Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 17
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 16 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 18 > |
| 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. |
April 17
[edit]Brian of Brittany
[edit]Brian is mentioned under Eudes: "*Brian († 1072), who defeated a second raid in the southwest of England, launched from Ireland by Harold's sons in 1069. Brian participated in the conquest of England and afterwards held the honor of Richmond, died without issue." Elsewhere it is said that he led the Normans at the Battle of Exeter and was granted lands in Cornwall by William I. Please let me know where I can find more detailed information on his life.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Have you tried Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands project?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- A few more details here[1], here[2] and here [3]. This was after a cursory search using "Brien de Bretagne" rather than the Anglicized version. I'm sure there's more in the depths of Mr Google's engine room. Good hunting. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Me again - some more morsels, this time from Google Books. This[4] "Histoire Navale d'Angleterre" says (apologies for the schoolboy translation): "While William was occupied in the north of England, the sons of the late King Harold had obtained from Devinot, the King of Ireland, a fleet of sixty sails, landing a second time close to Exeter, pillaging and burning the places that they passed; but Brien, son of Eudon Count of Brittany, fought them twice on the same day, and killed seven hundred of their soldiers along with several Irish nobles who had joined with them. The others regained their vessels and returned to Ireland." Also this[5] and this[6]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- A few more details here[1], here[2] and here [3]. This was after a cursory search using "Brien de Bretagne" rather than the Anglicized version. I'm sure there's more in the depths of Mr Google's engine room. Good hunting. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Months
[edit]Why did September, October, November, and December keep their names when July and August were added? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 13:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- July and August were renamed (not added) to commemorate Julius and Augustus Caesar. The other months were also, at various times, similarly renamed, but these names didn't stick and the older names prevailed. See Section 4 of Julian Calendar. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Jc, you may be puzzled, as many people have been, why the 9th to 12th months of the year bear the numbers 7 (septem) to 10 (decem). The answer, as you can see from the link 87.81 gave you above, is not that two extra months were inserted, but that March was regarded as the first month even though the New Year was not necessarily celebrated during March. --ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually in medieval Europe the new year began in March around Easter; hence the confusion over dates. Bear in mind the calendar was also behind. I have read on various Internet sites that Joan of Arc who was born 6 January 1412 was likely born in 1413 and with the rectified Gregorian date of 15 January. March derives its name from Mars which rules the zodiac sign Aries as the sun enters Aries on 21 March. Remember astrology predates astronomy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't always March in the Middle Ages; sometimes it was March 1, or March 25, or Easter, which could be March or April, or sometimes January 1 like us, or another date depending on where in Europe, and what year/century. It's all very confusing, even for them, although if you have to guess, "March" is usually a good option. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- In France it was usually 25 March, but like you say it was very haphazard and confusing!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- March 25 was once taken to be the spring equinox, just as December 25 was the winter solstice. When Pope Gregory ordered the dropping of some days to the calendar, he had the chance to fix the original error and reset those events to the 25th instead of 21st or so. However, he did not do that. It's possible his astronomy advisers were unaware of it; it's also possible they knew, but no longer wanted those events to coincide with Anunciation Day and Christmas Day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is covered in the book "Calendar: Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year" by David Ewing Duncan (1998, Avon, ISBN 0-380-97528-9). The whole reason for dropping days when the Gregorian calendar was adopted was to put the equinox back on the same date that the Council of Nicaea had used as the basis for its algorithm for determining Easter, and the reason for changing the calendar was to keep it on that date. And that date was March 21, not 25. Gregory's astronomer Lilius did get one thing a bit wrong, but that was the true length of the solar year: he should have recommended a 500-year rule for leap years instead of the 400-year rule that we have. --Anonymous, 19:56 UTC, April 17 (Gregorian), 2010.
- Yes, that's in general what I was getting at. They were already off by 4 days when the Council was held, and they didn't fix it. They were off by an additional 10 days once Pope Gregory came along, and all they did was reset the calendar to square with the Council's formula. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is covered in the book "Calendar: Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year" by David Ewing Duncan (1998, Avon, ISBN 0-380-97528-9). The whole reason for dropping days when the Gregorian calendar was adopted was to put the equinox back on the same date that the Council of Nicaea had used as the basis for its algorithm for determining Easter, and the reason for changing the calendar was to keep it on that date. And that date was March 21, not 25. Gregory's astronomer Lilius did get one thing a bit wrong, but that was the true length of the solar year: he should have recommended a 500-year rule for leap years instead of the 400-year rule that we have. --Anonymous, 19:56 UTC, April 17 (Gregorian), 2010.
- March 25 was once taken to be the spring equinox, just as December 25 was the winter solstice. When Pope Gregory ordered the dropping of some days to the calendar, he had the chance to fix the original error and reset those events to the 25th instead of 21st or so. However, he did not do that. It's possible his astronomy advisers were unaware of it; it's also possible they knew, but no longer wanted those events to coincide with Anunciation Day and Christmas Day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- In France it was usually 25 March, but like you say it was very haphazard and confusing!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't always March in the Middle Ages; sometimes it was March 1, or March 25, or Easter, which could be March or April, or sometimes January 1 like us, or another date depending on where in Europe, and what year/century. It's all very confusing, even for them, although if you have to guess, "March" is usually a good option. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually in medieval Europe the new year began in March around Easter; hence the confusion over dates. Bear in mind the calendar was also behind. I have read on various Internet sites that Joan of Arc who was born 6 January 1412 was likely born in 1413 and with the rectified Gregorian date of 15 January. March derives its name from Mars which rules the zodiac sign Aries as the sun enters Aries on 21 March. Remember astrology predates astronomy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Jc, you may be puzzled, as many people have been, why the 9th to 12th months of the year bear the numbers 7 (septem) to 10 (decem). The answer, as you can see from the link 87.81 gave you above, is not that two extra months were inserted, but that March was regarded as the first month even though the New Year was not necessarily celebrated during March. --ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- @ Jeanne Boleyn: Re Joan of Arc, you're probably talking about her "proleptic Gregorian birthdate", i.e. dates that would have applied had the Gregorian calendar been brought in earlier than it was. The thing with the Gregorian calendar is that it was not retrospective. There was a 10-day discontinuity between the end of 4 October 1582 (Julian) and the start of 15 October 1582 (Gregorian), and the earlier dates were not recalculated. We don't have any proof that Joan of Arc was born on 6 January, but even if we did, it would still be recorded as 6 January (Julian) because that was the only calendar in use at the time. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am talking about her proleptic Gregorian birthdate. In astrology, when we cast the horoscope of someone born under the Julian calendar we have to calculate it using Gregorian dates as if it were already in use, due to the position of the stars. What is confusing for us isn't the difference in dates as they can be easily rectified; it's the date of the start of the new year. Taking Joan again as an example; while there is some evidence that she was born on 6 January 1412, we don't know if it was 1412/1413 or 1411/1412 as the new year normally began sometime in March in 15th century France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why would you want to do that anyway? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a bizarre hobby of mine: casting the horoscopes of various historical personages. That is why the difference between the Julian and Gregorian dates are very important and have to be considered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why would you want to do that anyway? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am talking about her proleptic Gregorian birthdate. In astrology, when we cast the horoscope of someone born under the Julian calendar we have to calculate it using Gregorian dates as if it were already in use, due to the position of the stars. What is confusing for us isn't the difference in dates as they can be easily rectified; it's the date of the start of the new year. Taking Joan again as an example; while there is some evidence that she was born on 6 January 1412, we don't know if it was 1412/1413 or 1411/1412 as the new year normally began sometime in March in 15th century France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- @ Jeanne Boleyn: Re Joan of Arc, you're probably talking about her "proleptic Gregorian birthdate", i.e. dates that would have applied had the Gregorian calendar been brought in earlier than it was. The thing with the Gregorian calendar is that it was not retrospective. There was a 10-day discontinuity between the end of 4 October 1582 (Julian) and the start of 15 October 1582 (Gregorian), and the earlier dates were not recalculated. We don't have any proof that Joan of Arc was born on 6 January, but even if we did, it would still be recorded as 6 January (Julian) because that was the only calendar in use at the time. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
According to Roman legends about the early origins of the Roman Calendar it originated as something like a ten-month lunar calendar -- since the main purpose of the calendar at that time was to keep track of the yearly agricultural cycle, and pretty much nothing happened in agriculture during the dead of winter, therefore there was no real need for the calendar to operate during that season, and there were no months of January or February. The Roman calendar went through a lot of subsequent convoluted historical developments (converting from lunar to solar and operating throughout the year), but continuing relics of its early stages are the number names (September formed from the Latin number 7, etc.), and leap-day being inserted in late February... AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
college/university England
[edit]When I was reading the the article of British-Asian#communities, some of the articles have education section and they didn't specify which institution is university or college. Is there a website where I can find the name of the institution in those places and whether they are university or college? I need to know if they private or public, so I can give lectures on history topics. Sorry if I didn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.53 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- List of universities in England (or List of universities in Scotland, List of universities in Wales and List of universities in Northern Ireland) might help. Universities almost all have "university" in their name and they will all have Wikipedia articles which will be linked to from the education sections you mention. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Almost all British universities are public, in the sense of being state-controlled. (Most of them are constitutionally exempt charities.) However, lectures are normally given only by employed academics, and only to enrolled (and paid-up) students. While there are exceptions, those exceptions mostly cover guest lecturers who have been invited for specific reasons. In the event that another organisation based at a university (say, the Imperial College Science Fiction Society) invites someone to give a talk, that talk would not form any part of any accredited course at the university. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- What!? You mean I can't list attendances at Picocon as academic credits on my CV? Humph! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- They are (partly) state-funded. They aren't state-controlled. The state controls who can call themselves a university and issue degrees, but for the most part universities are very independent. --Tango (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- That was pretty much what I meant - funding and accreditation. Apologies for the inclarity. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Lyon King of Arms heraldry question
[edit]In this image, what are the crossed baton-like object behind the escutcheon called? Woogee (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Crossed staffs ? StuRat (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- More specifically, it is a Baton (symbol). Rather like a Field Marshal, a King of Arms carries a baton as an emblem of office. Here's the Lord Lyon himself in full fig[7]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Alan. I've seen batons used inescutcheon, but never part of the crest. Woogee (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's no crest in that image. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Really? What's the crown? Woogee (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a coronet of office. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 14:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just to expand on Jarry1250's answer, a crest is, and only is, a decoration attached to the top of a helm, with the join being covered by the torse. A coronet (or crown) may also be worn on the helm, typically as a mark of rank in the Peerage (or of Royalty), but remains a separate item from the crest, which will still issue from the helm above/within the coronet.
- A Coat of Arms/Achievement may include a coronet but no helm, as here where it probably signifies the non-combatent nature of the Heralds, who were theoretically neutral 'referees' with diplomatic immunity.
- An Achievement without a helm cannot by definition have a crest. However, the crest can be displayed separately, without the helm and the main body of the Achievement, though often with the torse and perhaps also the motto. This is typically done on small items such as silverware or notepaper where the full Achievement would either be too small for its detail to be distinct, or would take up too much room. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a coronet of office. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 14:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Really? What's the crown? Woogee (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's no crest in that image. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Alan. I've seen batons used inescutcheon, but never part of the crest. Woogee (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- More specifically, it is a Baton (symbol). Rather like a Field Marshal, a King of Arms carries a baton as an emblem of office. Here's the Lord Lyon himself in full fig[7]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
18+ pubs, discos, etc.
[edit]If you're 17 and you're turning 18 very soon. Would you be allowed to enter?. --190.178.174.44 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, they have to set the line somewhere, and they set it at 18, exactly. StuRat (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Legally, I believe they would still get in trouble if they allowed it. Some places may be lenient, but it's to their own risk. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 18:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- No almost certainly not. However some hardly known pubs doing badly that are unlikely to be inspected let anyone in even 13 year olds...--92.251.154.56 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes (a pub in UK). But you can't buy or drink alcohol. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Here in Italy discos and pubs are full of minors under 18. And the discos close at 6 AM!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your IP address locates to Argentina, is that where you are talking about? I don't know anything about Argentine pubs, but if they say you have to be 18 then they probably mean it. In the UK, the law allows under 18s into pubs (with certainly restrictions), but some pubs have their own rules against minors entering at all. --Tango (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Why are minors not allowed to enter casinos? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Here in USA gambling is restricted to folk over 18. Letting in minors would force them to check ID at every table and every machine. Which, obviously, wouldn't be practical. APL (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note that it is the casino floor that is off-limits. In the mega hotel/casinos in Vegas there is a lot which is technically not the casino floor, and minors can go there in many cases. (Shows, hotels, restaurants, etc.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- In Vegas casinos they have lined walkways marked on the carpet through the casino floor; minors are not allowed to cross the lines. FiggyBee (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Last time I was in Vegas (a couple of weeks ago), the legal age to gamble was 21. Minors can be in the casino, but not in the gaming area unless they are passing through (no loitering near the slots). Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- In Vegas casinos they have lined walkways marked on the carpet through the casino floor; minors are not allowed to cross the lines. FiggyBee (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note that it is the casino floor that is off-limits. In the mega hotel/casinos in Vegas there is a lot which is technically not the casino floor, and minors can go there in many cases. (Shows, hotels, restaurants, etc.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Tory party mailing list
[edit]I got some junk mail from the Conservative Party recently. It had my full name and my middle initial which I never use. How did they get my (full) name and address? 78.147.241.153 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Probably from the electoral register. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I always tick the privacy box so that my details are not made public or sold - do political parties have special privelidges? Or are there commercial lists which (I imagine) collate a lot of stuff about people? 78.147.241.153 (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- (After ec) When you registered to vote, there would have been a box on the form, which indicates if you want your details to be passed on or not. If you tick it, only the registrar and credit reference agencies will have your details. If you don't, all sorts of people can buy them at cost price. This is an innovation from the same people who brought you the Data Protection Act - I leave it up to you whether the left hand knew what the right hand was doing. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that political parties have access to the full list. There are also commercial mailing lists which collate information from a wide variety of sources. DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that even if you tick the box for exclusion from the public register, the full register including you is available for inspection in Council Offices and some libraries - so parties could well obtain your information from there. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone can buy databases. Your details, even if you tick the box, will be on one of the databases publicly available. The Labour Party have been using these databases, with some "unintended consequences": "The cards are being distributed by Ravensworth, part of Tangent Communications, which has won accounts sending out mail for the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK. Tangent claims that it specialises in “highly targeted marketing”. " [8] --TammyMoet (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
