December 24

[1] Can someone please tell what this small statute is (marked by a redish outline in the picture) ? Jon Ascton  (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it is supposed to be a Garden gnome. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note statute vs. statue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its a comic. Ask the author. --Kharon (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sales of garden gnomes rose by 42% this year, reveals eBay (UK, October 2017). Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Anderson writes of the US and Fisk University:

A morally and sexually compromised president had come to power promising a regime fundamentally different to his predecessor’s. The new administration was packed with conmen, hucksters, and unqualified shills raiding the public treasury and selling public lands to Big Oil. . . . In the midst of the maelstrom, an intellectual brawl broke out among African Americans. . . . [O]ne African American intellectual openly and mercilessly challenged another over what was essentially ephemera. Du Bois looked on at the row within Fisk University, Tennessee, and shook his head.

About the Harding "administration", of course. But what's this "row"? (The Fisk University article doesn't explain.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous dispute among African American be civil rights leaders at the turn of the 20th century was between W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington over the Atlanta compromise though I am uncertain what it had to do with Fisk University.--Jayron32 02:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site, there was major internal turmoil at Fisk University in 1924-1925 (a few years after Harding). AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, Jayron32 and AnonMoos. But unless something has gone awry in the article I quote, it can't be either of these: Du Bois is presented as a bemused/appalled outsider, not an instigator or participant. (Oh, and Harding isn't specified: he's just my guess. But "It was the 1920s".) -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references to the presidency are clearly to Harding. See Teapot Dome scandal and Warren G. Harding#Extramarital affairs. --76.69.117.217 (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

Is the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 did a sharp Maneuver seconds before crashing onto the first floor of the pentagon? or it just a conspiracy theorists imagination? 37.142.17.66 (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Witnesses described the plane “banking” slightly as it approached the Pentigon... but not a “sharp maneuver”. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have heard expressions like "Women and children first!", for example, in the context of the Titanic. This expression has been puzzling me for years.

Children come in two sexes: boys and girls. Girls develop into women and therefore stay included in this expression. Boys, however, develop to men, and fall outside the expression.

My question is, how is it defined when this happen? At which point in a male's life does he stop being included in "Women and children first!"? JIP | Talk 14:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Women and children first as well as child. When a boy is considered a man varies wildly between different cultures, and have changed over time. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the sense of honor as it relates to the young male; when declared: "Woman and children first", the young male may have taken the initiative to speak for himself and stay with the "men", (or defer to others to decide). Similar to the example of the many under-age "boys" who lied about their age in order to enlist in WWII. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on how many seats are remaining in the lifeboats once the women and children are loaded up... a 16 year old who was initially placed with the “men” (and told to hold back), may subsequently be told “get in a lifeboat, my boy” if there are remaining seats. Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the specific case of the Titanic, see the discussion here. --76.69.117.217 (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find questions like this interesting because the mindset that led to them was constructed in such a way as to not lead to the answer. It's somewhat similar to a depth-first search. As stated, the question can be parsed like this: "We have sinking boats and need to determine who will stay and who will go. How do we determine that?" But that is not how it happened. People have been categorizing folks into "adults" and "children" according to various criteria for forever. That categorization, however perfect or flawed, is what got applied during maritime disasters. By looking at the very rare circumstance first, we can blind ourselves to common-sense answers. Matt Deres (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps the OP might think in terms of "adult males stay behind" instead. Alansplodge (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find the biography for Monsignor Joseph Nelligan who was assigned to various parishes in Baltimore, Maryland. For a time he was assigned to the Immaculate Conception Church in Towson Maryland. I'd like to learn what other parishes he was assigned to prior to being elevated to Monsignor.Google search reveals he passed away May 12, 1978 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmhub315 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the parish history of the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Towson:

Prior to assuming responsibility as pastor of Immaculate Conception parish, the Right Reverend Joseph M. Nelligan, a native of Towson ordained in 1926, served at Saint Gabriel's Church, Washington; in 1936 was chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore and Washington, and, as rector of the Basilica of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, supervised the renovation there from 1943 - 1947.

There's also a capsule biography of him in the 1939 edition of The American Catholic Who's Who which confirms that he was curate of St. Gabriel's, Washington, but again without giving dates. [2] [3] [4] Elsewhere he's spoken of as being curate of St Gabriel's in 1930, 1933 and 1934. So as far as I can make out his career goes St Gabriel's, Washington, then Immaculate Conception, Towson, then higher things in the Archdiocese. --Antiquary (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the the music playing behind this video? Bus stop (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update—I think it may be unanswerable. I read in the comments section "Will you please mention the name of title of background music?" The response is "The music was composed just for our Cuba video, we will have it available to listen to on our Viewfinder Image Library in the coming weeks ahead." Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

Which Psalm is chanted here? Father Serafim’s emotional Aramaic chant for the Pope in Georgia ^{[Georgian Journal, 2016-10-02]}

(Note: Psalms#Numbering discusses the numbering discrepancy between the Hebrew (Masoretic) and Greek (Septuagint) texts, with Catholics and Protestants typically using the Hebrew numbering and the Eastern Orthodox using the Greek numbering. Thus, for instance, Miserere mei is Ps. 51 in the West but Ps. 50 in the East.)

Most occurrences of this video describe it as Ps. 53, but several include comments that this is incorrect and it is actually Ps. 51 [Septuagint 50]. This instance includes a comment by an Indonesian student of Aramaic ("yulius ap") with a their transliteration of the Aramaic for the first six verses, which appear to match the chant. Also, მამა სერაფიმის,სულის შემძვრელი გალობა !! 53-ე ფსალმუნი არამეულად! from 2015 has Father Serafim chanting what I suspect to be Psalm 54 [Septuagint 53] (though I don't know how to check) and it sounds quite different from the 2016 chant.

Is there a general on-line source for the Psalms in Aramaic or Syriac, transliterated into the Latin alphabet? -- 173.72.212.180 (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any transliterations, but you can find the Syriac version of the whole book of Psalms here, if that helps. There is a translation, the "Aramaic Bible in Plain English", at BibleHub, but no transliteration there. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's a great start. Thanks! I should be able to find a transliteration / romanization tool, and that will give me something to work with. Glosbe Syriac Latin transliteration doesn't seem to do anything, though their other languages seem to work. I just sent them an email asking what's up. -- 173.72.212.180 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

There's a phrase being used by supporters of Jeremy Corbyn: "the absolute boy". While I can see why they're using it, I do wonder about the phrase because it's not exactly common or standard English construction. Can anyone please enlighten me as to its origins and how it came to be applied to the leader of the UK Labour Party, who isn't exactly a boy? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting article from The Independent, which discusses the origin of the expression and gives links to the earliest users who applied it to Corbyn. [5] Wymspen (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as it gives examples, yes it's interesting, but these two YouTubers must have got it from somewhere. Where?--TammyMoet (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Online, Corbyn is often referred to as “The Absolute Boy.” The term is British slang for a somewhat mischievous lad; The Guardian[2] said the phrase “shows the youth demographic adopting Corbyn as one of their own and in their own vernacular” and that it shows “benevolent laddism.” The earliest reference in the media to Corbyn being “The Absolute Boy” was posted June 1st, 2017 by SB Nation blog The Busby Babe,[3] a fan blog for the Manchester United Football Club. The phrase took off online in tweets referring to Corbyn. Lena Dunham posted an Instagram photo[4] on June 5th voicing her support for Corbyn with a pin calling him The Absolute Boy." [6] Wymspen (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites an earlier first use, by Matt Zarb-Cousin on 29 March 2017. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that "absolute boy" is not well known "British slang for a somewhat mischievous lad" (well, I've never heard of it), but this article suggests that it's a rehash of the phrase "total lad" which would be much more widely understood. Alansplodge (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He actually did it, the absolute madman. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such activities are often governed by health and safety regulations. See a UK example entitled: "Stunts, fights and other potentially hazardous production activities", here: [7]

Would somebody like to help out with this issue?--Herfrid (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Herfrid: They are both divisions of the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group; see:[8] —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:7150:E613:78D3:42AE (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In modern times I haven't seen the Pontifical Swiss Guard in body armour (even during the resignation of Benedict XVI), except their oath taking ceremony. But in older footages (e.g. from 1951) they do wear body armour on other occcasions. Was there any formal change in that regard on when to wear full armour? Brandmeister^talk 21:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From THE WEBSITE OF THE PONTIFICAL SWISS GUARDS: "At Easter, Christmas and at the swearing-in ceremonies an additional 17th century armour complements the Gala uniform". I couldn't find a reference to suggest that there had been any change in recent years, but perhaps somebody else can find something? Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more research shows that the opening and closing of the Holy Door shown in your 1951 newsreel always occurs on Christmas Day, and so is consistent with the current armour-wearing policy. Alansplodge (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps of interest is that the Swiss Guard's armour began to be replaced in 2009 by a pair of Austrian blacksmiths, as modern youths are too big for the traditional pieces. A heavenly mission. Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, it appears that in the past armour was worn on solemn occasions, e.g. [9], [10]. Brandmeister^talk 09:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

Earth (Earth science) is a planet in our solar system (Astronomy) which can sustain life (Biology), in particular humans (Human physiology/anatomy). All these study objects, regardless of their relevant lengthscale, are constituted of matter (Chemistry) and, like all matter, subjected to some universal laws (Physics).

I am attempting to understand the basics of all fields of human knowledge, and in particular how they are related. Where this is a relatively clear task for the exact sciences (brief outline above), it seems more difficult for the social sciences/humanities.

Could you try to give a concise outline like above, connecting studies like psychology-antropology-sociology-economics-political science-education-law-linguistics-history-geography-management-finance-literature-art-religion-philosophy-technology-etc., or at least those that you consider the most important ones?

I looked for their definitions and scope and methods, so that is not the question. Rather, given the chance to start over, would we still divide the social sciences and humanities like this—many of them seems to be overlapping? Are some more fundamental than others?

Gnorkel (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there have historically been several attempts to define what I might call a taxonomy of knowledge. You might want to start with reading Epistemology and then explore some of the articles linked in its See also section. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2130.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a variety of articles to start your research: Tree of knowledge system (and the xkcd version), unity of science, consilience (and the excellent book by E. O. Wilson. For the historical foundation, see also great chain of being. Matt Deres (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already started research for this question and came across many of those links, so maybe I should be a bit more specific. My question only concerns the social sciences. The natural sciences can pretty well be divided based on their field of study (e.g. space, earth, life) but I am looking for unifying concepts and/or ways to divide social sciences (which all study society). The article on consilience say for example "Sociology, economics, and anthropology are each, in turn, studies of properties emergent from the interaction of countless individual humans." I find this sentence very promising but I don't seem to find a lot of literature that goes beyond this general idea.

One way to divide the social sciences might be micro (modeling behavior of and interactions between individual agents; which should be the same for all social sciences) and macro (emergent phenomena like markets, the state or stratification). These macro fields could be divided based on the type of interaction (cooperative -> economics; conflict -> politics). Sociology would study the emerging inequality, which is reflected in the state of the agents.

Sorry for such an open question. Hopefully the example above might give you a better idea of what I am after. --Gnorkel (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• At a certain scale, the development and classifications of the sciences are historical accidents of human history and our method of cognition. There's no necessary reason, for example, why we should understand the nature of fossils before or after we have achieved powered flight. That's why a great medical doctor can be a horrible litigator or art critic, and why one can study a foreign language before or after or while learning algebra. One must learn addition before multiplication, and algebra before calculus; just as one must learn grammar and vocabulary, before one studies composition and literature. But French and Mathematics are separate edifices, and they can be built at different times, although one can't construct their respective "upper floors" before securing their foundations.

The sciences develop according to the vagaries of the human mind and human history. Reality is what it is, regardless of our classifications, which are mental tools, not Platonic Ideals. See history of science and Scientific Progress at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such classification is a mental tool, but some tools are better than others. I also know that the classification of the social sciences is mostly by "historical accident", so my question now is whether we would order them in a more useful way given the chance to do so again—using this new classification as a better mental tool. There are so many overlaps within the social sciences and humanities (e.g. behavioral economics, geopolitics, cultural history, sociology and anthropology converging towards the same thing, etc.) that I wonder whether or not we can draw the boundaries of such fields in a more useful way. --Gnorkel (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk can't really handle speculative questions like this. At best someone can link you to someone else's proposed classifications of knowledge. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wonderful :-) When I said "I wonder whether or not we can draw the boundaries of such fields in a more useful way" I was actually hoping that someone else tried exactly this. The book consilience was a good pointer, but I would expect there to be more actual classification schemes based on content rather than academic institutes (which are historical accidents as pointed out by another user). --Gnorkel (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the question has been addressed at length by many thinkers. One view is that concepts are tools that allow us to arrange our knowledge hierarchically, and that the proper definition of a concept (read classificatory scheme) is contextual. That is, while "living being that converses" might be a useful (and most-likely implicit) definition of human for a child, the general definition for adults in general should be "rational animal" (rationality being the essential characteristic that defines our ability to use language and do most other things only humans can do) while "ape of the genus Homo" might be best for biologists, and "animal that uses tools to make tools" might be good for an anthropologist. None of these definitions contradict each other, or do so only in borderline cases which can be treated ad hoc. For example, a child will not think a person in an irreversible coma has become a monkey, but a judge may decide he is brain dead, based on other evidence.

As regards the humanities specifically, again we are hampered by the fact that many people claim sociology is not a science at all, while psychology is largely in a transitional state, with grand theories like Freudianism and Behaviorism only recently being discredited, definitions of "phenomena" such as Autism and Schizophrenia in flux, and many treatments at the hit-or-miss state with doctors prescribing all sorts of drugs not knowing their efficacy or even their mechanism. How a university might want to classify the humanities in their departments and course catalogs might differ greatly from the opinions of philosophers of science or statisticians or biologists.

So the purpose of the classification will determine which classification is best in that context. There is no single correct answer for all people in all circumstances. Pitfalls to avoid are a priori rationalism, in the Platonic sense of beginning with an abstract premise or theory, and trying to shoehorn reality into it; unnecessary multiplication of concepts (there's no need for a general English word for a buxom blonde of a certain age and measurements--but a casting agent might have the concept of a "Monroe"); and frozen concepts where we use terms like "gay" (a cultural term of the 20th century) to apply to much broader phenomena such as opportunistic homosexuality in prisons or the military, cultural pedophilia in ancient Greece, Rome, and in other indigenous societies, and people who identify with their birth gender yet prefer homosexual sex versus people who identify with the opposite gender, and see themselves as having been born into the wrong type body.

Two recommended works that address definition and classification or conceptualization in depth are the monograph Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand and the rather encyclopedic Introduction To Logic, By H.W.B. Joseph, Oxord (here, in public domain). μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering so thoroughly. You give good arguments on why classification schemes are necessarily contextual. And although I agree, I am more looking for actual ways to classify social sciences rather than meta arguments on the existence of such classifications. --Gnorkel (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound flippant, but you might start with a premade system like the Library of Congress Catalog or Dewey Decimal System or the course catalog of a university. Can you give an actual intellectual school or a definite context you want, or do you want a list of such classifications? (There's even the trivium and the quadrivium, although those are just a bit outdated. :)) μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that my question can be interpreted in many ways (but hey if I knew exactly what I was asking for, I would use google instead of the reference desk!). Some context. As a 'hobby', I am making an outline / map / poster of all human knowledge. This includes the major fields of natural and social sciences and the humanities, their main concepts and insights, and how they are related (e.g. biology and chemistry are next to each other with biochemistry on the interface). I am quite happy with how I ordered the natural sciences and technology, but the social sciences and humanities are giving me a headache. I am looking for some way to structure them on a 2D poster that makes sense to "the average scientifically minded person" (a vague definition I know :-))

To give you an idea of what I am after:

https://i.imgur.com/IRvDWJj.jpg (maybe too simple and not really a map but still nice)

http://nada.kth.se/~axelhu/mapthematics.pdf (more complete and with related field close to eachother)

A classification system like Dewey's lacks information on how the categories/subcategories are related. A university curriculum reflects too much historical academic structures like you mentioned, whereas I would like to order things based on content. I am not sure if there have been attempts for a 'graphical classification' or 'graphical outline' of the social sciences that I am after. Or if there is any unifying idea to present their main ideas in an organized fashion rather than as a series of overlapping blobs. If there is, I would be delighted to find out. --Gnorkel (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, then although it's not what you are asking for, you will love this to set as your wallpaper. I originally saw that at Big Think's Strange Maps Blog. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a graphical representation of Wikipedia's own internal wikilinks, arranged by Portals, would be useful (though biased). I have no notion of how to do that, unfortunately. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this 1958 article named "Towards a classification for social science literature": http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.5090090303/abstract. You have to pay to read the entire thing, but you might find it for free in the collection of a local university. OldTimeNESter (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

A significant megaproject or resource discovery significantly raises GDP, the rulers don't spend it all on themselves but also use a significant fraction for benefits X, Y, Z to all with only reasonable(ish) exceptions like no felons or non-citizens. Maybe X is starting programs similar to U.S. Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/food stamps, free college if you pass a test that only weeds out those who'd take too long to graduate, being able to buy the cheaper hydroelectricity from the megadam at or below market price instead of exporting it all, cheap gas stations, whatever. There's no very unfair disqualifier like wrong tribe, wrong caste, no Jews.

Then the government tries to stop population growth, makes it harder to become a citizen, greatly increases felony catching effort, raises fines or sin taxes, makes new things illegal (especially ones people are ashamed to admit to but do anyway from human nature like gay sex and porn) and tries to make any excuse to make the majority happier by offering them more benefits from the same sized pie by disqualifying the least popular (i.e. in some places weed smokers and adulterers. Oops, those are now felonies..) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Jayron32 11:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I squinted I could maybe see some partial correspondences with some recently oil-rich states such as Qatar, Bahrain or Venezuala, but I wouldn't like to build a political argument on them. SMW might like to read through the 2017 back numbers of The Economist magazine and see what emerges. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is vague to the point that you can make it have any answer you want, likely in relation to quite a few countries, depending on how you want to interpret it. "The government" is a ill-defined—one president, one monarch, one absolute dictator, or two, or many? Does it include members of a House (of Representatives or Parliament) or Senate? One term of office, consecutive terms, in succession or spaced out? (The U.S. Government is still the U.S. Government whether it is Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump at the top.) One level of government only, or two or more? (In the U.S. there is a long history of state and local governments attempting – with varying degrees of success – to suppress, circumvent, or ignore federal programs, laws, and regulations.) Changing the laws on the books, or just changing enforcement priorities (or fiddling with regulations and employing executive instructions)? (Again, plenty of examples in U.S. history.)

The basic pattern of three events

1. Tax revenue increases;
2. A social program is established or expands;
3. Attempts are made to restrict access or benefits, to the detriment of a subset of the population (generally as a political ploy);

happening in succession isn't particularly hard to find. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if anybody can tell me, what these are? They are regarding Signals, Wireless telegraphy

C.S.D of General Kdo 9 in Kassel. Kassel is the place. I can't find the acronym C.S.D. And Kdo. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kdo is "Kommando", something like an Area Command or Group, Kdo 9 was the "Corps Area" controlled from Kassel. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the source document which you didnt mention https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7sNVKDp-yiJWTNxS0FIcV95S3M/edit it would seem C.S.D is a British acronym and I suspect an error for C.S.O which is Chief Signals Officer which is used later in the document. MilborneOne (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MilborneOne, thanks. It's seems plausable. The CSDIC which was a british outfit, undertook the interrogation on Rndewig, so they would write the I-89 document from their perspective anyway. Cool. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find more information about a situation I've read with different variations. It concerns the supposed emissary of some far-flung but important dignitary (a sultan maybe, or emperor) who is going to visit some kingdom and has sent this emissary in advance to ensure he receives the proper welcome. The emissary presents the local ruler with fancy credentials and apparently lavish gifts and then spends the next several weeks laying plans for this dignitary who will be along shortly. Of course there is no dignitary and at some point the emissary takes off with a lot of loot and it turns out that the lavish gifts were just cheap fakes or forgeries. I've seen variations of this in various unsourced collections of "weird history" I read as a child (not written by Charles Fort perhaps, but of that kind). I have no doubt that the story itself is fake - or at least wildly exaggerated - but I'd like to find the source, if any. The closest I've come is the story of Princess Caraboo, but this is very distinctly different: the king/shah/etc. never actually appears; the conman never presents himself to be anything more than a servant. Rings any bells? I don't recall a lot of details, but I think that's because very few were ever given (as would be typical for forteana). Matt Deres (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Prester John. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather long article; skimming it seems to mention no apparent scam by a fake emissary. Can yo be more specific? μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps relating to: Then in 1306, 30 Ethiopian ambassadors from Emperor Wedem Arad came to Europe, and Prester John was mentioned as the patriarch of their church in a record of their visit. Whereas the identity or even existence of Prester John is/was questionable, the Emperor was legitimate. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E814:317E:7D5A:EEE5 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I linked Prester John because I remember reading, many years ago, a story – presented as true but quite possibly not – that sometime in the Middle Ages or Early Renaissance an "emissary" turned up at an important Court, perhaps Venice or Rome, claiming to represent Prester John and bearing a letter supposedly from said worthy asking for monetary aid in his struggle against the Saracens (or a comparable non-Christian foe). In the story the "emissary" departed with a tidy sum and the donators waited in vain for any further word from the legendary ruler. The story was presumably based on the actual visit to Pope Eugene III by Hugh of Jabala in 1144-5, during which Hugh told Otto of Freising about the supposedly real Prester John. The episode is mentioned in the 4th para of Section 1 of the Prester John article, so I thought you'd have no trouble spotting it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But we are not psychics. You now tell us you vaguely remember a story about Hugh of Jabala, and Hugh of Jabala is mentioned in that article, but no mention is made of a scam, or his absconding with huge sums and not reporting back as promised. How were we to jump from a mention of Hugh of Jabala to your vague memory form your original post, "See Prester John"? μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really matching your scenario, but I thought of the Dreadnought hoax when I saw the title of your question. Alansplodge (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never having heard of the "Dreadnought hoax", my first thought was that it was an allusion to this. 2A00:23C0:79B9:9100:C902:53EB:7D93:D534 (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Is there an occupation of law revisor (i.e. someone who prepares a revised edition of the laws or state code)? And is it as widespread as that of law librarian>?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Law commission.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See Advisory Committee on Statute Law. 2A00:23C0:79B9:9100:C902:53EB:7D93:D534 (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Humorism states that the sanguine temperament is associated with the Blood. For the other humors, it goes on to say that the temperament is caused by an excess of the humor: for example, an excess of Black Bile makes one melancholic. However, sanguine means "lack of blood", and the article is unclear on whether it is an excess of Blood, or the lack of it, that makes a person sanguine. Can someone point me towards a reputable online resource that answers this question? OldTimeNESter (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguine does not mean lack of blood.[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know, you are correct, Baseball Bugs. I thought I read that many years ago, and since then I must have assumed that since "sans" means without, "sanguine" meant "without blood". Thanks for the correction! OldTimeNESter (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of those language oddities! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's that magic-show-end-of-the-pier-type music used for the naked balloon dance? See The Greatest Show on Legs or video clips all over YouTube. Thanks. 86.187.169.231 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Youtube clips had the name in the comments: Tea for Two. Here is a link to the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLDHCDz7S2g. OldTimeNESter (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 1