Humanities desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 23

Looking for an American car tire company: B&S

Hello,
I've written an article on the French Wikipedia about Torrilhon, a former French tire manufacturer, active between the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries. In 1902 this company obtained a product license for a car wheels rubber band (solid or pneumatic?) from an American manufacturer that I only known by its initials B&S. Looking on the en:WP desambigueous page B&S, there are only two industrial companies but they don't seem to have worked with rubber or made tires. Any ideas?
Thanks
TCY (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is one of Torrilhon advertisement published like here, in Swiss Chamber of commerce publications. The ad is focusing on product "B & S. Breveté SGDG". The "SGDG" certification being issued as a product patent, it is probable that "B & S" stands for the Torrilhon product identifier, but is not naming the American manufacturer. --Askedonty (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can find related to B&S tires is This tire store in Wilson, North Carolina, but I doubt that is related here. --Jayron 32 12:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah… Given the time frame the OP is asking about, I suspect it is a company that no longer exists. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or it was a "Band" and Something. General Tire ( wonder General Balloon Jumbo) still exist - or are they Conti now? --Askedonty (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only American B&S I know of commonly is Briggs & Stratton, and while they are in a very closely related industry, for which tires are an important component, they started in 1908, several years after the OP's 1902 license. The other one shown on the DAB page is Billings & Spencer, a tool and machine company that may have existed at the time, who would not have been in the business of dealing with rubber tires, AFAICT. According to this, they were acquired by Crescent Niagara in the 1960s. There is nothing in the B&S product line at that link that shows they would have been involved in anything related to rubber tires. --Jayron 32 15:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, please read my first answer about the Swiss chamber of commerce again. Even without agreeing to any guarantee, the French governement would have had a hard time certifying American brands as local tyre types, even in backward epochs like in the 1900's. The OP only forgot to explain clearly that it's about lorry tyres (read Torrilhon), and that in all the related sentences the wheels are on rubber bands. Given the American industrial prestige in the advertizing trade and in terms of that trade's prosody B&S "smells" American, at least Anglo-American. It has to be a significant acronym, but with the subtile perfume of ownership assorted to the licence issuer proper inner culture. --Askedonty (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? --Jayron 32 15:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just mean that the acronym can't be the licence originator, it's not like it were about Coca-Cola with their particular line product. --Askedonty (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be as famous as Coca Cola, but in the early 1900s, the manufacturing world was much more fragmented; there may have been a small manufacturer of tires by that name that had a single factory in some small US town. It would not be outside of the realm of possibility, it's a perfectly reasonable first line of inquiry. Since it turns out to be a likely dead-end, perhaps the initials refer to something else, but just because we arrived there by finding no such company doesn't mean the initial search was unwarranted. --Jayron 32 15:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a company name in Newspapers.com other than individual tire stores as per Jayron's example. However, I've seen the term "balloon and solid tires" referenced. Maybe that has something to do with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon tires are a thing. They're listed on Wikipedia as a type of bicycle tire, but there are many applications of them, I have a wheelbarrow that uses a balloon tire. --Jayron 32 15:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would I have had the good connections, I'd then settled for Firestone. Both a startup, soon a major: Hervey Firestone reinvented the wheel, the first-ever low-pressure balloon tire (company claim), but more important before, the solid rubber sidewire tire as one of the company products foundation as of today by NEXEN Corp --Askedonty (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Askedonty, Jayron32, Baseball Bugs, and Blueboar: thanks for your help and researchs.
I think that if this American company licensed production to an overseas company, it must not have been a small and very local company. Even if at that time, in the United States as well as in Europe, in this nascent rubber industry, it was not concentrated with many companies. Perhaps B&S was an industrial company whose production in the 1900s was partly in rubber but years or decades later, is no longer in this field at all. In addition, this company, in 120 years could have disappeared or been absorbed.
In Clermont-Ferrand, the French tire city, if we find precise and exhaustive information on Michelin, we find very little on these two main competitors (Torrilhon and Bergougnan) at the beginning of the rubber industry, whose archives have very little been preserved.
TCY (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Torrilhon, Verdier et C^ie filed patent no. 117207 in France (1882) [1], pages 3 and 25. They filed a trademark application on 27 November 1890 [2]. The company had been in business since 1852 and it is difficult to see why they would need to obtain a licence from a firm in America [3]. The company themselves filed for U S patents in 1885 [4] and 1883 [5]. In the French patent court in 1890 they challenged Bartlett's priority (28 March) over theirs (7 November) because it had been declared null, having been linked to Wilson (19 August) [6], pages 278-9. A M Lamy-Torrilhon filed patent no. 171556 on 8 October 1885 [7]. Another patent was filed by Torrilhon, Verdier on 13 October 1859 [8]. 2A00:23C4:570A:601:FDCE:26A1:A97A:C64B (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The firm filed numerous patents over the years, for example Fabrication et application des cercles en caoutchoue et toile pour roues de voitures et vélocipèdes à tension fixe (No. 210467, 20 January 1891) [9]. 2A00:23C4:570A:601:FDCE:26A1:A97A:C64B (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 1852 they (rather M. Torrilhon) were into cellulose but their "bandes américaines B et S": [10] (p14), [11] (p754), later are illustrated in relation with WWI. Given the company size in ~~1902~~ 1896 ( workforce: 350+ employees, site: 20,000 sqare meters ) such licence should have been a deal with majors, however, B & S might also have been chemists, or other scientists. At any rate, the product as illustrated is the object of a U.S. patent apparently: tour de france juillet 1903. --Askedonty (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 1903 advertisement says Les seuls Bandages pratiques pour les poids lourds sont les Bandes Américaines (Système B.&S.) This phrase poids lourds translates as "heavy weights." According to Google translate, one meaning of the French word bandage is Bande de métal ou de caoutchouc qui entoure la jante d'une roue. This in turn translates to "band of metal or rubber that wraps around the rim of a wheel." The passage in the source reads:

Torrilhon déporte alors son activité vers le poids lourds en faisant appel à une licence américaine.

I assume poids lourds here means "Heavy Goods Vehicles" (HGVs) and the "licence" is that of the transport authority to use the product in vehicles on American roads. 2A00:23C4:570A:601:E995:FBDF:40B6:B42E (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would intuitively translate the licence quote rather as a referring to a patent, but then in addition there is, in the 1903 advertisement, to the left of it a sectional drawing of the tire arrangement also featuring the text PAT D embossed. Such licence, if American - but what else ? could of course be one applied to by the European manufacturer, requesting at the American patent Office. I'm a little bit in doubt about such a scenario, though it cannot be excluded for all we know, particularly if the tire was sold as a Torrilhon, and at the same time was marked "PAT D". There remains nonetheless quite a gap between the bicycle tires Torrilhon had mostly build his last recent fame upon - the same for their version(s) for automobiles - and the HGVs bandages, which were very different in design (the link, p14 above suggests "honeycomb tires", that would be basically such tires see [12] ) The photography at the previously quoted link is not showing the same kind of detail of course. --Askedonty (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "PAT D" inscribed on the drawing could be an abbreviation (I don't speak French very well) of patent dépendent ("patent pending"). It would be surprising if Torrilhon was making this claim in respect of a patent application filed by another company. I'm no patent expert (although I do hold "letters patent" granted by the Queen in 1976 - today's inventors receive a very boring document), but I am aware that after the effluxion of a certain number of years, towards the end of a patent's life, anyone can apply for a "Licence of Right" to exploit someone else's idea for a minimal fee. However, the advertisement confirms that it is a patent, not a licence, which has been applied for. 2A00:23D0:C4E:3401:FDA6:9A41:4F4A:B1D1 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe not. "Patente" (in French) was also the word used for a fiscal identification for industrial and other commercial activities: [13]. --Askedonty (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minto Parks

On WP I came across following 3 Minto Park articles.

Minto Park (downtown Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.)
Minto Park, Allahabad, Later renamed Madan Mohan Malaviya Park after independence of India
Minto Park, Lahore later renamed Greater Iqbal Park after creation of Pakistan

Greater Iqbal Park article history section clearly mentions, in British times, it was named as Minto Park after Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 1st Earl of Minto, and Governor-General of India between July 1807 and 1813.

Ottawa and Allahabad articles do not mention which Minto those parks were named after, whether same 1st Earl of Minto or some one else?
Do any other Minto Parks exist/ed any where else for which WP does not have any article?

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One suspects the Ottawa park would be named after Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 4th Earl of Minto, who was Governor General of Canada 1898–1904. He was also Viceroy of India 1905–1910, so some Indo-Pak Mintos may be named after him rather than the 1st Earl. The Allahabad park was, according to one of the references in our article, created by the 4th Earl, so one would assume it was named after him. DuncanHill (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm the Governor-General as the origin of the name for the Park in Ottawa; there are plenty of other things named for him around the city, as would be expected. Xuxl (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found a Minto Park in Marion County, Oregon, which is named after John Minto (Oregon pioneer). DuncanHill (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is known as simply "Minto-Brown." Temerarius (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Temerarius: That's a different park, my one is further out on Oregon Route 22, between Gates and Niagara. DuncanHill (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one in Kolkata (or Culcutta for us old'uns) - see Kolkata, 'Shahid Bhagat Singh Udyan' popularly called 'Minto Park' (Bhagat Singh was apparently an activist for Indian independence). Alansplodge (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And one more at Dawson City in Yukon;

Established in 1904, Minto Park was named after the first Governor General that visited the Yukon, Governor General Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, the 4th Earl of Minto. [14]

Alansplodge (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, its the name of a small cul-de-sac in Wishaw, Scotland. [15] This is not particularly close to the Scottish village of Minto, which seems to lack a public park as far as I can tell. Alansplodge (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19th century naming trends

Was there in the time of Abraham Lincoln (19th century) a trend in English-speaking countries to name children after Old Testament figures (Abraham, Adam, Eve, Isaac, Rachel, etc.)? Religious names are mentioned in Naming in the United States, but that page doesn't mention trends over time. Were specifically Old Testament names (as opposed to Christian saints) more common in this era than before or later? Is it possible to find out through Wikidata, perhaps? (Curious detail: In my Swedish ancestry, full of Anders, Erik, Johan, Lars and Nils, there was suddenly an Aron (O.T.) born in 1838, which stuck in my surname Aronsson.) -- LA2 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Old Testament given names is often taken by family historians as an indicator of nonconformity. [16]

Some 18th century English examples, Abraham Darby (a Quaker}, Josiah Wedgwood (a Unitarian) and Joshua Routledge (a Methodist) support this, but there are also counter-examples such as Isaac Newton (an Anglican priest). Some other Old Testement forenames, such as Samuel, Daniel and Adam, seem to have remained constantly popular across the religious spectrum. Alansplodge (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Religious views of Isaac Newton were unusual, although the views of whoever named him seem more relevant. Card Zero (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but he was baptised as a baby at St John's Church, Colsterworth, a Church of England parish church, where his parents were both later buried. Alansplodge (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's father died 3 months before Isaac was born. Wouldn't he have been buried shortly after his death? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I stand corrected. My point stands though, Newton came from an Anglican family. Alansplodge (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the UK, you'd need to be wary of distorting answers by ignoring class. You could, for example, see a pronounced absence of Biblical names in the British PMs born in the 1800s, but that would be a rather selective cut of society. FWIW, without having crunched any numbers, the representation of Biblical names in that century doesn't seem tremendously different than in the ones before/after. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a complete absence. Benjamin Disraeli had an O.T. forename. Deor (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disraeli was born Jewish. A number of the items in Benjamin (name) were not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- In the upper classes, the 18th and 29th centuries saw a fad for giving children names from Classical (Greco-Roman) history: Augustus/Augusta, Julius/Julia, Alexander/Alexandra, etc. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - 29th century? Is that limited to Trantor or to the entire Galactic Empire? --Jayron32 15:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - During the last days of the Galactic Empire, there was a curious trend to name rulers after a certain dog (of great ambition): Dagobert VIII and IX. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, the 29th century. I remember it well. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The century for really hard-core religious names was the 17th, when there were individuals such as "If-Jesus-Christ-had-not-died-for-thee-thou-hadst-been-damned Barebone", more commonly known in later years as Nicholas Barbon... AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hortatory names! Something we don't have an article on. Be-courteous Cole, Safety-on-high Snat, Search-the-scriptures Moreton, More-fruit Fowler ... Card Zero (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though we do name-check Thou-Shall-Not-Commit-Adultery Pulsifer -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 12:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Visit-the-Infidel-with-Explanatory-Pamphlets. --Jayron 32 13:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've noticed, but these days when you see the Jehovah's Witnesses outside railway stations with their leaflets they don't approach passers-by. That's because they have been instructed to remain passive and only engage when spoken to. 2A00:23C5:E148:1D01:B176:C22E:2E25:A35 (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the name Pulsifer brought to mind an article I edited 10 years ago. I hope Prof. Hooper gets remembered down the centuries.[17] My given name is derived from Jeremiah, but when I chose my WP moniker I was unaware of how many of his scribblings had been preserved for him to count as a MajorProphet. MinorProphet (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Longest ID numbers in national identity documents

National identity documents usually have a unique ID number resp. alphanumeric identifier. From my experience, those IDs usually contain a magnitude of 10 digits/characters, of course also depending on the size of the country. Around the globe, what may be the longest IDs used for identity cards? --KnightMove (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KnightMove I had a look through National identification number and the longest I could find are the Chinese identity card number (18 digits) and the Mexican CURP (18 alphanumeric characters). the wub "?!" 12:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Driving licence in the United Kingdom has 18 characters. It is frequently used as an ID document. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 12:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This character limit seems to be widespread. For example, the Jockey Club does not allow any horse to have a name which is more than 18 characters long (including punctuation and spaces). 2A00:23C5:E148:1D01:B176:C22E:2E25:A35 (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 18-chatacter limit is fairly universal. You can confirm that here. I can't find any reason why, but I suspect that it was baked in to some early, widely used database system (such character limits were common in things like early MS-DOS systems for example), and is a legacy that got carried through to modern times. --Jayron 32 14:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18 characters is the length allowed for names and for each of the two narrative columns in a standard 100/106 character bank statement electronic file? May not have a direct relationship with these IDs, but early computer systems were short on space so perhaps an 18-character 'standard' was common for names? -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 15:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't know what the ultimate source of such a limit is, but it is a real limit, and it appears in so many varied and unconnected contexts, it leads me to believe there is some underlying, long past technical reason which has just gotten carried on through to modern times. I can remember when things like the 8.3 filename were standard; every file in a computer was limited to an 8-character main name and a 3-character extension, which was often used to identify a file by type. Today, such limits don't exist. I can name my Google Doc pretty much anything I want. But you'd be surprised how such limitations on legacy systems hang around. The 18-character limit feels something like that. The number of bits for 18 bytes is 144, which lies somewhere between 128 and 256, which leads me to believe that there was likely some standard sized data block of 256 bits, with some amount of overhead that was reserved for another purpose, leaving 144 bits for character storage. But I'm mostly spitballing here. All I know is the limit is real, it's pervasive, and I have no actual evidence where it comes from. --Jayron 32 16:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Governance

The governance organs: executive, legislative and the judiciary have a regulatory relationship in nature? explain. Grotesquetruth (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a homework question? Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/issue-7] it could as well qualify as wishful thinking. --Askedonty (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See our article on Separation of powers. --Lambiam 08:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes so could we say their relationship is regulatory over governance of economy? Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you get terms correct. I the United States, the term "regulatory power" or "regulation", in the context of government, refers to what is known as secondary legislation, which basically means that it has the power of law, but it does not come in the form of bills entered into law by the legislature, rather it comes from powers delegated to other bodies by the legislature to create and enforce their own policies. For example, the Clean Air Act (a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President) empowers the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to enact and enforce regulations in line with the parameters of the law. These parameters set by the EPA, and the penalties for violating them that the EPA has the power to enforce through civil penalties and fines, are called "regulations" rather than "laws", to distinguish them from legislative actions, but they still have the power of law. If it is a rule created by Congress, it's a law. If it is a rule passed by part of the executive branch (federal agencies), then it is a regulation. The judicial branch doesn't pass laws OR regulations, but it does mediate disputes (usually between the state and accused violators of the law or of regulations) over implementation of those laws and regulations. --Jayron 32 16:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the relationship between the three branches is different in other countries. We really can not answer the question without knowing which country you are referring to. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes agreed, the essence of these branches would be to regulate right? could you expand on this perhaps? Grotesquetruth (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope… not until you say which nation you want us to comment on. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

common law jurisdictions Grotesquetruth (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, even "common law" jurisdictions gets confusing because not all countries with a common law tradition have the same systems of government. The U.S. was founded on a strong separation of powers, which was based in part on the traditional European traditions of estates of the realm and in part on the concept of things like royal prerogative and parliamentary sovereignty and the like. Britain, and other countries using the Westminster system have evolved de facto into a different direction that does not have a distinct separation of powers. In practical purposes, Britain has what has been termed an "elective dictatorship" by its critics: In Britain, the majority party in Parliament gets to form a Government from among its own members. The Government (in a British sense, meaning what "Administration" means in an American sense) both acts as the Executive Branch, and as the primary source of primary legislation for the Parliament, as the UK has a strong whip system, meaning that the Government creates the legislation, brings it to Parliament for passing; and since their party is in power in that Parliament, the legislation passes. Essentially, the same body acts as both legislative and executive. Historically, the checks on this power, being the Monarch and Lords, had (and in theory still do have) power to reign in Commons, but in practice Commons is the source of all law, regulation, and enforcement in the UK. The Monarch basically never witholds royal assent (the UK equivalent of Veto Power), and Lords has the power to delay, but not to block, legislation that has been passed by Commons, meaning that for all practical purposes, the same body is responsible for all state powers in the UK. --Jayron 32 18:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "rein in", which ordinarily I wouldn't mention, but in this context confusion between 'rein' and 'reign' could be misleading. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

consider it an accidental pun. --Jayron 32 11:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the President of the U S is not a member of Congress and the Prime Minister of the U K is a Member of the House of Commons (the modern tendency is for the most powerful ministers to sit in that House rather than the House of Lords) but does not the party of which the President is a member get its legislation through if it has a majority in both Senate and House of Representatives? As I understand it the power of the Senate to block legislation approved by the House of Representatives is unlimited, and when each House is controlled by a different party this sometimes leads to a stand-off where the administration runs out of money. When there is no clear Commons majority you get situations such as the one in which Boris Johnson said he "would rather die in a ditch" than obey the law. On secondary legislation, see Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, popularly known as "Henry VIII powers." 31.124.153.252 (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See parliamentary sovereignty. One advantage is that it avoids the problem of divided government. Alansplodge (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding does not the party of which the President is a member get its legislation through if it has a majority in both Senate and House of Representatives?: Maybe? If the President and a CLEAR, SUBSTANTIAL majority of BOTH houses of Congress all belong to the same party (which is to say 60% or more of each House), then yes, that would be true. In practice, that basically never happens. The last time in US history when such a situation existed was the 95th United States Congress from 1977-1979, when I was a toddler. In practice, you either have actual divided government (when one house, or the other, or both, is of a different party than the President), or you have a slim majority; by which certain members of each party become "Kingmakers", whereby conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans can break rank with their party to join the other party, breaking the majority. You see this in recent Congresses, where Republicans like Mitt Romney or Lynne Cheney or Susan Collins, or Democrats like Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema frequently break with their own party, which means that even when those parties hold a bare majority (say 51-49), their parties are not secure in their agendas. This is even more of an issue in the Senate, where for all practical purposes a 60% majority is required for many votes to pass. In the UK, because the PM is from the majority party in Commons, that basically never happens. Indeed, the UK has trigger mechanisms for when the PM and Parliament are NOT working in unison; for example when a supply bill fails in Commons, the PM always resigns, as it signifies they are not unified. In the UK, not only is true divided government rare, it is conventionally impossible. The U.S. built divided government into the system as an expected norm. --Jayron 32 14:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that political parties arrived in the U S around 1815. If they had been around before then the Founding Fathers might have set up something different. 2A00:23C4:570A:601:FDCE:26A1:A97A:C64B (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"15th century map" on display at the UN?

I saw this interesting map posted on Twitter, and according to the linked tweet, it's from the 15th century, which doesn't seem plausible on closer inspection since it shows what looks like Australia. Supposedly to be found at the UN. It looks to depict a flat earth with massive ice continents beyond Antarctica; as far as I can tell, these are labeled "Terra De Vista" and what looks like "Liberia" at lower left. Also an added continent in the Atlantic, maybe Atlantis. Does anyone have more context on this map and its origins? 24.43.123.69 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With (a somewhat accurate) Australia? No way it is from the 15th century. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that stood out to me too. Also I didn't see this close-up from the original poster earlier. It's got German place names and swastikas everywhere. Must be a work of Nazi pseudoscience and I highly doubt the claim that it's on display at the UN. I'd still be interested in knowing more about the context. 24.43.123.69 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider cross-posting this (i.e. a post with a link to this thread) on the Mathematics reference desk, as the "projection" on this map (if it is an actual calculated projection) is really weird. There are many types of map projections that result in a rough elliptical shape in which you can simply shift things so that both the North and South pole are in view, or roughly on the foci of the "ellipse" as in this map (though the shape is not very ellipse-like at all). But then this projection decides to map, in a large circle around the North pole, every line of latitude into a circle up until the Antarctic Circle, at which point I'm not sure how it's defined to get to the South pole. I honestly think all the ice around the edge is actually a decent, very rough sketch of Antarctica as we know it in this extremely exaggerated projection, however what disturbs me is the position of several other land masses (what is that chunk of China-looking stuff hanging off East Asia? Where is the rest of North America? Are those the Canary Islands off of Africa under some ridiculous distortion? Did Tierra del Fuego get pulled clockwise away from South America for some reason?)

The guess I will posit is that someone was having fun with esoteric map projection ideas, hand-drafting them out, and then sketched world maps onto them freehand from memory. Someone who found this mathematician/geographer's old notes decided this looked cool, copied it, colorized it, and turned it into a poster with a bunch of other stuff to make it look a little more hermetic-like without completely destroying its integrity. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, the map may actually be based on (a mirror flip of?) the lunar Maria, under the obscure conspiracy theory that the moon is a reflection of the Earth and shows lost continents (that may be Atlantis near Africa, and maybe Lemuria near Asia?). So it's not really a conventional map projection but an attempt to show correlations between the flat earth and the moon. Edit: andthis reddit post confirms it as a "moon/earth map"! Though a comment repeats the UN claim and also says it's of Soviet origin (despite the text appearing to be in German). 24.43.123.69 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I didn't see your post before I put up mine, and clearly it makes mine look silly...ish. I mean, look at the lunar maria: that region looks nothing like the continents (you have to flip the moon image vertically to make it roughly match the map). Even though my theory about a mathematician playing around with globe projections drawing and world maps on their sketches from both bad memory and bad technique is not true, it at least portrays humanity with more sanity and sense than the Earth-moon map concept. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly connected with Welteislehre? AnonMoos (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some kind of updated concave hollow earth from these people fiveby(zero) 05:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the top of the map there is some lettering which seems to spell Johannes. This may be a reference to Johannes Hörbiger, who was involved in the Welteistheory. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that one's a biblical quote, from "John 14:6, 6:36". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the "15th century claim" on Twitter. According to Google Image search the map appeared on the web just one day ago. Its projection resembles the Flag of the United Nations. Similar maps used by flat earth supporters show the earth surrounded by an ice wall like c:File:Flat earth.png. That vikings, nazis and aliens live behind that wall, is usually a feature of the hollow earth supporters, who believe these groups live inside the earth, but here obviously used by a flat earth supporter. The round dot on the top could be an entrance into the hollow earth, thus combining the two views. I estimate the map was made after 2015, but the publication date of yesterday makes 2022 a likely date for the map. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "15th century" claim is in my first link.

Thanks for the Bible references, Fut.Perf! I couldn't quite read that part. The quotes are:

John 14.4: Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life.No one comes to the Father except through me."
John 6:36: But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

I'm also seeing tweets comparing the map to a "moon map" or "plasma reflection," which from what I can find is a recently emerged fringe theory which postulates that the moon is made of plasma and the lunar maria are reflections of the flat earth's continents, including "lost" continents and the land beyond the Antarctic "ice wall." If you compare the pictures they do match up pretty well, with the "known" Earth being off-center and the continents oddly shaped, plus the presence of Atlantis near Africa. So, probably more evident that this is a recent publication. 24.43.123.69 (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a 15th century map, and AFAIK, it isn't hanging in the UN. To be fair, it's been about 3 years since I last visited the UN, but I don't recall anything like this being on display in the publicly accessible areas of the UN, unless there was a traveling exhibit that was on display there for some purpose (sections of the public areas of the UN are sort of like a museum, and there are exhibits). --Jayron 32 15:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that thats trying to show a flat earth. It looks to me more like a perspective view of a very large spherical earth, of which the classic "flat earth" is actually just a segment of the surface. Iapetus (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One very odd thing about the map which no-one has mentioned here is that the Atlantic is much wider than the Pacific! AnonMoos (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only clear copy that I can find is on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT8Y62s8KT0). They also claim to be or to know the artist. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that does look clearer, thank you! At one point the artist's name can be seen: S. Bini (or Biri). 24.43.123.69 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second gospel reference is John 6⁵⁶:

He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

These two verses are key foundations of Christian teaching. 31.124.153.252 (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic teaching, at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether symbolic, allegorical, or transubstantiation, pretty much all (excepting very minor sects of which do not add up to a significant portion of the totality of Christianity) Christian groups hold eucharist/communion as a major part of their faith. Which is to say, all Christians, in some manner, place major importance on it, even if what importance they place varies from faith to faith. --Jayron 32 14:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A French annexation of Tunisia and Morocco

Why did France never outright annex Tunisia and Morocco like it did with Algeria? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Morocco, see Algeciras Conference - they didn't want to upset the Germans too much. Alansplodge (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Tunisia, it came under French control in a different manner, at a different time, and under a different organizational structure than Algeria. France invaded, occupied and directly colonized Algeria (see pied noir), integrating them fully within France by 1848. The French protectorate of Tunisia was a protectorate, not a colony or integrated into France. It was established in 1881 (a generation later than Algeria) under a different treaty structure that still left Tunisian local authorities in control (though under influence from Paris). The French Third Republic was in a different political situation than was the July Monarchy that established French Algeria. For various reasons, they didn't seek the same kind of direct integration into the French state that Algeria had undergone; not the least of which is that French Algeria was always a major political problem. From the moment it was fully integrated, it was a political nightmare domestically for France, most of the major political crises France faced came down to Algeria. Establishing a protectorate rather than fully integration was probably a wiser strategy in the long run. --Jayron 32 13:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]