Humanities desk
< May 29	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 30 edit

Shakespeare's Sonnets edit

I understand that all (or most) of Shakespeare's plays were published after his death (and not during his actual lifetime). And I understand that these plays were reconstructed from scripts/lines of the live performances, etc. Thus, we do not have any of Shakespeare's plays that were actually written in Shakespeare's own hand. If my understanding is correct about all of that, this made me wonder. What about Shakespeare's sonnets? Do we have those written in his own hand? If not, how were they reconstructed? If yes, then wouldn't Shakespeare have kept all his written works "stored" in more or less the same place (that is, wouldn't we have found his play scripts right there alongside of wherever we found his sonnet writings)? Any insight? Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Shakespeare's sonnets doth say "All but two of the poems were first published in a 1609 quarto..." (the other two in 1599); the ~~old~~ guy was still alive and kicking. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old? I doth protest! Will was 45 in 1609. No spring chicken, but not quite dead yet. —Kevin Myers 15:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, he wasn't all that old (though he did shuffle off this mortal coil seven years later). Clarityfiend (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, why have we not found his play writings alongside his sonnet writings? Wouldn't it stand to reason that he'd keep all his writings/work together ... in more or less the same place? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

One of the most dangerous places for a manuscript in the 15th to 18th centuries was a printer's shop. Even when several manuscripts of a Latin classic have survived, often the manuscript from which early editions were printed is gone. Some of Shakespeare's plays were "recreated" for the First folio by the actors getting together and reciting their parts. --Wetman (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hie thee hence to English Renaissance theatre#Printed texts. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. I am not really asking about the printing (or publishing) of his works. I am asking about the original (handwritten) works penned by Shakespeare. How is it that we have "found" his original sonnets, but not his original plays? Wouldn't it stand to reason that he'd keep all his writings/works together ... in more or less the same place? Why is it that would we would have found one body of work (his sonnets), but not the other body (his plays)? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As a non-expert, my guess is that sonnets were held in much higher regard than plays. Much of the Shakespeare authorship question revolves around it being beneath noblemen to write the latter, but not the former. Some of that attitude may have rubbed off on Will. An analogous sort of thing happened with early films; many classics are lost forever because nobody thought they were worth saving. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But "we" have not "found" his sonnets, nor has anybody else. They were published in 1609, but there is no record of anyone owning a handwritten copy (which obviously was the original form, but neither the plays nor the poems survived in handwritten form, nor are there historical references to anyone specifically possessing the originals). Contemporary sources indicate that Shakespeare distributed his sonnets to his friends, and scholars generally believe that he neither wanted them to be published nor approved of their publication (though of course, there's a minority view to the contrary); and it's almost undebatable that he definitely did not approve of the publication of the first two to appear, in a pirated book called "Passionate Pilgrim" and (in all other respects) falsely attributed to Shakespeare. Off-topic: above, it's claimed that some of the Folio was reconstructed by having the actors recite the parts; I have never read a reputable scholar who advances this theory. All of the scholars I've read (and there are many) believe that the previously unpublished Folio plays were reconstructed from the actors' scripts, held (with many other scripts by many other writers from the previous three-plus decades) by Shakespeare's company. 63.17.89.8 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the OP presumes that Shakespeare "kept" his manuscripts. In fact, once he wrote the plays, they became the property of his company, which would have kept numerous actors' copies of both his plays and many other writers'. There's evidence that he revised King Lear and Hamlet, meaning he obviously had access to copies of his plays; but there's no reason to suspect he "kept" any of them. No literary manuscripts were left to anyone in his will, at least not specifically. There is also no evidence that he had any interest in publishing his plays, except perhaps to prevent a pirate from obtaining unjust enrichment. He became a very, very rich man through sharing in the company's revenue (eventually making a very substantial investment in the company), but he never invested (for example) in a printer's shop or a bookseller, and would have profited very little from sale of his plays -- indeed, sale might diminish their value as live entertainment, though that's debatable, and sale also made it easier for other (especially "traveling") companies to perform the plays (thus diluting their value) without compensation. (I mention all this stuff about publishing as further evidence that Shakespeare would have no motivation to "keep" his plays. They were of no value to him as possessions.) 63.17.89.8 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to all for the above input and feedback. I appreciate it. This was helpful and informative. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Penal Code by/for Religion edit

Which countries in the world have different penal codes based on religion?

As far as I know, India is the only country in the world where there are different penal codes by religion. More specifically, there is one penal code for followers of Islam and another for EVERYONE ELSE. I could be wrong in both counts. But that's why I'm asking.

TIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnananihsoj (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly part of the penal code, but an example of a similar thing nevertheless: In Israel matrimonial law is devotional – it differs significantly depending on which religious affiliation the married couple has. See "Marriage in Israel". Gabbe (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a continuation of the old Ottoman "millet" system, which governed "Personal status law" (marriage, inheritance, divorce etc.), but not criminal law... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Dubai (and I think in other parts of the UAE) non-muslims may drink alcohol (in licenced premises), buy alcohol for home consumption (with a licence), and sell alcohol (with a licence); muslims (whether UAE citizens, UAE residents, or not) may not. Pakistan requires muslim passport applicants to make a further declaration about religion (see Passport#National conditions on passport issuance for complicated details) which non-muslims are not required to make. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the specifics, but Women of the Wall#Recent Conflicts outlines how a female Progressive Jew was arrested in Israel for wearing a tallit at the Western Wall. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 13:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything about differences in criminal law in India based on religion, but Law in India does have a whole section on differences in family law which subject is introduced in the lede by:

Indian family law is complex, with each religion having its own specific laws which they adhere to. In most states, registering of marriages and divorces is not compulsory. There are separate laws governing Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and followers of other religions. The exception to this rule is in the state of Goa, where a Portuguese uniform civil code is in place, in which all religions have a common law regarding marriages, divorces and adoption. Bielle (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia#Religion states "Muslims are obliged to follow the decisions of Syariah courts when it comes to matters concerning their religion. ... The jurisdiction of Shariah court is limited only to Muslims over matters such as marriage, inheritance, apostasy, religious conversion, and custody among others." The Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno case (a woman who was sentenced to caning for drinking a beer, but whose sentence was eventually commuted to community service) raised a fair bit of controversy. The (Malaysian) Star's story on the commutation links to another story about 3 women who were caned (and served time in prison) after being convicted of having "illicit sex" by the Federal Territory Syariah High Court. An official was quoted saying "They have all repented. They are also hoping that others will not go against the teachings of the religion." and "I hope there will be no more issues arising from the caning sentence which can be imposed by the Syariah Court on Muslim women to protect the sanctity of Islam. The punishment is aimed at getting the offenders to repent and seek Allah’s forgiveness. It is also meant to educate Muslims to follow the teachings of Islam.” 58.147.58.152 (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judiciary of Malaysia may also be of interest. There are numerous other less serious offences that come under Syariah law (and therefore only apply to Muslims) in Malaysia like khalwat ('close contact') [1]. There are of course conflicts when a husband or wife converts to Islam and the other spouse does not, or it's claimed someone converted but is disputed and the person's family does not wish a Muslim burial; leading to a number of controversial cases given the conflict between civil law and Syariah law.

There is also a Islam in Singapore#Syariah Court in Singapore although their scope is far less and I'm pretty sure are clearly subordinate to the civil court.

Someone mentioned marriages in Israel above, I believe one of the consequences is that although the Supreme Court has ruled same sex marriages should be recognised, only those performed abroad can be because none of the recognised religions are willing to perform them.

There are also entirely voluntary 'courts' in the UK and I would guess elsewhere [2] [3]. While there is (or should be) no compulsion, if people do voluntary agree to participate in such courts they can be binding similar to the way arbitary can work. And of course, the reaction of the community can also have an effect [4].

Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India has a uniform penal code.--^Nilotpal42 18:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Herbs And Spices edit

Does anyone know of historical herbs and spices, and with citations? I am attempting to compile a list. TIA174.3.121.27 (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "historical"? Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme is from at least 1670. Hyssop was named in the Christian bible. All herbs and spices that still exist are, in some sense, historical. Or are you looking for herbs and spices known about but that no longer exist? Bielle (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And that is a problem when calling something "historical", isn't it?174.3.121.27 (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could just look up every herb and spice there is, and see what's in the history section of the article, for instance black pepper#History. 81.131.17.60 (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silphium (also known as "laser") was frequently mentioned in the Roman era book of recipes ascribed by tradition to a Apicius. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henbane, deadly nightshade, and mandrake were all used in the Middle Ages and allegedly had magical properties.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to get hold of a copy of Culpeper's Herbal. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which led me to this, potentially useful, page. List of plants in The English Physitian (1652 book). 86.163.2.99 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even better, from the external links in Nicholas Culpeper, this complete free copy of his herbal, online. 86.163.2.99 (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

constitutional convention edit

Is there any purpose a constitutional convention would serve? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Constitutional convention. Any more specific answer will likely require a more specific question. Dismas|^(talk) 05:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, ordinary constitutional amendments have to be passed by a supermajority vote of Congress before being passed on to the states to approve or disapprove, and most proposed constitutional amendments are rather narrow and limited. However, a constitutional convention could freely propose a major radical overhaul of the U.S. constitution (such changes would still have to be approved by the states to go into effect, of course). Some want a U.S. constitutional convention exactly for that reason, while others are strongly opposed to the holding of such a convention (remembering that the last national constitutional convention that was held, in 1787, completely scrapped the existing constitution, the Articles of Confederation...). AnonMoos (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why do tennis players wear such short skirts? edit

wy do tennis players wear such short skirts? 82.113.121.167 (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think? It makes it easier for them to move quickly. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 09:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it also helps if they are looking to earn a few pounds/bucks from a modeling career. Jack forbes (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question would be: Why don't they wear shorts like many other female athletes do nowadays? Eliza Truitt offered some thoughts on this in Slate, but came to no definite conclusion (See "Athletes in Skirts"). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, historically tennis skirts and netball skirts were quite freeing things, giving greater freedom of movement to the legs while remaining (just about) 'proper' for a woman to wear in public. A bit of Wimbledon-specific history here. Nowadays, women make a decision what to wear based on practical concerns, what they think looks good, and the expected clothes of the event. Why such short skirts? Well, how long are the shorts the men wear? 86.163.2.99 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget, Martina Navratilova wore shorts in her later career. Jack forbes (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some tournaments have a dress code - maybe this includes skirts for ladies? Certainly they have have to wear mainly white at Wimbledon[5]. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read my own link (above) "Daisy Dukes was the first woman to follow suit (wearing shorts) a year later (1933), but sexier skirts and dresses remain the favourite for female tennis players seeking lucrative sponsorship deals." Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Dukes? Really? As in Dukes of Hazzard? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to put in an internal link. but it led straight to the 70s TV character. If it was the same person, she'd have been a bit past wearing those skinny jeans! Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Helen Hull Jacobs was the first woman to wear shorts at Wimbledon in 1933, the same year as Bunny Austin although he wore shorts in 1932 at Forest Hills. Someone's mind was perhaps wandering when they wrote that BBC article. meltBanana 01:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was beginning to smell a rat - and I thought the BBC were such reliable chaps! Alansplodge (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when even men wore long pants to play tennis. For example, see the photo of Bill Tilden. — Michael J 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The skirts used to be much longer, also. Pants and skirts both have crept up over time to facilitate freedom of movement as the game has gotten faster-paced. Which doesn't explain why the shorts worn by basketball players, and the knee-breeches worn by baseball players, have gotten longer over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the era of John McEnroe and co the the male tennis players wore them extremely short and tight. That's why McEnroe used to scream so often. It's true! Jack forbes (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say that as if you believe it, fellow Jack. Citation, please. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you ever wear the tight shorts, fellow Jack? I look back at them with such ~~fondness~~ embarrasment. They were the height of fashion then of course. No citations, just painful memories. :) Jack forbes (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Female tennis players wear short skirts to get good ratings (heterosexual male fans). Also, have you noticed the mikes have been turned up to catch the womens yelps during the game (which can sound like orgasmic yelps). Sex sells. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we, the consumers, buy it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A trademark/logo with four hearts edit

There is a town in Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu, India named NalattinPudur. Local historians claim the name means "Four Hearts New Town" in Tamil and it was named so because of the trade mark/logo of a particular brand of cotton traded by the British East India Company. There was supposedly a huge cotton warehouse in the area, with the four Hearts painted over and the name stuck to the settlement that developed around it. I have not been able to verify this. Can anyone shed some light on whether such a brand of cotton did exist? (This should be during late 18th and early 19th centuries) --Sodabottle (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can find is a quartered heart, as a symbol of the British East India Company, but not directly cotton related. You can see it here. Right time period, namely Napoleonic. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!. This makes the story more plausible. The word Nalattin can be translated either as "four hearts" or "four of hearts". After seeing this image, i think it could have been the later case. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following up using your input i found that same logo was used a "bale mark to stamp its goods". I think this settles it. Thanks again!--Sodabottle (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment rate by Cities in Russia edit

I am looking for the Unemployment rate for all Cities in the Russian Federation.

If it is not possible by Cities, then I wouldn't mind getting the Unemployment rate for all the Provinces/States in the Russian Federation.

I would appreciate any assistance. --33rogers (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found data for October 2009 on the Federal State Statistics Service website (all in Russian). The table at the bottom of the page shows breakdown by federal subjects; the column on the right-hand side is the unemployment rate. And here's a map. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to that site. From that site, I was able to find the latest data available which is data for April 2010. And using that information I made a list Regions in Russia by Unemployment Rate. Thanks. --33rogers (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians writing novels edit

How do well-known British politicians including ministers so often find the time to write novels when elected? Wouldnt these jobs take up all their time and energies? Examples are John Buchan, Douglas Hurd, Disraeli, and several others. 92.15.12.12 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many MPs manage to hold down a second job of some description. Being a minister is a full-time job, but it seems that being an MP isn't. There have been proposals to ban MPs from having second jobs as part of the planned political reforms, which might impact on book writing as well (depending on how it is worded). --Tango (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the names listed above were all not just MPs but had important jobs as well. 92.24.182.209 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Archer is also a novelist. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disraeli's literary career was largely before his political one and the other politicians you mention seem to have little direct overlap between their publishing history and government roles. That said, they might still write but avoid publishing while in office because of the political effects their works might have, or simply so as not to appear to be shirking their duties. meltBanana 15:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) John Buchan doesn't seem to have had any political jobs other than as an MP and Governor-General of Canada, neither of which are full-time. Douglas Hurd seems to have only written one book, and that was a collaboration, while in government. The rest were written before or after. Disraeli may have written one or two books while in government, but the vast majority were written before and a few after. --Tango (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doubtful that being both an MP and Governor General of Canada could be considered a part-time job, combined or singly. 92.15.0.255 (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of MPs manage to hold down second jobs, so it must be possible. Governor-General is an almost entirely ceremonial job, so I doubt it takes up much time. He certainly didn't hold the two positions at once - they were in different countries. --Tango (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Buchan, maybe it was an easier job back then, but the last few GGs of Canada have been all around the country and the world pretty much constantly (so much so, anyway, that people like to complain about how much taxpayers' money they waste). It's all ceremonial, sure, but there's a lot of ceremony to do. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, published several books while he was Vice President (the supposedly salacious supposely lesbian book she wrote was published earlier). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being wife of the Vice President certainly isn't a full-time job! --Tango (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth being clear that being an MP can be a full time job, but it needn't be. If one has a strong local team then the casework can be done by others leaving the MP to focus on parliamentary scrutiny and the gladhanding that needs to be done to get re-elected. Many back benchers maintain another job, and there are benefits, say as a GP, solicitor, accountant. All government ministers manage to hold down being both a constituency MP and a government minister.

I'd also say that it's worth looking at when an politician became an author. In many cases it's after their time in the house.

ALR (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As well, working for a few hours each week can produce a few books, many people find time to write once they've finished work for the evening, or on their days off, some even do it for fun, whilst normal people are watching TV or playing scrabble. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of MPs vs ministers, don't they generally get more funding etc so it's easier to have a strong local tem? Well the funds may be intended to support their work as a minister but I don't know if there's any limitation on how they spend them and it seems easy to argue they need to use them on their electorate office to make it easier for them to perform their job as a minister. I believe it's the case here in NZ. And of course constituents may be more tolerant of having to rely on the team and not being able contact or see the MP much if they are a minister. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they rarely watch TV - if the time most people spend watching TV was used for more constructive things, they could get a lot done. 92.24.178.172 (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pay-Per -View edit

Whilst searching google news archive I've noticed that many of the newspapers in the UK have pay-per-view articles [6]. Do other countries newspapers charge for this? Jack forbes (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although it depends on the publication. For example, the New York Times allows limited free access to articles before 1981 (100 articles per month, I think) to current and former subscribers who have a "Times Select" account, while all others have to pay something like $5 per article from the same time period. Similarly, the Washington Post gives free access back to 1987, with previous articles costing $3.95 to view. Both have expansive archives stretching back into the mid-1800s. However, when doing research for WWV (radio station), I've found that Time allows free access to articles for a much longer time period -- at least back to the 1950's. I assume the pay barrier is to help partially recoup the losses sustained by making current content available for free. Xenon54 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from my link, the Sunday Herald is charging for a story from 2007. Kind of frustrating if you think you have a good source for Wikipedia and can't access it. Jack forbes (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're having that problem, try the WP resource request. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, some newspapers (eg. the Times) are making their websites of current articles pay-per-view [7]. I think I've heard about this happening in the US as well. The business model of free commercial news websites just doesn't seem to be working. --Tango (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ad revenue dropped during the economic downturn, and so more US newspapers are considering going to some pay scheme. The Wall Street Journal has long been pay-to-view online, the "largest paid-subscription news site on the Web", according to our article. As of next year, The New York Times will let you read a certain number of recent articles for free, but will charge frequent online users. —Kevin Myers 16:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah as both above said, it's generally accepted that traditional news media are still struggling to find a system that works in the modern internet arena. News Corp announced last year they would start charging for news articles [8]. News Corp and others are also know for their teneous relationship with Google, e.g. [9] Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British noble the father of Swedish 19th-century actress edit

The father of the Swedish 19th-century actress Georgina Wilson, née Widerberg (1821-1858), daughter of the opera singer Henriette Widerberg, is listed as the secretary of the British Embassy in Stockholm, Charles Manners St George. I have tried to find him, but he does not seem to be mentioned here on wikipedia. Does her perhaps have an article under a different name form than the above? Who was he? I became a little intrigued!--Aciram (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't get a listing in the Dictionary of National Biography, which sadly makes him somewhat obscure. We have a biog of his mother - Melesina Trench. There's some info about the family property holdings here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more about him here [10]. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentry, not noble.--Wetman (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found another paragraph about him here.--74.106.199.207 (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting. Thank you!--Aciram (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest edit

I noticed that while Germany were the runaway winners in last night's Eurovision Song Contest, they received nul points from Israel. Has Israel ever given points to Germany in previous Eurovisions? 87.112.151.196 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and Germany swapped twelve points in the Eurovision_Song_Contest_1982, if I'm reading the score sheet right. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site, Israel gave a total of 66 points to Germany between 1975 and 2008. This would make Germany the 8th most popular country of 50 for Israeli votes in Eurovision. Ka renjc 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these replies. I was worried that there might be some political enmity, which would be against the spirit of Eurovision, so good to see that's not the case! 87.112.151.196 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Balkan countries regularly swap the big points, which might surprise people given the great enmity between their countries which resulted in four years of war in the early 1990s. The UK and Ireland also like to award each other points regardless of the merits of the song - which might surprise some people in, say, Boston. There used to be an example of cultural and political enmity blocking points in that Greece and Turkey, when present in the same contest on and off since 1978, awarded each other no points until 1988 (when Turkey gave the Greek entry 3 points). It took until 1997 for the Greek jury to award Turkey any points. Cyprus was similarly wary of any Turkish entry from its entry in 1981 until 2003. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall in 1984 when Ireland, represented by Linda Martin, lost out by 8 points. Yugoslavia voted against her. Everyone had been surprised because Terminal 3 was the best song in the contest and assumed to win.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to forget that, while (for example) the Balkan countries may have a history of warfare, they also have massive minorities of each other's ethnic groups. It's not hard to understand the points Bosnia gives Serbia when you remember that 37% of Bosnians are ethnic Serbs. Algebraist 09:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If political enmity is against the spirit of Eurovision, how do you explain the consistent atrocious performance of the UK? Here in the UK we explain it by our leading the European effort in the war on terror, and hence being grossly unpopular with everyone else in Europe. It can't be anything to do with the quality of the songs!--TammyMoet (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? That's exactly what it's to do with. Josh Dubovie being the latest in a long line of useless UK entries. Crap singer, crap song, was lucky to get the ten points it did. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly serious. I didn't actually watch it but followed it on Twitter, and the concensus of opinion was that this year's entry wasn't as bad as some of them, and certainly not deserving of last place. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a large part of the problem is that we don't publicise our songs at all. We choose an act a few months before the contest and then nobody hears it until the final. Other acts are released all around Europe as soon as they can be (October the year before the contest) and are massively publicised, get lots of radio play, etc.. The audience in the Eurovision studio were singing along to the German entry, they had heard it so much. I only heard the UK entry twice and I'm in the UK! --Tango (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Irish husband (at the time), was so furious Ireland lost, that he put Yugoslavia's rejection of Martin's song down to the fact that the lyrics mentioned the USA!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, your husband must have been under the false impression that Yugoslavia, as a communist nation, hated the USA :) Now, I was just a wee 'un at the time you talk about, but hatred of the USA was not a thing that would describe any important facet of our mindset at the time. Or at least, so I remember. 89.142.179.179 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK, had not heard or seen our entry before the night, and watched the whole event under protest (thanks, teenage daughters ...) Ours was certainly a dreary, bland and unmemorable offering, but what really stood out for me was how amateurish it looked in comparison to some of the carefully choreographed ones. Our Josh warbled sweetly enough, while two guys did awkward contortions behind him in what looked like a couple of Ikea storage boxes, on top of which two women in odd shiny cloaks swayed and sang a bit. It looked cheap, nasty and last-minute, and lacked the outrageous over-the-top campness or the big emotional sparkly Euroballad feel of many of the other entries. Britain neither sends Eurovision up nor takes it deadly seriously; it just trickles along under the radar as Tango says, to another damp squib of an entry, easily forgotten. Makes you nostalgic for the glory days of Bucks Fizz ... I think. Ka renjc 17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth bearing in mind that each nation only awards points to their top ten (I think) contestants. So, a mediocre song that everyone placed about 15th would score zero points and a song which was loved by some and hated by others would score plenty of points. So, the fact that the UK entry came last doesn't mean that everyone (or anyone) thought it was the worst song. They may just have found it uninteresting. --Frumpo (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 30

Contents