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.
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 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 House 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 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
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 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]
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]
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. ‑‑Lambiam21:09, 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]
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. ‑‑Lambiam01:33, 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]
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.) ‑‑Lambiam08:36, 24 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]
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]
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]
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 talkedits12:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into the leisure centre yet, but possible answers to the other two:
Re. the model shop: I've trawled the British Newspaper Archive. Newspaper adverts from the early 1990s give its name simply as "The Model Shop" and its address as 194 Station Road, south of Harrow and Wealdstone station at the junction of Bonnersfield Lane. It's now a burger restaurant. This forum thread has a great deal of interesting historical information, including details of its earlier premises at 29–31 St Ann's Road. Meanwhile, the Pinner Observer of 13 October 1994 ran a little Q&A with the owner, Arthur Cross (also referred to on that forum thread), on his 60th birthday. Among other things it stated he had been trading in Harrow for 40 years. It was still trading in 1999, when a news report described a child being temporarily blinded in an accident involving an airgun bought in the shop. Separately, this website states that it closed in mid-2005 and "the business has been taken over by Radley Models", which was apparently based at Poulner, Hampshire, although its website no longer exists.
Re. Masons Avenue: the area around the west end of Masons Avenue was redeveloped in the mid-1990s (1995–96, as far as I can tell) with the construction of the relief road (George Gange Way) which took traffic away from the High Street. The London Gazette of 18 April 1996 details the highway improvement Orders raised by the council. On the 1959 OS map I can see a footpath with stairs at the west end leading from Herga Road (close to the Masons Avenue junction) to The Bridge, the road which crosses the railway line just east of Harrow and Wealdstone station. This was exactly where a junction was built with the new George Gange Way, so the route of the footpath was altered – although it still exists (this Google StreetView capture shows it). I can't see any other footpaths in the vicinity of Masons Avenue on old maps. I also found a Harrow Borough Council document online which discusses road improvements in the town centre. As an aside it states this: "The current [road] layout ... dates back to the construction of the George Gange Way and Ellen Webb Drive relief roads in 1995/96, measures aimed at removing through traffic from the main shopping area of the High Street. Ellen Webb Drive and its continuation into Headstone Drive (West) became the east-west route transferring traffic from Canning Road/Headstone Drive route". Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)20:29, 27 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]
However, RT's television news service in the UK had their licence revoked by Ofcom within a month of the 2022 invasion, for failing "to comply with the due impartiality rules of [their] Broadcasting Code". [11]Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 27 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]
In my experience, matchbox size can vary considerably. A long time ago, people used to collect matchboxes for this reason. I would argue, therefore, that there is no general measure. In 2025, people don't smoke as much, and matches are rarely seen these days, but until recently in the US, it was popular for retail establishments to have their own matchboxes made for advertising purposes. As a side note, the final heyday for this kind of thing was the 1990s. Anyhoo, people who would often be active and dine out a lot would collect these things and either dump them in a large flower vase or if they were artistically inclined, mount them in a frame. I'm telling you that the "standard" size of a matchbox basically disappeared a very long time ago. It was likely true in, let's say, the 1950s and 1960s, when there were few companies making them. It hasn't been true in a very long time. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very fair and I certainly haven't come across a matchbox myself in a long time, possibly years; that being said, I do feel like the given size of 5 x 3.5 x 1.5 cm is reasonable, and a matchbox a third that size would be unusually small. But at the order of magnitude of billions of tonnes, a 3-6x difference is really just splitting hairs on my part. GalacticShoe (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have just proven myself wrong. I just scoured my house for a single matchbox, as I knew I had an old one around. Indeed, I found the last matchbox made by the Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, circa 2012 in a drawer. It is exactly 5 x 3.5 x 1.5 cm. The fine print on the side says it was manufactured by Eddy Match, Pembroke, Ontario, but "Made in USA", which seems to imply it was made in Port Huron, Michigan. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I work in a grocery store and we stock packs of multiple matchboxes in our grilling section. The given size matches (snicker) my recollection, but I am not at the store right now to verify. In my experience, unless we consider extra long matches, every matchbox I've seen has been that size. I don't remember businesses having custom matchboxes. I do remember match books with the logos of hotels, restaurants, etc being given out by those businesses. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the dates here on Wikipedia are to be believed, Hey would have been 27 at the time. Maybe the confusion comes from the fact that apparently Hey did appear in the video, but as the woman in the giant test tube, not the girl. I guess some people didn't do their due diligence and just assumed that the "extra" female name in the credits must refer to the girl. I couldn't find the name of the girl (or any information about her, really) either. Long is the way (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To a historian of the 31st century (if there are still historians then), they will look very similar. For someone born in 1950, they may have looked more different while living through them. In general, it depends very much upon what one focuses (culture, economy, politics, technology, ...?) and from which perspective (that of an Appalachian miner, a South-African police officer, a Vietnamese scholar of economics, ...?). See our article on the 1970s and the 1980s and decide for yourself what strikes you as significant differences. In any case, the periodization in decades creates artificial boundaries ‑‑Lambiam15:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the Anglosphere, the rise of Neoliberalism? Reaganomics in the USA and Thatcherism in the UK had profound effects on the economy and society as a whole. Whether this is a greater difference than between other decades is debatable; the 1960s were radically different from the 1950s for example. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1970s were post-pill, pre-AIDS. There's a reason people joke about not remembering them; it seems like it was the last time for adults to have "fun" without as much consequence as there had been earlier or would be later. --Golbez (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is quite irrelevant, but our article Bodhisattva says that "Chinese Buddhists generally use the term pusa (菩薩)" to mean "bodhisattva", i.e. "a person who has attained, or is striving towards, bodhi ('awakening', 'enlightenment') or Buddhahood". This book, Asia in the Making of Europe, refers to "Kuan-yin, usually called simply Pussa (p'u-sa), the popular Chinese term for bodhisattva." Kuan-yin seems to be Wikipedia's Guanyin, who "has been more commonly depicted as female in China and most of East Asia since about the 12th century". --Antiquary (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's highly relevant! Re Kuan-yin, yes, she is Guanyin, who is more or less Avalokiteśvara in Indian etc Buddhism. As for Brewer - yet another wholly unreliable Victorian source we should not be bothering with. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Brewer's, it records 'Phrases and Fables', with the latter including " historical or literary allusions". The 'triple goddess' thing was likely a mistaken idea about Pussa that some European had spread and which was mentioned in European literary works, so the publication (Brewer himself died in 1897, the 18th Edition was published in 2009) could be explaining those allusions without necessarily implying that they're accurate . . .
. . . though it would be helpful if it mentioned that they aren't. Perhaps someone should send a copy of this discussion to Susie Dent, who edited the most recent two editions of 2012 and 2018, so that a clarification can be included in the next if the mention of Pussa is still present.
(Amusing coincidence department. In 1991 I was offered an editorial position at the OUP, but for logistical and other reasons decided to turn it down. If I'd accepted it, I would have become a colleague of Ms Dent.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Hindu's use the names of gods when naming children. Arjun, Hari, Chandra, Indira, Kali, Lakshmi, Naranya, Rama, Parvati etc etc are all common names. And yes it's the same for Buddhist figures - names such as Ananda, Tenzin, Tara, Dolma, Jampa, etc etc. Nanonic (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The generally reliable John F. Burton claims[1] that Ludwig Koch recorded (on wax cylinder or disc) a Quagga in Frankfurt Zoo. The subspecies is now extinct, and the recording supposedly lost.
However, Koch was born in 1881 and our article says that "...the quagga was extinct in the wild by 1878. The last captive specimen died in Amsterdam on 12 August 1883." and "The specimen in London died in 1872 and the one in Berlin in 1875."
So what is Burton talking about? Some other now-extinct species, perhaps? Or do we have the date of extinction wrong?
If Frankfurt did have a specimen, when did it die?
[I will post a pointer to this discussion, on the science ref desk.]
I suspect that Burton has misunderstood some account of Koch's activities which used the word quagga in a looser sense than a modern zoologist would. The Dictionary of South African English website says that "In earlier times the distinctions between the different species were not always noted, but the name ‘quagga’ is now used primarily for the extinct Equus quagga, a zebra once found at the southern tip of Africa and now recognised, from genetic information, as a sub-species of E. burchelli" (my bolding). Its citations include:
1979 "Two boys found guilty of malicious injury to property after shooting a Quagga at their local zoo...worked weekends at the same zoo."
1990 "Fifteenth annual sale of game — Werksplaas Tshipise. Game species:...15 Quagga."
That might, incidentally, also explain my own faint memory of seeing film footage of a quagga when I was a child. All my life I've wondered what on earth it could have been. --Antiquary (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Koch (born in Frankfurt) was recording animals and birds by the age of 8/9 ("His 1889 recording of the song of a white-rumped shama (Kittacincla malabarica) is the first-known recording of bird song"), so it's not improbable that he recorded a zebra at Frankfurt Zoo around that age.
From Quagga we know (as Antiquary mentions) that the name was applied to zebra in general in their native habitat ("The name is still used colloquially for the plains zebra" [Equus quagga]), and that quagga (now Equus quagga quagga) were first identified as a separate species only in 1778, so confusion is understandable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason on why did the Enlightenment caused the shift from religious lifestyle to a more secular lifestyle? This was a Renaissance that revived classical cultures and arts. But why did the religion decline much further in Europe on modern and contemporary times, since the early 21st century and further? How did the knowledge changed since 18th century? ~2025-37397-24 (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not one thing, it's the emergence of a new thing from the interaction of many things, in this case, the revival of rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism. And as new as it was, keep in mind how old these ideas are and how the Enlightenment was only one recent iteration. You can go back in time and see these things play out over and over again. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." Or more to the point: "Art begins in imitation and ends in innovation." Looking towards the past allowed them to bypass the religious institutional restraints on current ways of thinking and create something entirely new. This is how it is always done. We look to the past to create our future. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The European wars of religion, for which religion was always only one of the causes, mostly came to a halt in 1648. The Age of Enlightenment followed this, mostly in the 18th century, and religiosity amongst upper class people dropped. By then, people were no longer prosecuted for adhering to the wrong religion (mostly), but still weren't allowed to build churches for the wrong religion. The wave of revolutions at the end of the 18th century, including the French Revolution, made states religiously neutral, removing most pressure on people to adhere to any religion in particular, but most charity was still provided by churches. The next step (and the core of the answer to the question) was the rise of socialism in the late 19th and early 20th century, so that people in difficult times could get support from the state, labour unions and socialist political parties. With the new idea that religion is the opium of the people, religiosity amongst the lower classes entered a sharp decline. When labour parties reached the peak of their power during the post-WW2 reconstruction and build the welfare state, religion no longer served a purpose. The next generation didn't join church life.
I wouldn't be surprised if the current wave of neoliberalism, sending society back towards the 1860s, when entire families lived in flooded single-room basements whilst their employers lived in palaces, and large scale immigration from more religious countries (mostly Muslims), would reverse this secularisation. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
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
