Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions

 

Line 195: Line 195:

:His dates and full name are relatively easy: Clarence Henry “Buck” Stahl, 1912-2005. But I’ve not been able to find any [[WP:RS]] for any football career. [[User:Jpgordon|–jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107;]]</small>} 19:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

:His dates and full name are relatively easy: Clarence Henry “Buck” Stahl, 1912-2005. But I’ve not been able to find any [[WP:RS]] for any football career. [[User:Jpgordon|–jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107;]]</small>} 19:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

:According to [https://blogs.getty.edu/iris/podcast-inside-las-most-iconic-modernist-home-case-study-house-22/] and [https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/07/inside-la-ultimate-mid-century-modern-home?srsltid=AfmBOoracjUpDowOKc4EQHoiQtMP0gfG0nKf148uS3CeYR2EOgLPUjy3], he worked in sales in the aviation industry. No mention of football. [[User:Chuntuk|Chuntuk]] ([[User talk:Chuntuk|talk]]) 13:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

== Russian websites ==

== Russian websites ==

Hi Folks!!. I’m having a conversation at Talk: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 of List 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 of List of fake news troll farms. So 2 questions. 1) Does the source explicity need to say it is a “troll farm”, is it WP:OR to include it if doesn’t and 2) Are these two articles the same thing? I’m puzzled. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 07:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that fake news troll farms don’t necessarily have their own news site or work only on one site. Long is the way (talk) 10:18, 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 of List 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 is WP: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 the List 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]

Please keep the discussion confined to the talk page of the article. This is not a question for a reference desk.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:57, 14 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?

Bookku (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Mary Beard (but conceivably Mary Ritter Beard) and Julia Baird (journalist). To be sure, you might have to buy the book. Chuntuk (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Among those that have a Wikipedia article, only Mary Beard and Julia Baird (journalist) are plausible candidates. For Beard, her Women & Power: A Manifesto might be the “imbricated research” referred to. For Baird, there are several plausible sources.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is “Happy name-day” ever as common in English as common as Finnish “Hyvää nimipäivää”? Or “Happy Epiphany”? —40bus (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 of name-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.

I’ve never heard either of those greetings. — Avocado (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both St Valentine’s Day and St. Patrick’s Day are widely celebrated in the U.S., but the celebrations have nothing to do with seeking out people who have that name. Xuxl (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Older generations in my area may celebrate Epiphany as “Old Christmas”, but that is almost dead now. —User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three Kings Day is celebrated in (some) Catholic regions of the world. Epiphany is a much bigger deal in Orthodox regions. Long is the way (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the whole idea of name days is based on the veneration of saints and the calendar of saints, I would assume that name days are not a big thing in countries/regions where the veneration of saints is not a big thing. Long is the way (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes has a named day, as he has become kind of the patron saint of botched conspiracies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 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]

They might say, “The other day I had a happy epiphany: I can express my feelings through dance.”  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It became the famous prison under Richelieu, but what was the exact date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-34928-50 (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Exact date of what? ←Baseball Bugs What’s up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] The year (and maybe also the day and month) when Richelieu transformed that castle in a state prison. ~2025-34920-91 (talk) 21:34, 19 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] Thanks. ~2025-34795-56 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apokrif: I know there are courses for Scandinavians. I searched for “Dansk for skandinaver” and found an advertisement for a course https://ucplusdansk.dk/en/danish-courses/danish-for-scandinavians/ which explains the focus. The course is at level B2, I suppose that Scandinavians can skip beginners classes and mix with other learners for advanced classes. TSventon (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Virginia, 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 June 26. 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 ([1], [2], and just a handful that say June 25 ([3]). 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 – [4] 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 at Constitution.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 the Congress 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 article Titian says he was born in Pieve di Cadore in the Veneto. Our article Amelia Edwards has a picture “Titian’s Birthplace”, from her book Untrodden Peaks and Unfrequented Valleys, said to be a location in Caprile. Our article Caprile is about a place in Piedmont. The Italian Wikipedia lists several more Capriles. 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 book At UPenn.edu the image is actually from chapter 5 CORTINA TO PIEVE DI CADORE And definitely shows a statue of Titian there. Probably

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 as Pieve 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:^[5]

* 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

 ​‑‑Lambiam 10:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thank you all, clearly an error on Wikipedia’s part. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. See also Saint Tiziano. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Titian’s place of birth in Pieve 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 unreliable Amelia Edwards, and her even less reliable illustrator. I’ve added a pic of the bronze statue, on Piazza Titiano, which is not where the house is, but the main square. The house is now 4 Via Arsenale, according to Sheila Hale “Piazza Arsenale” in Titian’s day -the Venetian 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 on Titian_house_(Pieve_di_Cadore). The 1904 print shows little change. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 

  Bronze statue of Titian, on Piazza Tiziano

• 

  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 is surely not of any “Saint Tiziano”) and the other statue was put up in a different 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 in Amelia Edwards. I care about Titian, but not at all about Amelia 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 at Talk: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 at Talk: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]

Welcome to the latest episode of The Bickersons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 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 in line 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 of WP:BEFORE for the “perfectly reasonable enquiry” more striking. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]

Today drawings may be reproduced in print using halftone, but when Edwards’ book was published, virtually all illustrations were prepared for printing by professional engravers. While the book does not credit an engraver, that of the frontispiece bears the signature PEARSON, SC. This was possibly Cornelius Pearson.^[6] The other engravings in the book are in the same style, so it is likely they were also by his hand. It is impossible now – unless someone has access to the original drawings – to tell how faithful the engravings are to their sources, or whether any discrepancies between depiction and ground truth are already in the drawings, or were introduced in the engraving process.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that no-one should make an enquiry on the Ref desks until they have exhaustively researched every possible avenue of information themself? I have been answering, and occasionally posting, queries on the Desks for over 20 years, and this is the first time I’ve encountered such an opinion.

You link WP:Before, but this does not seem to me to be relevant – it’s about carrying out due diligence before nominating something for deletion, not before making a Ref desk enquiry concerning a possible caption error. I am beginning to sense an absence of good faith in your relentless doubling down on this matter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.1895} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 17:28, 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]

Ah! It’s John Nepomuk! Everybody was wrong, even Johnbod! Perhaps the urchins who showed Edwards around Pieve weren’t art historians after all. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more about the statue here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more info in Italian here.  ​‑‑Lambiam 20:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And another Titian House in Pieve here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This book available on Tamil language Wikisource claims Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication.

I wish to use content from one chapter for Draft:Ramalinga Vilasam palace, hence on safer side wish to get public domain confirmed. Thanks Bookku (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can find information here, 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.  ​‑‑Lambiam 01:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Picardy 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 under Barthélemy, so do we know who this person is? Rojomoke (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, probably Bartholomaeus Anglicus Rojomoke (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His biography makes him sound kind of left wing, but his recent article criticizing Larry Summers[7] uses the term “free market” enough times to almost sound libertarian. Is there a more nuanced take? Web search finds him criticizing that concept here.[8] Thanks. ~2025-35499-09 (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The single-axis ‘left and right wing’ analysis is a very crude and frankly obsolete analysis of political alignment. There are several two-axis models that may better capture the varieties and combinations of political ideas (see following sections in the linked article), but unfortunately none has become popular enough to take over in popular discourse. (Personally I suspect that a 3-axis model might be required.) In short, what Americans perceive as ‘left wing’ (which most Europeans would fall over laughing at) need not be incompatible with a ‘free market’ ideology: the first is usually more of a social position, the latter an economic one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I feel like I’ve been alone on this until very recently. I’ve been saying the left and right wing have had no relevance in US politics since Bill Clinton’s first term. Recent studies have shown that most US voters are not ideological but are concerned with simple issues like affordability. Most politicians still don’t get it because the donor class runs the show, not the people (in the US). Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policies determining “simple” issues like affordability have a political basis that is rather strongly ideological: they are governed by ideological positions on the question how the combined fruit of the populace’s labour should be distributed. The outcome depends on how powerful the involved social parties are. By no longer recognizing the ideological basis, voters become apolitical and lose power in the tug of war over the distribution of wealth. (IMO both dominant parties are to blame, one by having become apolitical itself, the other by disguising their ideology.)  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I wrote Hymen’s war terrific, about the “race” of George III‘s sons to marry and produce heirs. I am surprised to find no images depicting this race or even their marriages alone. Am I missing some? Carricatures or plain wedding depictions? Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Race” as in “running fast”, not ethnicity, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t say I find it surprising that there are no images depicting something as abstract as a “race to marry and produce heirs”. What kind of image did you have in mind? Zacwill (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s “A SCENE in the New FARCE called the RIVALS or a Visit to the Heir Presumptive 1819”, described as a “satire on the Hanoverian race to produce an heir to the throne.” Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that kind, @Zacwill. Thanks, @Clarityfiend. If others manage to dig up more, I would be just as grateful. Surtsicna (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: The monument to Princess Charlotte here is striking, but I can’t find an image on Commons. TSventon (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of Fulford’s “Royal Dukes” (Penguin Classic Biography edition) has Gilray’s caricature of the Princess Royal’s wedding (as seen at Charlotte, Princess Royal) as it’s cover illustration. The book does mention that at the time the participants in that farce were widely and pungently satirised in print and in cartoon. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Andrew Young (poet, born 1885) “The disappearance of his brother David in discreditable circumstances in 1907 so affected him that he gave up his intention to become a barrister and instead studied theology at the local New College”. I would like to know more about David, the discreditable circumstances, and did he ever re-appear? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a bit in this extract from a book about Andrew Young, and some criticism in this review of the book. Neither of the names makes it easy to search online, of course… —Wrongfilter (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrongfilter: Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three queries. :-
1. In 2002 there was a recruitment event held in Harrow, My recollection is that it took place at Harrow Lesiure Centre, but current Google Streetview’s of that locale don’t match up with my memory of the area.

Between 1980 and 2005, there was a nationally respected model shop in Harrow. It closed around 2004(?), although some online directory sites still seem to list it over 20 years later!..

Was the area between Masons Avenue and the railway redeveloped in the 2000’s? (I recall a footpath by the side of the railway line, that doesn’t seem to exist in the current OpenStreetMap, or Google Streetviews. )

I don’t have British Newspaper archive access, and the online sites for local print newspapers, for 2002 (via wayback didn’t yeild anything) (Print editions of local ‘advertiser’ style papers in the United Kingdoms are unlikely to have been digitised at all.)
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion you may already have explored: I believe that if you look on Google Earth Pro, you can set the date to earler years and get an idea of when redevelopments took place. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last time you asked a question about Harrow, I advised you to join the Facebook group Harrow Area – Then and Now. Have you done that? —Viennese Waltz 10:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t (but your suggestion was noted.) (I don’t for reasons have an Acccount on Facebook.) I’m ideally looking for verifable print/photo sources, I can put in Inter-Library requests for. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Harrow, but it could be worth searching YouTube for videos uploaded by locals, to see if they cover the locations you are interested in. A search for Harrow 2000 brings up some promising results. (“Harrow 2002” returned a lot of less relevant videos; you could try other years.) — Verbarson  ^talk_edits 12:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We write about C.H. “Buck” Stahl (died 2005) as the owner of Stahl House, but sources describe him as a “former professional [American] Football player”. What was his team, and his full name and dates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 14:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His dates and full name are relatively easy: Clarence Henry “Buck” Stahl, 1912-2005. But I’ve not been able to find any WP:RS for any football career. –jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to [9] and [10], he worked in sales in the aviation industry. No mention of football. Chuntuk (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are most Russian media and government websites still accessible in Western countries?–40bus (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I do know, is that some Russian(-language) media is restricted in Ukraine (even before the 2022 invasion). This includes RT and Yandex, Russia’s own search engine. JuniperChill (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Most Western countries don’t block them (though I suspect a lot of East European countries might under laws against communism or the like), and they probably don’t block Western countries’ access as it is propaganda after all. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are the dimensions of a normal-sized matchbox? From neutron star:

Neutron star material is remarkably dense: a normal-sized matchbox containing neutron-star material would have a weight of approximately 3 billion tonnes…

Unfortunately the citations for this statement mention neither matchboxes nor the rest of the information in the sentence, so we can’t use them to calculate the volume of the matchbox. I’ve asked another neutron star question at WP:RDS, but it’s looking at the weight and density of the star material, not the size of matchboxes. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles on matchboxes suggests that they “generally measure 5 x 3.5 x 1.5 cm”, or around 26.3 cubic centimeters. Meanwhile, if we say “approximately 3 billion tonnes” is somewhere between 2.5 and 3.5 billion metric tons, and neutron star density is somewhere between 3.7 x 10¹⁷ kg/m³ and 5.9 x 10¹⁷ kg/m³, this bounds the original volume assumed by whoever wrote that to between around 4.2 and 8.1 cubic centimeters, so I would say that the estimate might be off by a factor around 3-6. GalacticShoe (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]