The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
There are plenty of "sources" claiming that VW has "officially revealed" a "re-imagined legend" new Karmann Ghia model for 2026 model year. An image search will find many images of differing vehicles, some are obviously AI-generated, some fairly convincing that may be non-production prototypes. There are also plenty pf "first look" videos, also AI-generated. Even Perplexity.AI states:
Volkswagen is officially reviving the Karmann Ghia nameplate for 2026, launching a brand-new, fully electric coupe that blends retro-inspired design with modern technology and performance. This new model pays homage to the original’s iconic curves and style while embracing an all-electric powertrain and advanced features.
-- Yet I can find no credible evidence that such an actual car exists. Certainly there would be several physical examples already made for testing and evaluation, and "spy photos" of at least one obtained by a major automotive publisher. Can anybody provide a definitive source? -- 136.56.165.118 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in Volkswagon's press releases about this (not in the last 18 months, anyway). And searching cardesignnews.com reveals nothing about any modern Karmann anything. Card Zero (talk)20:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to get Perplexity to change its mind:
Conclusion Based on the lack of official confirmation and the reliance on potentially AI-generated or speculative sources, the information about a "new" VW Karmann Ghia model for 2026 should be regarded as a fabricated or at least unsubstantiated story. Until Volkswagen or a highly reputable automotive news outlet provides direct confirmation, it is safest to treat these claims with skepticism.
I wouldnt bother using AI for things like this, you can probably verify (or debunk) the claims yourself faster by searching yourself. How can you trust what it says, if you can convince it to change its mind? NoSlacking (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally only use Perplexity when I want to find source(s). It often has access to sources that are unavailable or difficult to find, such as ephemeral company communications. 136.56.165.118 (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Let me give you a simple example: let's say Scotland wins the World Cup (soccer). What do the rules say? That the World Cup trophy cannot leave the country of the winning national team. So, if they wanted to, couldn't it be taken to another “Home Nation”? Precisely because, after all, the country is still the whole of the United Kingdom. Thank you very much. 93.150.83.100 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The trophy is kept at the FIFA World Football Museum in Zürich, Switzerland and leaves there only on select occasions. World Cup winners receive a gold-plated bronze replica, which they possess until the next World Cup final and in perpetuity if they have won it three times."
I presume the replica is held by the Football Association of the winning country, who might have some freedom in how they house and display it, perhaps even to the extent of lending it for temporary display outside the country, but they will surely take great care with its security. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.81.243 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the World Cup rules consider Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland to be separate countries, all in competition with each other, then they couldn't also permit the United Kingdom to be a country, because that would permit the whole to be in competition with each of its parts, an absurdity. Likewise, if the UK is a unified country for WC purposes, then none of the home countries could compete as separate entities. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]20:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, it's already happened. Back when the Soviet Union was a thing, it had a seat in the United Nations (and was a member of the Security Council). But Ukraine and Byelorussia (as it was called then), which were integral parts of the Soviet Union, had separate UN seats. I have no idea how those two voted on anything, but I guess it was always possible for the Soviet Union to vote NO on some issue, but Ukraine and/or Byelorussia to vote YES. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]21:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Scotland did win the World Cup, the Scottish FA would be very unwilling to let it leave Scotland. Scotland and the other Home Nations FAs fight very hard to maintain their independence, and do not do anything that might jeopardise it by suggesting that they belong to the same football jurisdiction as England. For instance, the Great Britain Olympic football team has only played once since 1972 - at the 2012 London games as a special one-off (the women's team also played in 2020). Scotland otherwise blocks any moves to create a Team GB football side, in the belief it would weaken their argument for independence and lead to them being forcibly merged with England. Smurrayinchester10:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are some famous cases in which a person was wrongly believed by others and by himself/herself to have killed someone (whether accidentally or otherwise), but was later exonerated? The only such person I know about is Salieri (who had gone so far as to have actually confessed on his deathbed to having poisoned Mozart, even though he really didn't) -- what other similar cases were there? 2601:646:8082:BA0:1881:7267:DD7D:636D (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People in attendance during Salieri's final hours denied any death-bed confession. Rather, Salieri summoned a former pupil of his, Ignaz Moscheles (1794–1870), for an emphatic death-bed denial, "I did not poison Mozart."[1] ‑‑Lambiam10:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supposed confessions to Mozart's murder by Salieri are, as far as I know, only found in fictionalised works that exaggerate the supposed rivalry between the two for dramatic purposes. Can you suggest any well-founded source for such a confession?
(Hopefully, this issue will not distract others from answering your primary query.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.40.15 (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in the article indicating that Sheppard thought at any time that he himself (as per the OP's question) was guilty of the murder. Am I missing something? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.137.14 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are 100% correct about Sheppard -- he did not at any point believe himself guilty of murdering his wife, and he insisted that he couldn't have (which indeed he couldn't), so he doesn't fit the second criteria (that the person himself/herself come to believe he/she had killed someone despite not actually having done so) -- although later he actually did accidentally kill two people! As for Salieri, my source is from Nature's Building Blocks by John Emsley, where it says on p. 31: "[Mozart] believed he was being poisoned and although his rival, Antonio Salieri, confessed to his murder many years later, [emphasis mine] when he did so he was suffering from senile dementia and the claim is not taken seriously." 2601:646:8082:BA0:D5E3:9787:7C90:66A0 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off-topic here (we started with a discussion about specific examples of people who were not only said to have killed someone but had actually believed themselves to have done so, and now we're getting into prescriptive discussions about what should our standard for determining guilt or innocence be), but regarding this latest article you linked, I have to point out a fundamental flaw in Blackstone's reasoning which the article doesn't mention: his reasoning ignores the fact that felons will almost certainly re-offend if they remain unpunished, so with regard to murderers in particular (and even more so with regard to terrorists), to let one guilty one go free is to sentence multiple innocent people to death by murder! 2601:646:8082:BA0:F881:B433:1052:D8C6 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, we should lock everybody up! If they aren't already guilty of something, they'll probably do something later on if we let them go free. DuncanHill (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yup. That's the logic of the Khmer Rouge. It's not a flaw in Blackstone's reasoning, it's a flaw in some people's ethical compass. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇19:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many say it is difficult to predict the stock market. While some YouTubers claim that there are costly paid articles that can only be accessed by wealthy individuals, and they know when the market will crash and when it will rise. Is this true? Fruit Orchard (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to think that they possess special knowledge not available to the public. If they do and act on it, they will be guilty of the felony of insider trading. ‑‑Lambiam10:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless they've invented a time machine. Besides, why would they need to charge for articles if they can just cash in themselves on the stock market? Telling others only makes it harder to make money with their alleged "knowledge". It's like a horse race. If I knew the winner in advance and told others, they'd bet on the horse themselves, thereby lowering the odds/my winnings. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to understand the distinction between winter and spring wheat beyond the literal differences in uses, yields, and life cycle. From Henry Christman's Tin Horns and Calico:
The tenants [in early nineteenth-century New York] had economic as well as political complaints: in the last ten or fifteen years, their exhausted soil had been unable to grow winter wheat. Spring wheat, the only kind they could grow on their soil, was rejected. In many instances, they were frustrated in their honest efforts to pay and were compelled to pay the cash equivalent of the very highest market price.
The Wikipedia article as written does not give practical or historical context to this passage, and we don't feel the weight of what Christman has clearly tried to tell us. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question which kinds of wheat will sell on the market is very complicated and cannot be reduced to a general difference between winter and spring wheat. This depends also on the use the wheat will be put to and the demand for that use, the climate it is grown in, the soil and water quality, and the variety of wheat. For example, "... spring wheat grown in Estonian climate has better baking quality than winter wheat".[2] Also, although perhaps not relevant to the situation of these nineteenth-century New Yorkers, the wheat market is not immune to the pork cycle. ‑‑Lambiam06:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it does look like it - as far as the quality of the picture permits. And thanks for the link to fangqi; that makes it plausible. ◅ Sebastian Helm🗨21:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably wrong about fangqi. I assumed a distant connection to nine men's morris, but perhaps it's from go. Note however the alquerque "see also" section: it has variants that are played in Sri Lanka and Indonesia, on a board extended with one or more triangular sections, and the same board is used for "tiger hunt" type games in India, Indonesia and Siberia ... ah, and there's bagh-chal in Nepal on the unmodified alquerque board. That's a likely guess for the game pictured. Card Zero (talk)12:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the image source, "Goepper 1962", must be de:Roger Goepper and Vom Wesen chinesischer Malerei (The essence of Chinese painting). The Gran enciclopedia del mundo reproduces the painting as «La manada de búfalos» (pastry not acknowledged) and says it's in the Art Institute of Chicago. Fan Zimin was a Taoist monk. He was hardly known as a painter, according to the Benezit dictionary of artists, which gives the title of the scroll as "Oxen in pasture". Another book calls it "Seven oxen and two herdboys relaxing by a stream" and says it was stolen from the Art Institute of Chicago in 1969. An old Chinese text on collecting even older Chinese paintings says Kuo Chung-shu [ca. 920-977], Shih K’o [10th century], Li Kueichen [active early 10th century] and Fan Tzu-min [12th century] were all unusual men. People often set out silk, brush, and ink palette, in expectation of their coming, and then would request a painting. When the work was nearly done, the painter would tear it to pieces. If anyone managed to obtain something by these painters, it was never more than a single or half scroll. This paper Ox-Herding Painting in the Sung Dynasty quibbles with Fan Tzu-min's date and puts him in the 12th century. Card Zero (talk)14:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful research - thanks a lot! I added a permanent link to this contribution of yours to the image description. Now I feel we should have an article on this interesting person, but I don't even know how his name is written in Chinese. Thanks also for the link to bagh-chal; that game even has a herder's theme. ◅ Sebastian Helm🗨02:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know where the first photo from the left in this PDF file are taken from? The second photo from the left are from Boelter's own website so it's fairly obvious that the photos weren't taken nor created by the FBI
I tried to search the individual photos but every news site just lists the source as "FBI" which is likely just an reference to the wanted poster itself Trade (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Post credits it to Minnesota Department of Public Safety, if that helps (it doesn't, does it). The image there is a big version at least. The blue background seems rare on mugshots, and you might wonder how he continued working in security if he was in trouble with the law in 2022, but driver's licenses often have that blue background. Card Zero (talk)12:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that they photo are unlikely to have been taken by the FBI but i need to know by whom and where they were taken. I presume it was after an arrest or something--Trade (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. There were players who played all four years and lost all for Super Bowl games. Further, Gale Gilbert, Cornelius Bennett, and Glenn Parker went on to lost another (fifth) Super Bowl with other teams. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Whitey was on 11 Yankees World Series teams. They were winners in 1950, 1953, 1956, 1958, 1961 and 1962; and losers in 1955, 1957, 1960, 1963 and 1964. He pitched in 22 games and his won-lost record for those individual games was 10-8, with 4 of them being no decision.[3] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My quibble here is about using the words "in sports history", and then talking about only North American sports MEN. I don't know the answer, but I'm sure there are some men from other countries, and maybe some sports WOMEN, who might qualify. As an Australian, I might nominate Nathan Buckley who left the Brisbane Australian rules football club he was originally drafted to, to go to the Collingwood Football Club in the belief he had more chance of winning a premiership (championship) there. After he moved, Brisbane won three premierships, including two against his new club, and Collingwood won none. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Detail of the 1978 European Cup final, Liverpool Bruges
Bruges played the final in a white shirt with a purple stripe, presumably their away kit that year, while the blue shirt with a white stripe was probably their home kit. If they had won the Cup in '78, would the ribbons on the trophy have been the same colour as one of the two kits (in this case, the white away kit), or would the ribbons themselves have been black and blue, based on the club's historic colours? Thank you. 93.147.231.16 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if it would be possible to find out for sure, but it would have looked odd for a team in white and purple strip on the night to have been presented with a trophy bearing black and blue ribbons.
In that era the winning club were given the actual trophy to hold for ten months (rather than a replica as has been the case since 2009). If Bruges had won in 1978, they would likely have been free to display it in their trophy cabinet and elsewhere with black and blue ribbons substituted (or no ribbons at all), had they wished. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.41.216 (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg?lang=en)