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.
The Imperial War Museum, citing the General Record Office (click on "Source"), confirms the forenames and gives his date of birth as 10 April 1892, date of death as the fourth quarter of 1976 and place of death as Slough registration district. --Antiquary (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The beginning of the 1922 book Place-Names of the Province of Nova Scotia (WikiSource link) by Thomas J. Brown contains an extract from an unpublished manuscript by "the late Rev. Dr. Patterson, of Pictou, N.S.". This presumably refers to George Patterson. An article on the history of toponymy in Nova Scotia from 2006 notes that it remains unpublished. It doesn't appear in the finding aid for George Patterson's fonds at the N.S. Archives, nor the Thomas J. Brown fonds at the Beaton Institute. Might be a long shot, but if anyone here is able to track down this lost manuscript, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Enlisting to avoid Vietnam War
During the Vietnam War, my father wanted to avoid going to Vietnam, so he decided to enlist in the US army, guessing that he'd have a better chance of being stationed somewhere without active conflict, like Germany, if he enlisted instead of being drafted. (The draft board gave him a 4-F classification, so he stayed in the US.) Was this a common idea in the early 1970s? And did it have any basis in reality, or did those who enlisted and those who were drafted have roughly equivalent chances of being sent to Vietnam? Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure he enlisted in the army? Some people enlisted in service branches that were unlikely/less likely to be deployed in Vietnam, e.g. the coast guard or national guard. But that would not apply to the army. See the (short) section Enlisting to evade of Draft evasion in the Vietnam War. I also vaguely remember reading somewhere that some people decided to join the military to become officers, assuming that they'll be sent to war anyway and would be better off as officers. Long is the way (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I found this reddit thread which refers to the book Working-class war: American combat soldiers and Vietnam by Christian Appy. The book is on archive.org, but not available for borrowing. However, you can still search it and thereby read the pages including your search terms. Here is a relevant quote from page 46:
Military recruiters often tailored their pitch to the draft-vulnerable. Sign up, and you can pick your branch of service and the kind of training you want -- so went the standard spiel. An army recruiting slogan added the key threat: "Make your choice now -- join, or we'll make the choice for you." Some recruits were won over with smiling assurances that, by volunteering, their odds of going to Vietnam (or at least fighting in combat) were almost nil. These come-ons were rarely backed by guarantees.
Apparently, the US military did its own studies on why people enlisted and found that about half of all voluntary enlistees did so in the hopes that enlisting would give them more control than being drafted. See e.g page 28 and page 46-47. Long is the way (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
January 6
The rich girl and her chi
Hi. I was just wondering: Where does the stereotype of a popular/rich (not always) mean girl having a chihuahua or other small dog as a pet come from? I tought it might be Paris Hilton, but Elle Woods had Bruiser around two years before Paris become the tabloid queen (i might be wrong, after all, she was in Zoolander). ~2025-40048-69 (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be Roger Roberts? I can't find a picture of him from that period, but he looks to be about the right age, and the photo on his Wikipedia article has him in the exact same pose for a ready comparison. Warofdreamstalk23:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
January 7
Nicolae Ceaușescu three-quarter portrait
Ceaușescu in 1965
Nicolae Ceaușescu's cult of personality says that at one time, his public pictures were all the same portrait in which only one ear was visible, but this was changed after the picture became the subject of popular ridicule. What picture was it? The statement has two citations, but unfortunately neither helps; one has no pictures except for that of the author, and the other is offline. The picture at right is from Ceaușescu's article's infobox; is this the picture in question? Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a bit of legend, but in a country where jokes featuring the president's family were dangerous and could land the joker for a night in a cold cell, we should not be surprise if this is how things happened. The standard state image of Nicolae Ceausescu, until 1986-8, the image appearing on official portraits placed in schools and state institutions of all kind, showed a 50-60 something man, his hair a little strewn with grey, in a three-quarters profile, smiling benignantly. There was no flaw at all in this until the time that some person with a sense of humour called this type of portrait 'Ceausescu intr-o ureche' (One-eared Ceausescu). There is nothing inherently wrong with one's picture showing one ear only and there is not something of a cultural taboo to be a one-eared person. But, in colloquial Romanian 'A fi intr-o ureche' means 'being a bit mad' - so the state portrait changed accordingly to a semi-frontal portrait that clearly shows the other ear.[3]
Hello everyone, this is my first time on the reference desk and I was wondering, is there a specific name for the late 1800s-early 1900s style of artwork in Imperial china which had drawings take on a from that made them look like drawings, for example this image here of Liu Guangdi#/media/File:Liu Guangdi.jpg or the various photo-like drawings of Empedor Guangxu (Guangxu Emperor#/media/File:EmperorGuangxu.jpg). I’m just curious as to why this whole Photo-like drawings was a movement in china, or whether I’m making it sound more of a movement than it actually was. Thanks. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, that retouched image does appear similar, perhaps it was sketches, made to resemble paintings (proper coloured portraits), whilst being retouched, not sure, I’ll try look more into this style, thanks. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I don’t know much about photography and artwork but I did look into that halftone print and it was interesting, could it also be an imitation of film grain, to look like a real photo, although I’m not sure why that would be in use, perhaps the Chinese didn’t want to photograph their rulers and officials and so instead made photo-like drawings, whilst probably obscuring unfavourable details which a photo would pick up. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit vague. For example, Tesla pledged that it would not litigate anyone using their patented technology "in good faith." I consider that a somewhat waiving of patent rights. Google pledged it wouldn't litigate their mapping patents in a similar way, requiring the user to be doing honest work. Toyota and IBM both offered many patents royalty free. So, they kept the rights, but did not charge for using them. Renault is following Volvo's example with their fireman access patent which allows firefighters to put out a battery fire in minutes rather than hours. Anyone can, and should use it, so it is free to use. ~2026-29536 (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That specific patent wasn't waived in any way. It expired, which put it in the public domain. Also, to be complete, Dennis Ritchie developed it, but it was an AT&T (Bell) patent. That gets into why it was considered "waived." AT&T was forbidden from competing in the computer market due to the 1956 Consent Decree. As such, charging a license for setuid use would have legal entanglement that was, apparently, not worth the trouble. ~2026-29536 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.
Because news sources are merely, famously, the first draft of history. Wait for a better source to publish sober analysis of the events and then use that as a source. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to read an explanation here? If private persons were able to research this - what does media block from it? How long is that "sober analysis" supposed to take? Wikipedia obviously cannot wait with creation of an article, and now the topic is breaking - not later. --KnightMove (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, until a formal investigation determines otherwise, the official position is and will remain that the shooter acted in self-defence, being in imminent grave danger and having no actionable other means of defence. ‑‑Lambiam12:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this claim is totally wrong even from the evidence available yet, which is why quoting this manual gets actual importance. --KnightMove (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the media report that the shooter did not act in self-defence, quoting from the manual is (IMO) pointless. I also have a faint hope that the general public recognizes the fact – also without quoting from the manual – that armed law enforcers do not have the right to kill people on the spot for not obeying orders. ‑‑Lambiam13:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up question: It seems that the entire Department of Justice Policy On Use Of Force - and with it the URL - were adopted in 2022. I assume there were antecedents? Is there a way to find them? --KnightMove (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
World famous novelist Charles Dickens had ten children. Each child has a page in Wikipedia. Is that some kind of record? (Person with the greatest number of famous children.) Ifyoucrydon'tlose (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to find someone who both has more children and whose children have a wikipedia article each. Here's one example: Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. But is it a meaningful record? History is full of people famous for being famous, and being the child of a famous person is a head start down that road. I think the definition of fame is too subjective to make it a good record. Not that it's a bad question to wonder if great achievements run in families, just that there might not be a satisfying answer. ~2025-43410-48 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For which reason, Dickens' list is more impressive. Most royalty is prima facie notable and it's normally trivial to find three or four reasonable sources for every princeling in the docket, even if their actual achievements were nil. So, all of a king's/queen's children having articles is standard and we only have to find the one with the most kids, which I believe is the aforementioned Charlotte (scanning through List of people with the most children). For non-royal kids to all get articles is more singular, especially for all the kids to do so. Matt Deres (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. Why is the english taught in schools as a second language usually british english? ~2025-40048-69 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When the UK was in the European Union, all EU countries were supposed to teach British English, though I think that was often not observed, especially in Germany, where they mostly seem to use AmEng. I'm pretty sure Latin America all teaches American English, also Japan. Other places once touched by the British Empire mainly teach BrEng I think. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even now the UK has left the EU, for most Europeans the UK is still the nearest English speaking country. I think the UK is the only English speaking country most Europeans are likely to visit during their life. British English is also well represented in European mass media. On the other hand, Ireland is still in the EU. Should we switch to Irish English?
We have some gap-year students at my workplace; the Germans have learned British English at school but have picked up a lot of Americanisms through popular culture and social media. Those from Latin America have (not surprisingly) learned American English. Alansplodge (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My denomination has missionaries in South Sudan, and there's a mission school on site that teaches English among other subjects; the mission team has been a combination of Americans, Australians, and Canadians, and it's in a poor area (even for South Sudan), so I suspect (1) the area has no linguistic standards for education, and (2) they teach North American English because the majority of the missionaries speak it. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reach of the British Empire is the obvious reason why British English is the dominant language taught as a second language through much of the world. However, American English is the dominant language heard through most of the world due to the reach of American media. That, in itself, reinforces use of British English in education. American English is viewed as a lower class, dumber version of English and students should be learning proper English. I ran in to this in my travels. Anecdote: I was in a tiny town (I didn't even know the name of it) in Spain. Nobody spoke a lick of English. I had to use the bathroom. I saw a building with a sign "English" on it and decided to pop my head in to ask about a bathroom. It was a language school and the teacher was in the middle of an English class. She let me use the bathroom in exchange for asking me to say things so she could explain to the students why my American English is a terrible offense to the language and should never be used. But, after the class, the students offered to buy me a snack if they could talk "Hollywood-style" English with me. ~2026-29536 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
January 11
Painting in the Cour de Cassation
salle d'audience de la première chambre civile de la Cour de cassation
"Justice" or the "Republic of France", I would imagine. Once again, I don't know why you ask here instead of the VA project, where someone might actually know. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The painting does not show any of the usual accoutrements of Lady Justice. Here is a larger image of the painting. The mantle, azure semé-de-lis, is evocative of the coat of arms of France as a monarchy, while the crown of the lady could be the crown of a queen, and orbs were used as hand-held regalia. It is therefore tempting to think that the painting depicts an actual queen; however, French royal consorts were commonly not depicted as wearing a crown. Also, the blue orb with golden stars likely symbolizes the celestial sphere and is therefore unlikely to represent worldly power. The lady's right hand pointing upwards may also indicate a higher virtue. ‑‑Lambiam11:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are many more clues. There's a prominent helmet and breastplate at the top right which must indicate something military, and on the left-hand side several suggestions of music. Surely that's sheet music in the bottom left corner, behind that a globe, and behind that again might be a lute or some such. Above it, to the left of the lady's hand, is that some sort of dulcimer? Above the lady's hand is a hammer (why a hammer?) and the ends of two musical pipes, perhaps the pipes of a cornemuse. I can't think of any allegorical subject which could use all of those, so I'm thinking the lady is a real person, perhaps a historical figure connected with the royal house. But who? --Antiquary (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pah! She sits under a huge stucco "RF" (Republique Francaise) and is certainly nothing to do with the French monarchy. I'm impressed you can get that much detail out of the pic though. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the mantle has a ermine lining, traditionaly used for coronation cloaks. The carved RF is not part of the painting and can date to later centuries. ‑‑Lambiam21:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A non-republican personification of France? Perhaps the "RF" and the painting aren't contemporaneous. Unless I'm mistaken this image from 1899, during the Dreyfus Affair, is of the same part of the room and shows a different painting in that spot – a Crucifixion, which also seems incongruous right beneath the "RF". That would suggest that the painting in that spot has been changed at least once in the room's history. Ham II (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a virtual 3D tour of the room with information at [4]. The thing is not a painting but tapestry, made at Gobelins Manufactory in 1826, put in place at the Court in 1904. It's called La France médiévale. The explanation says that "'RF' and 'La France médiévale' form a diptych which conveys the following message: whatever the institutional regime, justice will be rendered in a stable manner at the Court". --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell (which may not be far enough) this work has never been translated into English, and I cannot find a reliable plot summary of it. You might have to ask on the French Wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org) where someone who has read it in the original might reply. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Though sometimes a work of complete fiction will claim to be based on a true story to add to its effect on the reader, even though it is not. From what I gather of Jacolliot, it's the sort of thing he might have done, though not having a translation of the novel (and being unwilling to purchase a French copy for study) I do not claim that he actually did so. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this question on both the French WP and here, but am unable to find a satisfying answer. While some of Jacolliot's non-fiction works about religion in India have been reprinted fairly recently, his novels have not. The most recent edition of Les ravageurs de la mer that I could find was dated 1895. It is available digitally through the Bibliothèque nationale de Francehere, but that edition (the original 1890 edition) has no foreword or any indication by the author about his sources. Going through the list of chapters and quickly glancing at the text, it looks like a second-rate imitation of Jules Verne and seems entirely fictitious. I couldn't find any critical or academic writing about the book anywhere, and it seems like Jacolliot as a writer of fiction is not a subject of academic study. I did find a bit about him from a blogger about adventure novels here, but that particular title is not even mentioned. So, if there is a factual basis to the story, no one seems to have looked into the matter. Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Berners Street hoax of 1810 involved someone sending a wide array of people requests to visit a specific London house and conduct business there. Many of the people in question were merchants who brought their goods, including waggons of coal, an organ, and a dizzying array of seafood. At the time, would it have been unusual for the wealthy to order some kind of product, to be paid for upon delivery? For many of these products — especially custom things such as the wedding cakes — I would have anticipated delivery to have been made only after the recipient or a servant had visited the seller's shop and paid, but that didn't happen in this instance. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From my (moderately extensive) readings of fiction written in, and a little non-fiction written about, 19th-century England over the last 60 years, it would have been quite usual for such things to be ordered for payment on delivery (or later). It was also usual for the middle and upper classes to pay all or some of the money owed to any retailer they regularly patronised by monthly bill in arrears (as utilities bills, for example, are still usually paid today). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems (although not without dispute) that the house in question was chosen at random. At this time, how would one ascertain the name of the resident of a house? Was it acceptable to knock on the door and ask the porter his mistress' name? Were owners' names commonly displayed on a house's façade? Were there rudimentary urban directories? Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; Mark Twain's story of The Million Pound Bank Note recounts how a destitute traveller in 19th century London is able to obtain the highest quality clothing, food and accomodation, just on the presumption that he was fabulously rich.
By the way, in 1970s London, my mother had a weekly order of groceries delivered by the local corner shop, which she paid for the next time she was passing, sometimes a couple of weeks in arrears. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trade directories go back to the 17th century in London, and by 1810 were far from rudimentary.[5] I've often used directories from roughly that date which listed the gentry as well as businesses. As for displaying the owners' names on the façade, how vulgar! --Antiquary (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
January 12
Objective of Renee and Becca Good
As of the evidence available so far: What did Renee and Becca aim for when she parked her car across the street? Observe ICE, obstruct ICE? Ok, but what exactly was ICE doing, and what did they want to achieve? Which cars attempted to go where? Were other ICE vehicles involved other than Ross' car in front of them, and the truck approaching with the two more officers confronting her? Did her actions block non-related cars, and if so, what was the purpose of her action? I fail to find a coherent explanation. --KnightMove (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In a statement, Becca Good wrote, "On Wednesday, January 7th, we stopped to support our neighbors. We had whistles. They had guns."[6] But does it matter (to the enormity of the killing) why they were parked there? ‑‑Lambiam19:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What did Jonathan Ross aim for when he stepped in front of her car? Observe her, kill her? I fail to find a coherent explanation. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed he obviously prepared to shoot already before he walked in front of the car again, switching his mobile phone from the right hand to the left, freeing the right hand to draw the gun a few seconds later. This may be used as an argument for murder. As of now, Killing of Renee Good does not mention this fact, but with a quick search I also do not find a citable source that does. --KnightMove (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ross was walking around the car, shooting a video of it from all sides. Is there footage on which he can be seen switching his mobile phone from the right hand to the left before he steps in front of the car? ‑‑Lambiam23:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can see it very obviously in his own video when he is still at the right side of the car. You see his left hand and his filming direction getting out of focus during the switch. All later moments were obviously stable filming in the same (left) hand until the shooting. --KnightMove (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And while this CNN collection of videos exactly misses the point in time when he switches his phone, there really can't be any doubt: Ross switched his phone when going back to his car - keeping recording the Goods as good as possible and not recording what he's doing now with his right hand in his car. --KnightMove (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, meanwhile I am satisfied with the explanation that they just wanted to raise attention on the event. Positioning the car like that may not have had a too sophisticated motivation on its own. --KnightMove (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Wreck of the Napoleon Canavero
In the short story "A Derelict" by John Arthur Barry, collected in his In the Great Deep (Methuen, London, 1896), we read a tale of a derelict in the doldrums, the skeleton of an officer bound to her mizzenmast, and her hold full of human bones, the remains of her cargo of coolies, killed by grapeshot from within the ship. The narrator finishes by saying:
Happening, some months after our curious experience, to be in Canton, and chancing to mention the occurrence to one of the “agents” then employed to procure coolie labour, he remarked: “With the exception of the figurehead, your description would suit to a nicety a vessel that sailed from Macao bound for the Peruvian coast so long ago as April 1866. She carried nearly six hundred coolies under an eight years’ agreement, and has never been heard of since. Her name was the Napoleon Canavero, But her figurehead was that of an armed man, so that it must have been some other ship.” Shortly after this came the news that the crew of the Napoleon Canavero had mutinied, and set fire to the vessel before leaving her, thus consigning the whole of the unfortunates who composed her cargo, together with her officers, to a horrible death.
Our article List of shipwrecks in March 1866 says "The ship was abandoned by her crew, who had been overpowered by the coolies on board. They were rescued by Madeira ( Hamburg). Napoleon Canavero was on a voyage from Hong Kong to Havana, Cuba." and references "Shipping Intelligence". Caledonian Mercury. No. 23980. Edinburgh. 9 May 1866, which says:
HAMBURG, May 5.-The Madeira, of this port, Polack, arrived at Saigon 17th March from Hong Kong, and landed ten men of the crew of the Napoleon Canevaro (Ital. ship), from Macao to Havana (with coolies), whom she had picked up at sea. The coolies had revolted and overpowered the crew, who were obliged to take to their boats.
A search in the British Newspaper Archive returns an article published in both the Liverpool Journal of Commerce for 4 July 1867 and the Oxford University Herald for 6 July 1867 which says:
A frightful disaster happened in April, 1866, when 550 Chinamen were burned to death on board the ship Napoleon Canavero, in a conflagration purposely kindled by some mutineers.
So - what actually happened on the Napoleon Canavero? Was it the crew or the coolies who mutinied? Was she ever found? I have searched under both spellings Canavero and Canevaro. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books for "Napoleon Canavero" (maybe combined with "White Falcon", the name of the ship prior to 1864) has a few results, although they mostly repeat each other. Most state that it was the coolies who mutinied who were then locked below deck. Note that any account of what happened would have come from the survivors, i.e. crew members. From what I gathered the ship was Peruvian (not Italian) after it had been bought in 1864. The route is mostly given as China to Callao. If the ship burned and sank mid-ocean, then chances are probably rather slim of finding her. See e.g. [7] or [8]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some of the sources that show up on a google books search. Most accounts say either that the "coolies" set fire to the ship in order to lure the crew down to put out the fire allowing them to overwhelm them and take control of the ship, or that the "coolies" mutineered but were driven below deck and locked in and set the ship on fire after the crew abandoned ship (although it's not clear to me why the crew would abandon ship after regaining control).
An account in a relatively recent book (2016) Ships, Swindlers, and Scalded Hogs. The Rise and Fall of the Crooker Shipyard in Bath, Maine. by Frederic B. Hill:
In March and April 1866, White Falcon/Napoleon Canavero was transporting 650 laborers from Macao, China, to the mines on Peru's Chincha Islands. In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, the laborers, or coolies as they were then called, staged a mutiny to protest crowded conditions, very common in that trade. The ringleaders set a fire belowdecks, thinking the crew would come down to put it out. But the captain and crew locked the hatches tight. All 650 coolies and a few of the crew, including its doctor, perished in the ensuing inferno, while the captain and most of the forty-man crew escaped in lifeboats. One account in a New York newspaper reported that the ship was carrying eight thousand boxes of firecrackers and that the small fired led to an explosion that sank the vessel. page 223
Maybe the idea that the crew mutineered and set the ship on fire comes from the assumption that the "coolies" would not set the ship on fire, given that it would mean their own death. Long is the way (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The accounts are mutually contradictory. If we had first-hand accounts of survivors, a careful comparison might help to reconstruct the (presumably hectic and chaotic) events. A below-deck fire that survivors believed to have been started intentionally may also have broken out accidentally and may have triggered the chain of events. ‑‑Lambiam19:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I consulted the Internet Archive with this result, from which I picked out some of the older sources:
In the winter of 1865 the captain of an Italian ship, the Napoleon Canavero, when the Chinese became rebellious, drove them below by force of arms and fastened down the hatches. The Chinese, rather than be suffocated to death, set fire to the ship. The Italians, finding they could not extinguish the flames, abandoned the ship without opening the hatches, and the whole of the Chinese on board are supposed to have in this awful way perished.
In the case of the Napoleon Canavero (formerly the White Falcon, well known in the California trade) the crew was unable to cope with the fire and deserted the ship with the coolies battened down below, so that they all, to the number of 650, perished most awfully.
Thank you all! I suppose we can never know for sure the course of events, but to abandon a burning ship with the hatches battened and hundreds of your fellows below seems pretty poor, whoever kindled the fire. DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Desegregation of Atlanta schools
Is it true that Georgia state law, passed in 1870, required racial segregation in schools with equal funding for black and white schools. Atlanta City Council failed to provide school buildings compliant with racial separation laws, so the American Missionary Association received state support for educating black students.? Or, to put it more bluntly: is this student draft salvageable? (Draft:Desegregation of Atlanta schools)
One of the primary sources is Courage to Dissent: Atlanta and the Long History of the Civil Rights Movement, which looks pretty good to me; most of part 3 is about Atlanta school desegregation. But an undergrad thesis is used a lot, and several of the specific claims I looked at seem unsupported by the cited source. (For example, I couldn't find support for the claim above, in particular the role played by the Atlanta Board of Aldermen.) This seems likely to be the result of sloppy LLM use.
The topic is clearly notable, so I don't necessarily want to delete it outright, but I don't have the knowledge required to determine if there's enough true information in this draft to save or if we need to start again. This has been on my TODO list for a while since I removed it from mainspace, so I'd really appreciate a more experienced set of eyes. Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning everyone. I'm turning 18 in less than a month and i would like to try clubbing for one night when i am 18. I'm disabled (mild autism), so i might go with an assistant. That said, what is some advice you could give me about clubbing as an autistic person and clubbing in general? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One club is not the same as another club, and one person's notion of having a good time is not the same as another person's. My advice is to do some serious research to guide the selection of the location for your experiment. Do people go there more to get drunk or more to enjoy the social experience? And make sure you like the music genres they play. If you choose to reveal where you live and what you (ideally) hope to get out of the experience, local clubgoers may perhaps be able to offer more specific advice. ‑‑Lambiam16:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Autistic people are going to like the kinds of clubs that suit them as an individual; for some individuals, "No clubs really suit me" can sometimes turn out to be a legitimate answer. I'm not autistic, but in my opinion being there with someone who'll be happy to stay there a long time if you turn out to like it a lot, and equally happy to immediately leave the place with you if you say "Let's go now", might allow you more freedom to choose - knowing you won't be disappointing anyone either way. But that too depends on you and on the places you might go. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article does address the reverse, though the entire article is pretty tightly focused on the UK. But it's probably instructive that they and we could come up with no better name for it than "Marriage with a deceased wife's sister." :-) Matt Deres (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Although, of course, with Henry and Catherine it turned out to be a controversial move, leading to the King's "great matter" and ultimately the English Reformation, based (at least in theory) on the prohibition of such marriage by Leviticus 20:21 ("And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless."), as a result of which the marriage had only taken place following a papal dispensation. That may suggest that it wasn't particularly common. Proteus(Talk)15:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some interesting inclusions there, and exclusions (a man may not marry his sister or daughter; nothing prohibiting him marrying his brother or son...) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Same-sex marriage was certainly not legal in the UK from 1835 through 1907, the time frame in which the article says the prohibition applied. (I don't know whether it was specifically illegal, and of course the principle of common law is that if something is not illegal then it's legal, but I'm pretty sure you couldn't have contracted such a marriage in practice.) --Trovatore (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see I have the context for this subthread slightly wrong; it's not about marriages prohibited in the UK during that time frame, but about marriages prohibited in the Church of England. But that doesn't really change the point much, since the CoE does not allow same-sex marriage. --Trovatore (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it was a slightly veiled criticism of the CoE for not aligning their theology with civil law? I would normally say that religious bodies are entitled to decide such things by their own criteria. But of course the CoE specifically is historically a creature of the state.... --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that at all, and I'm only now seeing that I accidentally made it look as if I did. I do believe that the people who composed that table only didn't prohibit two men marrying each other because they didn't expect two men would even try to get married, and I jokingly gave other examples of things they also wouldn't have expected anyone to try.
When male homosexual practices were outlawed in the UK in the 19th century, that law did not extend to such practices involving females since (possibly apocryphally) Queen Victoria did not believe such things were possible so she scratched out that part of the bill before giving it Royal Assent. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]06:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Democracy = US Democratic Party
In some US sources from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, "Democracy" (always capitalised) is sometimes used to refer to the Democratic Party or its principles. For example, "He never wavered from his support of Democracy, even when his neighbors waved the bloody shirt". When did this usage start to arise, when did it fade out, was it used throughout the country, and was there an analogous term for the Republican Party?
I've encountered this in county histories from the southern Great Lakes region — especially Ohio and Indiana — from the Sesquicentenary (when they started to get written) to 1925 (cutoff date for PD-US when I was last working in this area). I've not consulted many contemporary sources of other types or from other regions, so I don't know if it began earlier or endured later, or were used in other kinds of works. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The OED, though improving in this respect, still isn't, I think, as authoritative on American English as on British English, but being a one-trick pony in linguistic matters I can do no more than trot it out once again. These are their first usages of the word in the sense of "The principles and policies of the Democratic Party (see Democratic Party n.)":
1800 With this I depart for my native land, where neither the moth of Democracy, nor the rust of Federalism doth corrupt.
W. Cobbett, Porcupine's Works (1801) vol. XII. 110
1825 I am [alleged to be] a deserter from democracy.
H. Clay, Private Correspondence
1879 Q. Do you know of any colored men being converted from Republicanism to Democracy?—A. I don't know of one, sir—not one.
Rep. U.S. Senate Comm. Elections 1878 vol. II. 413
When I do as they say and see Democratic Party n I find that they include the Democratic-Republican Party in their definition, so presumably that's what the 1800 and 1825 usages refer to. They say that this sense of Democracy was "Common before mid 20th cent." The last usage they give is from 2001. They also have an entry for the word in the sense "The Democratic Party and its members. Now chiefly historical", with citations from 1803, 1868, 1891, 1939 and 2010. All this seems to back up what you tell us. --Antiquary (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be that surprising, considering that Volume III: D–E of the New English Dictionary, later retitled OED, was first published in 1897, when this use of "Democracy" with a capital "D" was still very much alive. ‑‑Lambiam10:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of patriotism, what humbug it is; it is a word which always commemorates a robbery. There isn't a foot of land in the world which doesn't represent the ousting and re-ousting of a long line of successive owners.
I wonder how true this is. Is there any place on Earth that has only ever had one "owner" as far as historical records go? Failing that, what place has had the smallest number of "owners"? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]21:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think "as far as historical records go" probably isn't sufficient, and now (more than in Twain's time) it's relatively practical to dig things up and find out. Antarctica is almost certainly right, but at the same time people might complain (at least somewhat legitimately) that Antarctica doesn't count. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Include me in that group. Antarctica has never been owned by any nation, group, corporate entity or community. Parts of Antarctica are administered by various countries, but none of them have ever claimed them as their sovereign land to do with as they please. For the purposes of my question, Antarctica is out of scope. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]10:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As created in 1942–1968 it was all publicly owned and parts (including a national park) are still publicly owned. It saved some land acquisition cost & trouble when building a railway line there (opened 1987–2012): the railway was already planned before the land was created, so the land was never sold. Some land may have been transferred from one government body to another; not sure if that counts as different owners. Flevoland post-dates Mark Twain though. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsey is a volcanic island off the south coast of Iceland that formed in the 1960s and is expected to last until 2100. It has only ever been administered by the Icelandic government, although the article notes that some French journalists landed soon after it appeared and staked a (non-serious) claim of their own. ~2026-31477-0 (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The illustrious author should have phrased his ire in terms of the non-existence of a square foot of never stolen land.
De facto ownership can change by ousting as per Mark Twain, but also by mutual agreement, as between a seller and a buyer. Shouldn't the question be about (owned but) never stolen land, instead of invariant ownership? (There are of course those who think all property, in particular of natural resources, is theft.) ‑‑Lambiam11:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
North Sentinel Island, perhaps, depending on how you measure 'ownership' and 'ousting'? I'm not aware that there are any known human inhabitants prior to the ancestors of the current occupants around 3,000 years ago. It has in that time been declared to be part of, successively, the Chola Empire, the British Empire and the Republic of India; but none of them attempted to occupy the island or exert any significant influence over its ancient inhabitants.
I suppose almost everywhere (except perhaps volcanic islands, as above) was taken by humans from non-humans at some point, given that humans have not always existed. TSP (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To take an absurd argument to its (il)logical conclusion, the Garden of Eden -- repossessed by The LandLord -- might be the best example of territory not conquered by another. Antarctica and reclaimed lands may well have been occupied during the Ice Age ... DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Since at least the tenth century, no outside power has ever occupied or governed Bhutan (notwithstanding occasional nominal tributary status)" - the country's history before that is in the realm of legend, see History of Bhutan. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rethink your assumptions: White population shares, 2020 (mostly) –
Augusta (94.1%), Helena (93.3%), Montpelier (87.2%), Pierre (85.1%), Concord (84.5%), Bismark (83.8%), Bosie (78.9%), Olympia (78.4%), Lincoln (76.5%), Frankfort (75.1%), Jefferson City (74.3%), Cheyenne (73.6%), Madison (71%), Des Moines (64.5%), Topeka (64.2%), Salt Lake City (63.4%), Salem (63.4%), Carson City (63.2%), Omaha (62.3%), Juneau (61%), Kansas City (MO; 59.7%), Tallahassee (57.8%), Denver (54.9%), Lansing (51.4%). DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't jump from this to "white". In these UK stats, "Minority Ethnic" includes, for example, Americans and Australians of all races. From a page deeper in those stats:
"The most sizeable group of Londoners born outside of the UK are those born in India (323,000). The second most common non-UK born country was Romania with a population of 176,000, the third was Poland with 149,000. More Londoners were born in Europe than any other - even when we exclude UK-born Londoners. The number of residents of London born in each continent (to the nearest 50,000) is listed below:"
"In these UK stats, "Minority Ethnic" includes, for example, Americans and Australians of all races." Where did you get this from? As our breakdown of the same stats shows, that 46% (actually 46.2%) is simply the sum of all "non-white" ethnic groups. "White" accounts for the other 53.8%, and includes (as well as "White: British", "White: Irish" etc) "White: Other", which accounts for 14.7% and presumably includes white Americans and white Australians (although as the stats you cite show, there are actually relatively few of each - most "White: Other" respondents would be from other European countries). See also Other White. Proteus(Talk)16:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just my opinion, but I don't think they do; but there is evidence that men and women bite their lips during arousal. I think the licking of the lips derives from that in some kind of form, perhaps more theatrical or a kind of representation referring to the biting of lips. In some people there even appears to be a biting of the lips that is involuntary of sorts, but that's just my own hypothesis. There are also memes and advertisements that play on the biting of the lips to show attraction or arousal. Then again, I did know someone in the theatre who strangely enough, licked their lips to show arousal in playful conversation, and I even got her on film doing it, but I think she was just acting (striking a pose). Keep in mind that when people do something, it doesn't necessarily mean it is real. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: as luck would have it, I re-watched The Stuff last night (not by choice, for a GA review), and it turns out that actor Frank Telfer has a scene closer to the beginning of the film, where he looks at The Stuff and noticeably mugs the camera by licking his lips, indicating his "hunger" for the food product. So I think somewhere along the way, this idea of licking your lips to mean hunger for food was adapted for desire in theater and storytelling. It is also a common image in film and television, although its use by men and women tends to differ based on several variables. So no, I don't believe men and women naturally do this during arousal. It's an image that spread through media and culture. But biting the lips, that's another discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In Coventry, England, the average amount of beer and ale consumed was about 17 pints per person per week, compared to about three pints today; nationwide, consumption was about one pint per day per capita.... English sailors received a ration of a gallon of beer per day, while soldiers received two-thirds of a gallon. ... While current beers are 3–5% alcohol, the beer drunk in the historical past was generally 1% or so. This was known as 'small beer'.
Small beer was socially acceptable in 18th-century England because of its lower alcohol content, allowing people to drink several glasses without becoming drunk.
I've also read in some WP article -- unfortunately, I now can't remember which -- of how people used to drink beer/ale for nutrition. [PS: It's in "Ale". Hoary (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)][reply]
[U]ntil the mid-seventeenth century, most people in England were either slightly – or very – drunk all of the time. Drink London's fetid river water at your own peril; most people wisely favoured watered-down ale or beer ('small beer').
(So they avoided water by adding water -- no, let's not get pedantic, and let's instead take "watered-down" to mean "only very mildly alcoholic'.)
But the author doesn't appear to be primarily a historian of health/medical matters, and I find his claim hard to believe. (If it were true, wouldn't visitors from those areas blessed with potable water from wells, springs, etc, have remarked on the sozzledness, incoherence, etc, of Londoners?)
According to this source, one "standard drink" per hour will maintain a BAC of 0.05%, which would make the habitual drinker slightly tipsy. For regular 5% beer, a standard drink is reportedly 12 US fluid ounces (0.35 L), so for 1% beer we calculate a tipsiness-maintaining intake of 60 US fluid ounces (1.8 L), or 7.5 US cups per hour. This far exceeds the rate needed for an adequate fluid intake of say, 3.7 L (15.5 US cups) per day; the quaffer might in fact be in danger of being poisoned by H2O. ‑‑Lambiam09:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent response, Lambiam! An attempt to say something similar in the article would most assuredly be decried as "original synthesis", but it reinforces my hunch that LordPeterII (here) was right and that a search for a debunking from a "reliable source" would be worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone who has studied brewing and briefly worked in a commercial brewery: the reference to small beer being "watered down" is inaccurate.
Beer was and is made by running ('sparging') heated water aka 'liquor' through the 'mash' of crushed gains or 'grist' (essentially porridge) in the 'mash tun', then boiling the resulting solution/suspension or 'wort' in the 'copper' for an hour or two before transferring it (now thoroughly sterile) to a 'fermentation tank' with yeast which then multiplies, "eats" the sugars in the wort, and excretes alcohol and CO2. The amount of alcohol (and hence the strength of the resulting beer) is determined by the amount of sugars in the wort, which now is usually controlled by how much grist is used and how much liquor is washed through it in the single pass or 'gyle'.
In the past, and still today in a few very traditional breweries, the mash in the tun was/is given not one but several – up to four – successive sparges, resulting in successively thinner gyles of wort containing progressively less sugars, eventually resulting in progressively weaker batches of beer. The weakest of these was 'small beer': thus this was not "watered down" (with the potential for contamination Hoary implied above) but merely made from wort with less sugars to be converted into alcohol. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Uh . . . well, numbers formerly known as other numbers, thank you for the informative, fascinating, and wonderfully pedantic explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is the only form of small beer, though. If it's a by-product of stronger beer, it could hardly have been the most prevalent form, unless they were throwing lots of strong beer away. When I used to do historical recreations, our small beer was just beer made quickly, on the scale of a day or two, and we had no way to measure the alcohol content other than assuming. Drinking it all day long kept me quite cheerful, but not so much that anybody would really notice. (The mash also served as a fine breakfast porridge.) Card Zero (talk)20:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere that by the 18th century beer consumption in the UK had declined again - replaced by a dramatic increase in gin consumption. It would be interesting to see per capita consumption rates on that. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have The Time Traveller's Guide to Regency Britain, and it investigates alcohol consumption, but the answers are complicated, of course. For London, in 1793, with the population less than 866,000 (1801 figure) or 1,100,000 including the suburbs, the consumption in millions of gallons per year (this includes consumption by visitors to London) is said to be 84 beer, 10 wine, and 14 spirits. The source is Mazzinghi, State of London, but there's a note I doubt the accuracy of the figure given for spirits. Then it references another source, itself quoting Commons Journals, for the observation that 90% of the nation's gin was produced in London, with the implication of the gin (and residents) being mostly drunk there. Later there's a sub-chapter on alcohol consumption rate, which concludes that consumption (for the whole of Britain) was 20 units per person per week, compared to 18 units in the present day. But that's by official figures as reported to excise men, that is, not including homebrew, moonshine, and rampant smuggling. The author guesses that the real figure might have been closer to that of present day Belarus (33 units). Card Zero (talk)22:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Near the centre of this painting by Floris van Dijck is a thing in the shape of a capital B leaning against a plate. There is another on the plate, with a bite taken out of the bottom. What are they? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same question. There seems to be an R as well as a B—spelling out Brezel/bracellus/bracchiola? A different shape, but pretzels feature in the near-contemporary Still Life with Cheeses, Almonds and Pretzels. In other not dissimilar works, the contents of the platter to the right are identified as serrated (flat) curls of butter. The ?breads? to the left look just like Yorkshire puddings. Next to the pretzels seem to be sugared almonds and other "ragged comfits"; apparently there may be a moral contrast between Lenten pretzels and the rich cheeses, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a mistake to assume they were like modern hard pretzels - they might have been, but may have been like modern crusty rolls, or bagels, and either sweet or not, as some kind of biscuit. In hand-baking, a change in shape is fairly trivial. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably in the image to the left, the P & B are a semi-veiled signature, being the artist's initials, with an E, O, R, I/T, N in there too, all the letters needed (if some are duplicated) to spell his name; what about the Van Dijck? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly RB or BR were the initials of a patron for whom van Dijke painted the picture. But (a) it seems that no-one with them is known to be associated with him, and (b) there may have been no patron, as he came from a wealthy family and may not have needed commissions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-restoration photograph of the putative Marlowe Portrait
The so-called Marlowe portrait was found in poor condition in 1953, and heavily restored soon after. A single photograph was taken of its original condition, which would have significant encyclopaedic value for the article. I've managed to find scans of this photograph online in two forms:
(Both are black and white, which seems likely to be correct given the date.) We could use the cropped version, but it's frustrating when an uncropped version clearly exists. Does anyone have any ideas where to look for the original or a high-quality scan?
Well, the second version comes from Christopher Marlowe: Poet and Spy, which is on archive.org in three copies, page 114. I guess the resolution is slightly better there, when zoomed to maximum. Copyright status, don't ask me. Card Zero (talk)04:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Card Zero - I've extracted the image from that book and added it to the article (see thumbnail right).
It's not amazing quality - it would be fantastic if the photo itself could be found and a good scan obtained, as details like exactly which parts of the writing were visible before restoration are important to the portrait's history - but much better than I'd been able to find, and I think well worth having. TSP (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, without prejudice to Gråbergs Gråa Sång's reply: In the Acknowledgements, on page viii, both the Frontispiece (restored version) and Plate 12 (unrestored) are listed as "copyright Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College Cambridge". -- Verbarson talkedits16:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
