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.
It seems that at least until the late 1970s, in the USA there was a particularily close connection between hearses and ambulances - not only over the same manufacturers, but also double usage with the very same cars. Now while this allows some obvious synergies, it also has obvious drawbacks. Why was this connection more stable in the USA than in other parts of the world? --KnightMove (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article Combination car (ambulance) offers some hints: an era when funeral homes offered emergency ambulance service in addition to their primary trade, especially in smaller towns and rural areas - was that US-specific? - often built on a Cadillac, decline due to federal regulations and a major downsizing of the passenger cars that were used. Card Zero (talk)※18:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I heard an argument against that "conflict of interest" before. A funeral home director said that funeral services don't see "lost customers" because everyone will, at some point, be a customer for funeral services. It isn't like, for example, home sales. Some people never purchase a house. It is a choice. So, if you die today, tomorrow, or ten years from now, you are still a customer - just a future customer.
Then, she added to it the counter-argument. When someone dies, they don't pay for funeral services. They're dead. It is the living people who pay for it. The more living people there are, the more they tend to pay. So, if you get a customer when they are 20, they have their parents paying. If you get them when they are 80, they have children and grandchildren involved, which can greatly increase the total service price.
In 1898, George William Hervey, "Secretary and Comptroller-General, National Debt Office", was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath, so presumably it was of some import.
I've always understood this quotation to have originated in Belfast at the height of the Troubles. I went to look it up today and find that as well as being ascribed to (variations on) "a Belfast citizen", it (or a slight variation on it) is also ascribed to Ed Murrow, the American broadcaster, possibly about Vietnam. Wikiquote has it "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation" and says: "As quoted in The Improbable Irish (1969) by Walter Bryan". So - can we find a definitive source for it? I rather suspect it's an idea that floats around looking for any appropriate situation and lands on a likely person. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the congressional record, July 1965: “Anybody who isn’t confused by the Vietnam situation isn’t informed,” says Dr. Ray Smith, Jr.
DuncanHill, in American usage, that American name you mentioned is Edward R. Murrow, with the middle initial almost always included. I am 74, and I have very rarely heard his name shortened to "Ed" although that was a teenage nickname. Cullen328 (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I heard Ethel merman in broken German/while Ute lempered back/and though accounts were thorough/did Edward R murrow/before he jumped the track? Sorry, not relevant to the discussion, just a song that played in my head when I saw the above, and now it's playing in yours. --Trovatore (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While looking to find a potential source for the quote in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, I discovered he was listed under "Ed Murrow (Edward Roscoe Murrow)".
Could be a riff on Niels Bohr's admonition "[t]hose who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it"? That seems to be from 1952. --Trovatore (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations says it's in Chapter 1 thereof, if we accept that as a reliable source. I can't find a searchable copy of The Improbable Irish online, however. Ceratarges-etc (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article Ed Murrow, he "majored in speech" at Washington State College. I understand the American idea of majoring in something, but what is "speech" as an academic subject? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I took a communications class once. It was super fun. We studied the principles of oral and written communication for a semester. For a final project we had the freedom to come up with any topic we wanted and then were graded on our presentation and ability to persuade the class. I later learned this was a business course that prepared people for management consulting. Viriditas (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!! Could I have some help interpreting what this reviewer is saying? In The Times Literary Supplement, a critic discusses George III in the context of Alan Lloyd's The Wickedest Age and Stanley Ayling's George III. They write:
One consequence of piety and devotion must be stressed; It is that they sometimes create a barrier between those who practise them and the ordinary run of humanity. Here Alan Lloyd's book, The Wickedest Age, is in point. While the pre-eminence of Mr Ayling's book is unaffected by the presence of a lighter and not always water-tight vessel, that vessel gives the reader a voyage over the darker waters of English life.
The text comes from page 5 of this document from the internet archive. There are just a few things that are really throwing me off, but if it was life or death I'd say that the reviewer reckons Lloyd's book covers the "barrier" (the vessel?) that was created due to George III's piousness and devotion (the vessel?) while Ayling's omits it?
Lloyd's book is the "lighter and not always water-tight vessel". It looks at the "darker waters of English life". Ayling's looks at the piety of the King. DuncanHill (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... so not very helpful as a quote for a review of The Wickedest Age. Can you see anywhere in that page where the reviewer actually makes a judgement of Lloyd's book? JordyGreytalk🧸13:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is judging Lloyd's book to the extent of saying that it is 'lighter' (presumably meaning less dry and academic) than Ayling's, is 'not always watertight' (implying I suppose some deficiencies of fact or argument), and emphasises 'the darker waters of English life', but I agree that these observations, taken out of the review's overall context, are not very useful as quotes (and Wikipedia, of course, could not take into account my paranthetical speculative interpretations), although they might help a reader of the review to decide which of the two books to purchase. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The voyage over the darker waters is one of the good things the reviewer says about Lloyd's book. It reminds us of the contrast between the King and his subjects. You should buy both books, as they look at the age in different ways and to different ends. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe I can put a sentence together? Maybe "The Wickedest Age was directly compared to Stanley Ayling's George the Third by The Times Literary Supplement: Lloyd's book was described as 'a lighter and not always water-tight vessel, that ... [unlike Ayling's,] gives the reader a voyage over the darker waters of English life.'"
Another one where The Peerage[3] conflicts with other sources.
Wikidata (citing only The Peerage) says John Edward Mosley (Q76135935): (1795-1862) (a relative of the Wedgwood-Darwin family) married "Sophia Anne Paget, daughter of William Paget" in 1824; the Darwin Correspondence Project has him marrying "Caroline Sophia Paget" (1790–1853; daughter of John and Jane Paget of Kilmersdon, Somerset) in the same year [4], citing records via Ancestry.com. Can anyone verify, please?
Indexed records at FamilySearch [5][6] also support that the couple married on 20 May 1824 were John Edward Mosley and Caroline Sophia Paget.
The Burke's Peerage reference [7] above says that the supposed William Paget was of "Newberry House, Somerset". But the 1879 Burke's LG[8] gives Newberry House as a seat of John Paget, husband of Jane, in fact it was "where he principally resided" and where he died in 1825.
The only Sophia Paget that I can see on FamilySearch, born or married in the right period, with a father William Paget, was LZPT-V7V born in Birmingham in 1802 who married a Samuel Spencer in 1823. They don't seem to be connections of the family you're looking at, so are probably irrelevant. That's not to say there might not have been a Sophia Paget who's not on FamilySearch, because coverage of the church records pre-1837 can be patchy; but they still most likely would not be associated with Newberry House. Jheald (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the obscure barrel armband artifact from the bronze age Hallstatt culture, the book The Celtic World says In some cases it is clear that they cannot have been removed during life. This information is now in arm ring as Some were constructed so that it would have been impossible to remove them, but does that rewording match what was originally being said? How might it have been "clear that they cannot have been removed during life"? Could any form of construction be such that they can be put on, but not taken off? (What are they, Chinese finger traps?) Is the implication in fact that one grows into the armband until it's unremovable, or does "cannot" perhaps mean "were not"? Card Zero (talk)※22:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They're made of bronze or lignite(not that rare isotope of unobtainium called unremovablewhilealivium), so I'm guessing the author meant they don't show signs of being cut open. Certainly there is no way to guarantee they were lifelong adornments, and the rephrased version makes an unjustifiable claim. The wearer could have gone on a diet, voluntary or involuntary, such that it could slip off; or an unfriendly passing Viking or accident might have caused a (survivable) amputation. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
'Shellers From the Past and the Present' has an entry on "Lukis, Frederick Corbin" (Lt. Colonel; (1788–1871). It includes:
...However, Jeffreys must have referred not to the father, but to his eldest son, Dr. Frederick Collings Lukis, 1814-1863 (died from a lung decease he had suffered from during some years after just having become 48 years old, possibly tbc), who became a surgeon, and was like his father very interested in natural history and helped his father also in his archeological work, because Jeffreys 1863, when treating Abra tenuis, says "... the late Dr. Lukis, who favoured me with a description and a sketch in October 1859 ..." . The younger Dr. Lukis was a very good friend of Jeffreys and was said to be the best conchologist of the Channel Islands during this time. Jeffreys, however, continued his correspondence with the family through F.C. Lukis sr., until the old man died.
So was the son Frederick Collings Lukis (1814/15–63)? And if so, who was Frederick Corbin Lukis (died 1878)?
"The king's beard did not, however, last; on 9 August 1503, the day after his marriage to Margaret Tudor, James had his beard 'clippit' by the Countess of Surrey and her daughter at the exorbitant cost of £180 Scots, and duly appears clean-shaven in all his portraits."[11] I've always found being shaven by countesses is worth the extra money though. --Antiquary (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, celebration = getting married, and the next day he had his beard taken off. More importantly, in Margaret Tudor's portrait, does she have a common marmoset? Europeans didn't land in Brazil until 1500, so she's an early adopter. Card Zero (talk)※19:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually mentioned in the article on the Countess of Surrey in question: Agnes Howard, Duchess of Norfolk. (She was Countess of Surrey at the time; she did not become Duchess of Norfolk until her husband was restored to that title in 1514.) "Agnes Howard, and her step-daughter Muriel, Lady Gray, clipped the Scottish king's beard on 9 August 1503, and he gave her a length of cloth-of-gold." (The name of the daughter is incorrect, however: she was in fact Muriel Grey (not Gray), Viscountess Lisle, the wife (soon-to-be widow) of John Grey, 2nd Viscount Lisle. She was one of the then-Earl of Surrey's daughters by his first marriage.) Proteus(Talk)09:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A thought: Priscilla could have been as young as 2 years and 1 day when she died, and no older than 3 less 1 day; perhaps the records of the time simply omitted her. Is the total of 8 children actually quoted in a source, or was it arrived at by counting the children we have other records of?
Quakers did not baptise, so their children were not entered in Baptismal records, they kept their own. Nor were they usually buried in consecrated churchyards that kept official burial records. If a small child died, of an infectious disease, say, and was buried hurridly in private ground, the family might forget (or 'forget') to make any official record of the death, which cost money (3d at this time, equivalent to up to £10 today) to register. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You mean no older than 4 less one day. The Life, Letters and Labours of Francis Galton gives us John Howard Galton (1794–1862)[13] and Sophia Galton (1782–1863),[14] but it doesn't appear to mention Priscilla. --Antiquary (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One angle of attack: Looking at Google's n-gram viewer and comparing some representative phrases ("in the Piraeus" vs "in Piraeus"; "from the Piraeus" vs "from Piraeus") suggests the no-The form took off circa 1910-1915 and has been in ascendancy ever since.
"The Ukraine" meant "the borderland", and once they were free (sort of) from Russia the "the" part lost favor. "Piraeus" as a word seems to have an embedded "the", so another question was why it was ever called "the Piraeus" in English. Of course, we do have redundancies like that in English, for example the ball club called the Los Angeles Angels is literally "the the Angels Angels". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no embedded article in "Piraeus". However, in Greek it has always been used with the article, (ὁ Πειραιεύς in ancient Greek), so "the Piraeus" is just a literal take-over of Greek usage. --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, the Ukrainian and Russian languages do not have articles at all, whether definite or indefinite. Specificity is expressed via context. So, the "the" in "the Ukraine" was always an English invention. Or perhaps it was a calque from the French form, "l'Ukraine", as French was widely spoken in the upper echelons back in the day, sometimes almost to the exclusion of Russian itself. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In Greek, toponyms, like most proper nouns, tend to be used with a definite article. The Greek title of the song "Never on Sunday" is "Τα Παιδιά του Πειραιά", translated literally, word by word, "The Children of the Piraeus". Etymologically, the name is said to have meant something like "[the place] beyond [the passage]". But the vagaries of the development of a language tend to defy logical analysis. In English we use the definite article for the names of rivers and seas, but not for canals, straits and lakes rivers, canals, straits and seas, but not for lakes. Go figure. The question is perhaps, why was Piraeus "the Piraeus" before 1910–1915? ‑‑Lambiam12:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC) [fixed 21:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)][reply]
Or rather, is it closer to an American brigadier general or to a British brigadier? The rank insignia of an amid in most modern Arabic nations' armies display three stars, making it look like a senior colonel and not like a general. (The insignia of a liwa typically feature crossed swords, as if it was the first in the line of general ranks.) ~2026-29827-50 (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking whether it is included in whatever the Arabic term is for "general officer" (which, as you imply, includes brigadier generals in US usage but not brigadiers in British usage)? That may well vary from country to country. The comparison article linked above shows at least some countries which appear to group it alongside higher ranks (e.g. Algeria, where it gets the fancier epaulettes that go with the higher ranks, and Yemen, where it gets the red band which likewise appears to indicate the higher ranks). But at least some others appear not to do so (e.g. Morocco, where it doesn't get the fancier epaulettes). Proteus(Talk)11:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
High interest rates and the wage freeze combined to lower inflation to between 30 and 40 per cent in the first half of the 1980s. Then inflation rose again and in 1988 it reached its pre-1980 level of around 70 per cent. The reason was not primarily excessive consumer demand but the continuing high government deficit. This was caused by a number of factors: a failure to curb the growth of the large civil service; inefficient taxation, which left the huge profits of the industrial holdings and, especially, of the self employed, almost untouched; and, most importantly, the continued existence of a huge state industrial sector, which was inefficient and largely loss-making. The Özal government publicly declared its intention to privatize the public sector industries many times (as, indeed, had all governments since the early 1950s), but its privatization programme progressed only very slowly. Most of the state industries were so old-fashioned and overstaffed that investors were not interested in them. More effective was the abolition of a number of government monopolies, leading, for instance, to a large number of private airline companies and television stations. In both sectors members of the Özal family were among the pioneers. The position of the commercial radio and television channels was really rather extraordinary. The first TV stations, such as Star-1 (later Interstar) broadcast from Germany and could be received in Turkey via satellite dishes. Soon all the major holdings and especially the large newspaper publishers had their own channel. This was tolerated, although the article in the constitution that gave a broadcasting monopoly to the state was only changed years later in 1993. — Turkey A Modern History
In this case, "inefficient taxation" means that the government failed to collect enough taxes from profitable businesses, leaving the government short of funds. The phrase puts the onus for the problem on the government and implies that failure to collect these taxes was a result of disorganization. It is in contrast to "tax evasion" in which businesses hide or disguise profits in order to lower their tax payments. Xuxl (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is no doubt that tax evasion transformed the Özal government's tax system from theoretically "modern" into structurally inefficient by hollowing out the state’s primary source of revenue, forcing the government to borrow heavily and trigger hyperinflation.
The question is, why did tax evasion occur during Özal's rule? You cannot blame businesses for tax evasion. It is the government that encourages tax evasion. The Özal government's failed formula: Rapid Deregulation + Weak Enforcement + Subsidy Loopholes = Systemic Tax Evasion. Stanleykswong (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First, what is an efficient tax system? The textbook definition is: an efficient tax system is one that maximizes government revenue while minimizing economic distortions, administrative costs, and the burden of citizen compliance.
Secondly, to what extent did the government of Turgut Özal (1983-1989) deviate from the above definition? The Turgut Özal government (1983-1989) deviated significantly from the standard definition of an efficient tax system. Basically, it violated the four core pillars of public finance. An efficient tax system aims to minimize economic distortions and ensure tax compliance, but the Özal government established a highly decentralized, unstable, and easily exploitable tax system. Stanleykswong (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tax efficiency rests on three key principles: Efficiency (taxes are sufficient to pay for necessary services; easy to calculate; easy to collect; and difficult to avoid); economy (taxes do not distort personal or corporate economic behavior); and equitable (taxes are progressive, taking more from those with a greater ability to pay, and less from those with less ability to pay). DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As Trump has now signed the memorandum on paper in Paris, I wonder why the Iranian counterpart was not present and did the counterpart signed it on paper separately somewhere else? Our article says that "remote digital signatures" were used, but then what's the point of signing on paper if digital signatures were used? As I understand, the parties should either sign it on paper or digitally, but the reports look conflicting. ~2026-35498-85 (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we can be confident that two contemporaneously publishing American lepidopterists both answering to "William S. Wright" would have made an effort to disentangle the resulting ambiguity. ‑‑Lambiam07:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The CD booklet of a recording of R-K's opera The Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh and the Maiden Fevroniya tells me that "In addition to a number of quotations from his own works, Rimsky-Korsakov refers more or less directly in his Legend to all the music he had been concerned with in his career as a composer", and instances "the many folk melodies and hymn tunes, which he either deliberately transferred from the original source into his opera or wrote himself in the same manner." But what were those folksongs and hymns? If the Web has any answers then I can't find them, and a visit to my local university library only serves to show me that they don't teach Rimsky there. Can anything be unearthed? Thanks. --Antiquary (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, that article does discuss in general terms his interest in folksong, collecting of folksongs, and use of folksongs in his works, but none (unless I missed something) are actually named. I asked my question purely out of curiosity, not because I intend to overhaul either the Rimsky or the Kitezh page, so WP:TALK#TOPIC applies. --Antiquary (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to answer the question definitively: "Rimsky-Korsakov did not quote 'folk' melodies – and only quoted one 'liturgical' melody – in the opera. He relied instead on his creative intuition to abstract and stylize their principal attributes" (p. 148). That flatly contradicts the CD booklet writer, and with some authority to all appearance. Thanks very much. --Antiquary (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, archive links may be outdated by the time you read this, since the page was sloppily archived and this resulted in discussions being archived out of chronological order and apparently missing pre-2007 discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We're not supposed to enter into debates (see note at top of page). Let us therefore rephrase this as a question, so that we can debate it respectably: the CIA World Factbook says the area is 0.44 km², but calculations based on maps show 0.49 km². Which of these is correct, and which should go in the article? If I understand you correctly, the World Factbook has since changed its figure, but other sources repeat the old one? Card Zero (talk)※01:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's that south of St Peter's? In the bottom right corner of the map is an area that the key says is "extraterritorial property of the Holy See (Italian Territory)". Was that overlooked when doing the calculation? It looks like about 10% of the total. Card Zero (talk)※01:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. The smaller figure on the other hand does match what you get if you omit St. Peter's Square, and since the status of that is a bit special, I think that's a decent candidate for what happened. FrankGevaerts (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Vatican's official website (https://www.vaticanstate.va/en/state-and-government/general-informations/geography.html), the Vatican City-State has an area of 0.44 square kilometers. This is the baseline area established by the 1929 Lateran Treaty. However, this does not mean that the figure of 0.49 square kilometers is incorrect. This is the actual area calculated using modern satellite imaging and digital mapping technology.
The discrepancy lies between historical legal records and modern satellite measurements, and how cartographers handled buildings located along the border. Such discrepancies in the area of any country or city would exist if modern technology were used. Stanleykswong (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think modern satellite measurements have much to do with it, given that Heitordp found the 49ha measurement in the 1945-1946 edition of the De Agostini Atlas Calendar (page 128). It feels much more likely to me that nobody actually cared early on (and still today, the Vatican is kind of an unusual country. ) and an only one original source published a number which happened to be wrong.
I find it hard to imagine that an economist would lack this kind of common sense, so I think there must have been other reasons behind it. Ataled (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article from a Turkish economist goes into the issue. Its point is that even economists sometimes make obvious mistakes. Another article, this one from that time (1994), goes into more detail, but its basic claim is that Ms. Çiller was trying to boost growth, and the predictable result was that already bad inflation became worse. That writer blames the fact that she was an academic economist with little practical experience of government when she was appointed PM, making her more prone to enact mistaken policies. Xuxl (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
