Humanities desk
< September 19	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 21 >

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

September 20

How was California governed before it became a US state?

Was it governed directly by the US Congress? Futurist110 (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may find List of Governors of California before 1850 useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

California was the remote, lightly populated Mexican province of Alta California until it was occupied by U.S. troops in 1846 at the beginning of the Mexican-American War. It officially became U.S. territory as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. Almost simultaneously, gold was discovered in California and the population and economy skyrocketed rapidly. In 1849, a state constitutional convention took place, and it became a state in 1850. This is incredibly fast when you consider that one way communication from Washington to California took months at that time. It seems that the existing states were quite willing to accept a really profitable cluster of gold mines into the Union, although slavery was unsurprisingly an issue. Before 1846, Alta California was ruled mostly by a series of incompetent governors dispatched from Mexico City, and a major political issue was the desire for Californio governors born there. A few of those governors were a bit more competent. From 1846 to 1850, California was ruled by military governors, during the war and its quick aftermath to statehood. History of California is a great overview, and there are countless additional articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For more detail, see California as I Saw It: First-Person Narratives of California's Early Years, 1849 to 1900 from the Library of Congress. In practical terms, it seems that you had to govern yourself to begin with. Alansplodge (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As some more general background, Territorial evolution of the United States is a good starting place for research. Generally, there was a process by which land became a state in the U.S. 1) The US annexed some bit of territory. 2) That territory was, by default, classified as an unorganized territory, which meant that it had no self-government. There was usually a governor appointed by the Congress to administer that land; it may have been a military governor if there was an active war at the time. 3) Once there were enough people to support local government, the territory was incorporated as a Organized incorporated territories of the United States and granted limited self government. These were often not entire unorganized territories at once, rather there was usually some smaller section of that unorganized territory that was set aside and delineated as an organized territory. 4) When the people of the territory (or at least, those with political power) decided to do so, they had a referendum, wrote a constitution, and applied to Congress for statehood. 5) Congress would vote, and if it passed, the territory became a state. As noted above, California's trip through that process was unusually fast (and also included a brief period when a 3-week independent republic (population = 33) was established). 15-20 years was more typical. --Jayron 32 15:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32, the "population 33" figure is somewhat misleading. It is true that there were only 33 armed men on the Sonoma Plaza when the California Republic rebellion against Mexican rule broke out but they had grown to nearly 200 armed men by the time that they fused into the California Battalion led by John C. Frémont 25 days later. And there were many more civilians that supported the rebellion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the brief Bear Republic (and yes, obviously I know that bears don't wear briefs, they wear boxers). :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does Andrew Yang have a chance to win the elections?

Or will every big corporation invest millions of dollars against him if ever he started to get higher in the polls? 118.70.41.222 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Maybe not. The Oracle doesn't answer here. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the link to this article is here Andrew Yang Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity we did not establish a Pythia where, for a reasonably high fee, we would give cryptic answer like "The ying-yang will turn upside down, Yang will get high and so will Ying, each in turn" Gem fr (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, anyone who runs has a chance. For an estimate of how much of a chance, check the polls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

118.70.41.222 -- Right now, Yang is a solid third-tier candidate (far behind the first tier of Biden, Warren, and Sanders), and does not appear to be either gaining or losing support at any fast rate. Corporations probably feel more threatened by other candidates... AnonMoos (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corporations don't feel anything. As abstract concepts, they don't have brains, and thus do not feel emotions. --Jayron 32 15:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corporations consist of a bunch of people, no? Those people have brains, emotions, et cetera. Futurist110 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under current United States legal doctrine "Corporations are people, my friends" (as Mitt Romney told us in 2011), and according to Supreme Court decisions such as "Citizens United" and "Hobby Lobby", they appear to have more rights than mere flesh-and-blood persons do... AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are treated as people for legal purposes. They still don't have bodies, and brains, and the like. --Jayron 32 16:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're treated as persons for legal purposes, not "people". As for Romney's remark, apparently he was misunderstood, though in my opinion it was kind of his own fault as he did not express himself well. His point seems to have been that corporations are made up of people, who can be harmed by acts that harm the corporation. --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How would a corporation "feel" something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously short-hand for how the leadership, shareholders, or employees of the corp feels. You see this type of wording often in newspaper headlines: "GM feels recession". SinisterLefty (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that sometimes it is that. Still, it needs to be made explicit that it is the wealthy individuals themselves, who should of course be named where possible, to whom we ascribe feelings. By depersonalizing the manner in which those people make decisions that affect the bulk of the population, we don't hold them accountable for those decisions; it's "the corporation", not a person, we hold responsible. Which is kinda BS, because it was still some person or persons who had to make the decisions. --Jayron 32 16:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In once sense, yes, I agree: people make these decisions and should be held accountable (for good or ill), but anyone within a bureaucracy knows that it is more than a group of individuals with their own desires; there is an ingrained culture which exerts itself upon the decisions that bureaucracy makes. Our closet article is probably groupthink, but the "See also" section there is replete with similar concepts. Which is not meant to say the flesh-and-blood people shouldn't still be held accountable, but only to point out that the collective has its own direction, which may loosely be described as feelings/intelligence. Matt Deres (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might say the very same thing regarding states, "the supreme court", "the planet" or whatever. There are two ways to describe that. The first is the Chinese room: you don't know what is going on inside, but if it behave like it has feeling (like an animal would), the feeling metaphor is legit. The second is that it appears that somehow people are dumb enough to believe these abstraction are somehow real, and not only that, but even part of themselves, so they have feeling regarding them. So it makes sense to speak of the feeling of a CEO / leader of a country as if they were feeling of the company / state. Gem fr (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To actually answer the question: no. He does not have a chance. Barring some tumultuous upset, the Democratic nominee will be one of Biden, Warren, Harris, or Sanders. Sebthepleb (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but to state definitively that he does not have a mathematical chance at all violates the crystal ball rule. It might be the same chance as winning the Powerball, which is very close to zero but is not zero. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh FFS. Okay, fine: in a functional, real-world, actual-chances-of-winning-the-primary sense: NO. The OP was clearly not asking for mathematical exactitude. Happy now? Christ, this stupid place, why do I bother. Sebthepleb (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that even in the real world he has a significant chance, since most Democrats haven't made up their minds yet. It's not necessary that the top candidates all collectively shoot themselves in the foot, Yang could say something funny or brilliant, and get a lot of free press, and more contributions and supporters, and be up at the top by the time the primaries roll around. Going back to math, you can extrapolate a curve a short distance, with reasonable accuracy, but we are over 4 months from the start of the Democratic primaries, and in that time a lot can change, so extrapolating that far is highly unreliable. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. In the real world where things like facts and reality matter, a fringe candidate like Yang doesn't have the proverbial snowball's chance. He has no experience, he has minimal name recognition, and he's polling orders of magnitude behind everyone else. It won't happen. Yes, there is, mathematically, a chance. There is not a realistic one. Reality matters. Sebthepleb (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in the real world now, political experience may actually be a negative, as it tars one as an "evil Washington insider". Hence we get an incompetent President, Trump. But inexperienced doesn't always mean incompetent. And even though Reagan had political experience as Gov of California, he either wasn't very bright or was in the early stages of Alzheimer's, but he was at least modest enough to know that he didn't know it all, and appoint competent people to do as he directed. This could be a model for Yang, rather than Trump's model of appointing sycophants who are as incompetent as he is (and firing any competent people who manage to sneak in). And, unlike Trump, who merely pretends to be a self-made billionaire, but really rode in on his daddy's coat-tails, Yang really is a self-made millionaire. As for name recognition, Obama wasn't exactly a household name prior to the start of his 1st Presidential campaign. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump won the primaries by letting everyone else take each other out, more or less. (there was an excellent analysis of this that I can't be arsed to find right now). Obama gave the keynote at the 2004 Dem convention. Reagan was a movie star and had significant political experience in California. Like, I get you're a leftist--I am too--and one of the greatest failings of our side is our tendency to conflate "what would be awesome" or "what I personally want" with "what can happen." Yang will not win. Period. I'm done here, until you're capable of comprehending the real world. Sebthepleb (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will not win the lottery, either. But if you play it, you have a mathematical chance. And note the OP didn't say anything about reality. All he said was, "Does he have a chance?" The answer is YES. For now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gee. Kudos @Sebthepleb: for not losing your mind to such nonsense. Of course Yang has a mathematical chance, and, after all, so do I or anyone on Earth; the chance is just tremendously low, it would take an enormous number of "if". Said otherwise, he has no practical chance, and everyone knows that. Doesn't mean his running is meaningless. Gem fr (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't think all Republicans are incompetent. Bush Senior impressed me. But he was the only recent Republican not to be re-elected President, which may say more about the Republican base than about him. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We dont care what you think, and it is utterly irrelevant to the OP question. Gem fr (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said of your 1st reply to this Q. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About Trump vs Yang comparisons, it's worth remembering from almost from when he first entered the race, Trump polled well Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, often the best polling candidate. It was generally assumed his support would eventually collapse, or that someone else would come to dominate since there were so many candidates and Trump didn't have 50% support, but this never happened. While people like to criticise polls nowadays, they weren't actually that wrong in the 2016 US presidential election [1]. By comparison to Trump, Andrew Yang is averaging at best 3-4% after all this time Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Yes there may still be a long way, and no one has a crystal ball, but I'm not sure if anyone has managed to win their (major) parties presidential primary in the US with such dismal polling after such a long time. Maybe there's some truth in his/his supporter's claims that he received less attention than some other polling similarly, but I think few consider Beto O'Rourke a candidate with any real chance anymore either. (And although he's Beto O' Rourke may now be polling poorly, at one stage he seemed to be hitting double digits, something Andrew Yang still seems very far from achieving.) You can blame the media or corporations if you want, but if so it seems they've already succeed and so the scenario outlined by the OP is not a likely concern. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethan forms of address for women

Elizabeth I, who disapproved of the marriage of clergy, said to the wife of the Archbishop of Canterbury "Madam I may not call you; mistress I am ashamed to call you; and so I know not what to call you; but howsoever, I thank you".^[1]. What was the distinction between madam and mistress that Elizabeth was making? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol, including proper forms of address, used to be a much bigger deal during the 16th century than it is today. The distinctions between such terms is explained here, though it doesn't go into specifics of the Tudor period. This one does. --Jayron 32 12:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OR alert. I suspect "Madam" would not be said by a prince to a commoner. Mistress may be a pun on the idea of her being a mistress, which might be fine for a commoner servant, but not the wife of a clergyman. But I have no sources. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethan "Mistress" was later abbreviated to "Mrs". I know that women of a lower social status were addressed as "Goodwife"/"Goody" and women of a higher social status (but below nobility) as "Mistress", but I don't know how "Madam" fits in with these two... AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Partington, Angela, ed. (1996). "Elizabeth I". The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Revised Fourth ed.). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. p. 274. ISBN 0198600585.

Nukes & Iran

Further to my question earlier. Due to the escalation of aggression by Iran over the past few weeks what are the chances they now have Nukes? If they do, why have they not yet nuked Israel as they have often said they would so. Also, who would their targets be. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have Iran ever actually said they would nuke Israel? (And if so, under what circumstances?). In any case, I would expect that they realise that nuking a nuclear-weapon state that is allied with the world's most powerful nuclear-weapon state would be a bad idea.Iapetus (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to remember that the internal politics of Iran are, um, complex and that Iran is not a monolithic thing. There are multiple interests at work within Iran, they don't always coordinate, and trying to figure out what "Iran" intends to do is messy, because the various internal political forces don't always want to do the same things for the same reasons, and many times they don't coordinate. There is the religious leadership headed by Ali Khamenei, nominally the Supreme Leader of Iran and on paper the absolute ruler of the country; however there are times when various other factions may or may not follow his lead. There's the civilian government led by President of Iran Hassan Rouhani, which has over time become increasingly reformist. There are two different, independent militaries in Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, which each operate mostly independently and may have different political goals and aims. All of these various groups and leaders do not always coordinate, and may operate independently for their own interests. So when we're trying to figure out what Iran intends or why it is acting how it is acting, we really need to ask "what part of Iran?" --Jayron 32 14:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't claim to have nuke, nor any of their enemies claim they do, so it is safe to say they still don't. And it seems they said quite a number of time they wanted to destroy the evil, vile, satanic Jews/Israel, but the extent of the will is not known, and while they support some faction like Hezbollah, they don't do it in such a way that Israel is actually in danger. Highly implausible that Iran would open nuclear fire just like that if they had the nukes. Gem fr (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which they? --Jayron 32 14:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

good question ;-) Gem fr (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anton 81.131.40.58 -- Iran considers the mere existence of Israel an affront to itself, and has no compunction about killing Jews in Argentina, or funding Hezbollah to kill Jews elsewhere, but on the other hand the Iranian leadership is highly-protective of its own power, and is not likely to indulge in reckless or extremely risky strategies which could backfire on itself. Any attack on Israel with WMDs could be met with so-called "Samson Option" retaliation... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, one must be careful to consider who in Iran is doing those things, and also not to conflate the State of Israel with Jewish People. Those are not the same thing. --Jayron 32 15:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argentinean Jews were not Israelis. But in any case, the Iranian regime leadership, though it's morally vile and repugnant, is also stable and self-protective, and not likely to commit reckless gestures which could end up destabilizing its own regime. The nuclear power to really be worried about is Pakistan, which has an inherently unstable leadership -- on any given day, there's little to prevent extreme radical fundamentalists from ascending to political power, or to prevent the pro-terrorist irredentists now in charge of the Pakistani military and ISI from being replaced by more reckless pro-terrorist irredentists. Pakistan is more likely to be the cause of a nuclear incident than Iran (even if Iran had nukes at the moment, which seems unlikely). AnonMoos (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the key thing; While there may be deep philosophical and political differences with the West, the leaders of these regimes are both sane and intelligent, and thus unlikely to be reckless. It is in the interest of the Western powers, and the Western media, to characterize them as crazy and unstable, but they're not. It's hard to get and maintain power in a large, pluralistic society unless one is intelligent enough to understand how to preserve that power, and recklessly attacking Israel with nuclear weapons is unlikely to help one do that. Now, saying that one would do so, or at least toeing that line, is a good way to gin up one's own base, but there's a difference between saying those things and actually doing them. The calculus of a modern, unprovoked, nuclear attack does not really work out well. --Jayron 32 16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use those words. However, I would admit that the Iranian leadership, though it has insanely grandiose ultimate fantasy goals, is highly self-protective of what it has already gained in the present, and clear-eyed about how reckless actions or adventurism could risk such attainments. As for Pakistan, there seems to be a significant element of pure blind luck that its nuclear weapons haven't so far come under the control of people whose fanaticism or impulsiveness outweighs their pragmatism, and I have very little confidence that the Pakistani system (such as it is) will prevent such people from gaining control of its nuclear arsenal in future... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly provide a link to the article relating to the killing of the Argentinian Jewish folk, as this is the first I have heard of this. Also thank you for all of the other valuable comments. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC) moved here from the wrong section. --Jayron 32 16:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's referring to the AMIA bombing 25 years ago. --Jayron 32 16:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For which, as I understand it, no clear responsibility has been established. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Argentinian Justice found it clear enough to indict a former head of the State, so, I think it is safe to say the official judicial truth of Argentina is, Iran did the bombing (But you might be unconvinced...) Gem fr (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan_Schulz -- There's never been a single dramatic "smoking gun" revelation (as far as I understand it), but the fetid stench of Iranian regime involvement has been steadily thickening over the years, culminating in the highly conveniently-timed death of Alberto Nisman, so that by now the burden of proof is really on those who would claim that there was no Hezbollah or Iranian regime involvement in the bombing (not on those who hold the opposite position)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falsifying letters

Does anyone have a special font that is sometimes used so that a P cannot be falsified into an R?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what you're looking for, but you could simply use the Greek alphabet, where Π/π is not easily changed to Ρ/ρ. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.107 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not a good choice. Two letters of our alphabet (F and Q) are derived from Greek letters exclusive to old forms of Greek. And 3 Greek letters (iota, sigma, upsilon) have more than one Latin letter derived from; these are I/J for iota, S/Z for sigma, and U/V/W/Y for upsilon. Plus, the general question here is to make sure every letter is written so that no letter can be falsified into another; that is, you can't falsify P into B or R and you can't falsify C into O, G, or Q. Georgia guy (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is imprecise, in that it is unclear what amount of manipulation is allowed. The P/R distinction seems to suggest that adding extra strokes is allowed. A more mathematical mind would ask if one letter is a proper subregion of another, so that just by adding ink it can be made into the other one. In either case, something like Phosphor or any other outline font is pretty much unfakeable. And Zapfino has different embellishments for otherwise similar letters, so fakes would noticeable if someone checks carefully. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese has a whole special set of numeral characters where it's not easy to change any one into another by adding marks or lines, as explained on the Chinese numerals article, but it's probably not too practical for an entire alphabet. However, in some specialized typefaces, such as Umbra, you couldn't transform a "P" into an "R" just by adding further black marks to the black that's already on the page.... AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See FE-Schrift. Found that by following some links from another refdesk question just a few days ago. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That answer makes much more sense. The "P" in that font has a small serif on the upper left corner that can be used to keep it from being falsified into an R or a B. Georgia guy (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about writing it in lower case? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In many handwritings, a lower case d is just an a with a higher stem, a j is just an i with a descender, and an m is just an n with an extra arc. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to find out what problem the OP is trying to solve. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't see how FE-Schrift helps much unless the reader has also been given a proper R and B that they can trust and to check text against. Adding a slash to convert a FE-Schrift P into an R will absolutely fool nearly everyone not explicitly looking for a forgery and armed with details about what to look for. So what exactly is the level of danger we're trying to avoid and what level of trouble/expense are we willing to incur to avoid it? Matt Deres (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think "P" is a "proper subregion" of "R". I never heard of "proper subregion" before, but that would seem to make sense. (Except in FE-Schrift.) Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Baseball Bugs--the OP is a devout Catholic with a sense of humor who wants to erect a sign on their lawn that says "Papist." Temerarius (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the website for those seeking therapy: therapist.com. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I get it. They would feel ashamed to to be confused with thepapist.com Gem fr (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

When did she live?

The article of Vincenza Matilde Testaferrata has not dates of birth or death. I have not been able to find one. Surely it must be documented because she was a noble. Is it known at least when she died? Thanks,--2.248.48.118 (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The article has the notation "fl. 1778" which stands for Floruit, which is usually used in cases where a person's exact birth/death dates are not known. --Jayron 32 14:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was just not known by the writer of the article, because it was not mentioned in the digitalized sources for the article (the source only mention her in regard to her office, which she left in 1778), but as late as the 18th-century seem much to late for the dates of a person of the nobility (who always had genealogical documents) to be unknown. --2.248.48.118 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if willing to look through genealogy records, that info can probably be found, but those records may not be available online, and I don't feel like flying to Malta right now to pour through the archives. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And they probably wouldn't appreciate anyone pouring something through their archives. Poring might be OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take sympathy on poor old me, as I swear I don't make such mistakes on porpoise. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

On purpose or not, it was good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is valid - the date should be provided for a serious encyclopedia. It's a shame, the article does need a date of death. Being from the nobility, perhaps she would be mentioned in some sort of encyclopedia such as Almanach de Gotha or Burth's Peerage or something similar of that sort. Is that available online? I don't know, but it's not unprobable. It's a shame if the question was mocked by editors when its perfectly valid. --Aciram (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Partington, Angela, ed. (1996). "Elizabeth I". The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Revised Fourth ed.). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. p. 274. ISBN 0198600585.

[1]