done because it was deemed necessary to sharply reduce inflation – at the expense of employment and overall growth – in a very short time frame. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some people who have the President's ear believe in the Strauss–Howe generational theory, and specifically that the so-called "Fourth Turning" is imminent.[8] In the end, all will be better, but only after the house has not been remodeled but razed to the ground in a bloody cataclysm and then rebuilt from scratch.
Arguably, a deep and long lasting world-wide recession will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases and may delay the climate catastrophe, but I doubt this side-effect is intentional. ‑‑Lambiam22:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any result that reduces asset prices without reducing the value of assets (e.g. a uniform reduction in stock prices due to market sentiment) benefits those with the ability to purchase the assets at a discount (i.e. those with existing liquidity). Thus, for example, having higher cash holdings speeds recovery time after an economic crisis. In 2008 Berkshire Hathaway was able to buy preferred shares of things like GE and Goldman Sachs because of its cash on hand. Of course this doesn't work unless earnings eventually recover from any initial shock. Dekimasuよ!04:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The trade deficit in January of this year was over 130 billion USD,[9] so an a yearly basis, without tariffs, we might have seen at least 1,500 billion USD in 2025. With the expected contraction, this will be less, but much of it is from a relatively inelastic demand. The money collected from the tariffs is expected to be more than 10% of the trade deficits. This means that probably more than 100 billion will be available per year to help finance tax cuts for the 1%. There are other effects that favour the richest of the rich.[10] ‑‑Lambiam 07:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC) PS. You can hear an exposition of the economic theory (developed by the renowned economist Ron P. Vara) underlying the tariff plan here. ‑‑Lambiam09:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "The money collected from the tariffs...", what I hear is "The massive tax hike needlessly draining demand from the economy..." DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, if Trump gets the taxes he wants, the government would receive a huge amount of revenue. However, the world does not work the way Trump hopes and expects. The tariff will eventually become a special VAT paid by consumers. VAT is unfair to the poor. The vast majority of Trump's supporters are not wealthy, and they will be hit hard. Stanleykswong (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A recession will affect everyone, including policymakers, so it makes no sense for policymakers to engineering one for whatever reason. Stanleykswong (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If economic policymakers did what they were taught in textbooks, it would be very obvious whether to raise or lower interest rates. If Trump’s new tariffs lead to a U.S. recession, the standard textbook solution would be for Federal Reserve policymakers to cut interest rates, stimulating the economy by reducing consumers’ propensity to save and lowering borrowing costs. This will allow consumer spending and investment to increase and the economy to return to normal. However, if the new tariffs cause runaway inflation, the standard textbook solution is for Federal Reserve policymakers to get rid of inflation by raising interest rates to reduce consumers' propensity to spend and encourage them to delay purchases. Stanleykswong (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This pic, uploaded on Commons as "own work" in 2022, is used on several WP:s. However, it's been on the internet longer than that, and factmuseum.com (see François_Gautier#Photography_and_painting_exhibitions for context) gives it the caption "Exhibit No. 38: The execution of Raja Shambhaji (son of Shivaji) on Aurungzeb’s orders after capture. (February, 1689)"[11].
I read the Wikipedia page and 2,279 seems rather low. Is this an accurate reflection of the figure? The maximum I can figure is 4,000 or so dead but that is if you stretch the numbers (Use maximum disappearances and assume a larger estimate is only dead.). John Not Real Name (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one could tally the countless summary executions, which were not documented. The low number reflects (I suppose) the killings that could be positively confirmed. The highest estimate I've seen is 10,000 people.[12] I don't know what this estimate is based on. It seems unlikely high,[13] but the difficulties in giving an accurate estimate of the number of disappeared people is such that one cannot say this is definitely impossible. ‑‑Lambiam09:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an American living in Australia, I watch the AUD/USD exchange rate carefully. Presumably in response to Trump's new tariffs, very early yesterday morning the exchange rate went to US$1=A$1.66, representing the weakest point for AUD (aside from a brief spike in early COVID) in at least ten years. Why do tariffs cause such a spike? I found this article from the Journal of international money and finance, but most of the article is unavailable without a subscription, most of the available portion is too technical for me to understand, and the bits that I do understand are talking about the effects of adjustments to interest rates, caused by monetary authorities responding to other effects of the tariffs. Based on [14], I don't believe that there have been any changes to the US federal funds rate since last year, so this isn't relevant. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The exchange rates reflect what the markets "think", an inscrutable process emerging from the imaginations and murmurs of myriad minds, some more bubbled-up than others. The euro and yen went sharply up, while the British pound went through a pronounced dip but restored quickly; why these differences? One would think it reflects expectations of the relative strengths of how much the economies of the respective trade partners will suffer in this unprovoked war, which would determine or influence interest rate adjustments. ‑‑Lambiam09:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Markets may be overreacting to Trump's new tariffs. As a result, the yen, pound, and euro could see sharp rises and falls in the coming months. Stanleykswong (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not explain the drop of the Aussie with respect to the euro. News sources attribute the drop to China's countermeasures.[15][16][17][18] Another article links it to the hit on the yuan.[19] Quoting from this article: "Chief economist at the Australia Institute Greg Jericho told SBS News the two currencies are linked, which means when the Yuan takes a hit, it can impact the Australian dollar." ‑‑Lambiam20:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that if the new tariffs are implemented as Trump says, China will be hit hard. The renminbi will face significant depreciation pressure, and the Chinese central bank may want to see the renminbi fall to mitigate the impact of the new tariffs. Australia sells large quantities of natural resources such as coal and iron ore to China. If the Chinese economy gets into trouble, Australia will be severely affected. I think this is why the Australian dollar has been so weak and I expect it to continue to be weak over the coming months. Stanleykswong (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The market believes that Trump's new tariffs could lead to a global recession. The demand for natural resources could drop dramatically. Affected by this, the Australian dollar has fallen sharply recently against the country's major trading partners, and has fallen to its lowest point since 2020 against the euro, pound sterling and US dollar. Stanleykswong (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've written an article on Grace Y. Sam, a Palauan politician, but the only sources I have are the one cited and one journal article that mentions her in a footnote (download link). Are there free online newspaper and/or government archives for Palau (or, more specifically Koror)? If not, is there anyone with access to relevant libraries or archives that can search for information on Sam? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The female saints of the Old Testament surrounding the Mother of God and the Christ Child.Eleusa with Old Testament women (Annunciation cathedral in Moscow)
This icon is written about here, and the info sounds plausible to me. However, it's a WP:BLOG, so I'd like some WP:RS sources on it if possible, preferably in English. Perhaps there's a WP-article on it in some language, but I don't know what title it might have. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me google translate gives"1. Icon "Our Lady of the Don" (14th century, State Tretyakov Gallery) in a frame with an image of Old Testament righteous women (circa 1700; Kremlin Museums) Photomontage." for the caption of the icon on page 2 of the pdf and "V.G. CHUBINSKAYA PAINTING FRAME OF THE TURN OF THE XVII-XVIII CENTURIES FOR THE ICON "OUR MOTHER OF GOD OF THE DONSKAYA" (to the interpretation of the symbolic program)" for the heading of the PDF. The title of the icon is БОГОМАТЕРЬ ДОНСКАЯ which I might render in English as "Theotokos of the Don". That is Our Lady of the Don which is currently held in the Tretyakov Gallery and not Cathedral of the Annunciation, Moscow. Note that the central icon of the modern photos does not closely match the photo in the pdf or the color image in the blog post. Indeed the first paragraph of the pdf says "In the local row of the iconostasis of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin there is a frame with images of the Old Testament righteous women, created at the turn of the 17th-18th centuries in the painting workshop of the Armoury Chamber (ill. I)1 and intended for the icon "Our Lady of the Don" of the 14th century, 2 Unlike its famous and well-studied centerpiece, the frame has not attracted special attention from researchers until now. Meanwhile, the ancient icon, which received a new frame at the turn of the 17th-18th centuries and became, in fact, the center of the new work, was consciously included by the customers and creators of the frame in the historical, cultural and artistic context of its time, which gave it a completely new sound and imparted to the image of the Mother of God a symbolic meaning unusual for Old Russian art. The interpretation of the latter is the subject of this work." <Google translate>. Hope this helps. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a couple of citations to another article by the author of the pdf "Chubinskaya, V. G. "Ikona Simona Ushakova «Bogomater'Vladimirskaya»,«Drevo Moskovskogo gosudarstva»,«Pohvala Bogomateri Vladimirskoj»(Opyt istoriko-kul'turnoj interpretacii)[Icon of Simon Ushakov" our lady of Vladimir"," Tree of the Moscow state"," Praise of our lady of Vladimir"(Experience of historical and cultural interpretation)]." Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury (1985): 290-308." so thay are definitely a subject matter expert. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eluchil404@Lambiam Then it seems that in the Kreml-pdf picture, the frame is shown with Our Lady of the Don, but in the blog-photos, the same frame is shown with another icon? For one thing the icons face in different directions.
There seem to be at least two, possibly three, real physical icons involved. The icon in the iconostasis of the Cathedral of the Annunciation is referred to as Шуйская-Смоленская икона Божией Матери ("Shuya–Smolensk icon of the Mother of God"), which, according to the Russian Wikipedia, was originally the name of a now lost icon, but is now used for any icon of this type, the distinctive feature being the characteristic position of Jesus's arms and legs. (The original disappeared around 1936.) The one in the Cathedral of the Annunciation may be a copy of the original Shuya–Smolensk icon, made before it was lost, with a frame of saints added (later?).
The "Our Lady of the Don" icon in the Tretyakov Gallery is much older than the original Shuya–Smolensk icon. It is of a different type.
The Commons image shown in this thread comes from the first album of the book Древности Российского государства (Antiquities of the Russian State) by Fedor Solntsev, which we have as a pdf file at the Commons: Antiquities of Russian country - Volume I (album). The image is on p. 37 of the file, with (like on most pages) an illegible caption. This album was published in 1849. The central icon, which is clearly a copy of "Our Lady of the Don", looks real to me, with the frame of saints as a later addition by a different artist. ‑‑Lambiam06:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is astonishingly hard to research: The Brits used the Matilda II in the Battles for France and Africa. The Australians used it much longer and pretty successfully in the Pacific theater. But did also the British use it at any time in the Pacific theater? --KnightMove (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Matilda II entered service in 1939, and it’s hard to believe it didn’t see action in the Pacific War. In the book "Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact", although the authors mentioned both Matilda II and the Pacific War, they did not mention that any Matilda II was used in the Pacific War. Stanleykswong (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While over 400 Matilda IIs were successfully deployed with Australian forces in the Pacific Theater (commonly modified for jungle use), the British Army ceased frontline use of the Matilda II by mid-1942 after it became obsolete in Europe and North Africa. Although the tank served with British units in other theaters (e.g., North Africa, Soviet Union), no records indicate British Matilda units were deployed to the Pacific.[20][21] --136.56.165.118 (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia started in December 1941, and Singapore fell on 15 February 1942. Didn't the British troops there have any Matildas, and if not... why not? --KnightMove (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Fall of Singapore for some of the explanation, which shows that no tanks were recorded as captured. The British did not expect an attack overland along the Malay peninsula as they judged the jungle to be impassable. Mikenorton (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that Malaya was a long way down the list of British priorities in 1941, the North African campaign and keeping the USSR in the war came first:
The mention in our article to the Mark VI tank in Malaya is referenced to an account of the King's Own Hussars, who didn't leave Egypt until January 1942. All accounts I can see say that there were no British tanks in Malaya, so I have removed the mention of Malaya. Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, is "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" referred to in the Constitution a privilege appertaining to the prisoner filing the petition, or to the court issuing the writ? 71.126.56.141 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "privilege" is a "right" for those being detained. It is a privilege/right of the person being detained. It is a responsibility of the courts (and entire legal system) to preserve that privilege/right. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the term in social contract theory that there must exist some habitable land that isn't under any social contract at all, so that people who reject the social contract of every country in the world can be (at least in theory) free to vote with their feet against all of them, in order for them to truly be voluntary? NeonMerlin05:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any adherents of social contract theory who advocate the creation of an anarchic area, so AFAIK there is no term for this position. To accommodate everyone who rejects this theory, the area should be considerable. Most anarchists will support the thesis that all inhabited land should be freed of this one-sided "contract" imposed by the violence of the State. Freetown Christiania may serve as an example, but I'd say it is merely tolerated, and its existence is definitely precarious.[22] See also Zone to Defend. ‑‑Lambiam12:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg?lang=en)
