Humanities desk
< February 2	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 4 >

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

February 3[edit]

Gilded throne of Queen Anne, at the Treasury[edit]

I am reading Lloyd George's War Memoirs. He mentions a meeting "in the gloomy board room of the Treasury, with the gilt throne of Queen Anne at one end of the room". Is the throne still there, and do we have a picture of it? DuncanHill (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless it's been thrown into a skip within the last 10 years it is indeed still there.[1][2][3] If we have a picture of it then I couldn't find it, but there's a black-and-white photo of the throne of Queen Anne here. I was rather disappointed, frankly it looks a bit naff compared to mine. --Antiquary (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. LG says "...the once glistening and plushed throne has now a sad look of tarnished and torn neglect." DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to George Osborne, "A throne is still there [in the Treasury Board Room] in case Her Majesty wishes to attend a meeting, although a monarch has not done so for over 200 years". [4] He was the Second Lord of the Treasury until 2016, so he ought to know I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the board room is in the old Treasury, designed by William Kent next to Horse Guards and is now the Cabinet Office. Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of employee salaries as trade secrets[edit]

AFAIK it's common practice for developed-country employers to prohibit discussions of salaries inside their companies by classifying them as trade secrets. 1) Have there been cases of employees being disciplined or even fired for mentioning their salaries in non-public informal communication such as friends' group chats or parties? 2) Why is it AFAIK far from common to supply the NDAs with reasonable exceptions like the above for disclosing one's own salary outside work, if enforcing the NDAs in the said cases would be IMHO outrageous and unethical? 3) Why don't employers prohibit "salary discussions" inside work without classifying salaries as trade secrets? Is the "trade secret" used as a pretext, or is it that most employers can't do without the right for career-ruining "trade secret disclosure" dismissals? --213.87.161.233 (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the state of California, at least, it's against state law for employers to retaliate or punish in any manner an employee who discusses salaries with co-workers. See the California Equal Pay Act. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

End of the world and John Napier[edit]

WP states in List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events: "After his 1688 prediction failed to come true, Napier revised his end of the world prediction [to 1700]". WP links that Napier to John Napier the creator of logarithms. But that Napier died in 1617. Some possibilities: (1) contrary to what WP says, it's not the same Napier, (2) there's a mistake in the source (Weber, Eugen (1999): Eugen Weber Apocalypses. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674003958), (3) the editor who inserted that bit misinterpreted what's in Weber. (4) something else? Can anyone help? Thanks. Basemetal 10:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the same bloke, he just recalculated from 1688 to 1700 after further research. See The Life and Works of John Napier (pp. 88-90) by Brian Rice, Enrique González-Velasco, Alexander Corrigan. His 1700 date was published in 1593 in A Plaine Discovery, of the whole Revelation of Saint John: set down in two treatises: the one searching and proving the true interpretation thereof: the other applying the same paraphrastically and historically to the text (snappy title eh?}. Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"List of dates" article now amended using the ref above. I couldn't see the ref originally quoted. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alan. Napier must then be one of the few who've revised their date before they were proven wrong. I'd love to see his calculations and I'm curious as to how he decided that his first calculation was wrong. Basemetal 14:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The full explanation starts on p. 17 of Plaine Discovery, under the heading "14. Proposition: The day of Gods judgement appears to fall betwixt the years of Christ, 1688 and 1700". Good luck with that. Alansplodge (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, he figured it to happen long after he was dead, so if he got any bad press he would be oblivious to it. And the wording "After his 1688 prediction failed to come true..." is misleading, since he was long dead before it. It would suffice to say he made a prediction and then revised it, and was long gone by the time 1700 rolled around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which is why it has already been changed. Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay and legal to register vendors without publicity, and carry out a limited tender among them without publicity in a fully government owned company for IT and communication goods & services[edit]

good faith question, but as noted by three users already, Wikipedia editors cannot offer other editors legal advice in this forum. Please seek help from a qualifies professional. --Jayron 32 20:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it okay and legal to register vendors without publicity, and carry out a limited tender among them without publicity in a fully state government owned company for IT and communication goods & services by selecting among vendors registered on basis of arbitrary recommendation of vendors by company officials in any state of India as per vigilance norms laws like Contract law and anti corruption law provisions in force in force because this goes against common sense fairness.Is this not a malpractice and irregularity and contrary to the relevant provisions of law and vigilance norms in force and extant and set by Central Vigilance Commission in India.In this case vendors are registered without advertised invitation for enlistment in any newspaper or website and limited tender/NIT/Request for Quotation is carried out without any publicity .Is this legal as per relevant provisions of applicable laws of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrogh456 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is asking for legal advice, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ref desk do not - according to the blurb at the top of this very page - answer (and may remove) questions that require legal advice WegianWarrior (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we cannot answer this question. Sorry. We're not allowed to answer requests for legal advice of any kind and, even if we could, this seems like a very complicated piece of law where multiple standards need to apply. You would need the advice of a licensed corporate lawyer specifically trained and schooled in Indian law. Matt Deres (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.