(Courtesy link - Lot (biblical person) DuncanHill (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Was Lot considered a patriarch by the Moabites themselves?Rich (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any reference that Lot was considered a biblical patriarch at all. 196.50.199.218 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask if he was a Biblical patriarch.Rich (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the only written record of Lot is the Book of Genesis, the narrative of which is covered in our article, but the primary source is the Book of Genesis, chapters 11–14 & 19. Anything else would be conjecture. Alansplodge (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lot is a figure peculiar to the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions which developed from Yahwism, which was a derived variety of the ancient Canaanite religion.

Scholars consider the stories of Abraham to be a 'late literary construction' in writings (the Torah) composed around the time of the Persian restoration following the end of the Judahites' Babylonian captivity in the late 6th century BCE, long post-dating the emergence around the 12th century BCE of the Israelites and Judahites from the Caananite culture which included the Moabites.

Even if the compilers of the Torah had utilised existing Abrahamic folk myths that included the figure of Lot, it seems unlikely that the Moabites, not being Abrahamic, would have shared those particular myths. That said, we have only a limited amount of evidence about specifically Moabite religious beliefs and, as far as I can tell, virtually none at all about their folk myths. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.148 (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Hinduism and Judaism § Theological similarities, in particular regarding the parallels between the Upanishads and the Abraham legend.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible doesn't consider Lot a patriarch, at least of Israel, but it says in effect that he was an ancestor of the people of Moab. One conceivable possibility, at least, is mention, even on a potsherd, of Lot in Jordanian archaeological digs, which would be much needed support of the currently widely doubted Old Testament.Rich (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, a Moabite asked about how they saw Lot would have replied with the Moabite-language equivalent of "Lot? Never heard of." Note that the "need" of the "much needed support" strongly represents a particular, non-neutral point of view. There are others who feel that more support is needed for the interpretation of the narratives of the Old Testament as a collection of myths, so as to counter the still widely held mistaken view of these narratives as being historically accurate.  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I figured we were already on the same page on that.Rich (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the claims of Wikipedia (and Google, which in its AI tosh says there isn't, presumably because it's read Wikipedia), there is an island on Loch Muick in Aberdeenshire. You can see it on Google here. The Scots Magazine for 1 July 1970 also mentions it, as a place where Sandy Campbell, the stalker at Glas-allt-Shiel (variously spelt) in Queen Victoria's time, grew potatoes. I would like to know a) what is the island's name, and b) anything else at all you can tell me about it. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordnance Survey name book mentions the island in its entry for Loch Muick: "Towards the west end of [the loch], there is a small island, on which seagulls are always found." There is a picture of it here. No seagulls are in evidence, however. Zacwill (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This view of the loch was possibly taken from the north from just outside the cottage... almost identical view

Annoyingly, the Infobox entry of 'Islands 0' is referenced to a respectable source, which however contains only the same (evidently erroneous) entry, so could easily be a typo or blunder. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.148 (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordnance Survey show it (but unnamed) on their 1:25,000 map, but not on their 1:50,000 map. A modern photograph is here. My Googling abilities have failed to find anything else. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is also shown on the Six-Inch to One Mile OS map for Aberdeenshire, Sheet CVII, surveyed in 1866 and revised in 1900, but alas remains nameless. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordnance Survey Name Book for Aberdeen county is also a redoubtable source. There is no obligation to incorporate information in Wikipedia from sources, however well-respected, that is evidently incorrect.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it, citing OL53. WP:ORMEDIA says straightforward reading of a map is not OR if done correctly. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone be able to identify the cluster of three sinuous buildings in the foreground of skyscrapercity.com/attachments/274530710_1006930033566857_6495661088138170893_n-1-jpg.2831865/ please, as searching for it or prithipal pannu didn't yield anything useful?

Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arte Mont Kiara in Jalan Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah, Kuala Lumpur Stanleykswong (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks, Stanley. Good spot! cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 13:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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 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]

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.  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]

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