Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 30

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< July 29 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 31 >
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.


July 30

edit

Edit counter

edit

In edit counter, "Unique pages edited" means how many articles you have at least edited once before right? Let's say it is 200. That means you have edited 200 articles one edit or more?123.21.106.219 (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this is actually more of a question for the Wikipedia Help Desk however with my limited knowledge of the matter I would say yes you're correct, but also be advised that many long time editors either don't really care what ones edit count is or balances it with other factors such as quality edits, page starts and contributing to Reference Desks, Notice Boards, Third Opinions and Help Pages etc. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanitation for horse drawn vehicles in modern times

edit

How do people in modern time manage to keep the streets clean where horse drawn vehicles are used? There would be extremely few areas where this occur maybe Amish communities using public roads to get somewhere or historically-themed towns. Most horses can't be trained to poop in heir stalls, which was why the streets of 19th century towns were covered with animal and human waste at least until the street sweepers can get to them. So how does the law regulate this or clean it up? I can't imagine that they make the owners carry a bag and clean up the mess themselves.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This will of course vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in some of them carriages have bags mounted behind the horse: See [1] or [2] for examples. Gabbe (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I never knew they had bags. Why didn't they use bags back in the 19th century especially given these figures [3]?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It just wasn't the norm, and this dates from before the role of manure in spreading disease was known (say if it gets into the local water supply). Future generations might well ask how we could be so stupid as to release exhaust gases out of smokestacks, chimneys, and mufflers, instead of capturing and sequestering them. StuRat (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In London, the Household Cavalry are followed at a respectful distance by an electric sweeper truck; I assume that the sweepings are used to fertilise the Royal Parks. Alansplodge (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a kid going to Walt Disney World you knew the parade ended on Main Street USA when the guys in white suits with the brooms and buckets on a stick were marching down the street after the horse drawn carriages. Aw nothing like that smell in a Florida August humid summer! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I grew up in a part of Michigan with a large Amish population. There isn't enough horse traffic to really add up to much of a mess on the roads, and as far as I know there is no cleanup. Cars spread out the messes over time, and rain rinses it off the road. Some people shovel it out of the road and into the ditch if it is in front of their house. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There would be extremely few areas where this occur maybe Amish communities using public roads" There would be extremely many areas where this occur if one ventured a bit farther away from one's ivory tower. Try visiting Egypt, for example. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for the 19th century, see Crossing sweeper for those who earned an income by sweeping the horse dung aside so that the gentry could cross the road dry shod. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The expression after the Lord Mayor's show remains proverbial. jnestorius(talk) 22:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duchies, Counties, Baronies

edit

In the middle ages, did a duchy usually consist of several counties and a county consist of several baronies ? Or were they all separate from each other as I think, obviously being different from each other only in that duchies were larger and/or considered more important than counties, while counties were larger and/or considered more important than baronies?

109.247.62.59 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think. It was probably more uneven in its installation in various parts of the former West Roman Empire taken over by the Germanic tribal aristocracies, and probably developed unevenly in each case. But that may be the way Charlemagne left it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, in general for all titles, nobles got their grants and owed fealty directly to the suzerain (usually the King or Emperor, i.e. the King of France or King of England or Holy Roman Emperor. Which is not to say that subinfeudation (the act of a tenant subdividing their land among further tenants) did not happen; but it was a) discouraged as it added a layer of seperation of rights between the King and his subjects and b) even if it did happen, the sub-fief did not generally carry with it a new title; that is a local duke could not grant a new countly title to the holder of some sub-fief of his. While there was a hierarchy of titles (that is Dukes outrank Counts which outrank Barons, etc.) the titles still all derive from the king. --Jayron32 23:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it really depends on when and where (as all questions about the Middle Ages do). For example, the answer is different for France in the year 800 than it was in 1400 (and every other century in between). If Charlemagne was the king of all of France in 800, then in 900 there were several independent counties and duchies that had no real connection to the king, who ruled his own little territory around Paris. A count could be more powerful than a duke. Even a viscount or a local lord could be more powerful than someone with a higher title. The titles were traditional, and did not necessarily reflect the actual power or influence of the holder. And those counts and dukes did subdivide their own territories into smaller units - for example the Duchy of Brittany, which was independent all the way up to the 16th century, had several counties (Nantes, Rennes, Penthièvre, etc). Those counties had several baronies, and new ones could be created as well. These subdivisions did have a practical use, for the purposes of taxation, or raising an army; so-and-so, lord of such-and-such castle, owed a certain number of knights in military service to the count, etc. Theoretically all that military service was ultimately owed to the king, but not if the king had no way of enforcing that theoretical authority. (The example of Brittany is not necessarily typical, I just used it because I'm familiar with it; but that's the point, there isn't really an answer that will apply everywhere.)
Later of course when the king of France was strong enough again to incorporate all those territories into France, the old dukes and counts did derive their titles from the king. But then they are simply titles of nobility, more strictly hierarchical, and ultimately meaningless (especially when they still exist without the monarchy, like the Duc d'Anjou or the Duc d'Orleans). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx. that was helpful :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.62.59 (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burgundy was often particularly volatile. At one point, I think there was a King of Burgundy, a Duke of Burgundy and a Count of Burgundy at the same time, each ruling separate territories. And of these, iirc, the Count of Burgundy was the most powerful, and the King of Burgundy the least powerful. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on when you are talking about. The original Kingdom of Burgundy was one of the many shifting sub-kingdoms of the Frankish Empire (Including Neustria and Austrasia as more famous and powerful such entities). The second incarnation of the Kingdom of Burgundy is often referred to as the Kingdom of Arles so as to distinguish it from the earlier creation. By 1032, the kingdom was inherited and existed in Dynastic Union with the Holy Roman Emperor, so that the HRE was the King of Burgundy (along with being King of Germany and King of Italy and King of the Romans and all of his other plethora of titles). The County of Burgundy, the so-called Franche-Comté or "Free County" was a palatine county of the Holy Roman Empire, whose counts were powerful only in the sense of the autonomy they had. In 1405, the County was inherited by the Dukes of Burgundy. The Duchy of Burgundy was ascendant for a long time. The duchy held a position within France that the County held within the HRE; that of a mostly autonomous area that was only a nominal fife of the King of France. For a short time it was inherited by the King of France and incorporated into the Royal Demesne, but it was granted to a cadet branch of the Capetians, who held it for many centuries. During the Hundred Years' War, the Duchy of Burgundy even fought as an essentially independent nation, allied with England and supporting the Plantagenet cause in the succession dispute at the center of the HYW. It would also much later be the Duchy of Burgundy which would create the attempt at re-establishing the Middle Kingdom of Lothairingia, as Philip the Good and Charles the Bold inherited and took by conquest much of the Netherlands and attempted to assert actual independence from France. It is through the Duchy of Burgundy that the venerable House of Burgundy gets its name; its tradition and honors came to Charles the Bold's heir, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, who was also Charles I of Spain, which is why the Cross of Burgundy has long been associated with Spain. Other members of the House of Burgundy have ruled kingdoms all over Europe at various times, and they all descend from the Duchy. So I don't think the statement that the County was the most powerful of the three historic entities is correct. Each of the three Burgundies probably was at different times "most powerful", but historically the most significant in terms of moving European history was, over many different eras, the Duchy. --Jayron32 11:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPITFIRE PILOTS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR

edit

I would like to know if my father in law Mr Leslie Gibson DFM is now the eldest living British spitfire pilot of the 2nd World War - he is now 99 born 13/05/1914.

Could anyone with specific knowledge of these facts please contact me Username marcusfaye ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusfaye (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the youngest fighter pilots were aged about 20 by the time that they had completed their training, that would mean that the youngest WWII pilots would have been born in 1925, so quite a bit younger than your relative. A quick look on Google found Squadron Leader John Seabourne, Squadron Leader Liskutin and Lieutenant Rolf Kolling (Norwegian), all WWII RAF Spitfire pilots who were still up and about a couple of weeks ago. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I have just re-read your question and realised that I didn't answer it correctly. Perhaps an organisation like the The Royal Air Forces Association might be more help. Alansplodge (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How British does one have to be? Mieczyslaw Juny MBE celebrated his 100th birthday on 1 January 2013 in Devon. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the organisation that could help you with this search is the RAF Museum at Hendon, as it's where many of the original records are kept. They do charge for research, but you can visit them yourself. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the RAF Museum are likely to be the best people to contact, and they're used to this sort of enquiry. While they won't be able to research all known pilots and determine if they're alive, they may well be able to quickly inform you if they know of someone older. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size

edit

Is the US in possession of a nuke which is capable of flattening a region the size of the Netherlands? Pass a Method talk 16:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands is already plenty flat. If you mean "flatten a part of the Alps that is the size of the Netherlands", then no. The largest nuke ever exploded, the Soviet Tsar Bomba, would have caused significant damage to an area the size of the Netherlands, but no "flattening". The largest US bomb, the B41 nuclear bomb, had a predicted maximum yield of half that of the Tsar Bomba, but was never tested to maximum specifications. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you meant just causing destruction over an area the size of the Netherlands, a googled nuclear weapons effects calculator says the B41 could cause 3rd-degree burns over about a fifth of the Netherlands, and significant structural damage over a much smaller area, about 1/25th of the Netherlands (44km radius and 21km radius, respectively). A full-power, 100-megaton Tsar Bomba would be more like 3/4 and 1/10th of the Netherlands. Though note that multiple, smaller explosions are almost always more effective than a single large one, which is a major reason why cluster bombs and MIRVs exist: if the intent was actually to devastate such an area, 10 well-placed 10-megaton bombs would cause much more devastation than a single 100-megaton would. Lsfreak (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simple answer is yes. Fairly certain same answer for Russia. Unsure if it's the same answer for China. I doubt it's the same answer for Pakistan and India, although unclear. Shadowjams (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have that backwards. Simple answer is no. The biggest bomb ever detonated was too small and was Russian. Rmhermen (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sesquipedelian government agencies

edit

Australian governments used to be sensible when it came to naming their federal departments. We had unexceptionable agencies such as the Department of Defence, the Department of Trade, the Department of Education, etc etc. Nobody really objected to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, because everyone in their right mind just called it CSIRO.

Then they started getting the "inclusivity" bug, and feeling the need to explicitly acknowledge the various parts of some portfolios in their titles. So we had mouthsful like the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories.

We've recently seen the creation of the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. Even the acronym, DIICSRTE, almost needs an abbreviation of its own.

Is this approaching some sort of record for unwieldy, long-winded agency names in developed countries that no citizen could be reasonably expected to remember? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside

edit

I know the Soviets had some absolute corkers, but they were off the planet and in a class of their own. The best (? worst) one I know of was:

  • The Laboratory for Shuttering, Reinforcement, Concrete and Ferroconcrete Operations for Composite-Monolithic and Monolithic Constructions of the Department of the Technology of Building-Assembly Operations of the Scientific Research Institute of the Organization for Building Mechanization and Technical Aid of the Academy of Building and Architecture of the USSR (pauses for breath)

which gloried in the acronym:

So, let's leave that sort of stupidity alone and focus on relatively sane names. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Articles with long titles.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Workforce reductions contribute to amalgamation of departments and to amalgamation of workloads. For the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, there is presumably a person with the title "Minister of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education".
—Wavelength (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Until 1987, if there was a Minister for X, you could be confident there was a Department of X that he and only he administered. And vice-versa. But since then, a minister can administer multiple departments, and a department can be run by multiple ministers (and parliamentary secretaries). The office-holders who administer the department in question are:
  • Senator Kate Lundy is the Minister Assisting for Innovation and Industry
  • Yvette D'Ath is the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, Innovation and Industry
As I understand it, it's a more modular approach to minister portfolios: instead of moving areas of responsibilities between portfolios, there are now these sub-portfolios with individual (and stable) names which get shunted between ministers in reshuffles. Someone must have worked out that this is a more efficient architecture than shifting areas of responsibilities.
Whether out of bureaucratic expediency or simply as a matter of face, when a cabinet minister takes over a sub-portfolio that does not naturally belong within the name of his existing portfolio, the sub-portfolio name will accordingly be added to the name of his corresponding department (with more junior ministers appointed to take care of the sub-portfolios). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not answering your question but in SA we have the rather humorous case of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. They absolutely insist on abbreviating themselves as D:EA&DP, lest anyone have the temerity to call them dead pee ;) Zunaid 11:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As with so many matters, I'm afraid that the UK may have 'defeated', or at least equalled (depending on how you count), Australia on this issue. The sensitive nature of the power-sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland have led to some novel institutions like The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. You may visit them on their website www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk [4]. As an aside, the UK body responsible for education has been renamed so many times that the official in charge took to inventing rhymes as mnenomics to help him remember. Thus the Department for Children, Schools and Families became "dogs, cats, stokes and foxes" in his head so that he could recite it fluently. Thom2002 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoid Mary

edit

Did Typhoid Mary ever cook at least for herself after 1915? She was quarantined on North Brother Island in a cottage separate from other infected patient, did the health authorities allow her to cook fir herself or was she fed like the rest of the patients.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remembering my studies on Typhoid Mary most of what she did and did not do was actually contrary to what authorities requested. In short, perhaps only Mary herself would know the true answer to your query since if she did cook it was most likely out of the eye of the authorities or other residents. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 10:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Do we know if her cottage had a stove? Do we know if health official served her food on the island. I am sure food were served to the sick patients at least..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both Anthony Boudrain (Typhoid Mary: An Urban Historical) and Judith Walzer Leavitt (Typhoid Mary: Captive to the Public's Health) said that the bungalow in which Mary Mallon was isolated (with her dog) on North Brother Island had a small kitchen. - Nunh-huh 22:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danish universities which offer bachelor of education

edit

Which Danish (or those located in Denmark) provide/offer B.Eds?Curb Chain (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Study in Denmark is a thorough Danish government list of universities in Denmark. Click on the red arrow beside each university, then on “read more about institutions and study programs” to see a list of degrees offered at each. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strasbourg baker

edit

When did Robert Koch investigate the baker in Strasbourg for being a typhoid carrier mentioned here and here? What was her name? Did it predate Typhoid Mary?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a paper about the Staussburg baker was published by Dr. Kayser in 1906 (Arbeiten a.d. Kais. Gesundheitsamte, 1906, vol. xxiv. p. 176.), and Koch had first spoken about the importance of carrier status in typhoid in 1902. So the investigation would have been between 1902 and 1906, and would have predated Typhoid Mary, investigated in 1906 with results published in 1907. It's traditional not to publish the names of patients in scientific papers, so you'd need to see if the baker's name was revealed in historical, rather than scientific, works. - Nunh-huh 02:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joséphine and Napoleon burial

edit

Why aren't Joséphine de Beauharnais and Napoleon buried together given the trend in modern times of reburying people to either join families or repatriate exiled royals who died aboard? They are both buried in Paris too.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What possible kind of reference could we give to address this made-up premise? You do realize they were divorced and he remarried? You know we don't do such speculation. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies on both individuals, sources talking about burial at St Pierre-St Paul Church, Rueil-Malmaison and Les Invalides, written documents by the individuals or secondary sources mentioning thse which stating what their wishes were to be buried. Even modern news article suggesting such a move (for example king Harald III of Norway's body has not been located in centuries yet in recent times people have been trying to find it [5], this is just one example of something that has been suggested but hasn't occurred, and my question is if this is the case). You realize she was going to join him on St. Helena before she died and his dying words were, "France, armée, tête d'armée, Joséphine."("France, army, head of the army, Joséphine."). It isn't like I am asking what would the unemployment rate be in July, 2013 if Mitt Romney had become president. If you can't answer it don't say anything,--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. None of those sources can tell you "given the trend" (what trend?) in modern times of reburying people to rejoin families (what family?) why the two have not been exhumed. You might as well ask why Jefferson's not been buried next to Hemmings or Washington next to Lenin. You have come up with a nonsense premise and are asking us to disprove it. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with OP, the question is capable of being answered with reference to reliable sources - it is plausible to suppose there could be sources out there that say, for example, "when Napoleon's body was brought to Paris, it was decided not to inter him next to Josephine because...".
Your comments are not helpful Medeis, no-one really cares enough about your ignorance that you need to mask it by attacking the questioner. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My perception is that dead bodies are usually left where first buried if there's no "secondary gain" for those who want to dig them up and bury them elsewhere. It's not done to honor dying wishes (except perhaps by living descendants who actually were contemporaries of the dead), it's done to score political points or earn tourism dollars. And for Napoleon and Josephine, there's no political point to make, and no money to be made converting two burial sites into one. - Nunh-huh 01:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your perception is not a reliable source. If you don't have one don't make one up. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Nor do you need to mask your ignorance by attacking someone who tries to address a question that you feel incapable of answering. No-one will judge you if you don't answer a question, but I for one will continue to judge you for attacking valid questions and constructive responses. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your perception that I made one up is...wrong. - Nunh-huh 03:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that Joséphine de Beauharnais was the first wife of Napoleon. Moreover, according to WP: He claimed to a friend, while in exile on Saint Helena, that "I truly loved my Joséphine, but I did not respect her.". His second wife was Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma who remarried twice after his death. — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@The Emperor's New Spy. According to WP : Napoleon learned of her [Joséphine] death via a French journal while in exile on Elba (not St. Helena). — AldoSyrt (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_July_30&oldid=1141892915"