The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts withwikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Uncyclopedia uses the "this is intended to be funny" perspective.
Conservapedia uses the perspective of a conservative politician.
Is there any online wiki encyclopedia that uses the perspective of a preschool boy?? (Not with respect to having a reading level appropriate for preschool boys, but with respect to talking about things from a preschool boy's perspective.) A few examples of things such an encyclopedia might have are:
Barrette = something that holds a girl's hair in place. (This statement implies that wearing barrettes is a factually defining criterion for being a girl.
Penis = the part of a person's (that is, both boys and girls have a penis) body used for pee-peeing.
Tooth fairy = a real fairy who hides money under the pillows of children who lose their teeth. (That is, this statement uses the perspective of a preschool boy that the tooth fairy is real.)
Has anyone proposed such an encyclopedia?? (Note that this is just as valid of a "deviate from Wikipedia's policy" rule as either the rules of Uncyclopedia or the rules of Conservapedia are.)Georgia guy (talk)02:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess you just did. I'm not sure what you want us to "note", though. Validity is kind of meaningless in isolation; you're free to write an encyclopedia in whatever manner you choose - validity depends on whether anyone finds it useful. Maybe you could start with theRoblox wiki and just add on to it?Matt Deres (talk)20:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To truly present the perspective of a preschool boy, the editors should be preschool boys themselves. But what about preschool girls (and preschool kids of a non-binary gender)? Also, is there a reason to think such an encyclopedia would attract preschool boys asusers, and, at that, users who might be looking upbarrette? ‑‑Lambiam11:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not supported by OED. It has float "IV.14.b. 1888– A platform on wheels, having a spectacular display arranged upon it, used in a procession." First citation 1888 to a Boston, Mass. newspaper. Related senses include "IV.14.a. 1866– A low-bodied, crank-axled cart, used for carrying heavy articles, livestock, etc.", "IV.13. 1686– A wooden frame attached to the side, front, or back of a wagon or cart to increase the carrying capacity; any one of a number of these", all in the sense of "IV. Something broad, level, and shallow". So it looks like the use for the parade use straightforwardly derives from the cart.DuncanHill (talk)16:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we, in the 21st century, know precise year when the event happened inany event that happened in Pre-Columbian Americas? --40bus (talk)18:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's one thing I think that fits what you're looking for. It's not pre-Columbian, but it's pre-white-people-making-it-that-far-west: At around 9pm on January 26, 1700, a 9.0-or-soearthquake devastated the Pacific Northwest. We know this because of felled trees, local oral tradition, etc. But that can only tell us it happened - how do we know the exact date? And even an estimate on time? Because the Japanese were excellent recordkeepers, and noted a tsunami of unknown origin. --Golbez (talk)21:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter Two ofThe Werewolf of Paris byGuy Endore commences with the words "Whoever has looked into Favre's excellent history of the morality police of Europe has not failed, I am certain, to notice and store in his mind that particular striking case which Favre with grim (some will think it cheap) sense of humor entitled 'Suffer little children to come unto me ...'". Who was Favre, what was his excellent history, and which was the striking case? Thank you,DuncanHill (talk)00:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicted) And what indeed were the "Morality Police"? Presumably this lot "On March 26 theParis Commune was elected and on March 28 it was proclaimed. The Central Committee of the National Guard, which up to then had carried on the government, handed in its resignation to theNational Guard, after it had first decreed the abolition of the scandalous Paris 'Morality Police.'" (Fred. Engels,Introduction to Karl Marx,The Civil War in France).DuncanHill (talk)14:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why I think that this particular book may be an invention by the author is the next paragraph:
The case that Lieutenant Galliez considers briefly on page three of his defense is evidently the same, although no names are mentioned except that of Pitamont. Favre's description is very complete and precise as to names and dates. I follow his account in the main.
I take this to mean that he claims that (part of) his story is based on that book. Given that the story that follows is fiction, it would make sense that the alleged source is fictional, too. So "Favre's excellent history of the morality police of Europe" might be a fictionalized version of the book by Fiaux mentioned above by Xuxl or an outright invention.Long is the way (talk)16:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isabel White Wallis(Q95698093) is listedhere in the Catalogue of theGerman National Library. Do they publish information about why they give individuals ID numbers? The information they provide is Effective dates: 1895 and St. Johnś Wood (place of work). A Google books search suggests that GND picked up a mention of a letter Wallis wrote toJózsef Fodor(Q1002332) in 1895.[1]: 188
References
^Antall, József; Faludy, Anikó; Kapronczay, Károly (1972). Antall, József (ed.). "József Fodor and public health in Hungary".Communicationes de historia artis medicinae. Supplementum. 6. Medical history in Hungary:169–193.
I'm not sure if I understand the question. Every library will assign a unique identifier of some kind to its books. If your question is about the NID system, you can find more informationhere andhere.Long is the way (talk)09:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two different individuals may have identical names. The most common solution to distinguish between different homonymous items in a database is to assign unique IDs to the keyss. ‑‑Lambiam13:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Long is the way: I probably did not phrase my question well, but I can more or less answer it now. The GND system catalogues people and organisations (and other stuff). Wikidata shows a GND record and aDeutsche Biographie GND record forIsabel White Wallis(Q95698093) (a person). I searched for Isabel White Wallis on the Deutsche Biographie website and foundher record, which mentions thede:Kalliope-Verbund as the source. Apparently the Kalliope-Verbund runs an information system for libraries, archives and museums, so presumably the archive which holds Isabel White Wallis's 1895 letter provided her name and the date to the Kalliope-Verbund, who passed the information to Deutsche Biographie, who created a record, which was used by Wikidata to create an item.
So I think that the answer to my original question is that Deutsche Biographie say where they source their biographical record, but the source may not tell you very much.TSventon (talk)14:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam:, sorry I did not see your answer. I wanted to know why Deutsche Biographie had created a record for a woman with only a date and a location. It seems that the answer is that she wrote a letter, which is held in an archive somewhere. It seems to be a coincidence that the letter from Isabel White Wallis is mentioned in a copy of a journal digitised by Google books.TSventon (talk)15:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4: The authorities don't need to know what religion some individual adheres to. Having some idea of the prevalence of different religions may be useful, but they can get that from small anonymised polls. In fact, it's dangerous to keep such unnecessary records. Up to World War 2, the Dutch authorities kept records on religion. The Nazis were pleased. The municipal records told them exactly where the Jews lived.
4) The UK asks about religion,and although the question is boldly markedvoluntary, 94% of respondants chose to answer this in 2021.[1] According to theOffice for National Statistics, the question is asked for three reasons:
"The answer helps communities by allowing local and central government to better plan services and set aside resources for their area".
"TheNHS [National Health Service] and local authorities can use this information to help plan and monitor services for local people from a wide range of religious backgrounds. This could include policies onhospital chaplains and public information".
"The answer will help public bodies to treat everyone fairly, in line with their legal duties about equality, and to identify discrimination or social exclusion based on religion and work to stop it from happening".[2]
Hi Folks!!. I'm having a conversation atTalk:List of fake news troll farms with@Novellasyes: over the difference between fake news troll farms and fake news websites. I thought originally that an instance of a trolls farm would need to be included in the article, if the source defined it as a troll farm via the definition i.e. if a animal quacks, instead of actually explicity saying it was a "troll farm". Troll farm seemed to be defined as an group of individuals, an organisation who ""spreads hate, misinformation, who lie, deceive online and causes damage", in this political context, essentially news. Essentially a troll farm is any site which spread political misinformation and lies to an online audience. However, that seems to be definition ofList of fake news websites, which was raised by Novellasyes. They seem to the same. They are not the same are they, or are they? Which brings into validity ofList of fake news troll farms. So 2 questions. 1) Does the source explicity need to say it is a "troll farm", is itWP:OR to include it if doesn't and 2) Are these two articles the same thing? I'm puzzled. Thanks.scope_creepTalk07:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Determining what distinguishes a troll farm fake news website from just a plain old fake news website needs to be left up to reliable sources that have some expertise in this area. The introductory sentence ofList of fake news troll farms says "The following is a list of websites, separated by country, that have been designated by journalists and researchers as likely being part of troll farms." I discovered, by reviewing the hundred or so citations on that article, that nearly all of the listed websites had not been referred to by reliable sources as being troll farms. I removed them, and@Scope creep: added them back. In my view, it isWP:OR for us to try to figure this out and come up with some sort of a determination that would allow us to add a website to theList of fake news troll farms even though an RS has never referred to it that way. We are not experts on this.Novellasyes (talk)14:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article published in the Arts Hub (Australia) refers to Mary Beard and Julia Baird. But there seems to be multiple individuals having these two names. So the article might be referring to which Mary Beard and which Julia Baird?
I've never heard anyone say "happy name-day" here in North Carolina. I don't even know what it means. And Epiphany isn't pften mentioned here either. Many of my Protestant neighbors might not even know what it is. But I would say that many other native English speakers do know what itvis and many of them could use such a greeting.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)03:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most British people won't have heard ofname-days. I first heard of them when I was living in Denmark with a Swedish flat-mate. Epiphany is something marked in diaries, but largely ignored by British people, except as being the end of Christmas.DuncanHill (talk)09:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Even British Catholics are, I'd say, rarely aware of when their own name-day is. Unlike in the Middle Ages, it will rarely be their birthday, I think. I think several denominations make something of a feast day of Epiphany though. But it isn't a public thing.Johnbod (talk)12:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who was brought up in the US Northeast, I can guess what a name day is, but am not familiar with any such tradition. I feel like I may have heard of a holiday called Epiphany, but... with a secular upbringing, I couldn't tell you what or when it actually is. Whereas I'm familiar with the major Christian holidays like Xmas, Easter (and a couple of its satellite holidays like Ash Wednesday), and Lent.
Yup… most English speakers will be unfamiliar with the entire concept of one’s “name day”.
Epiphany used to celebrated by some English speakers as “Twelfth Night” … but that is now rare. Some (primarily those of Hispanic ethnicity) celebrate it as “Three Kings Day” - and living in a big, multicultural city, I have occasionally been greeted with “Happy Three Kings” (or similar)… but that is an import from other parts of the world and not part of “Anglo” culture.Blueboar (talk)15:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Happy name-day" is exactly as popular in the UK as "Happy epiphany" - in that you will never hear anybody say either of those phrases.Chuntuk (talk)13:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Bastille article you link to, "The Bastille was occasionally used to hold prisoners, including its creator, Hugues Aubriot, who was the first person to be imprisoned there. In 1417, in addition to being a royal fortress, it formally became a state prison." Long before Cardinal Richelieu then. --Antiquary (talk)22:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article onVirginia, and many others, say Virginia ratified the constitution on June 25, 1788. But I can find no primary proof of this. What I can tell you is that they voted to ratify it on June26. I don't know if this repeated something from the 25th, or if history has just been ... wrongish? Does anyone have any primary content that says June 25 was when the ratification happened?
When looking for specific sources on the ratification, I can find lots of sources that say it was June 26 ([3],[4], and just a handful that say June 25 ([5]). But when looking for "when did Virginia become a state," the overwhelming consensus is June 25. Confusingly, the US Census actually uses both at once -[6] says Virginia became a state on June 25, but ratified the constitution on June 26. I've asked on the talk page there but knowing how insular talk pages are, I wanted to throw this here to see what sticks. --Golbez (talk)21:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the proceedings of the ratifying convention found atConstitution.org, it looks like the vote to ratify was taken on the 25th and the formal copy of the ratification was signed on the 26th. Nothing happened immediately, of course. The new federal government under the constitution had not yet been created and theCongress of the Confederation meeting in New York City, would not have received news of the ratification for several days at least.Eluchil404 (talk)00:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it looks like the vote to ratify was taken on the 25th and the formal copy of the ratification was signed on the 26th." That works for me. Thanks! --Golbez (talk)03:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Virginia was already a state under the Articles of Confederation, 2) Wouldn't it have become a state under the Constitution upon New Hampshire's ratification of that document on June 21, 1788, due to that being the 9th ratification and thus reaching the 3/4 of the states threshold for it to take effect? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)11:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our articleTitian says he was born inPieve di Cadore in theVeneto. Our articleAmelia Edwards has a picture "Titian's Birthplace", from her bookUntrodden Peaks and Unfrequented Valleys, said to be a location inCaprile. Our article Caprile is about a place inPiedmont. The Italian Wikipedia lists several moreCapriles. So, which is the Caprile that the picture is of, can we find a modern picture of the same view, and is it actually, or reputedly, Titian's birthplace? Thank you,DuncanHill (talk)23:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the copy of the bookAt UPenn.edu the image is actually from chapter 5CORTINA TO PIEVE DI CADORE And definitely shows a statue of Titian there. ProbablyHouse of Titian's birth this one, but the resemblance is not particularly close.Eluchil404 (talk)00:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the book clearly identifies the place asPieve di Cadore. The statue is described as follows:
In the midst of this little piazza stands a massive stone fountain, time-worn and water-worn, surmounted by a statue of Saint Tiziano in the robes and square cap of an ecclesiastic.
The second edition has a footnote to this sentence:[7]
*This picturesque little monument has now disappeared, having been superseded in 1880 by a bronze statue of heroic size designed by a Venetian artist named Del Zotto. It stands-on a square pedestal, on one side of which is inscribed “A Tiziano il Cadore,” and upon the other sides are enumerated the masterpieces of the great painter. (Note to Second Edition.)
This cannot be the same statue as seen in the photo. Actually, there are also significant differences in the look of the houses, so if they are the same house, there have been significant alterations since 1873. The house in this photo carries a plaque that is inscribed thus:
CADORE SEGNA AGLI OSPITI QUESTA CASA DOVE NACQUE E CREBBE TIZIANO
The houses do look the same, especially when compared against Google Street View (you have to look for it yourself, the link is censored). The main differences are the attic windows and cladding having been replaced with wooden boards and a two-storey lean-to constructed against the chimney. Considering that two world wars have swept through the area since the original sketch was made it's remarkable that so much of it is still standing.Daveosaurus (talk)10:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Titian's place of birth inPieve di Cadore, though not the date, has been well known since his lifetime - his family were prominent in the small place, and at various points he documented his birthplace himself. I don't know why you bother with the clearly wholly unreliableAmelia Edwards, and her even less reliable illustrator. I've added a pic of the bronze statue, on Piazza Titiano, which isnot where the house is, but the main square. The house is now4 Via Arsenale, according to Sheila Hale "Piazza Arsenale" in Titian's day -theVenetian Arsenal, who built the navy, were top customers for the timber which was almost all the economy of Pieve di Cadore, including Titian's family. Hale describes it as "a modest cottage of a kind that has mostly disappeared, it was rediscovered behind a later extension in the early nineteenth century by scholar detectives who identified it from its description in a sale document of 1580.[1] There is a whole Commons category with 29 pics onTitian_house_(Pieve_di_Cadore). The 1904 print shows little change.Johnbod (talk)10:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Titian's birthplace, now a museum, the fountain is out of the picture, to the left
Print from 1904
John, the reason I "bother with the clearly wholly unreliable Amelia Edwards and her even less reliable illustrator" (though if you'd bothered to read the excellent replies above you would realise it was Wikipedia and the passage of time that caused the differences) is that I recently read one of her short stories and was interested to find out more about her, and so read our article about her. Titian I couldn't care less about. I suspected an error on Wikipedia. I was right. So was she - as she pointed out the statue she depicted was replaced. I have corrected the description on Commons.DuncanHill (talk)13:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I had corrected the caption in that article, locating the pic in Caprile. Other than that, it is clear from the replies above, which I certainly had read carefully, and the pics, that she and her editor were not right! The statue in her illustration is still there (and it issurely not of any "Saint Tiziano") and the other statue was put up in adifferent place. I don't see how it is "Wikipedia and the passage of time that caused the differences", other than someone's slack research in making the caption inAmelia Edwards. I care about Titian, but not at all aboutAmelia Edwards, and really you should have done the very little research necessary to discover her errors before bothering the wiki-public here. Or you could have asked atTalk:Titian, but I know you like raising things here.Johnbod (talk)14:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to answer any of my questions, and perhaps it would be better if you didn't. Do you get a kick out of pissing on other people's curiosity? If you want to know why I don't care about Titian it's the nasty, snobbish attitude of the people who do that put me off, many years ago. Clearly nothing has changed. I come here because most article talk pages are moribund, and as my question was about the Edwards article it wouldn't make any sense to ask at Titian anyway.DuncanHill (talk)14:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your question was very much about Titian, rather than Edwards, and if you had asked atTalk:Titian you would have got better informed answers very quickly. I'm not sure what is nasty or snobbish about knowing the facts and putting them here, but whatever.....Johnbod (talk)15:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude to Edwards is nasty and snobbish, as is your dismissal of me for reading about her. That's why people hate "The Arts". Someone asks a perfectly reasonable question and is berated for how they got to the point of asking it, and for their other interests. You didn't "know the facts and put them here", you went out of your way to put me down, to put Edwards down, and to show off just how "cultured" you are.DuncanHill (talk)15:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What utter bollocks! You'll have to find better excuses for hating the arts. It turns out your question just came from believing a bad Wikipedia caption, that didn't reflect the source, but Edwards'Note to Second Edition, presumably not based on a return visit but a newspaper report or similar ("This picturesque little monument has now disappeared, having been superseded in 1880 ...") is wrong, as is her "Saint Tiziano". I'm not sure what I've done to incur these venomous responses. Are we all supposed to say how interesting and and sensible we find your many queries? I'll try to remember that in future.Johnbod (talk)15:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, (sigh). And for anyone still reading to the bottom of this pointless spat about a perfectly reasonable enquiry on a 'Humanities Reference desk' enquiry page, I imagine the reference to "Saint Tiziano" was a joke about the reverence Italians (not unjustifiably) had for Titian (though there is a real link between the Saint and the Artist). Whether the joke was coined by Edwards (who of course was her own "even less reliable illustrator") or was already in circulation might be of minor interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2025-31359-08 (talk)01:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing this joke myself. Edwards only mentions "sketches" by herself, so there was presumably a professional doing the plates inline engraving or whatever for the book. How to apportion the blame between them for making the statue about twice as large as it actually is we can't say. Now that I've bothered to look, an online full text for the book was remarkably easy to find, making the lack ofWP:BEFORE for the "perfectly reasonable enquiry" more striking.Johnbod (talk)13:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the statue is the saint. Would your Titian have been depicted in ecclesiastical cap and gown and carrying a crucifix? Edwards also writes about a picture of the saint in the church. As to the comment about the bronze replacement, maybe the statues were moved again after her second edition.DuncanHill (talk)15:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can find informationhere, also following some links, about the project of nationalizing scholarly books and placing them in the public domain. I see no reason to doubt the propriety of the claim for this specific publication. ‑‑Lambiam01:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articlePicardy refers to "Barthélemy the Englishman" who apparently referred to "Lower Picardy" as "Hainault". There's no source given, and there are no English people listed underBarthélemy, so do we know who this person is?Rojomoke (talk)21:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His biography makes him sound kind of left wing, but his recent article criticizingLarry Summers[8] uses the term "free market" enough times to almost sound libertarian. Is there a more nuanced take? Web search finds him criticizingthat concept here.[9] Thanks.~2025-35499-09 (talk)06:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
