Latest revision as of 20:45, 23 January 2025

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• 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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 11

JeJu AirFlight 2216

Is this the beginning of a new conspiracy theory? On 11 January, the Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board stated that both the CVR and FDR had stopped recording four minutes before the aircraft crashed.

Why would the flight recorder stop recording after the bird strike? Don't they have backup battery for flight recorders? Ohanian (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean JeJu Air Flight 2216? Stanleykswong (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, flight 2216 not 2219. I have updated the title. Ohanian (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It says on[REDACTED] that "With the reduced power requirements of solid-state recorders, it is now practical to incorporate a battery in the units, so that recording can continue until flight termination, even if the aircraft electrical system fails. ". So how can the CVR stop recording the pilot's voices??? Ohanian (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The aircraft type was launched in 1994, this particular aircraft entered service in 2009. It may have had an older type of recorder.

I too am puzzled by some aspects of this crash, but I'm sure the investigators will enlighten us when they're ready. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Having looked into this briefly, it sounds like an independent power supply for the CVR (generally called a Recorder Independent Power Supply/RIPS) was only mandated for aircraft manufacturer from 2010 in the US . I doubt anyone else required them before. So not particularly surprising if this aircraft didn't have one. I think, but am not sure, that even in the US older aircraft aren't required to be retrofitted with these newer recorders. (See e.g. .) In fact, the only regulator I could find with such a mandate is the Canadian one and that isn't until 2026 at the earliest . Of course even if the FAA did require it, it's a moot point unless it was required for any aircraft flying to the US and this aircraft was flying to the US. I doubt it was required in South Korea given that it doesn't seem to be required in that many other places. There is a lot of confusing discussion about what the backup system if any on this aircraft would have been like . The most I gathered from these discussions is that because the aircraft was such an old design where nearly everything was mechanical, a backup power supply wasn't particularly important in its design. The only expert commentary in RS I could find was in Reuters "a former transport ministry accident investigator, said the discovery of the missing data from the budget airline's Boeing 737-800 jet's crucial final minutes was surprising and suggests all power, including backup, may have been cut, which is rare." Note that the RIPS only have to work for 10 minutes, I think the timeline of this suggests power should not have been lost for 10 minutes at the 4 minutes point, but it's not something I looked in to. BTW, I think this is sort of explained in some of the other sources but if not see . Having a RIPS is a little more complicated than just having a box with a battery. There's no point recording nothing so you need to ensure that the RIPS is connected to/powering mics in the cabin. Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The aircraft made 13 flights in 48 hours, meaning less than 3.7 hours per flight. Is it too much? Its last flight from Bangkok to Korea had a normal flight time for slightly more than 5 hours. Does it mean the pilots had to rush through preflight checks? Stanleykswong (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

With this kind of schedule, it is questionable that the aircraft is well-maintained. Stanleykswong (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The OP seems to be obsessed with creating a new conspiracy theory out of very little real information, and even less expertise. Perhaps a new hobby is in order? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Just for info, the article is Jeju Air Flight 2216. This question has not yet been raised at the Talk page there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

...nor should it be, per WP:TALK. Shantavira| 10:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. It's quite a critical aspect in the investigation of the accident. Not sure it's some kind of "conspiracy", however. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

But I suggest it should only be raised if, and to the extent that, it is mentioned in Reliable sources, not OR speculated about by/in the Misplaced Pages article or (at length) the Talk page. On the Talk page it might be appropriate to ask if there are Reliable sources discussing it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Quite. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Have now posed the question there. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Fortune 500

Is there any site where one can view complete Fortune 500 and Fortune Global 500 for free? These indices are so widely used so is there such a site? --40bus (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

You can view the complete list here: https://fortune.com/ranking/global500/ Stanleykswong (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

January 12

Questions

1. Why did the United Kingdom not seek euro adoption when it was in EU?
2. Why did Russia, Belarus and Ukraine not join EU during Eastern Enlargement in 2004, unlike many other former Eastern Bloc countries?
3. Why is Russia not in NATO?
4. If all African countries are in AU, why are all European countries not in EU?
5. Why Faroe Islands and Greenland have not become sovereign states yet?
6. Can non-sovereign states or country subdivisions have embassies?
7. Why French overseas departments have not become sovereign states yet? --40bus (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   I see that UCL offer a course on Modern European History & Politics. Had you considered that, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   1. See: United Kingdom and the euro
   2. Russia, Belarus and Ukraine do not meet the criteria for joining the European Union
   3. If you google "Nato's primary purpose", you will know.
   4. The two do not have logical connection.
   5. They are too small to be an independent country
   6. Non-sovereign states or countries, for example Wales and Scotland, are countries within a sovereign state. They don't have embassies of their own.
   7. Unlike the British territories, all people living in the French territories are fully enfranchised and can vote for the French national assembly, so they are fully represented in the French democracy and do not have the need of becoming a sovereign state.

   Stanleykswong (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Some of the French overseas territories are Overseas collectivities with a degree of autonomy from Paris, whilst New Caledonia has a special status and may be edging towards full independence. I imagine all the overseas territories contain at least some people who would prefer to be fully independent, there's a difference between sending a few representatives to the government of a larger state and having your own sovereign state (I offer no opinion on the merits/drawbacks of such an aspiration). Chuntuk (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Too many questions all at once… but to address the first with an overly simplistic answer: The British preferred the Pound. It had been one of the strongest currencies in the world for generations, and keeping it was a matter of national pride. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

1. See United Kingdom and the euro

2. "... geopolitical considerations, such as preserving Russia’s status as a former imperial power, is more important to Moscow than economic issues when it comes to foreign policy. Russia’s sees relations with the EU to be much less important than bilateral relations with the EU member-states that carry the most political weight, namely France, Germany and, to some extent, Britain. Russia thus clearly emphasizes politics over economics. While NATO enlargement was seen by Moscow to be a very important event, Russia barely noticed the enlargement of the EU on May 1." Russia and the European Union (May 2004). See also Russia–European Union relations.

3. See Russia–NATO relations.

Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

(5) They're too small? Somebody tell Vatican City, Nauru (21 km) and Tuvalu (26 km) they have no business being nations. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

More like economically too weak. From our article on the Faroe Islands: “In 2011, 13% of the Faroe Islands' national income consists of economic aid from Denmark, corresponding to roughly 5% of GDP.” They're net recipients of taxpayer money; no way they could have built their largely underground road network themselves. The Faroe Islands have no significant agriculture, little industry or tourism. The only thing they really have is fishing rights in their huge exclusive economic zone, but an economy entirely dependent on fishing rights is vulnerable. They could try as a tax haven, but competing against the Channel Islands or Cayman Islands won't be easy. Greenland has large natural resources, including rare earth metals, and developing mining would generate income, but also pollute the environment and destroy Greenlandic culture. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

First, because of religious reason, Vatican City is very unique. Second, although it is technically an independent state, according to Article 22 of the Lateran Treaty, people sentenced to imprisonment by Vatican City serve their time in prison in Italy. Third, Saint Peter's Square is actually patrolled by Italian police. Its security and defence heavily relies on Italy. Its situation is similar to Liechtenstein whose security and defence are heavily relies on Austria and Switzerland and its sentenced persons are serving their time in Austria. The key common point of these small states are they’re inland states surrounded by rich and friendly countries that they can trust. Stanleykswong (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

As for Nauru and Tuvalu, the two states located near the equator, they are quite far away from other countries that would pose a threat to their national security. The temperature, the reef islands and the atolls around them provide them with ample natural resources. However, even gifted with natural resources, these small pacific ocean islands are facing problems of low living standard, low GDP per capital and low HDI.

Back to the case of Faroe Islands and Greenland, people of these two places enjoy a relatively higher living standard and higher HDI than previously mentioned island states because they have the edge of being able to save a lot of administrative and security costs. If one day Faroe Islands and Greenland became independent, they will face other problems of independence, including problems similar to the fishing conflicts between UK and Norway. The future could be troublesome if Faroe Islands and Greenland ever sought independence from Demark. Stanleykswong (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone's bored again and expecting us to entertain them. Nanonic (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

40bus often asks mass questions like this on the Language Ref. Desk. Now you get to enjoy him on the Humanities Ref. Desk. The answers to 2, 3, and 4 are somewhat the same -- the African Union is basically symbolic, while the EU and NATO are highly-substantive, and don't admit nations for reasons of geographic symmetry only. AnonMoos (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

January 13

reference behind Maxine_(given_name)

from Season 4 Episode 12 of the West Wing:

They all begin to exit.

BARTLET Maxine.

C.J. That's you.

JOSH I know.

Leo, C.J., and Toby leave.

What is Maxine referencing here? From the context of the scene, it's probably a historical figure related to politics or the arts. I went over the list in Maxine_(given_name) but couldn't find anything I recognize. Epideurus (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

(I asked on the Humanities desk instead of the Entertainment desk because I'm guessing the reference isn't a pop-culture one but a historical one.) Epideurus (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

According to fandom.com: "When the President calls Josh Maxine, he refers to Hallmark Cards character Maxine, known for demanding people to agree with her." . --Amble (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on the cards I see here, Maxine is more snarky than demanding agreement. I don't know her that well, but I think she might even be wary of agreement, suspecting it to be faked out of facile politeness.  --Lambiam 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

More background on Maxine here: https://agefriendlyvibes.com/blogs/news/maxine-the-birth-of-the-ageist-birthday-card Chuntuk (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

January 14

Ministerial confirmation hearings

Is there any parliamentary democracy in which all a prime minister's choices for minister are questioned by members of parliament before they take office and need to be accepted by them in order to take office? Mcljlm (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

No individual grilling sessions, but in Israel the Knesset has to approve the prime minister's choices.  Card Zero  (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Is an occupied regime a country?

If a regime A of a country is mostly occupied by regime B, and regime B is later recognized as the representative of the country, while regime A, unable to reclaim control of the entire country, claims that it is itself a country and independent of regime B. the questio＂n arises: is regim＂e A a country? 36.230.3.161 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about a Government-in-exile? Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This is based on the definition of a country. Anyone in any place can claim to be a country. There is no legal paperwork required. There is no high court that you go to and make your claim to be a country. The first step is simply making the claim, "We are an independent country." Then, other countries have to recognize that claim. It is not 100%. There are claims where a group claims to be a country but nobody else recognizes it as a country, such as South Ossetia. There are others that have been recognized in the past, but not currently, such as Taiwan. There are some that are recognized by only a few countries, such as Abkhazia. From another point of view. There are organizations that claim they have the authority to declare what is and is not a country, such as the United Nations. But, others do not accept their authority on the matter. In the end, there is no way clearly define what is a country, which makes this question difficult to answer. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Taiwan is a country, although I suppose the fact that this has multiple citations says something. (Mainly, it says that the CCP would like to edit it out.)  Card Zero  (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I assumed that everyone was referring to independent countries. I think this is exactly what the question is about. Our article says Taiwan is part of China. China is a country. So, Taiwan is part of a country and not a country by itself. But, the article says it is a country. So, it is independent. It isn't part of China. Which is true? Both? 68.187.174.155 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"Our article says Taiwan is part of China." Where does it say that? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Instead of trying to draft an abstract, do you have a concrete example you're thinking of? --Golbez (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

One should always maintain a distinguish between countries and the regimes administering them. Syria was not the Assad regime – Assad is gone but Syria remains. Likewise, Russia is not the Putin regime. Identifying the two can only lead to confusion.

What makes a geographic region (or collection of regions) a country – more precisely, a sovereign state? There are countless territorial disputes, several of which are sovereignty disputes; for example, the regimes of North and South Korea claim each other's territory and deny each other's sovereignty over the territory the other effectively administers. Each has its own list of supporters of their claims. Likewise, the People's Republic of China and Republic of China claim each other's territory. By the definition of dispute, there is no agreement in such cases on the validity of such claims. The answer to the question whether the contested region in a sovereignty dispute is a country depends on which side of the dispute one chooses, which has more to do with geopolitical interests than with any objectively applicable criteria.  --Lambiam 10:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

At least in part, it depends on other countries agreeing that a particular area is actually a nation and that the government that claims to represnt it has some legitimacy; see our Diplomatic recognition article. For many nations, recognition would depend on whether the Charter of the United Nations had been adhered to. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

One of the peculiarities of the Cold War is the emergence of competing governments in multiple countries, along a more or less similar pattern. We had West and East Germany, South and North Vietnam, South and North Korea and ROC and PRC. The only thing that separates the Chinese case from the onset is that there was no usage of the terms West China (for PRC) and East China (for ROC), since the ROC control was limited to a single province (and a few minor islands). Over time the ROC lost most of its diplomatic recognition, and the notion that the government in Taipei represented all of China (including claims on Mongolia etc) became anachronistic. Gradually over decades, in the West it became increasingly common to think of Taiwan as a separate country as it looked separate from mainland China on maps and whatnot. Somewhat later within Taiwan itself political movements wanted (in varying degrees) to abandon the ROC and declare the island as a sovereign state of its own grew. Taiwanese nationalism is essentially a sort of separatism from the ROC ruling Taiwan. In all of the Cold War divided countries, there have been processes were the political separation eventually becomes a cultural and social separation as well. At the onset everyone agrees that the separation is only a political-institutional technicality, but over time societies diverge. Even 35 years after the end of the GDR, East Germans still feel East German. In Korea and China there is linguistic divergence, as spelling reforms and orthography have developed differently under different political regimes. --Soman (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The difference with Taiwan vs. the other Cold War governments is that pre-ROC Taiwan was under Japanese rule. Whereas other governments split existing countries, Taiwan was arguably a separate entity already. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

For the UK, the long-standing diplomatic position is that they recognise governments not countries, which has often avoided such complicated tangles. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

To further complicate the issue with Taiwan... When the United States had a trade ban with China, most of the cheap goods shipped into the United States had a "Made in Taiwan" sticker. That was OK because hte United States recognized Taiwan as being completely separate from China. It was a bit odd that Taiwan could produce as much as it did. The reality is that they simply made "Made in Taiwan" stickers and put them on Chinese goods before sending them to the United States. When the trade ban was lifted, there was no need to route all the goods through Taiwan. Now, everything has "Made in China" stickers on them and the United States no longer recognizes Taiwan as an independent country. From a simplistic point of view, it appears that the recognition of status was based on convenience rather than political standing. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Photos in a novel

I'm reading a certain novel. In the middle of Chapter II (written in the first person), there are three pages containing photos of the hotel the author is writing about. Flicking through I find another photo towards the end of the book. I think: this must be a memoir, not a novel. I check, but every source says it's a novel.

I've never encountered anything like this before: photos in a novel. Sure, novels are often based on real places, real people etc, but they use words to tell the story. Photos are the stuff of non-fiction. Are there any precedents for this? -- Jack of Oz 20:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, the novel is Forest Dark by Nicole Krauss. -- Jack of Oz 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

IIRC Loving Monsters by James Hamilton-Patterson has some photos in it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Bruges-la-Morte by Georges Rodenbach, 1892. DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I can quickly go to the fiction stacks and pull a dozen books with photos in them. It is common that the photos are in the middle of the book because of the way the book pressing works. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Really? I would like to hear some examples of what you're referring to. Like Jack, I think the appearance of photos in (adult) fiction is rare. The novels of W. G. Sebald are one notable exception. --Viennese Waltz 21:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This post in a blog "with an emphasis on W.G. Sebald and literature with embedded photographs" may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks. So, this is actually a thing. Someone should add it to our List of Things that are Things. -- Jack of Oz 18:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The word "adult" did not come up until you just decided to use it there. I stated that there are many fiction paperback books with a middle section of graphics, which commonly include images of photographs. You replied that that is rare in adult fiction. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Photonovels, you mean?  Card Zero  (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It was assumed that we are talking about adult fiction, yes. --Viennese Waltz 09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I found Photography-Embedded Literature – Annual Lists, 2010-present, a "bibliography of works of fiction and poetry... containing embedded photographs". Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea how to paste a photo in here. What I am referring to is fiction paperback novels. They don't have to be fiction. Some are non-fiction. That is not the point. The book is a normal paperback, but in the middle of the book the pages are not normal paperback paper. They are a more glossy paper and printed in color with pictures. There is usually four to eight pages of pictures embedded into the middle of the otherwise normal paperback novel. It is very common in young adult novels where they don't want a fully graphic book (like children's books), but they still want some pictures. Out of all the novels where there is a graphic insert in the middle, some of the graphics on those pages are photographs. I've been trying to find an image on Google of books where the center of the book is shiny picture papges, but it keeps pushing me to "Make a photo album book" services. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Clarification: "novel" refers only to works of fiction. --142.112.149.206 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you name one adult fiction (not YA or children's) novel which has a section of photographs in the middle? --Viennese Waltz 14:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

So having photos in the middle of a book is quite common in non-fiction (example: I have a bio of Winston Churchill that has photos of him during various stages of his life). Publishers do this to make printing easier (as the photos use a different paper, it is easier to bind them in the middle… and photos don’t reproduce as well on the paper used for text).

It is certainly rarer for there to be photos in works of fiction, simply because the characters and places described in the story are, well, fictional. But it obviously can be done (example: if the fictional story is set in a real place, a series of photos of that place might help the reader envision the events that the story describes). Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I just realized another area for confusion. I was personally considering a any image that looks like a photo to be a photo. But, others may be excluding fictional photographs and only considering actual photographs. If that is the case, the obvious example (still toung adult fiction) would be Carmen Sandiego books, which are commonly packed with photographs of cities, even if they do photoshop an image of the bad guy into them. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Tom Hanks's novel The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece tells a story of adapting a comic book into a movie, and includes several pages of that comic book and related ones. (To be clear, these are fictitious comic books, a fiction within a fiction). Where the comic book was printed in color, the book contains a block of pages on different paper as is common in non-fiction.

...and then of course there's William Boyd's novel Nat Tate: An American Artist 1928–1960, which is a spoof biography of an artist, including purported photos of the main character and reproductions of his artworks (actually created by Boyd himself). As our article about the book explains, some people in the art world were fooled. Turner Street (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

January 15

Refusing royal assent

Are there any circumstances where the British monarch would be within their rights to withhold royal assent without triggering a constitutional crisis. I'm imagining a scenario where a government with a supermajority passed legislation abolishing parliament/political parties, for example? I know it's unlikely but it's an interesting hypothetical.

If the monarch did refuse, what would happen? Would they eventually have to grant it, or would the issue be delegated to the Supreme Court or something like that? --Andrew 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Our Royal assent article says: In 1914, George V took legal advice on withholding Royal Assent from the Government of Ireland Bill; then highly contentious legislation that the Liberal government intended to push through Parliament by means of the Parliament Act 1911. He decided not to withhold assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillising effect on the distracting conditions of the time". Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Not British, but there was the 1990 case of King Baudouin of Belgium, whose conscience and Catholic faith would not permit him to grant assent to a bill that would liberalise Belgium's abortion laws. A solution was found:

• (quote from article) In 1990, when a law submitted by Roger Lallemand and Lucienne Herman-Michielsens that liberalized Belgium's abortion laws was approved by Parliament, he refused to give royal assent to the bill. This was unprecedented; although Baudouin was de jure Belgium's chief executive, royal assent has long been a formality (as is the case in most constitutional and popular monarchies). However, due to his religious convictions—the Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion—Baudouin asked the government to declare him temporarily unable to reign so that he could avoid signing the measure into law. The government under Wilfried Martens complied with his request on 4 April 1990. According to the provisions of the Belgian Constitution, in the event the king is temporarily unable to reign, the government as a whole assumes the role of head of state. All government members signed the bill, and the next day (5 April 1990) the government called the bicameral legislature in a special session to approve a proposition that Baudouin was capable of reigning again.

There's no such provision in the UK Constitution as far as I'm aware, although Regents can be and have been appointed in cases of physical incapacity. -- Jack of Oz 15:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

A more likely scenario in your hypothesis is that the Opposition could bring the case to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom who have the power make rulings on constitutional matters; an enample was Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament in 2019. 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

There is the ability to delegate powers to Counsellors of State. There are restrictions on what powers can be delegated in section 6(1) of the Regency Act 1937, but I don't see anything prohibiting the monarch from delegating the power to grant Royal Assent. He could then temporarily absent himself from the UK (perhaps on an impromptu trip to another Commonwealth Realm) so that the Counsellors of State could grant such Assent during his absence. Proteus (Talk) 15:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Fratelli Gianfranchi

Can anyone find any information about Fratelli Gianfranchi, sculptor(s) of the Statue of George Washington (Trenton, New Jersey)? I assume wikt:fratelli means brothers, but I could be wrong.

References

1. "Daily Telegraph: A New Statue of Washington". Harrisburg Telegraph. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. August 18, 1876. p. 1 – via Newspapers.com. The statue was executed by Fratelli Gianfranchi, of Carrara, Italy, who modeled it from Leutze's masterpiece

TSventon (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

"Fratelli Gianfranchi" would be translated as "Gianfranchi Brothers" with Gianfranchi being the surname. Looking at Google Books there seems to have existed a sculptor called Battista Gianfranchi from Carrara but I'm not finding much else. --82.58.35.213 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The city of Carrara is famous for its marble which has been exploited since Roman times, and has a long tradition of producing sculptors who work with the local material. Most of these would not be considered notable as they largely produce works made on command. Xuxl (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both, it is helpful to have confirmation that you couldn't find any more than I did. For what it's worth, I found Battista Gianfranchi and Giuseppe Gianfranchi separately in Google books. It is interesting that, of the references in the article, the sculptor is only named in an 1876 article and not in later sources. TSventon (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

In the light of the above, the mentions in the article of "the Italian sculptor Fratelli Gianfranchi" should perhaps be modified (maybe ". . . sculptors Fratelli Gianfranchi (Gianfranchi Brothers)"), but our actual sources are thin and this would border on WP:OR.

FWIW, the Brothers (or firm) do not have an entry in the Italian Misplaced Pages, but I would have expected there to be Italian-published material about them, perhaps findable in a library or museum in Carrara. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added the translation for Fratelli Gianfranchi as a footnote. I agree that more information might be available in Carrara. TSventon (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

January 16

Can I seek Chapter 15 protection while a case is ongoing in my home country or after it finished ?

Simple question. I don’t have Us citizenship, but I owe a large debt amount in New York that can’t legally exist in my home country where I currently live (at least where the 50% interest represent usury even for a factoring contract).

My contract only states that disputes should be discussed within a specific Manhattan court, it doesn’t talk about which is the applicable law beside the fact that French law states that French consumer law applies if a contract is signed if the client live in France (and the contract indeed mention my French address). This was something my creditors were unaware of (along with the fact it needs to be redacted in French to have legal force in such a case), but at that time I was needing legal protection after my first felony, and I would had failed to prove partilly non guilty if I did not got the money on time. I can repay what I borrowed with all my other debts but not the ~$35000 in interest.

Can I use Chapter 15 to redirect in part my creditors to a bankruptcy proceeding in France or is it possible to file for Chapter 15 only once a proceeding is finished ? Can I use it as an individiual or is Chapter 15 only for businesses ? 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:6CE2:1F60:AD30:6C2F (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't answer questions like that here. You should engage a lawyer. --Viennese Waltz 09:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Chapter 15 bankruptcy does cover individuals and does include processes for people who are foreign citizens. The basics. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

January 17

Raymond Smullyan and Ayn Rand

Did Raymond Smullyan ever directly discuss or mention Ayn Rand or Objectivism? I think he might have indirectly referenced her philosophy in a a fictional symposium on truthfulness where a speaker says that he(or she) is not as "fanatical" about being as selfish as possible as an earlier speaker who said he himself was a selfish bastard.Rich (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess not. Smullyan wrote so much that it is difficult to assert with certainty that he never did, but it has been pointed out by others that his Taoist philosophical stance is incompatible with Rand's Objectivism.  --Lambiam 12:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

January 18

"The Narrow Way" issued to prisoners in 1916

In his book 112 Days Hard Labour, about prison life in England in 1916, the Quaker Hubert Peet says:

On entry one is given a Bible, Prayer Book, and Hymn Book. In the ordinary way these would be supplemented by a curious little manual of devotion entitled “The Narrow Way,” but at the Scrubs Quakers were mercifully allowed in its place the Fellowship Hymn Book and the Friends’ Book of Discipline.

What was this book The Narrow Way?

I thought the question would be easy to answer if the book was standard issue, but I haven't found anything. (Yes, I'm aware that the title is a reference to Matthew 7:14.) Marnanel (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Letters of a Prisoner for Conscience Sake - Page 54 (Corder Catchpool · 1941, via Google books) says "The Narrow Way , you must know , is as much a prison institution as green flannel underclothing ( awfu ' kitly , as Wee Macgregor would say ) , beans and fat bacon , superannuated “ duster " -pocket - handkerchiefs , suet pudding ... and many other truly remarkable things !" so it does seem to have been standard issue. TSventon (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Google Books finds innumerable publishers' adverts for The Narrow Way, Being a Complete Manual of Devotion, with a Guide to Confirmation and Holy Communion, compiled by E.B. Here's one. Many of them, of widely varying date, claim that the print run is in its two hundred and forty-fifth thousand. Here it's claimed that it was first published c. 1869, and Oxford University Libraries have a copy of a new edition from as late as 1942. Apart from that, I agree, it's remarkably difficult to find anything about it. --Antiquary (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You can buy one on eBay for £5.99. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Fun fact: a copy of The Narrow Way figures in A. A. Milne's novel The Red House Mystery. —Tamfang (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

January 19

Federal death penalty

Is there a list of federal criminal cases where the federal government sought the death penalty but the jury sentenced the defendant to life in prison instead? I know Sayfullo Saipov's case is one, but I'm unsure of any others. wizzito | say hello! 01:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Official portraits of Donald Trump's first presidency

Commons category Official portraits of Donald Trump (First presidency) only contains variations of the portrait with Donald Trump smiling. But Photographs of the official portrait of Donald Trump only contains photos incorporating Trump's official portrait with a vigorous facial expression, which is otherwise not even included in Commons?! This seems inconsistent - what is the background and status of either photo? --KnightMove (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The framed portraits hanging on the wall in these photos are an official portrait from December 15, 2016, of the then president-elect. The one with bared teeth is from October 6, 2017, when Trump was in office. For two more recent official mug shots, look here.  --Lambiam 12:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Do you know why the president-elect photo is not even uploaded in Commons? Shouldn't it be included in commons:Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump (First presidency)? --KnightMove (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The most plausible reason that it was not uploaded is that no one missed it. Among those aware of its existence and having the wherewithal to find it on the Web and to upload it to the Commons, no one may have realized it had not already been uploaded. Or they may not have felt a need; there is no shortage of images in the relevant articles.

Strictly speaking, it does not belong in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump (first presidency), as Trump was not yet president. However, Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump (second presidency) features nothing but lugubrious portraits of the president-reelect.  --Lambiam 22:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

January 20

Trattato delle attinie, ed osservazioni sopra alcune di esse viventi nei contorni di Venezia, accompagnate da 21 tavole litografiche del Conte Nicolò Contarin

I am trying to find the illustration’s description from the original source: Trattato delle attinie, ed osservazioni sopra alcune di esse viventi nei contorni di Venezia, accompagnate da 21 tavole litografiche del Conte Nicolò Contarin including species name and description for these sea anemones: https://www.arsvalue.com/it/lotti/541811/contarini-nicolo-bertolucci-1780-1849-trattato-delle-attinie-ed-osservazio . I requested it on the resource request page but was not able to find where in the source these illustrations are or where their descriptions are. It doesn’t help that I can’t read Italian. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Apparently you need to locate an occurrence of "(TAV VII)" or "(TAV XII)" in the text. --Askedonty (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) References to the illustration are in the form "tavolo VII" or "tav. VII". So, for example, page 99 refers to fig. 1 e 2. The text refers to the development of the actinae being studied without precise identification, specifically to their sprouting new tentacles, not being (contra Spix) a prolongation of the skin of the base, but from parts of the body. The same page has a reference to fig. 3.  --Lambiam 12:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry where are you seeing this page 99 you are referring to? KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to link. It is here (and also here).  --Lambiam 22:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Pu Yi

Although member of the Chinese Communist Party, the last Emperor was an anti-communist and counter-revolutionnair until his death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.179.151 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Block evasion. Dekimasuよ! 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I imagine that during the Cultural Revolution, it was wise to keep one's opinions to one's self. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Jiang Qing did apparently not get the memo.  --Lambiam 22:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Situational strength can give psychological pressure on the individual and affect his or her behaviours. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

January 21

text of executive order

Hi. On 2025-01-20, POTUS signed an executive order titled "Ending Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants". This event has been reported by virtually every major news outlet in the world.

It is now 2025-01-20 9PM Washington time, and I have been trying to find the exact text, or even portions of its text, for a while now, to no avail.

1. Is the full text of this executive order available to the general public?

This Library of Congress site claims that: "All Executive Orders and Proclamations issued after March 1936 are required by law to be published in the Federal Register."

2. Assuming that the above claim is true, is there any requirement or guideline on how quickly an EO is published after it has been signed by POTUS? Epideurus (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind. The full text was posted some time around 2025-01-20 8:45PM Washington time. None of the news agencies reporting before that got the title right, so I'm guessing that the title of the EO was only released when its full text was released. Epideurus (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As I read the order literally, it implies that persons to which birthright citizenship is denied by force of Section 2 (a) of the order can also not be naturalized at a later date (or, if they can, no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing the acquired citizenship).  --Lambiam 10:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Deadline for ratification of amendments to the US constitution

Hello, and thank you for this opportunity to ask the experts. There's been talk recently about the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the US constitution after former president Biden stated the he considered the amendment to be ratified and part of the US constitution, as it had been ratified by 38 states, reaching the bar of three quarters of the states the Article 5 of the US constitution sets.

The National Archives disagreed and pointed to a deadline (later extended) for ratification set by Congress; since the required number of states had not been reached by the final deadline and since the deadline had not been extended further, it said, the amendment could not be considered ratified.

This appears to be plainly at odds with the text of Article Five of the United States Constitution, which contains no mention of Congress being able to impose a deadline, or in fact any other requirement, for the ratification process. The best argument I've seen in non-scholarly sources is, in essence, that "the 5th Amendment is silent on this", but that strikes me as unconvincing. The 5th prescribes a process, and there is no reason (that is readily apparent to me) to presume that this process may be changed by Congress in either direction. Just like Congress may not declare that ratification by one half of the states (rather than three quarters) is sufficient, it may not impose that additional steps must be taken or additional hurdles passed: say, it may not require that four fifths of the states must ratify and that three quarters is not enough. The Constitution prescribes what conditions are necessary for an Amendment to become part of the Constitution — but it also dictates that when these conditions are met, this does happen.

As such I find the National Archives' position to be inconsistent with the Constitution and the 5th, and Congress's attempt to impose an additional requirement in the form of a deadline strikes me as out of line with the Constitution, rendering said additional requirement null and void.

That said, and this is where my question comes in, I am not a legal expert. I haven't studied law, nor do I work in or with law in any way; I am merely curious. And although appeals to authority are fallacious as far as logical reasoning is concerned, I don't doubt that the National Archives (as well as, presumably, Congressional staff) have considered this matter and concluded that yes, a) the imposition of a deadline by Congress, above and beyond the process prescribed by the 5th, is constitutional; b) meeting of said deadline is then an additional condition for ratification; and c) since this deadline has not been met here, the ERA is not part of the Constitution.

And my question is: why? On what legal basis? Surely Congress cannot create additional requirements out of whole cloth; there must be some form of authorization in it. What's more, since we are talking about a process prescribed by the Constitution itself, said authority must itself be grounded in the Constitution, rather than taking the form of e.g. a simple law (Congress cannot arbitrarily empower itself to change the rules and processes laid down by the Constitution).

I would be very grateful if someone with a background in law (professional or otherwise) could explain this to me. Thank you very much! 2003:D5:AF0E:DE00:95C4:DF2F:3B13:850E (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I ain't no lawyer, but as I recall, the deadline was stated within the amendment proposal itself. That was the case with a few other amendments also, but they were ratified within the time limit, so there was no issue. It's possible someone will take this issue to court, and ultimately the Supreme Court would have to decide if that type of clause is valid. On the flip side, there is the most recent amendment, which prohibits Congress from giving itself a raise without an intervening election of Representatives. That one was in the wind for like 200 years, lacking a deadline. When it was finally ratified, it stood. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated! I didn't know the deadline was in the proposal itself. I'm not sure I'm convinced that this should make a difference, since for as long as the proposed Amendment is no part of the Constitution, it really is not part of the Constitution and should not be able to inform or affect other provisions of the Constitution. That said I of course agree that it would take the Supreme Court to decide the issue for good. Thanks again! 2003:D5:AF0E:DE00:C4C7:395C:56A3:A782 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The SCOTUS may be quite busy with executive orders for a while. Quite possible, that the President has to appoint another 6 or 12 judges to cope with all that work load. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The courts in general views these things as political questions. Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The deadline for the ERA was mentioned in a resolving clause before the text of the amendment itself. In other cases, such as the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the deadline was contained in the amendment itself. Whether this makes any practical difference is a question for the courts. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is the National Archives rather than a legal/constitutional authority such as the Supreme Court that gets to decide whether a proposed amendment has become ratified or not, ie. become law or not. -- Jack of Oz 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There is the Executive, in this case the National Archives, doing what the Chief Executive ordered them to do. And there is Congress, which set the rules. This sounds like a political question. Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

By a statute that took effect in 1984, the task of certifying ratifications of amendments to the US Constitution has been given to the Archivist of the United States, which is why the interpretation of the National Archives (that is, the Archivist) matters. One might argue that this statute is unconstitutional, as the Constitution does not include a provision requiring certification for ratification to take effect, unlike for other federal processes that depend on the outcomes from the several states. AFAIK the constitutionality of the statute, or any of its predecessors (like this one) has never been challenged in court.  --Lambiam 10:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thank you, Lambiam. -- Jack of Oz 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

But of course there must always be some form of official certification. That would be the case for any law passed to a state governor or the president for signing, just as it must be for a constitutional change. Otherwise, anyone could claim that a proposed constitutional amendment has been ratified by a sufficient number of states and must now become part of the law of the USA. Surely the system depends on not just anyone claiming this, but a properly constituted authority with the legal power/responsibility to make such a certification. -- Jack of Oz 06:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that there was no certification procedure for the original ratification of the United States Constitution; actually, the amendment provision of the Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous approval of the states, was bypassed. I don't think there was already one in place for the Bill of Rights either – when Congress met on on January 18, 1792, the President simply informed them that he had "a copy of an exemplified copy of an Act of the Legislature of Vermont, ratifying" the amendements, which implied a sufficient number of instruments of ratification had been received. The procedure for the ratification of the electoral votes in presidential elections was only specified in the Twelfth Amendment; the 1796 United States presidential election managed to do without. I agree, though, that there ought to be an official procedure for the ratification of constitutional amendments, but is the ability of Congress to inspect . The question is, is Congress passing (by simple majorities) a bill that such and such procedure shall be it, which is then signed into law by the President, enough to make it official and binding?

The US Constitution does not define who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. At the moment this is a hot issue. If Congress passes a bill, next signed into law, declaring that the definition is made by executive order, is the issue thereby settled?  --Lambiam 16:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

January 22

Sir John Simon's soul

"Simon has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered into his soul" is a quotation attributed to David Lloyd George. I have been unable to come up with a definitive source, and neither Roy Jenkins (in The Chancellors), nor Duncan Brack (in The Dictionary of Liberal Quotations) have been able to either. Can the RefDeskers do better? Thank you. I felt sure I'd asked this here before, but I cannot find any trace of it in the archives. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked into this question a while ago. The earliest evidence I could find came from a diary entry by Sir George Riddell for 14th December 1912:

The other day F. E. Smith told me a good story of a member who, when speaking in the House of Commons, remarked, "Mr. So-and-So has sat for so long on the fence that the iron has entered into his soul".

It's here. Shame that no-one's named. --Antiquary (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Both parties were named by Konni Zilliacus in 1935. Google Books also claims to have it in a version naming Lloyd George and Simon in a 1931 number of the New Statesman, but I find their dating of "Snippet view" periodicals unreliable. --Antiquary (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I found a 1922 case of "Who was it who said of a Free Church leader: "he has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered into his soul"?". DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Ha! The Spring 1905 number of Forest Leaves magazine (here at vol. II, no. 2, p. 16) gives us this: "Winston Churchill said that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman 'had sat so long on the fence that the iron had entered into his soul.'" A rare example, then, of Churchillian Drift in reverse. --Antiquary (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

One more Google search tells us that Churchill said this at a meeting of the Bow and Bromley Conservative Association in, apparently, April 1905. --Antiquary (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh well done! I'd always rather associated it with Manchuria. Lloyd George does have a certain gravitational pull for put-downs. I can't quite see him actually nicking one of Churchill's, and I think he would not want to associate himself, even indirectly, with such a negative comment about CB. I'm reminded by Jeeves and the Yule-tide Spirit that it is an echo of Psalm 105:18 in the Prayer Book. If I were Lawrence Frances Flick I would be VERY careful about the choice of type-face for my bookmarks DuncanHill (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I found the Forest Leaves version (with a couple more from the column) in The Mail (Dublin) 4 January 1905. Interestingly, there was an article in lots of local papers in January 1905 which mention the iron entering Lloyd George's soul as a result of how power is abused in the hands of an ascendant Church. DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Got a link to the Mail version? --Antiquary (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

(ec) The Belfast Telegraph - Thursday 23 May 1907 says that Mr Churchill made the dig at CB "at Bow, February 19, 1902". Dublin Mail 4 Jan 1905 Column called "Mixed Metaphors" DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The "iron entered his/my/our soul(s)" trope seems very common at the time, usually of course in a more positive sense. DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

And here is a report of Churchill addressing the Annual Meeting of the Bow and Bromley Conservative Association from the Derby Daily Telegraph Thursday 20 February 1902 Mr. Winston Churchill and the War. DuncanHill (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The report appears in many local papers. The report in the Westminster Gazette says CB has NOT (my emphasis) sat so long on the fence that the iron has entered his soul. DuncanHill (talk)

If you have access to a copy it might be worth taking a look at the eight-volume Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897-1963, edited by Robert Rhodes James. --Antiquary (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Not in Volume I, where it should be. DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The anecdote is told in a Lloyd George–John Simon version on page 472 of The New Statesman and Nation issue of October 17, 1931:

Sir John Simon's acidity of temperament and capacity for being a little in several camps but beloved by none led his late chief to remark—or so I'm told—that "Sir John has sat so long on the fence, that the iron has entered into his soul."             Critic.

Here one can verify, in spite of the snippetness of the permitted views, that this indeed the issue of this date. So it is indeed true that Lloyd George "is said" (or, more precisely, "has been said") to have commented this – although using a slightly different word order and punctuation than the quotation in our article. It is, of course, by no means sure that he actually has done so.  --Lambiam 14:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Here it is on Archive.org. It is Volume II Number 34, despite what Google claims. DuncanHill (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Churchill/Campbell-Bannerman version was still being quoted as "famous" as late as 1950, so the two variants co-existed for many years. --Antiquary (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

January 23

Marco Guidetti

Who was Marco Guidetti in relation to De Tomaso Pantera? This Turbo wrapper says "Marco Guidetti Pentera de Tomaso", but my search didn't yield any meaningful results for him, including books. My guess he could be this one, but not sure. Brandmeister 10:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The creator(s) of these Turbo wrappers misspelled "Pantera", so they were not overly careful. Perhaps they misinterpreted the name of the author of the photograph as being the name of the car model.  --Lambiam 15:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

One possibility is that the particular vehicle shown was owned by a Marco Guidetti, possibly the movie designer and art director of that name who worked on Mad Max and other films: IMDb link (unreliable source) here. Relatedly, he may instead have been involved in designing the model's styling. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

A Marco Guidetti is credited to authoring and photographing Valentino Rossi : campione and a Marco Guidetti also authored JAGUAR . So it appears likely it is the name of the photographer as suggested by Lambiam when the gum was recently reintroduced, although this doesn't rule out the alternative possibilities that they are the car's owner or its designer as suggested by The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195. Modocc (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

We also haven't yet ruled out the author/photographer/car designer(?) and the film designer being the same person, although the car originated arond 1970 and film guy's career seems to have started around 2003. Of course, 'Marco Guidetti' cannot be that uncommon a name in Italy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Australian Antarctic Territory population

What was the population of the Australian Antarctic Territory in the 2021 Australian census? I assumed this would easily be discoverable with a Google search, but I couldn't find this information from the ABS. Since the census counts people where they are on census night (and not where they live permanently), since Davis Station is inhabited year-round, and since the AAT is considered an external territory of Australia, the AAT should have been covered by the census (comparable to Christmas Island, the Cocos, etc) and should have had a non-zero population on census night. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The external territories are listed here: . Quoting our article "Australia is an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. Under section 4, all territorial claims are held in abeyance." Which would appear to explain why it's not listed. Modocc (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

"Expeditioners to Australian bases in the Australian Antarctic Territory (and other locations) are included in the Census. Their 'place of enumeration' is an Offshore Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1) in Tasmania." -- Jack of Oz 20:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk