Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• 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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 21

The "bird famine of 1880"

Referred to in Poems (1894), at that page and the next, as an easily recognisable event. I assume it's some kind of crop failure, but I haven't been able to find anything about that (all sites in a quick search quote from the book). Any ideas? — Alien  3
3 3 15:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I see a bird famine is a harsh winter where birds can't find food (there are other references, so it was a term with currency). And here we have a description of birds struggling to find food during the unusually harsh winter of 1880.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, question answered. — Alien  3
3 3 16:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably, but the book ref refers to Hampshire, England, and the poems are presumably by Sarah Morgan Bryan Piatt, who didn't come to Europe (Ireland in fact) until 1882. I suppose it might have been a transatlantic thing. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

See the etymonline entry for blizzard. "it came into general use in the U.S. in this sense in the hard winter of 1880-81." Oh, and of course our article, Hard Winter of 1880–81.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(We do have definitive confirmation that Sarah Piatt is Sarah Morgan Bryan Piatt.) — Alien  3
3 3 09:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

According to this article, in 1880 in the south of England, it snowed unusually late in April and May (when birds would be nesting) and unusually early in October. Alansplodge (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I had a fun time investigating the extent of the winter of 1880-81, which included rumours of wolves in a park in Paris and the destruction by frost of a famous pine forest near Ravenna [1][2], though it was a mild winter in Turkmenistan.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ignore that, the poem refers to a "red-bird" which is apparently a northern cardinal, setting it firmly in the United States. Alansplodge (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

September 23

Margarethe von Helfenstein

I have a problem at Margarethe von Helfenstein, when did she die? (I will copy any answers to the talk page there.) Margarethe was the illegitimate daughter of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, sister of George of Austria and wife of de:Ludwig V. von Helfenstein-Wiesensteig, who was killed in 1525. So far, there are three different answers in the sources

• The Belgian Nouvelle Biographie Nationale says "morte en Allemagne après 1531" [died in Germany after 1531].
• Deutsche Biographie's article on Maximilian I says she died in 1525,
• Some German sources say she died in 1537 in Liège, e.g. "nach dem Tod von Ludwig Helferich zog die Witwe in die Niederlande, nach Lüttich, zu ihrem Bruder Georg von Österreich, Fürstbischof von Lüttich (Georg/Joris war der illegitime Sohn von Kaiser Maximilian I. und Margareta von Edelsheim), starb dort 1537" [After the death of Ludwig Helferich, the widow moved to the Netherlands, to Liège, to her brother George of Austria, Prince-Bishop of Liège (Georg/Joris was the illegitimate son of Emperor Maximilian I and Margareta of Edelsheim), died there in 1537.] "Nach 1515 heiratete Graf Ludwig von Helfenstein , der 1525 in Weinsberg ermordet wurde , Maximilians ältestes uneheliches Kind Mar- garethe ( geb. 1480 , gest . 1537 Lüttich )" [After 1515, Count Ludwig von Helfenstein, who was murdered in Weinsberg in 1525, married Maximilian's eldest illegitimate child, Margarethe (born 1480, died 1537 Liège)] Oddly George of Austria became Prince-bishop of Liège in 1544.

References

TSventon (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Deamonpen, Dimadick, Aciram, and Tfjt: TSventon (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

September 24

Liliuokalani to Victoria

There is a letter from Liliuokalani to Queen Victoria dated to January 31, 1893. I’ve found the return letter from Victoria but not the one sent by Liliuokalani. The citation in this source: Great Britain and the Hawaiian Revolution and Republic, 1893-1898, cites it to “Enclosure in Wodehouse, despatch to Rosebery, 1 Feb. 1893, FO 534/59” and quotes one line, “to avoid violence and bloodshed, and damage to my subjects”. This one gives another snippet from the letter: “friendly intercession and mediation“. Can someone help me find this letter in its entirety? KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's the National Archives catalogue entry FO 534/59. The letter might also be pp. 41-2 of FO 58/270. fiveby(zero) 03:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone with access to the source and can scan it? I submitted a Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Letter to Victoria from Liliuokalani in case anyone there can get the resource as well. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Tate, Merze (1962). "Great Britain and the Sovereignty of Hawaii". Pacific Historical Review. 31 (4). cites as FO 58/279 "Designs of the United States on Hawaii. Volume 2" which may be more complete and include foreign office notes for the reply (note Tate says "...Victoria opened the Queen of Hawaii's letter and returned it to the foreign office without comment. Since an acknowledgement and a reply of some sort to be sent, the undersecretaries in that office decided on one "with padding" to "the effect that the Queen had received the letter had referred it to her advisor.") fiveby(zero) 04:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Gordian coin with two scripts

https://postimg.cc/9DPF5fd5 This coin reads clearly enough IMP GORDIANUS PIUS, then immediately goes into another script that looks kind of Semitic, but I can't make sense out of it. Any ideas? If you can't read that, I can upload the short video clip where it's more legible--but where? The site where I uplaoded the image doesn't take videos. Temerarius (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I found numerous examples of Gordian III coins inscribed with IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG and the letters on this one, assuming it is but one script, are perhaps too worn to make out properly. Modocc (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

A nice one. --Modocc (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

God, how strange! It does say FEL AUG. But it's copied so poorly it's like just the last bits were done by an illiterate. It's a different die from that gold one. The engraver seems to be splitting the difference at confusion over whether the bit under the P is headband, radial, or knot.

Temerarius (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Its quite possible that it was indeed done by an illiterate. As the Roman Empire declined, new coins minted in outlying portions of it under semi- or entirely autonomous local rulers naturally tried to copy older coins, but the engravers were sometimes not literate and had little idea of the 'correct' (letter) forms within the designs they were copying, and sometimes didn't fully understand what the 'pictures' represented (or lacked the skill to reproduce them well) so in time copies of copies of copies could degenerate into almost abstract and unrecognisable forms. This kind of 'devolution' can be seen both post-Roman coins and also coins from other cultures in Europe.

We ought to have something describing this in an article, but I haven't been able to find one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

From Offa of Mercia#Coinage: There are also surviving gold coins from Offa's reign. One is a copy of an Abbasid dinar struck in 774 by Caliph Al-Mansur,[117] with "Offa Rex" centred on the reverse. It is clear that the moneyer had no understanding of Arabic as the Arabic text contains many errors. Also local copies of Spanish dollars or thalers are probably done by people who did not understand the originals. --Error (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's a blog post showing evolution from a Roman stater to some sort of cubist portrait with a horse with three tails on the reverse.  Card Zero  (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

September 25

Sword fight trope in movies

Does anyone know where this originated? The hero and villain face each other with swords from a few meters apart. Then they both run towards each other and strike at the same time with their swords. They run past each other and there is a moment of silence where it is unclear what happened. Then the bad guy starts spurting blood and falls over dead. This is a recent example from a movie I saw tonight, but there have been many more. I think it's quite common in anime. 146.200.126.178 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It certainly dates back to the silent film era, but I would expect it to originate prior to that in stage combat. Dekimasuよ! 01:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

you may be correct, but I did think it was a trope from Japanese cinema, perhaps as old as you said. I've definitely seen it in Japanese movies and anime over the years, but my memory fails me now. In Kill Bill, Beatrix kills O-Ren in this manner (she slices off the top of her head after a duel) - and I know Tarantino made his film as a homage to Japanese samurai movies. 146.200.126.178 (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

In Japan as well I would expect it to go back to stage combat and through silent movies, although in early Japanese cinema the hero was more likely to fight against a large group of enemies at once. Off the top of my head there is a prominent example in one of Seiji Miyaguchi's scenes in Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (1954, short cut here). Dekimasuよ! 02:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Off topic perhaps, but the Seagal scene is choreographed really badly, isn't it? At 1:35 we see Seagal from the perspective of the person he is fighting, swinging directly across from the left side of the screen. Seagal's sword jumps from a "down" position to an "up" position at 1:37 (with no blood on the sword). At 1:38 we appear to see Seagal swing the sword directly downward, but by this point the person Seagal's fighting is bleeding from the wrong side, apparently without his shirt being cut. At 1:45 Seagal's sword suddenly has blood dripping from it in massive amounts. Based on the character movements, the person Seagal was fighting against never even swung his sword, simply running straight past—although his arm also jumps from a "down" position to an "up" position at 1:38. At 2:17, the opponent falls dead with his face to the right. At 2:19, his face is to the left. Dekimasuよ! 02:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The running towards each other is perhaps most famously (influentially) done in Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, in one of the early "recruitment" scenes. It's a samurai movie trope (it may predate it or be used in other genres, I don't know, but everyone knows Kurosawa), and it looks like in the clip they're recreating a number of the shot setups of Kurosawa.

There are several other stage combat tropes being done there, which are quite out of place (even for stage combat purposes). There usually has to be a reason for doing things, in a martial art, a sport, or in stage combat for theater. So randomly switching between different (better) films' of different genres' fight scene styles in the middle of a few minutes, if not a parody (and with Steven Seagal, who can know?) is rather jarring to anyone. That's why you saw it and thought to yourself, "something's very wrong". SamuelRiv (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

On the "silence" bit -- one thing I've noticed about stage combat (I've only done sport and martial arts, but this is from friends and teachers who did theater and some online info) is that a lot of form follows function as an excuse to talk. So in sword fights, the actors will find moments to get up real close and start shouting in each others' faces (The Force Awakens's final fight actually did this pretty decently), or else take a moment to stand apart and taunt each other (Empire Strikes Back did this extremely well). It's when a sword fight happens in complete silence, where the actors don't talk even when the trope would suggest they should, that the audience is signalled that this is beyond intense. Imo a perfect execution of this was in Rob Roy (1995 film), with the final scene being set up for the entire film. (Without that real emotional narrative buildup however, or some great investment where you think anything can happen (like sports), a silent fight scene in a film just gets boring.) (Addendum: this applies to stage and film combat. In sports and modern martial arts, none of that happens (except for weird artifacts of rules of sport fencing). As for a "real life swordfight", which people are asked about sometimes, nobody has been in one for generations, and a lot of the reconstruction is incomplete.) SamuelRiv (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Real life sword fight. A version of this video (warning, violence - no one died, both idiots got arrested) went viral a few years ago and people were saying that this is probably the first real sword fight caught on video. Iloveparrots (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Pokemon did it too. Not sure why that jumped into my head, but that's deffo a reference to something else. Iloveparrots (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

See also Diagonal Cut from tvtrpes.org. Alansplodge (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Convention vs. unconventional

If what is generally described as "good” art tends to be unconventional, which may also be described as original or new, which I personally believe is true, how does it avoid becoming conventional over time? Does art need to be in constant flux, changing its form in immeasurable ways, to stay one step ahead of convention? Is that which is conventional the enemy of art, or can it coexist and thrive alongside it? Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You will have to read a lot to get a satisfying answer. I would start with a search such as this: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=originality+art HansVonStuttgart (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The notion that art should be original and therefore at least somewhat unconventional is relatively recent. Before the arrival of Modernism one century ago, Western art was governed by an aesthetic ideal of "beauty" that every art theorist defined in their own way. Innovations were valued only insofar as they brought the art closer to the unattainable ideal.

Just as fads in fashion are driven by a small group of fashion designers and critics, the notion of what is "good" (read, between the lines, "high-priced") art is also subject to fads driven by a small incrowd in the art world. People in this circle are keen to "discover" an unknown artist with a fresh, new, original, inspiring approach, preferably an artist in a small group of like-minded artists who are somewhat of a bunch of rebels, and to promote them – ignoring scores of other suffering artists with equally fresh, new, original and inspiring approaches. If this succeeds and the new star in the firmament shines bright and fetches high prices for their work, others jump on the bandwagon, and what once was original becomes unsellable imitation. It is time for the discovery of the next unknown artist with a fresh, new, original, inspiring approach.  --Lambiam 14:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Mugato piano key necktie gif. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Vikings

"The explanation could explain only the masculine grammatical gender (víkingr) and not the feminine (víking); the masculine is more easily derived from the feminine than the other way around." I'm confused about this sentence. Can someone please explain? I can see both words víkingr and víking being derived from the word "víkin". Why the derivation only works on the masculine form? Thanks! 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:1850:9245:B082:62CE (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, why the masculine form can be derived from the feminine form but not the other way around? I can easily imagine that víkingr and víking can both be derived from each other. I mean it makes sense in my head. What am I missing here? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:1850:9245:B082:62CE (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, have you read the reference for the sentence? It is fairly long and technical.

• Eldar Heide (2005). "Víking – 'rower shifting'? An etymological contribution" (PDF). Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi. 120: 41–54. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 20 April 2015.

TSventon (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I did spend half an hour reading it. It's too difficult for a layman person like me to understand what they're trying to say though. That's why I need an explaination for dummy. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:EDA0:1EFB:E4CB:1F6A (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, I think that Heide and his sources are arguing that there are examples of masculine words like víkingr being derived from feminine words like viking (according to researchers in Old Norse), but not the other way round. Three key quotes are on page 43 Askeberg says: "I do not know any example of a masculine ing-derivation having given origin to a feminine nomen actionis that expresses the person’s action, and such a formation seems unreasonable. A hildingr m. 'king' can not be supposed to have given origin to a *hilding f. 'the quality of being a king' etc" on page 44 Askeberg points out that deverbative ing-derivations are considered younger than the word víkingr, and that it is unlikely that feminine verbal abstracts in so early times could be formed from strong verbs, like víka. and 45 On the other hand, a masculine víkingr 'sea warrior' could well be derived from a feminine víking denoting an activity. Old Norse parallels to such a development would be vellingr m. 'pottage' from *velling f. 'boiling'; geldingr m. 'a castrated ox or ram' from gelding f. 'castration'; [etc.]. TSventon (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

TSventon I'm still confused. Why the word "víkingr" can be derived from the word "víkin" but the word "víking" can't? What they're saying is too technical for me to understand. I need an explanation for dummy. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:E1D5:4325:36B7:C2A5 (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"I do not know any example of a masculine ing-derivation having given origin to a feminine nomen actionis that expresses the person’s action" -> if I understand this correctly, this is saying that there is no example of a masculine noun having origin from a feminine verbal noun. This contradicts your claim above. I'm really confused now. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:E1D5:4325:36B7:C2A5 (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, I see you started a discussion at Talk:Vikings#Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2024 so I have copied my response there. TSventon (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Secret ballot used in determining guilt

I'm currently reading Frankenstein for the first time (some of you might twig why).

The section (Vol. I, Chapter VII) where Justine is being tried for murder includes a reference to ballots: The ballots had been thrown; they were all black, and Justine was condemned. A footnote describes these ballots as "small balls used for secret voting". I'd love to hear more about this system. As an Aussie, I'm proud our name is sometimes attached to the secret ballot used for electing members of legislatures, and that result figures prominently in the searches I've done. Include "black" or "white" in the search terms, and I get lots of hits dealing with race as a factor in determining voter eligibility. Include "jury", and I get lots of hits for systems of choosing jurors. But nothing comes up for its use by juries themselves in criminal trials.

Our secret ballot article makes no reference to this. If Shelley's reference is historically accurate, it would considerably predate its use for electing politicians, and that's something we should definitely include in our article(s). The novel is set mainly in Switzerland, so perhaps this system did not obtain anywhere else. But then, how did an 18-year-old English girl get to know about it? And why would it be necessary anyway, since juries do their deliberations in secret. Or maybe that was different in some places at some times. Or maybe it was a panel of judges, rather than a jury in the 12 Angry Men sense.

Grateful for any information. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Our article entitled Blackballing should help. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

And ballot has a picture of "Ancient Greek bronze secret ballots", not sure if that predates electing politicians.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@ Blueboar: Blackballing makes no mention of its application to determining the guilt or innocence of a person charged with a crime, which is my sole interest here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

(ec) A case from 1864, the Cantonal Parliament of Zurich voted on a motion for mercy in the case of a murderer. The members of the Cantonal Parliament had to deposit either a white (for mercy) or a black ball (against the motion) in an urn. DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Diccionario panhispánico del español jurídico has procedimiento administrativo de votación mediante bolas blancas y negras. It mentions honor and church corporations. Actually, I remember seeing in a church museum some such device used for voting.

--Error (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

"[H]ow did an 18-year-old English girl get to know about it?" She (with Percy Shelley) spent the Summer of 1816 staying with Lord Byron in Geneva, where she got the idea for the work and began writing it. Presumably she, well educated by her father William Godwin, was intellectually curious and was able to learn something about the legal system of the country she was living in. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a really interesting question! As far as I can work out, black and white balls were a known form of secret voting in general in the eighteenth century, and criminal trials with juries that vote secretly started to catch on in France with the Revolution. So those things combined into some jury trials using balls for their secret ballots. The best sources I can find on the topic are "The Advent of the Secret Ballot in Britain and France, 1789–1914: From Public Assembly to Private Compartment" and "Publicity and Secrecy in Jury Proceedings" (PDF download). I haven't read either very closely but they seem likely to tell you much more. If there's good stuff in there, do expand the relevant wiki articles with it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts - in the story it is a panel of judges, and perhaps the balls were metaphorical. DuncanHill (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps so. But the metaphor must have had its genesis in an actual practice. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

September 26

Adolf Uunona

Why was the page about Adolf Uunona deleted? Just curious. Also would I be ok to just revive the page myself? Cornishrom20 (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

wp:deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Uunona. Something strange going on here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler Uunona.2A00:23D0:E1D:AD01:9952:C7AB:38E2:BF35 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing strange going on at all, there was a "no consensus" AfD, the article was renamed, and then there was an AfD cloesed as delete. It has since been recreated repeatedly and speedily deleted as "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". See the logs here. DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I need someone to find me a source cus i cant find any

i need sources on the civil parish abolishment of eastcotts cus im tryna update the cardington page cus it says the raf is in the "parish" of eastcotts 94.194.31.200 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

[NB: Also asked, and answered, on the Help Desk. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)]

Try Parishes: Cardington with Eastcotts. Alansplodge (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Free pentameter

When a poem is written in free pentameter, what exactly does that mean? Amisom (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

In English, that would mean five main stresses per line, but few constraints as to where the stresses fall within the line. Old English alliterative verse sometimes approximated towards free tetrameter, though with constraints on the initial consonants of stressed words... AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to build on that a bit: the pentameter part refers to there being five stressed syllables in the line and the free part refers to the line(s) not having a particular rhythm to it. This would be in contrast to meters like iambic pentameter (i.e. the form now often identified with Shakespeare), which detail the exact pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables. Matt Deres (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

September 28

Consecration of Church of England churches

According to our article Arthur Wagner "Wagner had a lifelong opposition to the consecration of Anglican churches, on the basis that this would "[give] an opening for the State to intervene in their affairs". This view was shared by many Tractarians. On one occasion he complained to Richard Durnford, Bishop of Chichester, that consecration was "a farce". Pusey supported Wagner in his attempts to leave his newly built churches unconsecrated, but to no avail". What opening to the State would consecration give, beyond that already provided by the established status of the Church? Are any CofE churches unconsecrated (as opposed to deconsecrated)? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy links:
Church of England
Consecration
Consecration in Christianity
Edward Bouverie Pusey
Richard Durnford
Tractarians

I saw a similar argument about Keble College chapel. According to The Encyclopaedia of Oxford, in a characteristic attempt to keep the college out of the grasp of those whose views might be alien, the council refused to have the chapel consecrated, much to the fury of the then BISHOP OF OXFORD; it remains unconsecrated to this day. TSventon (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

An example of state intervention was the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874, which Wagner wrote pamphlets against.

@DuncanHill: The local bishop would have had more rights over a consecrated church than over an unconsecrated proprietary chapel. I haven't found any recent sources, but A Practical Treatise on the Law Relating to the Church and Clergy (Henry William Cripps, 1886) says as is said by Lord Coke , as the church is a place dedicated and consecrated to the service of God , and is common to all the inhabitants , it therefore belongs to the bishop to order it in such manner as the service of God may best be celebrated on page 400 and has a section on proprietary chapels on pages 153 and 154. TSventon (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Why did we stop integrating art in public spaces?

So in historical artifacts and buildings you see a deep interlinking of art and function, bridges, light poles and buildings are brimming with art. Why did we heavily reduce this? My guess is that business contributed to art as a pr move and with the advent of the printing press it stopped making economic sense. What do you think? Bastard Soap (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

We didn't. Nanonic (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

And where have you been for the last 12 years? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Ornament_(art)#History says "The history of art in many cultures shows a series of wave-like trends where the level of ornament used increases over a period ... [list of historical increases and decreases] ... to be decisively reduced by the Arts and Crafts movement and then Modernism." Fashion, then, probably explains why we no longer (currently) have intricate decoration on the inward-facing plates of door locks or the insides of door hinges, and this carries over in things like street light poles and bridge railings.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Bauhaus and Brutalist architecture both mention a reduction in decoration. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The question is… do we have less “art” in public design, or simply a different form of “art”? Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Honestly it seems obvious that we reduced prioritising art in public spaces Bastard Soap (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal observations can be flawed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't brought up any stats Bastard Soap (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Nor have you, and you're the one making the claim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

What? Why do you think the advent of printing had anything to do with this? -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

In Britain, outdoor advertising was based on hoardings (billboards): England 1835, by John Orlando Parry

Billboard#History has a reference for flyposting in the late 15th century, reasonably hot on the heels of moveable type. Beyond that, the lag in moving to full-blown advertising is mysterious, but advances in printing must be relevant. History_of_advertising#16th–19th_centuries says "Advances in printing allowed retailers and manufacturers to print handbills and trade cards. For example, Jonathon Holder, a London haberdasher in the 1670s, gave every customer a printed list of his stock with the prices affixed. At the time, Holder's innovation was seen as a 'dangerous practice' and an unnecessary expense for retailers." But further down the page there's this nice picture of public artwork from 1835. Giant version here, because I couldn't read it all properly in our version.

 Card Zero  (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that PR is an adequate explanation. Consider Crossness Pumping Station (built 1859-1865) by local government in London. It wasn't a private business trying to drum up income, because it had a monopoly on everybody's sewage, and it didn't need PR because London was desperate to get rid of the stuff. It wasn't even a public building (in the sense that members of the public needed to visit it). Yet it was decorated on the outside, and crazy decorated inside.

I suggest that such decoration takes many skilled person-hours, and that as labour became more expensive, the cost of decoration became prohibitive. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 10:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This article, Ornament and Decoration, says that the Modernist movement of the first years of the 20th-century rejected ornamentation in architecture and other fields, taking the example of Viennese architect Adolf Loos and his 1908 essay, Ornament and Crime:

Adolf Loos campaigned to strip the ornament from language, from dress, and from dwelling. “I have freed mankind from superfluous ornament,” he bragged. “‘Ornament’ was once the synonym for ‘beauty’. Today, thanks to my life’s work, it is a synonym for ‘inferior’.” Espousing a middle-class ethos of functionalism, economic rationality, impersonality, and restraint, modernists redirected investment from luxury expenditures to factories, sanitary facilities, and municipal infrastructures. In place of individual expression they advocated standardized solutions, naked structures, white walls, and crisp geometric forms.

Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I wondered what the "crime" was. His article says:

"the evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornamentation from objects of everyday use." It was therefore a crime to force craftsmen or builders to waste their time on ornamentation that served to hasten the time when an object would become obsolete (design theory). Loos's stripped-down buildings influenced the minimal massing of modern architecture, and stirred controversy.

I have some questions about this.

• Does therefore really belong? It would make sense in the opposite direction, rational efficient building is removing ornament -> evolution of culture is removing ornament, but doesn't seem to follow the other way round, as presented.
• Does, or did, ornament function as planned obsolescence?
• This word "massing" ... is that a technical architectural term? Or a bad translation from German? Or both? And what does it mean? "Covered in masses"?

 Card Zero  (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I question his premises. If ornamentation really causes obsolescence (by adversely affecting the function of an object) it must therefore be more than mere decoration (which by definition is not functional). The only way I can understand ornamentation causing 'obsolescence' is by going out of fashion. The decoration of Tower Bridge is well out of fashion, but that does not make the bridge obsolete.

Note Sheffield Town Hall, built in the 1890s, and decorated per the contemporary fashion. A Brutalist extension was added in 1977. Guess which bit was demolished in 2002? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't guess with certainty, since Brutalism has its fans and protectors due to its historical interest (reminiscent of the scene in Futurama where there is a concert of classical hip-hop, and how "modern art" is now over 100 years old). Besides, out-of-date ornament may have caused buildings to look offensive in the past, before the notion of "heritage". Certainly in Georgian England there was great destruction of Tudor architecture because everything had to be "improved", meaning neoclassical or approximately Parisian.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Mildred Barry Garvin

I'm looking for a picture of this person. You'd think someone with a school and a prize named after them shouldn't be that difficult, but I'm having no luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I looked in Google books and found a small image here in Ebony May 1984. TSventon (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon Fantastic, thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Bitcoin price rigging

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Bitcoin_price_rigging I am told this may be in the wrong forum. 2604:3D08:5E7A:6A00:D94:3638:168B:18A0 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

September 29

Women kidnapped to harems in the 1950s

I read a story online in which a Greek woman in the 1950s was almost tricked to being trafficked to a harem in the Arabian Peninsula, after answering an job advertisement in a newspaper. I remember hearding similar stories when I read about white slavery.

Certain athentic cases of European women dissapearing in the Muslim world, such as Gunnel Gummeson, have been speculated to be victims of such kidnappings.

I wonder: are there actual historic cases when European women where known to be kidnapped to harems in that time period? And how probable was it?

Some people have called sutch stories propaganda. But it is factual that Africa women where kidnapped to become slave concubines in harems in the Gulf in that time period (slavery in Saudi Arabia was still legal). So if African women where subjected to this fate, why not European woman? Are there known cases? Thank you --Aciram (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Circassian sex slaves were much in demand in the Ottoman Empire, which until 1916 included the western region of modern-day Saudi Arabia containing Mecca and Medina. There is no reason to think this ended when slavery became illegal. Quoting from Sexual slavery § Present day, Asia:

"The Trafficking in Persons Report of 2007 from the US Department of State says that sexual slavery exists in the Persian Gulf, where women and children may be trafficked from the post-Soviet states, Eastern Europe, Far East, Africa, South Asia or other parts Middle East.^{[203][204][205]}"

 --Lambiam 09:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realise it is logical and reasonable to assume that there where such cases. Chattel slavery was indeed both legal and in full practice in most Gulf states in the 1950s.

But I am interested in the particular time period of the decades around the 1950s: before the fall of the Societ Union, when modern sex trafficking from Eastern Europe became rampant. Where there such cases in the Interwar period, and the 1950s? It is that particular time period I am interested in. --Aciram (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There is every reason to think that Ottoman Empire slavery ended when the Ottoman Empire ended. And in the cited modern source (it's misleadingly 3 citations to the same state department report), simply listing countries means nothing -- working through them, you'll see most countries are tier 2 and below, and it seems all will be listed as 2 or more of source, transit, and destination for trafficking. I'm not disputing the problem of trafficking -- I'm asserting that your statements are unsupported.

As to the OP's question of whether European sex trafficking still occurs by force/abduction/kidnapping, it's relatively easy to find individual nightmare cases: The Guardian 2011-02-06 (Romania-to-UK), Vice 2013-04-28 (Bulgaria-to-Italy). More broadly, I found an old UNODC report "Trafficking in Persons to Europe for sexual exploitation": on p.3 it summarizes the notion of coercion (with citations to studies), where as you may expect the majority of victims have come willingly under a range of expectations, but "they may nonetheless end up in exploitative situations through deception, coercion or violence." This de facto sex slavery condition may be something like what you've heard reports of happening to West African migrants in the Gulf. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean when you say "There is every reason to think that Ottoman Empire slavery ended when the Ottoman Empire ended", since legal chattel slavery in Saudi Arabia and Yemen ended in 1962, slavery in Kuwait in 1949, slavery in Dubai in 1963, and slavery in Oman in 1970 - and it is well documented that all of these countries certainly still had chattel slaves until the very year of legal emancipation (I have studied that issue).

However, my specific question is: are there known cases when European women where abducted to be used for sexual slavery (slave concubinage being legal) in harems on the Arabian Peninsula in the 1950s? This was a particular time period: prior to the fall of the Soviet East Communist Block, when sex trafficking became rampant. --Aciram (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I assume the point is that slaves in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Dubai and Oman were not slaves in the Ottoman Empire after it ended since even if they were part of the Ottoman Empire before, they no longer were. Even slaves in Turkey would not be slaves in the Ottoman Empire. More generally, the slave trade would likely have been significantly affected by the fall of the empire. New routes would likely need to have been developed, and sources may not have been so willing to provide slaves to lesser powers. (Remember this was before any of them became rich and powerful via oil money, I mean a number of them weren't even the modern day states that they are now at the time.) Also the end of the Ottoman Empire didn't happen in a vacuum, WW1 and other related events would likely have significantly affected the trade even of the empire had survived. So while clearly slavery didn't end, it's likely it was quite different from what it was before. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have studied the issue, and the slave trade and use of slaves where not much affected in the Arabian Peninsula by the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Regardless, that is irrelevant to the question of the post: is it confirmed that European women where trafficked to the harems in the Arabian Peninsula in the 1950s or around that time? --Aciram (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

First theatres in England

Hello. fr.wikipedia says on that "Le 29 juin 1572, une première ordonnance du Parlement, l'Act for the Punishment of Vagabonds, impose que chaque troupe de comédiens soit sous le patronage d'un noble ou de deux édiles" ["On June 29, 1572, a first ordinance of Parliament, the Act for the Punishment of Vagabonds, required that each troupe of actors be under the patronage of a nobleman or two aediles"] but en.wikipedia write on that "the Mayor and Corporation of London first banned plays in 1572 as a measure against the plague". These two statements are said to be the origin of the birth of theatres in London. Can you tell me which one is correct or give me more information? Already thanks, Égoïté (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC) - sorry for my bad english !

Probably both are correct.

The Act of Parliament would have applied throughout England and Wales, and governed existing (and future) acting companies, which might have travelled around the country performing in public, and/or performed at private houses of rich patrons, or had a fixed venue (see for example Red Lion (theatre)).

The ban on performances by the authorities in London (followed by their expulsion of 'players' entirely in 1575 – see also The Theatre#History) applied to the City of London only, which occupied (as it still does) an area of about one square mile or so on the north bank of the Thames. These measures prompted theatre companies to move to, and build theatres in, the district of Southwark on the south bank of the Thames (across London Bridge) where the City of London had no authority. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

We have an article Vagabonds Act 1572, unfortunately it doesn't mention players. DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

DuncanHill, it does now (using this ref). Alansplodge (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answers. Égoïté (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

September 30

Dalit hindu rape victim

I was trying to remember the name of that Dalit/lower caste Hindu rape victim who was from a movie (not in English). She became a MP and was assassinated over legal case. What was her name? Maybe she was Buddhist since she was from near Nepal. Sportsnut24 (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Phoolan Devi? (She was the top search result when I put "india bandit queen" into Google...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sounds right. Thanks.Sportsnut24 (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Business terms relating to surprise album

I'm uncertain whether business terms product marketing, loyalty marketing, and word-of-mouth marketing are related to surprise album. Regardless, I'm seeking business terms relating to a surprise album, which has little or no prior announcement, marketing or promotion. George Ho (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Assistance with interpreting scope and manner of a UN event

Hello, I see new draft at Wikinews, sister of Wikipedia, about a ceasefire call: n:France, US push for 21-day Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire in Lebanon. I have difficulty understanding structure of the UN organisation or its events. Please view the talk page of the article and assist at your earliest convenience? Thank you in advance. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 06:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You will need to take that up with Wikinews. We can only help you here with Wikipedia issues. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as Wikinews is created by contributors, I think for practical purposes this person is Wikinews.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We can help with research needed to answer questions arising anywhere, including at other Wikimedia projects.  --Lambiam 12:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

BBC News item: US and allies call for 21-day ceasefire ... "The 12-strong bloc proposed an immediate 21-day pause in fighting" ... "The joint statement was signed" ... "It followed a meeting of world leaders at the UN General Assembly in New York".  Card Zero  (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate the lookup. It was a Statement signed, yes. How and where was it delivered to the Israel and Hezbollah representatives? Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 13:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. The article has various hints, such as "the US is negotiating with Lebanon’s government - rather than Hezbollah." I gather you're interested in the "Official responses are expected within hours" part?  Card Zero  (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I was unable to find anything specific about any presentation to the Israelis, but the statement was drafted and signed at the UN General Assembly, so I imagine that the easiest method would be to hand it to the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations. Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Also note that Benjamin Netanyahu was present at the UN at the time, so the proposal could have easily been handed over to him. Xuxl (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Use of fish killed by depth charges

this is kind of a weird one, but during the WWII Battle of the Atlantic, are there any known instances of navy sailors collecting and eating some or all of the fish that were killed by depth charges they dropped?

TheAbigail (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Members of the crew of HMAS Doomba with fish taken on board killed or stunned after a depth charge attack.

Members of the crew of HMAS Doomba with fish taken on board killed or stunned after a depth charge attack. HMAS Doomba in her role as escort and anti-submarine vessel would sweep the harbour approaches with her ASDIC before escorting a convoy to sea and attack any threatening ASDIC returns with depth charges.

Note that once at sea with a convoy, stopping for any reason would leave an escort vessel vulnerable to attack and the convoy's merchant ships unescorted. From 1941, there were convoy rescue ships which saved escorts from having to stop to pick up survivors, so I imagine that stopping to catch stunned fish would be highly unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Parents' Sabbath?

Why was a Russian Orthodox Hymn at Queen Elizabeth II’s Funeral? about the Kontakion of the Departed says that it is sung in Russian Orthodox churches on "Parents’ Sabbath, a day of special remembrance for Orthodox Christians who have died". Is there a Russian Wikipedia article that relates to this. A Google search didn't find much. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The search term "Кондак усопших" does not turn up any results from the Russian Wikipedia. The kontakion is mentioned in this Russian news article on the funeral service for Prince Philip, which also provides an answer to the "why" question — allegedly because Philip wanted to emphasize his kinship with the Romanovs. The Russian term for Parents’ Sabbath is Родительская суббота, which is more adequately translated as "Parental Saturday", of which there are several in any given year. The Russian Wikipedia has an article on Parental Saturdays, which is skimpy on the liturgy and does not mention any songs.  --Lambiam 06:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks for your work. I'll put in a link to that article. The Kontakion of the Departed has a long history in British royal funerals, and I suspect it might have been used even if Philip hadn't had Orthodox roots (his mother, Princess Alice of Battenberg, was an Orthodox nun; I think the Romanov link is rather tenuous but useful to Russian nationalists). Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Bloody codes

The article London Monster says

"Magistrates charged Williams with defacing clothing[Note 1]—a crime that in the Bloody Code carried a harsher penalty than assault or attempted murder."

However Bloody_Code says:

"Leon Radzinowicz listed 49 pages of "Capital Statutes of the Eighteenth Century" divided into 21 categories:[13]

…

• Stabbing, maiming and shooting at any person"

Which is correct (or are they both?)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC).

I don't know the answer, but the two statements are not at odds with each other. Theoretically (given just these two statements), the penalty for an attempt to strangle a person could have been a slap on the wrist, provided that the clothing of the victim was not defaced.  --Lambiam 06:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This article (footnote 48 on page 19) says that "attempted murder" was not legally defined until Lord Ellenborough's Act (Malicious Shooting or Stabbing Act 1803). Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

At this time, there was a sharp distinction between felonies and misdemeanors. The former category consisted of “serious” crimes punishable by death or transportation; the latter were relatively milder offenses punishable by prison, the pillory, or a public flogging. Grand larceny, for example, was a felony; minor larceny a misdemeanor. More than two hundred crimes were punishable by death, but the felons often received a pardon. Murderers were of course hanged, as were hardened thieves, highwaymen, and street robbers; other felons were most often transported to a prison colony abroad. Common assault, even with intent to maim or kill, was a misdemeanor, and Williams and his friends had hoped that the Monster’s crimes would be categorized as such.

But, on the other hand the authorities were hard pressed to find a legal statute that made the Monster’s crime a felony, since they feared a public outrage in London if he was charged with a mere misdemeanor...

But the magistrates and judges had discovered an obscure statute from 1721. It had been intended to repress the activities of certain weavers who objected to the importation of Indian fashions that were purchased by the public in preference to the weavers’ own goods. The weavers actually poured aquafortis on the clothes of people wearing these foreign fashions. To stop these outrages, it was made a felony, punishable by transportation for seven years, to "assault any person in the public streets, with intent to tear, spoil, cut, burn, or deface, the garments or cloaths of such person, provided the act be done in pursuance of such intention."

— Bondeson, Jan (2001). The London Monster. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 85.

There's also some discussion in Russell v. I p. 888. fiveby(zero) 23:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Man, the Fashion Police were a lot stricter in those days. Cam Newton wouldn't have lasted a day. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2

Philip II of Spain and his 1565 decision on theatre

The reputation of Philip II of Spain, an actor of the counter-reformation, for rigor in religious, political and social matters leads me to ask this question: Could you give me the reason why Philip II of Spain decided to authorize in 1565 the creation of permanent brotherhoods with buildings for the representation of comedies? This information appears in various places including this one I am looking for reliable sources. Thank you already for your answer. Égoïté (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC) (sorry for my bad english)

Don't have an answer, but there seems to be some academic literature on the topic. You might find something in: Suárez García, José Luis. “La licitud del teatro en el reinado de Felipe II. Textos y pretextos”, XXI Jornadas de Teatro Clásico. Almagro, 1998, pp. 219-251. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. A French-speaking Wikipedian gave me some references here. Have a nice day, Égoïté (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Égoïté, you may be interested in PHILIP II AND THE ORIGINS OF BAROQUE THEATRE which describes how religious brotherhoods or cofradías de socorro petitioned the king for licences for theatrical performances to increase their income, as charitable donations alone could not fulfil the demand for the hospitals, orphanages and homeless hostels that the brotherhoods provided (p. 20 onwards). Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

OK Thanks. I 'll read that this evening or to-morrow. Good night, Égoïté (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Military ambulance and rescue ships in WW2

Why were (and still are?) ambulance and rescue ships in WW2 not given Geneva Convention protections? It seems such protections were not even sought. I'm using WW2 Hospital Ships, US Medical Research Centre as a source on ambulance ships being armed, and in part yesterday's reply on a previous thread here by User:Alansplodge, to get me curious that convoy rescue ships were also armed (which seems triply odd to me given their reported war stats).

Our only relevant article to ambulance ships (not hospital ships) seems to be Ambulance § Military use, which does not cover the issue. The armed unmarked ambulance use cases are for modern urban warfare, and ships seem antithetical to that, particularly as hospital ships and coastal rescue are protected classes that exist at the same time and place as ambulance ships. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Introduction (2017 Commentary)". International Humanitarian Law Databases. Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949. International Committee of the Red Cross. Commentary of 2017. paragraphs 83-91 might be a good starting point, but don't have time to look further right now. fiveby(zero) 19:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but as a starting point it just raises the same "why not" question. It indicates the last maritime IHL treaty in force for the major powers of WW2 was Hague Convention X 1907, which states plainly in Article 1 that a "military hospital ship" is any ship assigned "specially and solely with a view to assisting the wounded, sick and shipwrecked". (Article 16 further seems to indicate that rescue should be accommodated regardless of ship.) So the specialized rescue and ambulance ships can be protected as such, and the USMRC article indicates that marked hospital ships were honored by U-boats, so I'm again asking why they didn't even try to mark rescue and ambulance ships? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know the answer, but my suspicion is that it's connected with the British policy of shooting down German rescue flying-boats during the Battle of Britain (described at Seenotdienst#World War II), and that consequently the Germans were highly unlikely to respect any claimed immunity from attack and so the ships might as well be defensively armed. Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Note also that in the 1982 Falklands War, the survey ship HMS Hecla (A133) was converted into an ambulance ship and was given the appropriate Red Cross livery; so the decision not to do this in WWII must have been peculiar to the circumstances of that conflict, rather than a long-term policy. Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Another thought (after re-reading our article) is that there is a requirement in the Hague Convention for a belligerent to advise the location of any hospital ship. As a convoy's route and location was a secret on which the survival of the convoy depended, giving away that information to the enemy would be undesirable, to say the least. Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I had pulled up the Hague X text and I don't see where it says anything resembling a rule like "Belligerents will establish the location of a hospital ship". It says that the ships' names must be shared. (The seenotdienst article is interesting, as it indicates that sea rescue of pilots at least was not a high priority for the Brits for quite a while, but ship rescue would still be quite different.) SamuelRiv (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right, perhaps we should remove that bullet point from the list? I have added a "dubious" template. Alansplodge (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

So not why were rescue ships not afforded protections under the conventions, but why were rescue ships not designated Hospital Ships under the existing conventions?

On "Ambulance Ship" this might just be the usage of the term. There was a need for ships that carried out the same functions of caring for wounded and transporting from the theater of operations to interior zones but were armed and could perform other duties. As the reference you were using pointed out there were no US hospital ships mid-1942. There was at least initially debate on the issues and inter-service rivalry. The army wanted Hospital Ships but in the Pacific the navy was unsure if the Japanese would respect the convention and they wanted ships which could operate tactically with the fleet and were armed for protection. Also remember that there was a critical shortage of Allied shipping, if you designate a hull as a Hospital Ship it cannot perform other functions. Can't find a definitive source here but will keep looking.

For the convoy rescue ships i'll try and get access to Schofield and Hague but one thing that is probably missing from the article is Doenitz' order to specifically target them

To each convoy a so-called rescue ship is generally attached, a special vessel up to 3,000 tons which is designed to take aboard the shipwrecked after U-boat attacks. These ships are in most cases equipped with catapult planes and large motor boats. …They are heavily armed with depth charge throwers and very maneuverable, and are often taken for U-boat traps by commanders. In view of the fact that the annihilation of ships and crews is desired, their sinking is of great importance.

— "The Trial of Admiral Doenitz". Naval History and Heritage Command.

It might be that a calculation was made that a small ship operating at the rear of the convoy was much too valuable for defense of the convoy to designate as a Hospital Ship. Would the Germans believe that such a vessel might not for instance radio other ships if they spotted a submarine, try and salvage ships, or assist the convoy in some other way? If the allies had some ships that were operating as Hospital Ships that the Germans might not consider completely legitimate would it endanger all Hospital Ships or give ammunition for them to claim that the allies were not respecting the conventions? Sorry about the reference free answer, but will look for more later. fiveby(zero) 16:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, British rescue ships were (despite what Doenitz believed) only fitted with light guns, the same as any other defensively equipped merchant ship.

One Geneva Convention requirement which might be relevant here is the last clause of Article 5:

The ships and boats above mentioned which wish to ensure by night the freedom from interference to which they are entitled, must, subject to the assent of the belligerent they are accompanying, take the necessary measures to render their special painting sufficiently plain.

In other words, designated hospital ships needed to be illuminated at night. As the great majority of U-boat attacks took place after dark, this would be problematic, as it would give away the position of the whole convoy.

Alansplodge (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't interpret that as that they need to be illuminated at night. Just that if they don't want to be protected at night, they need to be sufficiently visible. It seems to imply that you can be fine as a named hospital ship that is visible and protected by day, and less-visible and unprotected by night. It also is explicit that if you are in a convoy ("the belligerent they are accompanying"), and the convoy tells you to be invisible at night, you need to be invisible, and that will not jeopardize your protection during the daytime either. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

At first sight, it may seem strange that, confronted with the need to inaugurate a Rescue Service for the victims of the German submarine offensive against merchant shipping, the Admiralty did not fit out a number of hospital ships to cruise in the areas where the Uboats were active, ready to pick up survivors. In theory, provided they carried the markings and behaved as required by the Hague Convention of 1907, they should have been perfectly safe, and this would have been an admirable solution to the problem. Larger ships could have been used. These would not have suffered in the same way as the Rescue Ships from the savage buffeting of the elements, and possibly their facilities would have been better. There were, however, several reasons why hospital ships were not used.

In the First World War, Germany had refused to grant immunity from attack to hospital ships in the English Channel, parts of the North Sea and in the Mediterranean, even if their identify had been notified. Similarly, during the Second World War, from the outbreak of hostilities, it was known that Germany, under Hitler’s dictatorship, took little stock of international agreements unless it was to their advantage, illustrated by the occasions when Germany, and later Italy, disregarded the provisions of the Hague Convention: by the middle of 1941 no fewer than 13 hospital ships and carriers had been sunk, although all had been clearly marked as such.

The nine hospital ships were...

The British Government therefore had every reason to distrust the use of hospital ships in dealing with casualties on the high seas. In any case, under the regulations a hospital ship had to be lighted up at night. This meant that she could not keep close touch with a convoy without giving away its position to any U-boats which might be lying in wait. Yet, as we have seen, the speed with which a rescue could be effected was more often than not a matter of life or death. So if the rescuing ship was not in company with the victim of the attack, her usefulness would have been reduced.

Thus the arguments against fitting out and employing hospital ships for use with the convoys were decisive and their use was never given serious consideration. There was, however, a suggestion that fitting the Rescue Ships with HF/DF equipment with which to locate U-boats was perhaps somewhat unethical, having regard to the main purpose for which Rescue Ships were needed. But the ships neither claimed nor received any immunity from attack, so the Admiralty felt perfectly justified in using them for any purpose they had in mind, provided it did not interfere with their primary task of rescuing the survivors of torpedoed vessels. Rescue Ships became, in fact, part and parcel of the anti-submarine effort required to ensure the safety of that merchant shipping so vital to the prosecution of the war, and they accepted – like any other ship of a convoy and its escort – the risk of being sunk.

— Schofield, B.B. (2024) [1968]. The Rescue Ships and the Convoys.

for the Admiralty opinion, or at least Vice-admiral Schofield's. If you are thinking of article content here a warning that Schofield is a pretty scattered account, reads more like a first draft than a careful work. The confusing "nine hospital ships" paragraph i elided was however due to a later editors amendment in my edition. fiveby(zero) 16:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Hague 1998 would require a trip to the stacks at a university library. fiveby(zero) 16:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

October 3

Catherine of Aragon a virgin?

Was Catherine of Aragon really a virgin when she married Henry VIII? Was her previous marriage to his brother really unconsummated? 86.130.9.101 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that Prince Arthur was only 15 at the time of his death, it is not inconceivable that he and Catherine never had sex. That was certainly the argument that Henry put forward in order to marry her.

Of course that argument was reversed when it came time for him to seek an annulment/divorce. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It's probably something that will never be answered.

David Starky in his book, Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII, argues that Catherine had been brought up to know the politics involved and what was needed to achieve her goals.

Allison Weir in her book, The Six Wives of Henry VIII was of the opinion that Catherine was a pious woman who wouldn't have entertained lying about this, and certainly wouldn't have gone to her death bed maintaining that lie.

Athur, Prince of Wales was said to have reported the morning after 'it was thirsty work' (I don't have the exact quote to hand), whereas Catherines maids reported sexual intercourse didn't happen.

Make of that what you will. Knitsey (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Only 15? This was in the Middle Ages. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Rounde ye backe of ye bike shedde? Alansplodge (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Didn't dynastic consummations have to be witnessed? Alansplodge (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Not usually, at least not at that period in time. They were 'put to bed' by a contingent of courtiers/religious figures/relatives and left to it.

Sometimes there were people that 'hung around' to ensure things 'were underway'. (I've no idea why I'm reverting to Euphemisms). Knitsey (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

They had lots of ways of faking things, such as a maid passing the bride a vial of rabbit's blood to be splashed on the sheets. Abductive (reasoning) 11:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Only Catherine knows for sure, and she ain't talkin'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In The Spanish Princess, Catherine denied many times that she ever consummated her marriage to Arthur. But in the final episode, she confessed to Henry/Harry about consummating their marriage. 86.130.9.101 (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That proves it! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)