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: 11 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.[1]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: 9 days 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 ([2]). 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: 11 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
If you find anger or anxiety or anything else is a significant impairment on life, you should consider asking a professional for resources and mitigation strategies.
That said, one great use of ChatGPT I've seen was someone using it to check and clean their outgoing emails and social media posts for passive-aggressive (and aggressive-aggressive) anger. As noted earlier, anger is self-reinforcing, so being able to check it when it starts, and being shown in near-real-time how to communicate in a de-escalating manner, is a huge modern boon. (You might also ask ChatGPT for advice on mitigation strategies when you're feeling angry in the moment, which may be somewhat more reliable and friendlier than a search engine, but as a LLM its best way to shine is on tasks involving language.) SamuelRiv (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would examine the causes of your anger. What - or who - makes you angry? Don't get mad, get even. Some people have entirely opposite ideas, and there is essesntially nothing you can do about it. Walk away. Or you may be in an emotional double bind, which is exceptionally difficult to identify and solve. Consider the STOPP technique [3][4]. Sometimes this isn't possible: my dad, now aged 94, has always been utterly impossible to deal with (might as well talk to a brick), and I recently exploded at his narrow-minded intransigence, telling him to **** off and die, you old ****. I feel happier now, but he's probably not going to leave me anything in his will. MinorProphet (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago23 comments14 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
ZeehanLin means that this usage conflates the island and the country, as if the island were the country, and not merely part of it. It's roughly analogous to calling the UK "Great Britain", although that doesn't have the severe political baggage; I suppose a better analogue would be if (1) some revolution overthrew the Australian government, and Albanese set up a government-in-exile in Tasmania, (2) both the revolutionaries and the existing Albanese government kept using the name and styles of the Commonwealth, and (3) people started using "Tasmania" to mean both the island and the jurisdiction that only had power there. Also, using the name can cause confusion in other ways; see the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names for example. And it can require disambiguation on physical geography articles, e.g. the subject of the Taiwan article has a land area of 36,197 km², but List of islands by area, going with the island rather than the jurisdiction, gives an area of just 34,507 km². If you weren't aware of the difference, this might be confusing; even the list of islands has to throw in (main island) below the Taiwan link, lest readers be confused. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not seeing how this is more "problematic" than it is for other island countries that control small islands as well as the namesake large island (such as Cuba and Sri Lanka). I'm also not seeing why your Albanese government example would be a problem. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:16, 10 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
Baseball Bugs A thought strikes me — nobody ever uses "East Congo" or "West Congo" to refer to a couple of countries with confusing names; they're the only ones where the formal names get any significant common use in my experience. And unlike Korea, Germany, Viet Nam, and China, they were never forcibly divorced from each other because of communism; ever since actual states were first formed there, they've been separate entities. Maybe there's a connection between these facts. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 6 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: 5 days ago23 comments7 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)Reply
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
Yes I don't hope to find an index but some anecdotal evidence such as ads in newspapers or mentions later in newspapers and books ("My dad bought this land in 1965 for 150 dollars"). Thanks @Soman, that's a great example. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
""Land for any purpose is sold by the square foot, and a residential or suburban villa in Dubai may cost as much as $15 per square foot - or $600,000 per acre. A suburban villa rents for $15,000-$20,000 or more per year, with a 2-3 year payment in advance. Because of these land costs, it is easy to understand why private investors lean heavily toward high-rise apartments of some 13 or 14 stories." ([6]) Now this quote is from a 1977 publication, so post oil boom of the 1970s. --Soman (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
From 1963: "The market in Dubai was fairly brisk in July and August considering the time of year, and, as usual, was very busy in September. Although reexports to Iran were not good more goods were going to Pakistan and India again. But there was a hint of overstocking and many merchants appeared to realise for the first time how much of Dubai's present prosperity depends on the uncertain prospect of oil. The cost of land remained high (23/- to 30/- a square foot for land in the business area 6/- to 9/- in the residential areas), fewer sales were made." [7] --Soman (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Dubai, 1961 - "His Excellency the Ruler has also instructed his Engineering Consultants to prepare plans for a bridge across the creek, which is expected to cost $190,000; and to continue design studies for the reclamation of a narrow strip of land along the Daira water front, on which shops and a road would be built; the road should help to relieve the present traffic congestion considerably. The asking price for land in this area is sometimes as high as £4-10 sh a square foot, and the sale of the shops might well pay for the reclamation." ([8]) --Soman (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, "/-" is an alternative abbreviation to s, which is the "shillings" in a price, originally, for example, 4l 10s 6d (four pounds, ten shillings and sixpence, 4.525 pounds in decimal money. The presence of the pound sign in the second quote indicates "4l 10s" (4.50 pounds in decimal money). 2A02:C7B:232:500:3CB6:5B8B:EF2E:8517 (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The 1961 factoid relates to the Deira seafront, which would have been a top location. And it says "up to 4-10 sh" so presumably there were some cheaper lots as well. The 1963 estimates would have been the more normal prices perhaps. --Soman (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was only separated from the Indian rupee a few years before, so I would suspect yes, but that said I've had the time now to read the rest of the 1963 source, which predominantly gives values in Sterling, and uses Rps for Rupees, so I think shillings is right here. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess q collapsed into k in Coptic. The reason I'm asking is to distinguish these places from those called Qos and Qosia, such as Cusae. I've seen at least three minor Wikipedia pages for such a place name, and I've been meaning to see if they're erroneously various, ie redundant, or numerous. And now I don't know how to find them again; the A-Z index isn't helping.
I've noticed so far in the index--it's giving a few places in Iran (and less the expected Arabian locations) that start with similar, though. What does qos mean in Persian?
I'm sure I found more places in Upper Egypt called Qis, Kosia, similar in stubs. Anybody else? Can one find wikipedia pages by geocoordinate proximity? It'd be one good way to find redundant pages for same place.
Latest comment: 1 day ago11 comments6 people in discussion
I've just posted a query @ Talk:The Way of All Flesh, but I have a different (if not unrelated) query for my esteemed colleagues at the Ref Desk.
We say Samuel Butler took the phrase "The way of all flesh" from the Douay–Rheims Bible, specifically 1 Kings. I note that the first part of the DRB Old Testament, in which 1 Kings is located, was published in 1609.
However, the phrase appeared in John Webster's play Westward Hoe [sic], published in 1607.
I saw him even now going the way of all flesh, that is to say towards the kitchen.
Webster is not in Category:Translators of the King James Version (pub. 1611), so I presume he wasn't (known to be) involved in that. But could he have been involved in the Douay-Rheims version (1609), and perhaps there re-used an expression he had coined for his 1607 play? Our article doesn't mention any individual translators, there's no Category:Translators of the Douay-Rheims Bible, and google produces no results.
"The most noble and myghty prince Ferdinandus the Romayne Emperour, for whose Funeral this preparation and concourse is here made, hath entred the way of all fleshe" E. Grindal, Serm. Funeral Prince Ferdinandus sig. C.ii. 1564. "Compare post-classical Latin via universae carnis the way of all flesh (from 11th cent. in British and continental sources". OED. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, so for me that makes it even less likely that Butler got it from the DR Bible. It seems to be an expression that had been bandied about for centuries; then it found its way into the DR Bible. Curious. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]07:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Vulgate generally uses (ingredior) viam universae terrae, "(I enter) the way of all earth", but Genesis 6:19 has (animantes) universae carnis, "(living creatures) of all flesh.[9]Onulf of Haumont [fr] (11th century) uses (ingredior) viam universae carnis.[10]Thomas Aquinas (13th century) refers to Genesis 6:19 when writing finis universae carnis, "the end of all flesh". [11] --Lambiam09:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, I found Michael J. Lewis "Unearthing the Entitled: 1 Kings, Douay-Rheims, and Samuel Butler's THE WAY OF ALL FLESH", doi: 10.1080/00144940.2014.962451, pub. Taylor and Francis Online, available through WP Library. Lewis cites Shaheen, Naseeb. “Butler’s Use of Scripture in The Way of All Flesh.” Essays in Literature vol 5 No. 1 (1976), which is also available through WP Library. Shaheen (p. 42 [pdf 4]) shows that Butler tended to consistently use the KJV - his dad was a CoE vicar, and Butler was especially familiar with the Psalter and the BCP. His note 9 mentions the Dekker/Webster quote you give in your OP, also the title could be patterned after Congreve's The Way of the World. Shaheen doesn't mention the Douai-Rheims at all, but mentions a list of 500 quotes from the Bible found in TWOAF. Lewis says "...the title’s biblical allusion is notable in that it references a verse found in only one English translation of the Christian Bible: the 1609 Douay-Rheims Old Testament." Lewis (p. 267, [pdf 2]) says "It is from within this Catholic context, wherein the impossibility of error is guaranteed despite multiple instances of institutionally approved translations, that Butler drew the ironic title for his Anglican-focused, “Authorized Version”–infused novel.[4] - n4: See Tyndale." So there is no agreement on the exact source of the title, but plenty of refs and reading. Personally I would be expect Butler to have been familiar with Douai, he was very erudite: but like Butler I lost any faith I once had and am now an Olympian. HTH, MinorProphet (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion
There was a series of pulp novels whose main hero refused to kill his opponents, but would sometimes shoot them in such a way that the bullet grazed their skulls, knocking them unconscious. No need to point out that this is unrealistic; I understand that.
Well, the Avenger article you linked does say (at the end of the the "Gadgets" subsection) that "Benson could shoot someone so that his bullet just touched their heads and knocked them out". Deor (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It reminds me of the Lone Ranger. Part of his personal code was Whenever he was forced to use guns, he never shot to kill, but instead tried to disarm his opponent as painlessly as possible. Cullen328 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago19 comments11 people in discussion
"At midnight, on the 12th of August, a huge mass of luminous green gas erupted from Mars and sped towards Earth..." does the Narrator mean Midnight at night or Midnight in the morning? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that's genuinely ambiguous. One of the advantages of the 24-hour clock is it makes this clear; you can say 2400 on 11 August or 0000 on 12 August, to indicate the same instant. --Trovatore (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seems to be a paraphrase of a passage in Chapter 1: "As Mars approached opposition, Lavelle of Java set the wires of the astronomical exchange palpitating with the amazing intelligence of a huge outbreak of incandescent gas upon the planet. It had occurred towards midnight of the 12th, and the spectroscope, to which he had at once resorted, indicated a mass of flaming gas, chiefly hydrogen, moving with an enormous velocity torwards this earth. This jet of fire had become invisible about a quarter past twelve." (The War of the Worlds, Book One: The Coming of the Martians, 1 The Eve of the War). The year is 1894; since the narrator is in England and the subject is astronomical, the time will be in GMT (which was renamed for astronomical purposes Universal Time (UT) only in 1928). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then that answers the OP's question. The only way to go "toward" the midnight of the 12th is from the 12th. So "midnight of the 12th" would mean the point between the 12th and the 13th. "Midnight in the morning" would simply mean the earliest point in the morning, of the 13th in this case. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that struck me as a really odd way of phrasing it. In my somewhat limited experience of life, midnight always happens at night! I think the question is really asking whether it means the midnight that marks the end of the 11th and the start of the 12th, or the midnight that marks the end of the 12th and the start of the 13th. AndyJones (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Any day can be said to have two midnights. One in the morning, one at night. I've often used the phrase "midnight in the morning" and never known anyone struggle to understand it before. DuncanHill (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In Wells's time, I believe, astronomers reckoned dates from noon. I don't know whether they were half a day ahead or half a day behind their neighbors. —Tamfang (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but they do this in the Proleptic Julian calendar counting in days (only) from noon on Monday, January 1, 4713 BC (it avoids possible confusions and mathematical complications from changing the date halfway through a night's observations), and it was and is only used within observational notes and calculations, not in announcements or articles for the general public, so in this case (a story related by a non-Astronomer) it wouldn't feature.
For similar reasons, Astronomers use a Year zero between AD 1 and 1 BC (which they call –1) when calculating event dates and orbits stretching that far back, and have to take this into account when correlating with ancient records of, e.g. eclipses whose dates have been converted to the ordinary Gregorian calendar. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
To clarify, I'm not sure what FKA meant here exactly, but astronomers don't call 1 BC "−1". Rather 1 BC is their year 0, as explained at our astronomical year numbering article. Their −1 would be 2 BC.
Astronomers are impressive in their way, but they can't change the past (though they can rename it), and they don't interpose a fictional year that never existed. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion
For much of the 20th century, stamps of the Republic of Turkey stamps were denominated in para or kuruş, and while 100 kuruş equalled a lira, the larger unit sometimes wasn't used on denominations: for example, the 1950 stamp series had values of 10p, 20p, 1k...100k, 200k. After a while, inflation caused everything to be denominated in a larger number of kuruş, and then eventually everything went to lira only, but technically the kuruş still existed as a subdivision, even though the lira was worth so little that a basic postage stamp cost hundreds of thousands of lira.
With this in mind: when was the para formally abolished as a subdivision of the kuruş? Like the kuruş, did it formally exist long after it ceased to be a meaningful amount of money? I know that it hasn't existed since the revaluation of the Turkish lira in the 2000s, but I'm unsure if it were abolished before then. Our article on the para doesn't mention anything specific after 1844, except for mentioning that the new lira doesn't have para. The Turkish lira article doesn't even mention the para. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Other than the was, how many named Egyptian staffs are there? As a matter of interest, there are Burkinabe dead ringers for the was sceptre in “Land of the Flying Masks: Art and Culture in Burkina Faso” by Wheelock and Roy, objects 237-8.
Temerarius (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Modern international athletics has a great deal of television coverage, When the athletes are introduced before a race/ competition and the cameras fall on them, many perform a signature move that usually involves hand gestures and/ or a whole-body pose. Is there a name for these? The well-known Mo Farah#"Mobot" and the lightning bolt were examples of "victory poses", struck after the event. But what are these pre-competition poses called? Thanks. 86.175.173.28 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I thought Usain Bolt's signature move was firing an imaginary arrow from an imaginary bow (plenty of photos of it on Google Images if you search "usain bolt archery pose"), but it doesn't seem to be mentioned on the article. Noah Lyles did a lot of jumping up and down before the 100 meter race in Paris, but I don't know if that was a move or just letting off energy. I'm not sure that I saw a lot of personally-specific gesturing before events in the Paris coverage, just smiling or waving for the camera, Catholics doing the Sign of the Cross, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Showboating:the term "showboat" became slang for someone who wants ostentatious behavior to be seen at all costs. This term is particularly applied in sports, where a showboat (or sometimes "showboater") will do something flashy before (or even instead of) actually achieving his or her goal. The word is also used as a verb. British television show Soccer AM has a section named "Showboat", dedicated to flashy tricks from the past week's games.
Yes, it's mostly on the track, isn't it. Where they're all getting lined up for the 400 metres, 800 metres, something like that? It looks like these guys have been hangin' an' chillin' too long with the dog and dem nigz. Even the blond Scandanavian ones. You expect them to say something like "Fo' Shizzle ma nizzle" or "check it, Mutha", before they take to the blocks? Quite disconcerting. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago12 comments9 people in discussion
Lincoln is believed to have said this:
After all, it was Abraham Lincoln himself who proclaimed on June 2, 1861, that "The problem with information that you read on the Internet is that it is not always true."
This makes no sense because there was no such thing as the Internet for more than a century after that. The Internet began in 1969. What is this supposed to mean?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's a meme. It is supposed to represent the fact that you can't believe everything written on the Internet...including things Lincoln said. Knitsey (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can buy fake historical markers, metal plaques with the text: "On March 2, 1836 Texas declared her independence from Mexico. Wild Comanches roamed the plains, Rangers protected frontier settlements, and this building was not here yet." -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Has the word "meme" replaced the word "joke" in 2024? The kernel of truth in the joke/meme is that Lincoln was an enthusiastic user of the telegraph during the American Civil War, and the telegraph was the earliest form of instant network communication over long distances that eventually led to the internet over a century later. Here's more information. Cullen328 (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The telegrams Lincoln was interested in were from U.S. military people and eyewitness war correspondents. Not sure how relevant that is to sifting through unverified information from random unknown people, which is the characteristic of the Internet age... AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you look into Lincoln's relationships with his generals, you can see that he was very interested in sorting out poor quality telegrams from better ones. A big part of the reason that Lincoln fired George McClellan as Commanding General of the U.S. Army is because McClellan's telegrams to Lincoln were inaccurate, evasive and dismissive. Part of the reason that Lincoln backed Ulysses Grant so enthusiastically as Commanding General toward the end of the war is that Grant's telegrams to Lincoln were responsive, accurate and respectful, and that Grant carried out Lincoln's strategic vision that was communicated to his generals largely by telegram. Plus, Grant was racking up major victories. Cullen328 (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't have specific knowledge of the item, but from what I have read, a great many artifacts in the Middle East (and doubtless elsewhere) are illegally excavated (or stolen) and sold on the black market, necessarily without secure provenance - greatly reducing their archeological value, of course. Some of these eventually reach the hands of bona fide scholars, but many are reluctant to even refer to them because they fear it will encourage more thefts.
In some cases, it may be possible by various methods, such as soil analysis, matching of other known fragments, etc., to show where such an artifact likely came from. The long-missing 10th ossuary from the Talpiot tomb, recently shown by soil-residue analysis to be the controversial James Ossuary, is a case in point. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I think this is a translation of the article in Hindi that an IP editor added to the article after I posted this request. (I think they came from here.) I'll cite this one as well, pending probably more complete obituaries to come over the coming days and weeks. (Also it seems he died at home in Jhansi.) –jacobolus(t) –jacobolus(t)16:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is a preference (I think) to highlight on the Main Page only articles of a good standard (though not necessarily only those rated as WP:GA). Radha Charan Gupta is fairly short (though not a stub) and is currently rated 'Start-class', which may perhaps need revisiting.
If anyone has the expertise and time to rapidly expand the Article, it would probably improve its candidacy for 'In the news.' {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Non-governmental organization: While there is no fixed or formal definition for what NGOs are, they are generally defined as nonprofit entities that are independent of governmental influence—although they may receive government funding.[11] According to the UN Department of Global Communications, an NGO is "a not-for profit, voluntary citizen's group that is organized on a local, national or international level to address issues in support of the public good".[5] The term NGO is used inconsistently, and is sometimes used synonymously with civil society organization (CSO), which is any association founded by citizens.[12] In some countries, NGOs are known as nonprofit organizations while political parties and trade unions are sometimes considered NGOs as well.[13]
Latest comment: 21 hours ago4 comments4 people in discussion
On Spanish wikipedia article es:Leander it mentioned that the ship was finished in 1799, with data consistent with [19]. We have an article on Leander (1799 ship). Is this the same ship? The Spanish article has nothing between 1799-1803, the English article has nothing beyond 1801. -- Soman (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It seems unlikely. I cannot read Spanish fluently, but the ship in the Spanish article appears to have been built in Greenock, Scotland, and had a 200 ton displacement, while that in this Wikipedia was built on the Thames and had a 429 or 439 ton displacement. Other details also appear to differ. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Have there been any academic monographs or papers on the concept in myth (eg Egyptian "ka mut-f", the "bull of his mother") or history (eg 1 Corinthians 5)? The term is today energetic yet meaningless; in the past not so.
Temerarius (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The "his father's wife" in the Bible passage presumably refers to his STEP-mother. I bet there's a huge literature on Oedipus, from Greek plays to Freud etc etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oedipus reflected cultural anxiety about eventual incest risk from infant exposure (not resulting in death,) which was a legitimate concern at the time. That and the later Freudian ideas were quite isolated from the mythic phenomenon. And quite unlike eg Xwedodah.
Latest comment: 20 hours ago10 comments6 people in discussion
The sorting hat classified incoming Hogwarts students as brave (Gryffindor), hardworking (Hufflepuff), intellectually curious (Ravenclaw), or ambitious (Slytherin). Maybe I'm reading too much fanfiction but I find myself applying those patterns to real life, e.g. "such-and-such jerk [politician or tech tycoon] is a real Slytherin".
Just how stupid is this? Some other schemes like Myers-Briggs are considered bogus but I see there are mappings online between that and Hogwarts houses.(personalityunleashed.com/16-personality-types-as-hogwarts-houses/) On the other hand, the five factor model is for some reason taken more seriously. Is there any reason to think Rowling was actually onto something with the sorting hat? E.g. does it reflect any known research before or after? For that matter is the whole industry of personality classification bogus? Four temperaments has some other schemes listed that I haven't looked into yet. It's hard to navigate web search results about Harry Potter because of all the merchandising that it finds. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:8C8A (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Certainly not all when they start their careers; many are driven by ideals rather than ambition. But those that do not nourish the Slytherin aspect of their (presumably pluripotent) personalities will usually not survive for long in the political ecosystem, so there is an effective sieve. --Lambiam23:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The categories are not mutually exclusive; I know more than a few people who are both hardworking and intellectually curious. And some folks fit in none of these categories yet are good people. We probably all know people that fit well in one of these prototypes, but I can think of many other prototypical categories: shy; indecisive; entitled and quarrelsome; nurturing; self-effacing. Rowling's categories are merely four spots in a vast sea of possibilities, deftly chosen because they serve the narrative well. --Lambiam00:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
People are famously complicated and categorizing them to ease the mental burden of understanding them is a perennial impulse. Unfortunately, these simplifications are always wrong and often harmful. "There are x kinds of people" isn't a something you hear from Plotinus and Wittgenstein, rather t-shirts. Rowling's now cemented legacy shows her dumber than a t-shirt: she made her eponymous a cop and she made herself a common hatemonger.
The hat doesn't say each person belongs in exactly one category. Rather, each house requires certain attributes, and students with the attributes for than one house can discuss that with the hat and make their own choice, but of course they retain the attributes. Harry Potter in the JKR books was seen as both courageous and capable of greatness, so the hat offered him Slytherin and Gryffindor. Yeah JKR is looking feeble these days, but even when the HP books were first published, they weren't very good. I read the first few of them and gave up. I find that lots of HP fanfiction is simply better than the Rowling books. Re politicians I'd say e.g. Trump is Slytherin but also has some Gryffindor attributes. I mean the guy is brazen. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:8C8A (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
So according to you, anyone who stands up for the rights of women (in sports, prisons etc) is a "common hatemonger"? That's certainly a point of view. And whatever Rowling's literary merits or demerits, she got millions of tween and teen boys reading, when otherwise they would have been playing videogames. Meanwhile, someone who has read the first third of the first Harry Potter book should know that Rowling was not setting up four mutually-exclusive categories -- as the anonynmous IP mentioned, the Sorting Hat said Harry could go into either Gryffindor or Slytherin, and seemed to be leaning a little toward Slytherin (but Harry strongly preferred Gryffindor)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
iirc the hat also made ludicrously bad mistakes, despite portraying itself as infallible. The whole "your fate is sealed, but the guy deciding fate is a bit insane" thing is a pretty common British childrens lit trope, as is especially the horrific-orphan-origins-with-abusive-adopted family thing. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There do exist personality tests in psychology, with actual "sorting" of sorts. A bit of an overview of the tests that I found for free on NIH from Silverman. For example, you can see all the things MMPI has been adjusted and re-adjusted to have as its personality axes. There's also the Rorschach Test, which is not supposed to measure anything about how you think, but just to place you into population buckets (and that's pretty much what all clinical personality tests are doing, and arguably what all population-calibrated tests do in general). Then those population buckets are correlated to quite a bit of medically relevant information, like pharmacological response or prognosis, which can hopefully guide treatment.
It's not destiny, and it says little to nothing about your actual personality -- it's just that your honest score on a psychology test groups you with population A, and population A is correlated to study subpopulation outcomes X, and importantly the test is shown to be predictive and stable. Contrast those statistically important criteria that validate the tests above to, say, what has been determined about Myers–Briggs Type Indicator testing, and hopefully you'll start to get a feel for what "real" vs "fake" "personality testing" is supposed to do (afaiu). SamuelRiv (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion
During the later years of French Algeria, was the region divided into provinces, or was it merely regions and departments like in the rest of France? The French Algeria article doesn't use the word "province" except for an event in 1847, and its "Government and administration" section doesn't really address geographic subdivisions. Departments_of_France#Former_departments mentions several in Algeria, but I'm unsure whether provinces existed too.
Context: 1954 Chlef earthquake begins by saying that the earthquake happened in a specific province of French Algeria. I'm uncomfortable with this introduction, because it's anachronistic unless provinces existed in Algeria in 1954. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In 1954 there were still only three départements in Algeria (Alger, Oran and Constantine), approximately covering the northern third of the country; the vast and sparsely populated southern regions were simply unorganized territory (the linked article about former French départements had a map). It would be anachronistic to refer to a post-1957 département or province in an article about an event in 1954. Xuxl (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unlikely, since it was published in 2006 by a prominent publisher (Routledge), and while it seems not to be currently available from them, is recent enough that they would come down hard on any pirate online publication. Second-hand copies are likely available from the usual sources. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
My annoyance insists that I note surprise at a book published 1940 not yet belonging to the public. It's offensive to the ideals of humanism and scholarship. But my thanks to those who investigated the question. Temerarius (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I've seen an odd claim on a couple pages that Set(h) and Sutek were separate and independent gods later merged. Presuming this is false (to me it resembles a cultural-ideological denial) why would someone want to claim so? I'm not sure what culture-ideology would be against a common origin, as the Biblical Seth is--obviously he must have a connection to the Egyptian Seth, but nobody bothers making that argument. So I don't see the motivation from that crowd, the typical suspect for claims with a protesting heartiness like this one.
Temerarius (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your question is unclear, and it is unclear which (Wikipedia?) articles you are referring to, but two entities having the same spelling (in English) does not "obviously" mean there "must" be a connection. If you have a reliable source for your claim (essential) I suggest you discuss with other editors on the relevant talk page, presumably Talk:Set (deity). Shantavira|feed me08:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Did I say I was gonna argue it? My question is a matter of curiosity, not Interest.
The name in the Tenakh is שֵׁת, which should be transcribed as Shet or, scientifically, Šet. This does not correspond to the hieroglyphic spellings. --Lambiam08:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Begadkefat likely first occurred in spoken Hellenistic Hebrew (i.e. during the last few centuries BC), under Aramaic influence. Before that time there would not have been any fricative (spirantized) allophones. AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't know that! That does reduce the "obviously" of it. However, there was a fluidity of silibants in and between Egyptian and the Semitic languages early on that sometimes allows imperfectly matching correspondences.
Latest comment: 11 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Are enhanced driver licenses issued by certain US states compliant with REALID? I have read, for example, they will be accepted in the same way as REALID by the Transportation Security Administration at airports, but I haven't found any legislation saying they ARE REALID. My question is prompted by a bill in Congress, Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. (This is a redirect to a section in "Electoral fraud in the United States".) My concern is just because one agency considers them equivalent does not guarantee all federal and state agencies will consider them equivalent. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Resolved
-- AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
![[5]](https://trans.hiragana.jp/ruby/https://imagenes.elpais.com/resizer/v2/PX5BBWVAAJCFNLB4COR4KM2LJA.jpg?auth=0fb8babac50c259a66a448eb8bfb56ff3619622e6de1d24a08f47c0ed6f8a6b2&width=980){kind=link}