Humanities desk
< February 9	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	Current desk >

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.

February 10

Burger King Whopper size lawsuit

Is there any update on this lawsuit, filed in 2023? https://www.reuters.com/legal/burger-king-must-face-lawsuit-claiming-its-whoppers-are-too-small-2023-08-29/ How long does it usually take for lawsuits like this to go to court? I haven't found any news about it after 2023. 2601:644:907E:A70:B427:851D:7DB1:31FA (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This web page states, under the heading Burger King Lawsuit Background, "Filed in March 2020, the lawsuit alleges that Burger King falsely represented the size of its signature Whopper sandwiches in its advertisements." Further on, under the heading Judge’s Verdict on Burger King Lawsuit, we read, U.S. District Judge Roy Altman gave a mixed ruling. While he agreed to dismiss the lawsuit’s components regarding Burger King’s TV and online advertising potentially misleading customers, he allowed the claims of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment to proceed. In Judge Altman’s words, the determination of whether the difference between the received and advertised products could sway purchasing decisions should be left to the consumers." This does not give closure. No reference or date for this ruling is given.

Moreover, in between, under the heading November 2024 Update – Burger King Lawsuit, the page states, "We have filed a class action lawsuit against Burger King Corporation for using false and misleading images in their advertisements that materially overstate the portion size for the Whopper. Burger King Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss this class action. We are currently waiting on a decision from the court." ‑‑Lambiam 13:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. 2601:644:907E:A70:514B:C85:7AA8:AC50 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Cromleac

The Victoria and Albert Museum has a photograph they call "Edward Cromleac" and describe as being in "County Down, Republic of Ireland", and having been taken in the National Photographic Record and Survey. Google searches for "Edward Cromleac" return only the same image. County Down is not in the Republic of Ireland. I have identified the cromlech as the Goward Dolmen in Clonmore, Co Down. Some more pictures, which make the identification clearer, are here at Megalithic Ireland. My questions are 1) Has it ever actually been known as "Edward Cromleac", or is this an error by the original annotator of the photograph, 2) The V&A credit the photograph to R. Welch, would I be right in assuming this is Robert Welch (photographer)?, and 3) anything else of interest you can come up with. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and 4) do we have a more reliable source than my amazing eye for detail and research skills to make the identification? The photo would improve our article if so. DuncanHill (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like "Edward Cromleac" should actually read "Goward Cromlech". In this picture at least "Goward" can be read. Judging by this and that, "cromleac" seems to be a valid variant of "cromlech". --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colorised version of the preceding photo in the series, same fellow, other side. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just sent a feedback note on this to the V&A. --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrongfilter: Many thanks, now I look at the V&A picture blown up as much as I can I agree, it does actually say "Goward" not "Edward". And thanks too for contacting the V&A - I did one try to get them to correct something they'd copied of Wikipedia but I don't know if they ever did. DuncanHill (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How wee was Bobs?

There's a little red-faced man,
Which is Bobs,
Rides the tallest 'orse 'e can-
Our Bobs.

Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts was famously short. But how short was he? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source and this one agree that he was five foot two. This concurs that he was five foot three. To make it still clearer, this says he was five foot four. Your question may be as difficult to answer as the often-debated one about Napoleon's height. Of course, Roberts was 82 by the time he faded away and might well have lost an inch or two by then. --Antiquary (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two more sources – [1] and [2] – give his height as five foot three. Bear in mind also that we're all half an inch shorter at the end of the day than at the beginning due to our vertebrae scrunching up under the strain of supporting our weight. We regain the half inch, of course, overnight. All told, it may not be possible to get more precision than 5' 3" give or take. --Antiquary (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, five foot six and a half. But then when I was learning stats I was always told to ignore the outliers. --Antiquary (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liars, damned outliers, and statistics. ‑‑Lambiam 11:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemite Sam was much shorter than any of those, yet he rode a full-sized horse in his screen debut. He mounted it using a type of stepladder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to break this to you, Bugs, but Yosemite Sam might not have been a completely historical, accurately depicted individual. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.123.129 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Them's fightin' words! The point being that the shortest guy can ride the tallest horse, if he gets creative enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Antiquary: Thank you, about as tall as my Mum was then! DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is The Alchemist a work of magical realism?

JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 14:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, here are some sources discussing this novel in relation to the genre of magical realism:

There is no hard test for drawing the distinction between magical realism and fantasy with magical elements. While there are elements of magical realism in the novel that help to carry the story forward, it is a judgement call whether they suffice to characterize the whole work as magical realism. Magical elements are commonplace in fairy tales, and one might call this story a well-elaborated fairy tale presented in a somewhat realistic fashion. ‑‑Lambiam 19:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holes on the face of the Serjilla roman baths building

File:Serjilla 01.jpg

There are these weird holes on the building. My first thought is bullets or something but they seem too perfect. 2A02:85F:F598:2801:2AB8:4984:FEE7:C061 (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The description of File:Serjilla_(2001)_09.jpg says "You can see the perforations in the wall to embed the beams of the roof [gable] of a later house". --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Father-son VCs

According to our article Frederick Roberts (VC, born 1872), he and his father Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts were "were one of only three father-son pairs to win the VC". Who were the other two? I would regard recipients of the Victoria Cross for Australia, the Victoria Cross (Canada), and the Victoria Cross for New Zealand as being absolutely equal to recipients of the original. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Charles Gough and Sir John Gough
Sir Walter Congreve and Billy Congreve

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it by seconds! Well done. This article also records four cases where VCs have been awarded to brothers. Alansplodge (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: and @Alansplodge: Thank you both. DuncanHill (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]