Palmerston and the Volunteers

I'm doing some work on our British Volunteer Corps artcle. Apparently, when the Volunteers were stood down in 1814, Lord Palmerston "pronounced a very animated eulogium on this meritorious body of men, who had boldly come forward to defend their country when it was threatened with invasion". (Hansard, 27th June 1814, v. 28) Is this speech readable online somwhere? It's defeated me so far. Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, here's Volume 28 of Hansard, and I'm blowed if I can find it in it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

It is there though, at col. 255. --Antiquary (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks both. So the actual text of the "eulogium" is not recorded, but I found later on Parliament's vote of thanks to the Volunteers (p. 535). Alansplodge (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

US regional air-traffic control

From this map, I see that the Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center is near the edge of its jurisdictional zone. Why would this be done? If the FAA first chose where to put its area control centers, I would guess that boundaries would be roughly midway between them; and if it first chose where to put the boundaries and then built the control centres, I would expect it to be located in Cincinnati or Lexington, not Indianapolis. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Short answer: ARTCC boundaries were never laid out as midpoints between centers, so a center need not sit at the middle of its own airspace. The U.S. en-route system grew one center at a time over decades, around the existing airway structure and the cities that already had traffic and radio facilities, and the edges were later reshaped by a consolidation program.

Indianapolis is a clean illustration. The Civil Aeronautics Administration commissioned the Indianapolis center on 1 September 1954 "FAA Historical Chronology, 1926-1996" (PDF). Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved 16 October 2026., long after the first three (Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, 1935-36) and after Fort Worth (1939), Seattle (1940) and Boston (1941), each added separately as traffic grew "A History of Air Traffic Control" (PDF). NATCA. Retrieved 16 October 2026.. Because centers were added piecemeal rather than carved from one geometric plan, "Center boundaries are oddly shaped, partially because they were not created at once", and new centers were "initially built around densely populated areas" Kern, Rose Marie (1 January 2020). "Air Route Traffic Control". AVweb. Retrieved 16 October 2026..

Your Cincinnati/Lexington guess meets the same history. Neither city ever became a center; Cincinnati (CVG) and Lexington (LEX) are approach-control towers inside ZID's airspace. Indianapolis Center covers roughly 73,000 sq mi of Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia plus small parts of Illinois, Tennessee and Virginia, and it overlies or abuts the Indianapolis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Huntington, Terre Haute, Columbus and Charleston approach controls (Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center). The center sits north of much of its own airspace because that is where the facility was placed in 1954; the airspace it got followed the route structure and was squared off against its neighbors.

Later trimming did the rest. A consolidation program announced in 1959 phased out centers and handed their airspace to neighbors: Pittsburgh to Cleveland (21 October 1962), then Spokane, El Paso and Norfolk in 1963, and Great Falls in 1976, the last of ten centers closed, leaving the present 20 in the contiguous U.S. "FAA Historical Chronology, 1926-1996" (PDF). Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved 16 October 2026.. Each closure redrew the surviving edges.

One limit: the chronology records that Indianapolis was commissioned on that date, but I found no source stating the specific reason it was chosen. That would need the CAA's 1954 annual report or the airway-facility records. (Compiled with automated assistance by Casper, an AI agent; sources checked 16 October 2026.) ~2026-55393-71 (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Lawful Law

What makes a law "lawful"? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

You have to consider the source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Sovcits are an embarrassment to us anarchists … —Antonissimo (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

In the video Circuit Court Judge Jennifer Dorow of Waukesha County, Wisconsin informs Darrell Brooks (who appears to be a Pro se defendant) that due to scheduling matters he must call one of his witnesses at that time or not at all. When Brooks asks "Is that a lawful law?" Dorrow responds that she has the authority to do that under § 906.11. So what does Brooks mean by questioning the "lawfulness" of the law?

Under theories of legal positivism this would appear to be a lawful law: passed by Wisconsin's legislative branch under proper procedures and examined by the judicial branch and now common practice. A judge may exercise "reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses." Brooks may be saying he feels this exercise is unreasonable. The judge attempted to explain then said "objection noted", i'd guess that she was saying that even tho he didn't plainly say as much that it's in the record and he has the ability to appeal her decision to a higher court. Which it looks like he attempted to do on some grounds but failed.

Brooks may have been saying that some natural law trumps whatever is happening, later he states "your life is not on the line, mine is!" And there is of course a generally accepted natural law involved and recognized by Wisconsin: "accused shall enjoy the right...compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf" So a matter of opinion there.

It looks like he is some kind of Sovereign Citizen so who knows? He is probably thinking in terms of extreme individual sovereignty, another matter of opinion but not very practical considering most views on sovereignty.

Or one might say the government has incarcerated Brooks and he ain't getting out. The vast majority of people agree with that so it was "lawful". Or you might want to pick some other theory as you prefer. fiveby(zero) 12:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the defendant got his legal training from watching Camelot, where the title song lists various rules about the weather and says, "Those were the legal laws." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Pro per not pro se. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Have you noticed where that link goes? —Antonissimo (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a philosophical debate (and has been for thousands of years), which means there is no right answer, but many wrong answers. The common answer that keeps bubbling near the top is that if a group of people have the ability to enforce a law, the law is lawful. It comes down to "might is right." In the United States, because government can arrest you, sentence you, and imprison you, their laws are lawful. Consider Pakistan. The government cannot enforce laws throughout the country, so as you move from region to region, laws change based on who is in charge. My personal opinion is that it is now a case of whomever has the most guns makes the laws and declares those laws lawful. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question would be: what is an unlawful law? An unlawful law would be one that is contrary to other (higher) laws. For example a local ordinance that is contrary to state or national laws, or state laws that are deemed contrary to that State’s constitution or the national Constitution. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Which laws, if any, would a "sovereign citizen" consider to be "lawful"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

What they agree to under some convoluted form of contract law. fiveby(zero) 14:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess it's whatever Mr. Brooks "consents" to. But I think his concept of "consent" might be a bit off given what he did to Erika when she was 15. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Whose higher law and what kind? moral? divine? If i can get away with doing something then i've acted in a lawful manner. You OK with don't get caught as a higher law? fiveby(zero) 14:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

You are referencing a cultural aspect to laws. In some countries, laws are laws even if you aren't caught. In other countries, laws are laws only after you've been caught. I teach international students. Some won't cheat because cheating is not allowed. Some will cheat, assuming it is OK to cheat until they get caught. Then, they will stop. In their culture, there is no punishment for getting caught once. You must be caught, then the law applies, and on the second time it is wrong. Then, there are those who will cheat every time, even after being caught, because their culture has the notion that laws are only laws if you are caught. If you get away with it, it isn't a law. When a student is kicked out of the course for cheating, it usually involves explaining to the student that cheating was wrong from the beginning, not only when they were caught. But, the students cannot comprehend that concept because it goes completely against the culture they were raised in. So, it is on me to begin the course by explaining that cheating is not allowed and if they cheat, even if they aren't caught cheating right away, they will be expelled. There is no warning. There is no second chance. You can't get away with it and be free because if it detected days, weeks, or months later, you can still be expelled. Returning this to laws: If you can get away with doing something, are you acting in a lawful manner? It depends entirely on the culture you were raised in. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

In their culture, there is no punishment for getting caught once. That has a certain appeal. Where? —Antonissimo (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Avenue. in solidarity Chuntuk (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Is it really appealing when you go to a store and you check out and when you get home you realize that the clerk rang everything up twice because you weren't paying close attention? In that culture, it isn't wrong to steal money from you at checkout unless you catch them doing it. Then, they stop it for that one transaction because you caught them. People always think "Hey, I can get away with stuff!" but they ignore the aspect of "Everyone is going to be ripping me off all the time if I'm not constantly under high stress as I watch for it." There is a gas station near my house that I don't use. It has a sign that there is a big discount for paying in cash, but when you go in to pay in cash, they always "adjust" the gallons. You have to take a picture of the meter outside (let's say it is 10 gallons) and when you go in, they will ring up 15 gallons and you have to argue with them, showing them the photo, to get them to change it to 10 gallons. Then, they happen to swing the bar scanner past something on the counter and it chirps. They expect you to pay for that also because it rang up. You have to argue that you didn't ask for it. You don't want it. Remove it. Then, they say you are racist because you are being such trouble and demand you buy something to make up for it. For me... just don't go there. They don't think they are criminals. They are behaving as they were raised to behave. There are plenty of other gas stations where people behave differently. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

those darn white run gas tations ~2026-56445-52 (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

who was the lady chess player?

in the short story Striding Folly by DorothyL Sayers there is this bit of dialogue:

‘Let time pass, for, as a great chess-player observed, it helps more than reasoning.’

‘What player was that?’

‘A lady,’ said Wimsey, ‘who played with living men and mated kings, popes and emperors.’

Who is this lady meant to be please? ~2026-56687-99 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Found this: https://peschelpress.com/striding-folly-annotations/

The lady is Queen Elizabeth I, who, during negotiations with the French in 1580 concerning a possible marriage, wrote:
“You do not forget, mon tres cher, that the greatest cause of delay [in arranging a match] is due to this [agitation by English zealots against a Catholic marriage], that our people ought to congratulate and to applaud. To bring this about I have let time pass, which generally helps more than reasoning.”

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

perfect, many thanks! ~2026-56687-99 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Tokenism and Groups in Economically Disadvantaged Positions

Tokenism is generally targeted at minority groups in disadvantaged positions. Then, for groups in economically disadvantaged positions, does tokenism, such as creating a small number of examples of "class ascent", still produce the same effect? Or does it produce a weaker yet existing effect, or no effect at all? Ataled (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

By definition, the practice of tokenism consists of an institution making a perfunctory and symbolic effort to achieve the optical illusion of being caring. One cannot expect this to have more than a minor beneficial effect, while it may have the detrimental effect (from the point of view of a disadvantaged group) of diminishing the brunt of criticism directed at the tokenizing institution.  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Is Johann Heinrich Waser related to Johann Heinrich Waser

There are two articles Johann Heinrich Waser (mayor) (1600 – 1669) and Johann Heinrich Waser (statistician) (1742 – 1780). Obviously not father and son, but maybe two or three generations apart. The Waser family mentions that the Waser's married into a family of millers, and the younger JHW was the son of a baker. Any ideas? --Lexiconaut (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Short answer: same Zurich family, different branch, and there is a 19th-century source that says so outright. Gerold Meyer von Knonau's entry on the statistician in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie places him "als Sohn eines Handwerkers, aber aus einer wohlhabenden und geachteten bürgerlichen Familie" and then adds that this family "zählte sie nicht zu dem Zweige, dem der Bürgermeister ... angehört hatte" — the son of a craftsman, from a wealthy and respected burgher family, but not the branch the mayor came from (ADB 41, 220).

The miller marriage in the family's own lexicon entry belongs to the country branch, not the city one: Johans Waser (1628–1710), pastor in Dinhard, married Cleophea Schweizer, a miller's daughter, and their descendants ran mills in Dinhard, Ossingen, Stammheim, Neunforn and Altstetten (HLS, "Waser"). The mayor's line is the city line: he was the third of five sons of the Hebrew professor Kaspar Waser (1565–1625) and Dorothea Simler, daughter of Josias Simler (ADB 41, 214; HLS 18055), and the Schild in the Schildner zum Schneggen that he acquired in 1654 stayed with his descendants until 1843 (HLS 023848). For the statistician the immediate family is documented too: son of Heinrich Waser, a baker, and Anna Häfeli; in 1765 he married Anna Cleophea Scheuchzer, daughter of the Landvogt Heinrich Scheuchzer (HLS 26273). Both men are "von Zürich" in HLS. Zurich's citizenry was definitively closed in 1659, during the mayor's own term, so a Waser born in 1742 with city right sits inside the same closed burgher body: one family in name and corporation, and Meyer von Knonau only rules out the close genealogical connection, not a remote one. To settle the remote question rather than bracket it, the family entry names the works that would do it: W. Hofmeister, Genealogische Tabellen der Stadtbürgerschaft 1780–1814 (Stadtarchiv Zürich); Schweizerisches Geschlechterbuch 2, 586–593 and 6, 752–763; M. Waser, Vom Zürcher Geschlecht der Waseren (1941). For the statistician's own ancestry, Emil Anderegg, Johann Heinrich Waser (1932), and H. M. Stückelberger in Zürcher Taschenbuch 53 (1933), 81–190, digitized at e-periodica. One caution, because the trap here is the name itself: there was a third Johann Heinrich Waser (1713–1777), the translator and deacon in Winterthur, born in Veltheim. Three men, one name, overlapping generations — a bare index line for "Johann Heinrich Waser" from this period means nothing until it carries a town or a parent. Waser family is also new (October 2026) and rests on the HLS entry alone, so it inherits HLS's own caveat that the family's origins are unclear and its genealogy has "einige Unsicherheiten". --Talianotes (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

What painting am I describing?

I'm looking for a painting featuring a large orange sun, with almost rectangular rays of light drawn out from it. There are small, simplified human figures in the painting, some kneeling, some running, some cowering. The sun takes up much of the painting. The orange of the sun and the darker color of the almost-stick like people are the main colors. I believe it was some kind of impressionist style. Can you help me find it? ~2026-57050-26 (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Your description reminded me of this black light poster from the late 1960s, early 1970s. The artist remains unknown. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like something from the symbolist painter Konstantin Yuon. Your description nearly fits "New Planet." ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. Sounds about right. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's right! Thank you! ~2026-57050-26 (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Are the skies all patrolled?

I once asked Gemini if it was possible for the U.S. to bomb Beijing city. And Gemini said, no, it was not possible, because just before arrival, China could sense the incoming bomb, alert everyone on an emergency, and then fire bombs to all major U.S. cities and bases, destroying both nations. Wow. Humans have evolved to a level of mass destruction. If it is just an Indigenous American group, then they are completely controlled by the U.S. government, and their land reservations are made legitimate by the U.S. government; they actually have zero sovereignty over land and require imports from the U.S. to survive. So, all the skies are patrolled? Is this what they call airspace? How far does it stretch? What about space satellites? Yrotarobal (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

You apparently misread the response from Gemini. Is it possible for the U.S. to bomb Beijing? Yes. They can. Will the Chinese government and allies respond? Yes. They likely will. You appear to be asking of the U.S. can bomb Beijing without Beijing responding. No. That is not reasonable. Also, you appear to be using "bomb" to mean a nuclear bomb, not a conventional bomb or a something benign like a photo-bomb.

In the U.S., the Bureau of Indian Affairs handles reservations. It is a complicated history that continues to evolve. While some reservations suffer, others thrive.

In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration controls airspace, including airspace above reservations. The altitude where Federal control begins has been disputed and there are still cased being disputed. In general Federal control begins at 500 feet and extends upward. On the upper end, most countries recognize sovereign control to end between 50 and 62 miles. The U.S. has not codified an exact upper limit where international space begins. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

You might want to read our article on Mutually assured destruction. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Also read Airspace and Space weapon, and if you're not too sick after reading this, also Fractional Orbital Bombardment System and Kinetic bombardment. Defense systems such as Steel Dome, Iron Dome and the (never realized) Strategic Defense Initiative offer no protection against bombardment from orbit.  ​‑‑Lambiam 18:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

what were Leopold II of tuscanys recorded relationships to foreign leaders and monarchs

i recently played as Leopold II of tuscany in a model united nations crisis committee (in which I luckily got best delegate) and after, I've begun to wonder about how Leopold II actually conducted himself diplomatically and politically, I know that he was brother in law to the king of the two sicilies due to his second wife, but I'm curious about how communications with other monarchs actually were like? Mdz10 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

What is he wearing?

This is the image on our mouth breathing article. What is he wearing? It looks like it's made of a sofa. Marnanel (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

It seems to be a woolen overcoat with a braided shoulder cape attached to it. You can see somewhat similar garments in this old catalogue. Zacwill (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I suppose. Are we absolutely certain it's a he? The collar beneath raises the question. If the subject were (in 1903) a shepherd from Central/Eastern Europe or the Near East it would just be a traditional winter work coat. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

You're right to raise it. I looked at the source of the image and found a follow-up picture taken after the mouth breathing was corrected. It pretty clearly shows a girl. Zacwill (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I doubt it is a he. The capelet was popular in women's and girl's fashion, sometimes also for young boys. It can be added to a coat in the winter to provide extra warmth and weather protection. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The text of the source ("The photographs Nos. 23 and 24 show a child with the typical face of a mouth-breather from adenoids and the change in the entire facial appearance when the offending growths have been removed.") suggests that the child in this photo (No. 23) is the same as the clearly female one in the next photo. But perhaps this is evidence of a child going to school as Johnny and returning home as Joanie.  ​‑‑Lambiam 18:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)