July 9

What is the earliest documented daguerreotype of a person of color (non-white)? Also the first daguerreotype of an African-American slave?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the second question, possibly the 1850 series commissioned by Louis Agassiz? See Agassiz Zealy slave portraits. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the other question, the first daguerreotypes of non-Europeans ( term in use by museum) were made by Louis-Auguste Bisson in Paris in 1841-42: "Type descendant de Canarien". When looking for links regarding Bisson an inconvenience in some links is the pictures of human skulls taken by Bisson as involved in ethnographic studies. Where of concern the first pictures of non-Whites in Africa, amongst them are the daguerreotypes by frigate Captain Charles Guillain in Somalia in 1846-48. One of those beautiful pictures by Guillain also here to be seen. --Askedonty (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone please tell me the architectural style of this beautiful building in London? Neither Royal College of Organists nor Royal College of Music mention it. Thanks in advance, --Ann (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The style is (basically) Arts and Crafts, and the technique is sgraffito. See this article for more information. Tevildo (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What authors became successful through self-publishing in the paper book era? There must have been some (otherwise words like "self-publishing" and "vanity press" wouldn't have existed), but the only example I can think of is Virginia Woolf, who published everything through the Hogarth Press that she and her husband ran. Are there other examples of self-made self-published authors (not authors who briefly self-published and then got picked up by a professional press)? Smurrayinchester 05:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer, but a distinction must be made between the quite common situation, such as the Hogarth Press mentioned above, when an author is also an editor, and a true self-published work. In the first case, the editor also publishes other writers, so it's not really what the OP is looking for. --Xuxl (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lengthy discussion on the matter here. Amanda Hocking is one example. Note that "self-publishing" and "vanity publishing" are not the same thing. --Viennese Waltz 09:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Mo. DuncanHill (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tufte mortgaged his house to fund the printing of The Visual Display of Quantitative Information after discussions with publishers failed. I imagine the textbook publishers thought it wasn't textbook-y enough, and the popsci publishers thought no-one would pay $40 for a book about pie charts. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 11:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Late in his career, William Morris began published his own 1st book editions (often following their magazine serialization) via his own Kelmscott Press, but was of course already a successful author (etc.) so did not thus 'become' successful as the PO stipulates. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few centuries ago, almost all authors self-published (although they would use professional printers) ... most books prior to around 1800 (as a very rough estimate) would probably qualify as being "self-published" as we use that term today... at least initially. Copyright laws were also less clear back then, and so and it was not uncommon for a successful book to subsequently be re-published (illegally by today's standards) by a professional publisher trying to cash in on the book's success. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which one came first, Artavasdes I of Armenia (Artavasdes I agrees with this one) or Tigranes I? The articles List of Armenian kings and Artaxiad dynasty have the dates basically swapped compared to the articles on the individual rulers. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you agree with one listing? Is there some source you have for this, or is it the memory of one? μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with either. I tried not to imply that, but I couldn't find a wording which avoided the implication (and then decided it wasn't all that important to take the time to find a wording which does). In short: Whatever. I just want to know the facts. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I read "Artevesdes" I agree with this one, not "Artavesdes I" agrees with this one due to my eyesight. I thought you had a source in mind with which you agreed and were looking to have your memory jogged. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see! Never mind! It seems this problem is more widespread, should that comfort you a little ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the second century Greek writer Appian stated that Tigranes' father was also named Tigranes, the majority of scholarly opinion holds that Tigranes was the son of Artavasdes. Tigranes' birth date of circa 140 B.C. is deduced from the tradition that he was eighty-five years old at the time of his death in 55 B.C.

Tigranes the Great. Dictionary of World Biography: The Ancient World. —eric 04:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now ... does that mean that it is not even certain that Tigranes I (as distinct from Tigranes the Great) actually existed? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tigranes II seems to have been a hostage during I's reign, precluding them from being the same. Even if we believe "other sources", somebody aside from Tigranes II had to be Tigranes I for at least a few years.

It was a long time ago, though. Hard to be certain of much. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand that we don't know very much about the Artaxiads preceding Tigranes the Great. But then we shouldn't pretend we could give precise dates for their reigns, and gloss over all difficulties. We should state the actual facts in the relevant articles, or at least admit to more uncertainty than the precise dates make it seem like. And the contradiction between the articles remains; not only do the dates not match at all, the sets of articles even contradict each other on the sequence of the kings – I don't think this should be tolerated.

Is there any chance of locating Wikipedians with even more knowledge of expertise on ancient history, especially of Armenia, who have a good handle on what we know and what we don't regarding the Artaxiads, and which solutions, sequences and dates are how plausible? Theoretically, talk pages of WikiProjects (and Portals) should be suitable (in this case Armenia, History and Classical Greece and Rome look appropriate), but they are often rather deserted or at least look that way, especially in the smaller WikiProjects. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]