Hi, I was looking for information about Kyla Stone and James Hunt who are supposed to be writers of dystopian fiction, but I can't find any information on Wikipedia. From Amazon, Kyla Stone is the million-copy USA Today Bestselling Author of 24 novels. Yann (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both names have entries in ISFDB, (which is here), though that of James Hunt is minimal – 1 poem in 1993 – so it's probably not the same person. ISFDB is also a Wiki, so (as you know, Yann, but other readers might not) not a Reliable source for Wikipedia's own purposes.

Stone's only publisher, Paper Moon Press, appears to have published no other Speculative Fiction author from 2017 (and only 5 works by others, back in 1994–5), so probably she is in effect self-published. Such writers are often not written about, or their works reviewed, in Reliable sources, so it's very doubtful she would qualify as Notable, and therefore for a Wikipedia article. It's telling that despite writing SF, she hasn't appeared on the online Science Fiction Encyclopedia (which I occasionally contribute to and consult daily, so know it's generally fairly up to date on authors of any significance).

Speaking generally, generating a million sales in total from more than 2 dozen titles published electronically over 8 years is not particularly spectacular, and it's easy to make a title qualify as a 'best seller' if its genre category is defined restrictively enough. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.159.137 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I didn't intend to create articles, but I was surprised not to find any mention of them. Your analysis explains why. Yann (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More English language novels are published in a single year these days, than during the entire Victorian era. Trying to comprehend this landscape is challenging. -- GreenC 21:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These arms of Nassau-Fulda contain an inescutcheon on an inescutcheon on an inescutcheon (on an escutcheon). Does anyone know of heraldic arms which have even more 'scutcheonception going on? -sche (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting observation. As a bonus question, are there arms that have an equal degree of 'scutcheonception', but more differing quarters (since the inner inescutcheon is not quartered and the next is 'first and fourth, second and third')? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.159.137 (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has categories up to 5 inescutcheons. In the 5 inescutcheon category it seems that none of the arms have any nesting (at least, as far as I could tell; at that level of inescutcheoning it's a bit hard for my eyes to parse.) In the 4 inescutcheons category the only arms matching the level of nesting seen with Nassau-Fulda are those corresponding to Philip Mountbatten (1947-1949). These are based on the equally triple-nest-escutcheoned royal arms of Greece (1936-1973), which also happen to be the only other triple-nesting I could find in the 3 inescutcheons category. GalacticShoe (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

while researching Ketti Gallian, I found:

Hilton, Louise G. (Spring 2021). "French Actors and the Hollywood Studio System: The Case of Ketti Gallian, 1934–1937". Film History. 33 (1). Indiana University Press: 1–45. doi:10.2979/filmhistory.33.1.01. JSTOR filmhistory.33.1.01. Retrieved 6 July 2025.

and this MIT resource:

https://mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?context=PC&docid=cdi_proquest_journals_2518468297&lang=en&search_scope=all&tab=all&vid=01MIT_INST%3AMIT

it seems useful to others

Piñanana (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing news that the FBI / DoJ have released 11 hours of CCTV depicting Epstein's prison cell. But as far as i can tell none of these news sites tells me where the CCTV have been released

I found a video of most of the CCTV on YouTube. Unfortunately it's useless as it comes with a giant ugly watermark and pointless text commentary edited in

Does anyone know where the original CCTV footage was released? Trade (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to find it but according to the NYT, a reliable secondary source that has reviewed it, the "video appears to be missing a minute just before midnight. The digital clock on the screen jumps from 11:58:58 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Officials did not immediately have an explanation for the apparent gap." -- GreenC 22:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the FBI releases a wanted poster and the copyright of the photos belongs to a third party who does not work for the agency are they (FBI) required to get permission form the photographer before they can distribute his photo(s)? I have not been able to find any policy which states they are required to obtain permission from the photographer. But i also find it hard to believe that a photographer can lose the rights to his works just because the FBI wants to distribute them--Trade (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See fair use. 196.50.199.218 (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wanted poster released for the 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators features a photo taken from the official website of the accused. That's just one out of many Trade (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright owners do not lose their rights by unauthorized (or, for that matter, properly licensed) republishing.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"[w]henever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military … installations or equipment as requiring protection …, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such … installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer … and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer … for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary"

Is there a list somewhere that shows which exact locations, structures or buildings that the US President’s Executive Order have designated as a "vital military and naval installation or equipment"? Trade (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text of Executive Order 10104 of February 1, 1950, still in effect, can be found here. If this was the UK, the list of secret installations would itself be a state secret. For the US perhaps not, but the list is fluid; if the Secretary of Defense tomorrow designates Palantir as "restricted", making a photograph as seen here may end you up in Alligator Alcatraz.  ​‑‑Lambiam 06:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the UK, how would that work? What if a publicly visible building is on the list? Can you accidentally violate the relevant act because there's no way to know the building is un-photographable? Or, since you have no way of knowing that it's prohibited, would you be able to argue that you lacked the mens rea to break the law? Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See BT Tower. Nanonic (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It always amused me that the radomes at RAF Fylingdales - 130ft high, bright white and visible for miles - were carefully omitted from the Ordnance Survey's oh-so-accurate maps. (I haven't checked to see if the replacement pyramids are mapped.) -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get the data analysis for this topic Victory Segun (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you told us what you mean by IAUE and hard copies of what? Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Segun is a Nigerian name, so IAUE is probably the Ignatius Ajuru University of Education. This does not help much to get a handle on the intention of the question, though.  ​‑‑Lambiam 18:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Conservatives in the Loyal Opposition when they have more seats? Is there a coalition or the incumbent party gets the primacy regardless of seats? Matt714931 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one government, which is decided by the seats in the House of Commons, especially now that the House of Lords cannot de-jure block legislation from passing. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although the House of Lords is the upper chamber of the Parliament, unlike the U.S. Senate, its members are not elected. The House of Lords is not part of the government and its main responsibility is to review and, if necessary, amend legislation passed by the House of Commons. Stanleykswong (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "not part of the government". The House of Commons is not part of the government either. The government is a group of people that is selected from the members of both houses, and appointed to ministries and related positions of official authority; chief among these people is the Prime Minister. (See the current Starmer ministry#List of ministers.) The government as a whole is answerable to the Parliament as a whole for the decisions it makes and actions it takes. The House of Commons can express a lack of confidence in the government, which usually results in the cessation of that government and the appointment of a new one. But the Parliament and its constituent houses are not the government. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The British government is made up of the House of Commons. Since the Prime Minister is appointed by the House of Commons, the party (or group of parties) that wins the most seats in a general election forms the government, and its leader becomes the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister then selects the rest of the government, known as ministers, from among the MPs in the House of Commons.

The House of Commons is not only where the government is formed, but also where laws are made, the government's actions are scrutinized and important issues are debated. Stanleykswong (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As kindly as I can put it, you're being an ultracrepidarian. If you were to check the link I provided above, you would see that the present Starmer government, like all previous governments, contains some ministers who are members of the House of Lords, as well as some ministers who are members of the House of Commons. The PM is not "appointed by" the House of Commons, but by the monarch. Laws are made in the Parliament, which consists of two houses, the Commons and the Lords. Every bill must go through both Houses, although the ability of the House of Lords to reject bills has been somewhat curtailed. The government's actions are scrutinized in both Houses, and important issues are debated in both Houses. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, since the 18th century, the government is formed by whatever party or coalition can command a majority in the Commons (Lord North was appointed whithout the support of the Commons, but it didn't end well). The next largest party forms the opposition, regardless of their status in the Lords. Before the House of Lords Act 1999, the heriditary peers gave the Conservative Party a large built-in majority in the upper house. Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very true. Thanks, Alansplodge. However, there's a difference between how the governing party or coalition is identified, and who the Prime Minister is. These days, all parties elect their own leaders, whenever they need or choose to do so, more or less democratically: simple. But within living memory, that was not always so. When Anthony Eden resigned in 1957, the Conservative Party had no formal process for determining who the next leader would be. Should a vacancy occur through death or resignation, the next leader would "emerge" in the fullness of time. Until that happened, an acting leader might have to stand in. This placed Queen Elizabeth II in the difficult position of having to personally choose the next prime minister when the Conservative Party was not able to give her the name of its preferred candidate. The Palace had to undertake its own "soundings" amongst Cabinet members and others, before concluding that Harold Macmillan would probably be the leading candidate were a vote to be taken. This placed her perilously close to doing the unthinkable: involving herself in politics; but the situation demanded an immediate resolution and the Conservative Party was unable, under its own rules - or lack thereof, to oblige.

That situation almost repeated itself when Macmillan himself resigned in 1963. The party still had no formal election process, but Macmillan was unwilling to place the Queen in a similar position to that which occurred in 1957, so he broke protocol by being prepared to recommend a name to the Queen, Alec Douglas-Home, who was duly appointed prime minister. At that time, User:Stanleykswong, Douglas-Home was a peer, a member of the House of Lords; his title was the 14th Earl of Home. Because the more recent tradition (since 1902) is that the Prime Minister sits in the House of Commons, Home had to leave the Lords (by disclaiming his peerage; a legal possibility that had existed only for three months at that time), hope to get himself elected to the Commons in a by-election (for which purpose he was made the candidate for an existing vacancy), and in the meantime cool his heels as a non-parliamentarian. In the event, he was elected to the Commons after 20 days out of parliament, but remained prime minister throughout that time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where could I find the US Census in 2025? 76.81.87.234 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same place as any other year, at census.gov. If you want to know the 2025 estimate, then it's on that page, just need to scroll a little bit. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The US census takes place every ten years. The most recent one is the 2020 census.  ​‑‑Lambiam 03:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What were the circumstances of the "Canterbury wheat bonanza" mentioned at [1]? Margaret Gardner (mill owner) could stand to have something mentioned about it, but Canterbury Region doesn't even mention wheat, and I don't know enough about NZ history to know where else to look. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either, but there's mention here that the wheat industry in Canterbury was expanding in the period, partly because of the Oxford Branch opened in 1874, which ran alongside their land. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury was more suited to pastural farming due to its location in the world hence large scale meat and wool. I think there was a drop in wool price in the 1870s so many farmers turned to agriculture especially grain and this went on for a few years..creating a wheat bonanza. Thegovt mayhave facilitated this to draw farmers away from livestock farming, (possibly to reduce dependency on NSW wheat). Todaycanterbury is still mainly livestock with minimal grain. However this is all just my opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 1880s was the Long Depression for New Zealand; Canterbury weathered the depression better than other parts of the country in part due to an increase in wheat prices, which were exported (mostly domestically) at Lyttelton. See Lyttelton: Port and Town. An Illustrated History. p44.

The Great European Grain Invasion did not impact New Zealand so wheat prices remained good for domestic sale. I don't know an exact cause behind the boom but I presume it'd just be due to the expansion of large runholds and cattle stations. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This search in Te Ara returns four Te Ara Stories (in addition to the Gardner bio) and three articles in the 1966 pedia. I haven't bothered browsing them, but it may be a starting point. In print sources to hand, Bateman New Zealand Encyclopedia, 6th ed., 2005 has a wheat article with a bit about the 'Bonanza Wheat' years. And King, Michael (2003) The Penguin History of New Zealand p. 231–232 mentions it, saying that Julius Vogel's public works programme extending road and rail contributed to it, with wheat acreage in Canterbury increasing from 28,000 hectares in 1874 to over 100,000 by 1884. Nurg (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were several papers published in the Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute on growing sorghum wheat in Canterbury. See Volume 14, Article 54; Volume 15, Article 33; and Volume 16, Article 56. I'm yet to proofread these articles over on Wikisource, so the best place to look at them is on Papers Past. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the Scarborough Shoal during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines during WWII? 82.56.18.59 (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dividing ASEAN and Conquering the South China Sea (2018) p. 4, Japan laid claim to the Spratly Islands in 1939 and annexed the Paracel Islands as part of Taiwan in 1941. Although the Paracels are adjacent to Scarborough Shoal, they do not include it. As the shoal is mostly underwater and Japan at that time controlled the territories around it, it seems likely that there was no point in Japan making any formal claim on it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons, File:Lewis Hayden Portrait.png is from The Liberator (newspaper), but looking at the sourcelink [2] ("Here viewers may see pictures which are relevant to the life of Willliam Lloyd Garrison"), that is a misunderstanding by the uploader. Fwiw, an artist signature is visible on the source website version of the pic.

So my question is, can we "track this down?" Noting also that some websites claim this is a picture of Anthony Johnson (colonist), but it doesn't look mid-17th century to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it just seems to be an "improved" version of File:Lewis Hayden.png from 1890 by Archibald Grimké. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, not by Archibald Grimké. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have a giant version of that one. J.S. Conant, Boston.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely! Some more data:[3] Engraving of abolitionist Lewis Hayden (c.1811-1889) included in the article "Anti-Slavery Boston" in New England Magazine, December 1890. Creator: J. S. Conant & Co., Engravers Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This unbearably detailed history of Norfolk County, 1884 has J.S. Conant as the owner of the Masonic Hall Block on River Street, Hyde Park, Boston.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"To J. S. Conant, of Dracut, Mass., for improvement in Sewing Machines. Patented May 8, 1849." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feasibly. Dracut is 32 miles from Boston, but why not. The lawyer and author Archie Grimké wrote the Anti-Slavery Boston piece.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same state, anyway. But not necessarily the same person. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And here it is, Anti-Slavery Boston, with the portrait of interest on page 453.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I love the Reference desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hated that time archive.org was down for a week. :(  Card Zero  (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken like a true Wikipedian. And when the WP:LIBRARY is down, it's just agony. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But check this out: in 1901 Elijah E. Baker patents a self-lubricating axle-spindle, and assigns one-third to J. E. Baker, Hyde Park, Mass.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's just that. This appears to be a cropped version of a work owned by the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts; see the full version with credit here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting! But looking at that picture, I still wonder if that might be the work of a modern (like 21st century) artist working from the 1890 picture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very possibly, of which there's another version here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And here:[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those versions are from this 1903 book.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The artist signature, possibly clipped, seems to read ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {E\!Baker}}.}$ Could this be the portraitist Joseph E. Baker (1837–1914)?  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It feels very 1890 (or earlier) to me. Making an engraving from a painting (or in this case something in chalks) was usual, all of Doré's engravings were made that way for example. [Actually I'm thinking now this is a lithograph, there aren't many white strokes and another J.E. Baker lithograph portrait is similar. And he always does lithographs.]  Card Zero  (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity with the signature on Joseph E. Baker, Honorable John Bell, 1860, NGA 182324.jpg (a lithograph) is striking, though.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph E. Baker died in Danvers, MA, also circumstantial.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too. Lambiam, did you mean to link [5] instead of [6]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now fixed.  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's blatantly his sig, but some kind of context would be nice.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original portrait can't have been made in 1890, anyway, because he died in 1889.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J.S. Conant must reasonably been working from something else, per discussion so far likely the "Baker." My initial guess was that the "Baker" was much younger. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In many episodes of Call the Midwife women coming in to the maternity clinic are asked for their co-op card before they are seen by the staff. Is this a Cooperative Society membership card as we would know it today, and if so, what's the connection to medical services? Or is it an old name for an NHS card? Rojomoke (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a card that recorded details of the pregnancy,[7] Nowadays it's done with the Red Book.[8] Australia use a Yellow Card that is still sometimes called a Co-Op card.[9] Nanonic (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this has something to do with friendly societies. They were, by definition almost, cooperative societies, and in many cases provided a form of health insurance that would have included maternity care. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. See my first link. Nanonic (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing matters very much, and very few things matter at all" is a comment oft attributed (with slight variations) to Arthur Balfour. I have been unable to find a definite source for Balfour ever using it. Can anyone here help? I have seen it attributed to Anson, Lady Clodagh (1931). "XIII". Book Discreet Memoirs. London: G. Bateman Blackshaw. p. 139., but on looking it up I find that that work gives the remark to General Brocklehurst (Colonel of the Blues, and "the most delightful man in the world") as something one should say to oneself "when one got upset or in a fuss about anything". Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of Sturgeon's law which says that "ninety percent of everything is crap". Cullen328 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Lady Clodagh knew General Brocklehurst personally and reports this sentence not as a quotable maxim or witticism (unlike "Brock"'s definition of bore) but as part of his (tongue-in-cheek) theory of what to do when one got upset – a context in which it makes a good deal more sense than as a stand-alone adage – it seems far more plausible that this memoir is the source than anything said or written by Balfour. The earliest ascription to Balfour that I found is from 1982.^[10]  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fitzgerald, in This Side of Paradise (1920), Book 2, chapter 5, quotes "Very few things matter and nothing matters very much" as "an old epigram". [11] --Antiquary (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite amazing there that choice of voicing a "This side" and formulating the less striking of the two versions. --Askedonty (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV. As I read through the comments, I was struck by how much better the Scott version was: a bit pithier, closer antimetabole, and some alliteration on the matters/much. Matt Deres (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronistically, I am half way through a historical novel titled Another Side of Paradise by Sally Koslow. The narrator is Sheilah Graham, who tells us about her childhood, career, and the men in her life, most particularly F. Scott Fitzgerald. I'm enjoying it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

A still earlier usage here from the March 24, 1910 number of Life: "Still we...try to find comfort in the assertion that nothing matters very much and only a few things matter at all." [12] Again there's no mention of Balfour, and again it isn't early enough to rule him out. --Antiquary (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a 1956 "Mr. Balfour's philosophy that "nothing matters very much and very little matters at all."" in a review by Alastair Forbes of Tom Driberg's biography of Beaverbrook. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]