Humanities desk
< November 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 2 >

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.

December 1

Prince Michael of Kent – Royal cypher

I am interested in the crowned 'm' cypher seen here and here – does anyone know anything about its history and significance? Anyone know where I could find an enlarged or vector version? Thanks, ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 22:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From this site[1]... "Each member of the Royal Family has his or her own cypher, a type of logo, such as the Queen’s EIIR, made from their initials in a tradition dating back to Tudor times. The two young Princes have been using their W and H cyphers, which were designed by the College of Arms and approved by the Queen...". Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of Oscar Wilde

How did Oscar Wilde actually define himself religiously before his final conversion to Roman Catholicism the day before his death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.46.226 (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in any simple way. Page numbers are from my 1988 Penguin reprint of Richard Ellmann’s biography Oscar Wilde. Wilde was baptised and raised a Protestant and nominally remained so, although he exhibited an interest in Catholicism throughout his adult life. (A Catholic priest, Father Fox, claimed to have instructed the four-year-old Wilde and his brother, and baptised them in the Catholic Church, during a summer holiday in Glencree, County Wicklow, at the request of Wilde's mother Jane.)(18) Wilde expressed an interest in Catholicism during his time at Trinity College Dublin, although his father threatened to disinherit him if he converted.(32) At Oxford he admired Henry Edward Manning and John Henry Newman, and was urged to convert by his friend David Hunter Blair, an enthusiastic recent convert, but his father’s disapproval still prevented him. “By June 1875” Ellman writes, “Wilde’s interest in Catholicism was ostentatious enough to astonish his visitors”(51-52) and in 1878 “he came as close ... to becoming Catholic as he ever would until his deathbed” under the influence of Rev. Sebastian Bowden of the Brompton Oratory . Wilde actually arranged to be received into the Church, but on the appointed day he sent a bunch of apologetic lilies in his place.(90-91) Throughout his life he grasped opportunities for spiritual and theological debate, and seems to have held differing opinions at different times. Ellmann quotes him saying, on the day of his release from prison, "I look on all the different religions as colleges in a great university. Roman Catholicism is the greatest and most romantic of them."(495). However, he also said: "The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone. For respectable people the Anglican church will do", and told his friend and lover Robbie Ross that Catholicism "isn't true".(495) - Ka renjc 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did america invent the submarine during the rev. war?

Why was it invented! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To try to sink an enemy ship. See Submarine#First_military_submarines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, To sink ships. Actually, I'm not sure you could say it was invented' then anyway. According to the Wikipedia article Submarine, "The first submersible with reliable information on its construction was built in 1620 by Cornelius Jacobszoon Drebbel, a Dutchman in the service of James I of England.". The Turtle, built in 1775, seems to be the first military submersible, and was intended to sink ships of the Royal Navy, though it was unsuccessful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(There is nothing more pointless or arbitrary than trying to say when something was specifically "invented" for the first time, so please let's just jettison that aspect of the question...)

A better way to answer the question is to consider what the forces were that would lead to such a machine becoming seen by both sides as a legitimate instrument of war, rather than just a curiosity. The Confederates fielded many submarines, which is interesting because really nobody else had invested as much in them previously. The military reason is rather simple: the Union had clear "conventional" naval superiority and the ability to blockade Southern ports (see Union blockade). The response by the Confederacy (Union_blockade#Confederate_response) was to develop a number of boats which would try to balance this in their favor — boats that would be somewhat "asymmetrical" in their ability to sink enemy ships of the type the Union was deploying, without trying to balance the Union force ship-for-ship. They had only limited success, but that's the obvious impetus for looking into submarines. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1775 craft was also targeting a blockade. Submarines are inherently dangerous, but in warfare the risk is thought to be worth it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think this generalization ("in warfare," etc.) misses out on the specific contingencies here. Specific technologies are pursued because they are thought to give specific benefits. The context of why submarines get used when is crucial to whether or not the risk is considered "worth it" or not. Saying that the goal was to sink ships does not illuminate the reasons why that particular means of trying to sink ships was pursued at that particular time. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. In the case of submarines, stealthiness is the key. One technology drives another, so the stealth advantage has been compromised over time, but it can still be an effective weapon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the articles the first known working submarine was built in 1620 in England by a Dutch gentleman. See History of submarines. 92.29.116.196 (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A US TV network commissioned the building of an undersea rowboat such as the Dutch gentleman might have had the technology to build. It was possible for a wooden hulled boat, with modified oars operated through leather covered ports, to submerge and row a short distance underwater. The problem of leakage through the greased leather was very severe, and there was quickly a buildup of carbon dioxide. The Turtle sub used by Bushnell in the American Revolution has also been re-created, and its rotary propellers were a much better idea than oars. The carbon dioxide buildup was a problem, depth maintenance was a problem, and it could not go very far or very fast, but with some development it might have been able to attach a bomb to a ship as was intended and get safely away before the clockwork detonated it. Was the ability of a chemical such as lithium hydroxide to absorb carbon dioxide not known by the 1770's? The LIOH article does not give the chronology of its development. Did "natural philosophers" by 1776 know that air had a "life supporting" minority portion as well as a large inert portions and the small harmful product of respiration, CO₂? A human operating a submarine would be knocked out by the CO₂ buildup long before the oxygen became too depleted to support life. Wasn't compressed air in a tank attached to the sub technologically feasible by the end of the Revolutionary War? It could have extended the mission, provided bouyancy, and allowed quicker blowing of the ballast from the sump than the handpump used by Bushnell. It is a bit surprising that by the time of the US Civil War, the Hunley's builders had not introduced chemical CO₂ scrubbing or compressed air tanks for the crew to be able to breath underwater for an extended period. Pressure vessels, pressure regulators , gauges and valves and compressors were by then old technology used in steam engines, and compressed air had been tried in subs by that time. Edison (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that propellors were unknown in 1620, but by 150 years later the available technology had advanced. 92.15.5.182 (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalmar Union

I heard that people are debating the possiblity for an Iberian Union, but is it possible for Sweden, Norway and Denmark to form back into the Kalmar Union by either the abolition of all three Scandinavian monarchy or the union of the three crowns.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they want to? Within the European Union, the general drift is away from centralism to localism: devolution.--Wetman (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were a very particular set of accidents that led to the Kalmar Union, that are unlikely to be repeated today. You might also want to read Norwegian romantic nationalism to see why they wouldn't be particularly keen on it. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To what end? Even if the crowns were dynastically united, it would likely have little to no effect; the monarchy doesn't set domestic or foreign policy for any of those countries; at best a modern Kalmar Union would be no different than the Commonwealth of Nations; independent countries with independent governments that share a common monarch... --Jayron32 06:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Scandinavism. It had some force in the 1800s. Now, it is hardly the tradition for countries to unite anymore, especially not when things go well (and they have not been separated by international politics, like North/South Yemen or Korea) Jørgen (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some recent discussion in the Nordic countries about the possibility of union: see [a brief article from the Economist] or the [Nordic Council site]. Nobody thinks it is a realistic near-term goal, but the idea isn't completely dismissed, either. 130.188.8.12 (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a real possibility for some sort of Nordic unionism in the immediate backdrop of WWII. However, the Cold War pretty much killed that possibility. Norway and Denmark joined NATO, Sweden and Finland positioned themselves as neutral (and the latter had a very complex relationship with the Soviet Union). The final nail in the coffin was when Denmark joined the EEC. --Soman (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow it's interesting. Why would this guy choose Queen Margarethe II over King Harald V and King Carl XVI Gustaf? Is she the most popular monarch?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that since Margrethe I of Denmark was the first monarch of the original Kalmar Union, it would be fitting with Margrethe II of Denmark as the inaugural queen of the new Kalmar Union... Gabbe (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of U.S states

Why are the borders of U.S states straight? 222.252.102.226 (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only some of them are. Start with U.S. state and then go to each individual state and you'll likely find out how their individual borders were determined. In general, the western states tend to be large with straight edges simply because they were sparsely populated and there were few natural borders such as rivers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Each state's history of its borders is somewhat unique, the book How The States Got Their Shapes particularly useful in answering your question. Look it up at your local library. The Wikipedia article Territorial evolution of the United States also give a good overview. A gross oversimplification would be to say that the Western states, which tend to be large and blocky, were established during the era of the railroad, when rivers and coastlines stopped being as important for transportation and when people could travel farther in a day. Eastern states tended to form borders along rivers and/or mountain ranges, and all of the Eastern states, save perhaps Vermont, had their borders drawn so that they would have access to either the Atlantic Ocean, the Great Lakes, or the Mississippi River Basin (often via the Ohio River). Thus, in the east, every state had deep-water access to the Atlantic via some route. It also explains the little panhandles in states like New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. In the age of railroads, when goods could be transported more efficiently over land, such water access was less important, and mountain ranges posed less of a problem; with water transport portage was a real issue; but trains could transport goods over mountains somewhat easier, making them less important as border delineators. In the west, lacking the need to make borders so states could either a) reach waterways or b) avoid having land on two sides of mountain ranges meant that the states could be set up big and squareish, as many of them are. --Jayron32 07:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I have found the book American Boundaries: the Nation, the States, the Rectangular Survey, by Bill Hubbard, Jr. (2009), better in general than How the States got their Shapes. Both address the question of why so many US states have straight line borders (and river borders too), mostly those carved out of the federal "public domain" (whose borders were largely determined by Congress). But I feel compelled to point out that How the States got their Shapes contains several mistakes and some misinformation, and does not cite sources. Its most persistent mistake, from my reading, is its repeated claim that borders along the 42nd parallel north date to the British-Spanish Nootka Convention of 1792. This is wrong—they date to the US-Spanish Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819. The Nootka Convention did not result in any specific boundary line being created or even suggested—which was a point Spain insisted on and received, despite the larger overall diplomatic defeat the conventions represented. The book also makes a number of claims about why Congress made certain decisions about the size and borders of states (especially something about aiming for a certain number of degrees latitude by degrees longitude, if I recall), but because it does not cite any sources it is very difficult or impossible to verify these claims. For some of them I tried to verify (the point about degrees most of all)—and even searched and browsed through way too much of the Congressional Record—to no avail. So, take its pronouncements with a grain of salt.

The short (well, shortish) answer, as I understand, is that Congress was generally more concerned with the "big picture" of how territories would eventually become states and the political ramifications (seats in Congress, mostly), then they were about creating states with some kind of cultural unity or "natural borders". That new states would add two senators and any number of representatives to Congress was an extremely politicized matter in the decades leading up to the Civil War. In some cases, according to Hubbard, Congress essentially forced new states to accept a smaller size than the state desired, in order to leave open the possibility of creating more free, or slave states in the future. Also, Hubbard, in American Boundaries, argues that Congress deliberately established a tradition of creating states that did not conform to natural boundaries (large rectangular states enclosing very different kinds of landscapes) in order to create a degree of "disunity"—a method dating to James Madison, especially his view about "factions" and republics as described in Federalist No. 10. I found this a particular interesting point. Of course, the notion of straight-line state borders goes back beyond Madison, at least to Thomas Jefferson and his somewhat strange proposal for new states. Hubbard argues that Madison disagreed with Jefferson on how new states should be made, and Madison's vision became the one Congress followed. However, both Madison and Jefferson espoused straight lines—and few others at the time were as interested and politically active in the borders and shapes of future new states. In short, the tradition of using straight lines for new states dates back to the pre-railroad era of the very first decades of the United States under the Constitution—and arguably back to colonial times, at least for parts of the US where straight line boundary surveys for everything from states/colonies to city blocks, was "fashionable" and "modern". There are a number of additional points made in Hubbard's book about why straight lines were preferred. Pfly (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good read about how some of these lines were drawn is The Fabric of America: How Our Borders and Boundaries Shaped the Country and Forged Our National Identity (2007) by Andro Linklater. —Kevin Myers 13:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The impression is also somewhat incorrect. I only see three states that do not have at least a section of irregular border following a river or mountain range: Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And many of the eastern states have an east-west straight line somewhere (or north-south in a few cases), vaguely perpendicular to the nearest large body of water. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every single state, save Hawaii, has a straight line in some part of its border. Pfly (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What might help here is to explain how and why borders in the United States are different from those in many parts of Europe and Asia. Let's start with Europe and Asia. In those regions, borders developed over many hundreds of years, as feudal overlords defined their territories, often using natural features or traditional boundaries established between village lands. As centralized states developed, they accumulated a collection of these ancient territories, forming irregular borders with neighboring states. The process of drawing borders in the United States (and in Canada, Australia, Africa, and to a lesser extent Latin America) was very different. In these regions, colonial officials drew straight lines on maps to demarcate administrative subdivisions because this was often more convenient than using natural features, which in many cases were not yet known or anyway not yet surveyed. After the United States (and Canada) gained independence, their officials continued to draw straight lines on maps to demarcate territories that had not yet been settled or were only thinly settled by people of European origin. They did this for administrative convenience and because they did not care very much about the territorial traditions of the indigenous people who were living in these territories. Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a French film in which a Marxist university professor ridiculed the straightness of US internal borders (in comparison with Soviet borders). Can't remember the name though. --Soman (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So to heck with him. Edison (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

An image is needed for an article on a man who died in 1998. I have obtained an image of him from a BBC site which I've downloaded onto my PC. Would this image be considered fair-use seeing as the subject is dead, and future images are an impossibility? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is not supposed to provide legal advice. And in any case, it depends on what kind of article this is (private use? newspaper of general circulation?) and what jurisdiction you are asking about. Since you mention the BBC, then assuming you are talking about English law (or Australian or Canadian law), the applicable concept is "fair dealing", not fair use. "Fair dealing" applies to distinct categories of dealings. Under English law, your dealing would have to fall within categories such as research and study, review and criticism, news reporting, etc. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need it for a Wikipedia article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions . Itsmejudith (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I have since posted my question there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Arnold Böcklin paint a picture called "The Return"?

First, read this diff.

Now, according to my sources that I outlined here, and to which I also alluded here, the name of the Arnold Böcklin painting in question is very clearly "The Return".

To settle this, I've had a good look around Googlopolis but I cannot find any painting by Böcklin called "The Return" or anything even vaguely like that.

Is it perhaps better known by another name? Or did the source get the name of the painter wrong? Rachmaninoff definitely knew and loved Böcklin's work, as he was inspired to compose Isle of the Dead by the Böcklin painting of the same name. But that does not necessarily mean it was Böcklin who also painted "The Return" which supposedly inspired the Prelude in B minor. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled over a reference to a German book Arnold Böcklin, Die Gemälde (published in 1977, ISBN-10: 3724504047 / ISBN-13: 978-3724504047, 582 pp) which is supposed to list all of his oevre including photos. Maybe the Victorian state library has a copy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book has a description so I think it must be "The Homecomming" meltBanana 19:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you, MeltBanana, that is definitely the one. I shall pass that information on. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a scorching bicyclist?

Resolved

– –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Prohibitionist in the Mikado

In Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado the song "As some day it may happen" contains the line, in one version "And that singular anomaly, the prohibitionist" (replaced in another version by "the lady novelist"). What was a prohibitionist and what was he/she seeking to prohibit in 1885? --rossb (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED gives "A person who advocates or favours the introduction of a prohibition, esp. one restricting the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcoholic drinks", with English newspaper quotes from 1842 and 1866 which are rather ambiguous, but probably referring to alcohol in some way. Algebraist 00:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every recording I've heard of that song says "the lady novelist". Was "prohibitionist" in an early version, or was that added some time later? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a reference to the Lord Chamberlain, who banned The Mikado for a time (ref Hansard 10 June 1907). Our article for another G&S comic opera, Utopia, Limited says "Gilbert also throws some barbs at the Lord Chamberlain's office, as he loved to do." -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This[2] article is pretty good. The "lady novelist" line is original, put different performances have used different lyrics over the years. It's not unusual for G&S lyrics, especially topical to be tweaked to be more relevant to modern audiences. PhGustaf (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, tasty Hansard link. Any idea what the play poking fun at the Kaiser was? 86.178.229.168 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The complete annotated Gilbert and Sullivan" says that "the lady novelist" was the original wording and that it was changed by the author to "the critic dramatist" or "the scorching bicyclist" or "the scorching motorist" in Edwardian revivals - and Sir Henry Litton later changed it in the 1920's and 30's to "the prohibitionist" and in 1942 to "the clothing rationist" - so evidently, the intent is to change the target of this acrimony to whoever was the more hated figure of the times. "The wall street banker" might be appropriate for 2010. SteveBaker (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though it really doesn't matter who you put upon the list, for they'd none of 'em be missed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of that there is no manner of doubt; no probable, possible shadow of doubt; no possible doubt whatever. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who says wikipedia ain't got no culture? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even to this day, if you hear the D'Oyly Carte perform the piece, they will change those particular lyrics. I heard them in 1992-ish where the list included the big-toe fetishist. Marnanel (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was Sir Henry Lytton, SteveBaker. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've been meaning to ask this for a while and an archive search turned up this neat conversation. I've known G&S lyrics to change and on the recording I have, Ko-Ko sings "scorching bicyclist". The examples listed above make sense (contextually with the times), but what on earth is a scorching bicyclist? I can't find anything on search results, image or otherwise. I always imagine, simply, a bicyclist who has lit herself (the gender remains the same) on fire. Any other ideas? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps metaphorically "burning up the road", i.e. racing or just going too fast in the opinion of whoever came up with that phrase? Kind of a lame complaint, though. But during the late Victorian era, there was kind of a public mania about bicycle racing (at least in the US), so that might have inspired the comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Scorch' was 1980's adolescent lingo for anything really fast, cool, hot, edgy, or trendy. --Ludwigs2 17:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary, to scorch, v. 4. (intransitive) To move at high speed (so as to leave scorch marks on the ground) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, this source[3] which might or might not be a wiki; but "scorch" and "burn" are both used in the metaphorical sense, i.e. to be going so fast that you might leave a trail of fire on the pavement. There are many pop culture images that playfully render that metaphor literally. One obvious case would be the DeLorean in the first Back to the Future, whose tires left burning trails as the car sped off from 1955 to 1985. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scorching bicyclist seems to have been a bit of a meme way back in them olden days. "Lady cyclists", in particular, were frowned upon as travelling at higher speeds would unduly increase the vibration and friction between the saddle and the "private" parts of the cyclistesse. The guardians of morale in them days clearly had little else to do but to speculate on the utterly despicable possibility of such a debased personage experiencing a pedalling orgasm. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember my mother telling me that when she was a schoolgirl in the early 1930s, she and her friends would giggle at the line "Sunbeams scorching all the day" from the hymn Forty Days and Forty Nights, with its apparent reference to speeding cars. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite common - almost tradional - for "little list" to be updated to include topical entries. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism and mixed-race individuals

Racism, and race-based hate groups, always seem to be centered around supporting or opposing one of the traditional ethnicities - Caucasian, African, Hispanic, South Asian, East Asian, etc. Suppose you were half East Asian, half (black) African. And suppose you discriminated against full black Africans and full East Asians. You'd still be "a racist", right? Are there any document hate groups that support mixed ethnicity and denigrate more "pure" (though that's clearly a poor choice of wording) ethnicities? I'm wondering if there are any pan-racial supremacists, essentially! The Masked Booby (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the same thing, but see Paper Bag Party. An instance of mixed race being held as superior over the less mixed, by members of the same race. But that's an assimilation of the mindset of the larger racist society. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism is an illogical attitude that can affect any of us. However, to a certain extent, prolonged social contact on equal terms with people in the "other" group protects you. When the mixed-race person you talk about was a child, as soon as he uttered something prejudiced about black Africans his mother would have said "hang on, you're talking about me and Granny". As soon as he said something silly about East Asians his father would have said "is that how you feel about Auntie, and about me?". But it's possible that the whole family would harbour mistaken views about Native Americans, especially if they had never met any. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TMB -- I don't know of any ideology that specially favors mixed-race individuals above both or all of the sources of their mixture, but the reverse has been true: In a number of historical contexts there has been special contempt for "half-breeds". who are "neither one nor the other". In late 19th century Texas, some whites professed to admire "pure-blooded" Indians (Native Americans) as noble savages, but were contemptuous of mestizo Mexicans as half-breeds. In Haiti ca. 1800, mulattos as a group were greatly mistrusted by whites and blacks alike... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Mexico today, there is discrimination against pure blood Indians by those who are of "mixed-blood", Latinos. But they don't discriminate against Spanish people. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of any kind of bigotry typically boils down to "us vs. them". I recall being startled the time I was at a basketball game and the dark-skinned hispanic (who had brought his young, impressionable son) who was sitting next to me kept yelling the "N-word" at a particular player. It occurred to me that the irony had been lost on the guy, regarding whatever bigotry he himself might have suffered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those classified as "coloured" in Apartheid South Africa suffered a different level of discrimination from that levelled at "'pure-bred' black Africans"; you could argue that the system favoured mixed-race people over black people in some respects. See Apartheid#Coloured classification. I doubt those affected were particularly impressed by the difference, whatever official label they were forced to wear. Ka renjc 16:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan liberal conservative

Like the U.S. liberal conservative question, which provinces of Pakistan are considered liberal (meaning Pakistan Peoples Party) and which provinces are conservative (meaning Pakistan Muslim League) or is it different from U.S. politics?

Again, PPP is not 'liberal' in the way that is defined in the US, PML is not strictly 'conservative' in the same way as US conservatives. PPP has its stronghold in Sindh, PML factions in Punjab. --Soman (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The identification of liberal or conservative often includes the degree of adherence to a laundry list of issues that are considered to be key. I would be interested to see some of the differences in position on key issues, between those two parties, if the OP or someone can provide it. It would give some perspective as to "relative" liberalism or conservatism. For example, it's been said that by today's standards, Abraham Lincoln was a racist; but by standards of his day, he was a liberal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United States uses the terms liberal and conservative differently from most of the rest of the world. So it is difficult to compare political parties in other countries with those in the United States using these terms. Marco polo (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that used to be the case. American extremists have kind of co-opted those terms, but if you look closely, American liberals often aren't very "liberal" (modern, free-thinking) and American conservatives often aren't very "conservative" (old-fashioned, thrifty). Instead, it has to do with adherence to a specific list of "litmus test" bullet points. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. Trying to use 'liberal' vs 'conservative' to define politics worldwide is nonsensical. In the secular 'West', a more reasonable general division would probably be 'left' vs 'right', with the proviso that one needs to add 'libertarian' vs 'authoritarian' into the mix. In Pakistan, the division is more oriented around (relatively) 'secular' vs 'fundamentalist Islam', though it is worth noting there are considerable regional and ethnic divisions. It makes no more sense to describe Pakistan's politics in US terms than it would to describe the US's in Pakistan's. (~~though come to think of it...~~ - sorry, had POV moment there). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left and right are also pretty meaningless outside of a specified milieu. In China, is a hardcore supporter of the authority of the Communist Party, "left" or "right"? Was Oliver Cromwell "left" or "right"? The questions are almost obviously nonsensical. --Trovatore (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we should remove 'political position' from Template:Infobox political party. 'Far-left' is repeatedly added as the 'position' of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which really doesn't make sense. --Soman (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we have to acknowledge that political parties (both in US and Pakistan) are somewhat complex entities. The Democrats are not strictly liberal, the Republicans are not strictly conservative. The PPP is a party which, simultaneously, is built around defense of feudal landowning interests as well as being a secular, democratic and to some extent socialist party. How is this possible? An one-dimensional understanding of politics cannot grasp such a dialectic relationship. --Soman (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another good example would be Teddy Roosevelt, a strong believer in the "manifest destiny" of America, which would typically fall into the "conservative" stereotype, as well as being a strong supporter of many "progressive" causes, decades before his distant cousin Franklin was able to put them into practice. Yet modern "conservatives" think much more highly of TR than of FDR. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so Soman, you mentioned that Punjab is PML stronghold and Sindh is PPP stronghold. what do you know about Northwest Frontier and Balochistan? which political parties stronghold are they?

NWFP (now renamed Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) is stronghold, to some extent, of the Awami National Party (Pashtoon nationalism, moderate left-of-centre) and islamists (MMA). --Soman (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of liberalism, the MQM has recently sought to rebrand itself as a liberal party (a move that doesn't mean much, its essentially an ethnic chauvinist entity). Its stronghold is Karachi. --Soman (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rev James Blair, 1656 - 1743, Williamburg VA

RE: The Heritage portion of the article on Rev James Blair, Colonial Williamsburg, VA does not mention the small street off the main Duke of Glouser St, Blair St as being named for James Blair. Is it named for him? No hurry, just curious and it isn't memtioned in any of the articles; and the Williamsburg guides didn't know. Thank you - and thank you to all your great contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.43.120 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, and certainly named for the family. The John Blair House (named for James' grandson, 1st USSC Justice John Blair) is right there, so it's possible it was named for him. --Sean 18:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does fiction - novels and films - make us better persons?

Or is it just entertainment? Of course, many works of fiction contain a message, but wouldn't it be infinitely easier to write down the message than to extract it from a story? Quest09 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer with a parallel, the commercial world has concluded in all-but-universal consensus that modern advertising -- "corporate fiction", as it were, with storylines and rhetorical fluff and such -- is more effective than broadcasting "give us your money". While it's undoubtedly easier (note: not "infinitely") to write down the message, that's not the same as saying that the easy delivery will be more effective. — Lomn 17:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works of both fact and fiction can make us think about things that we might not have otherwise, which can make us "better" or "worse" depending on which message we take home. And the entertainment part, as suggested by Lomn, makes the message more interesting. Aesop's fables all had a moral lesson, but without the background story they're not very interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you would like to consider "better" or take to be a "message". Do you mean to say that "messages" make us "better"? Why do you think that would be? How does the means or form of communication affect the message? Are some messages only encodable or conveyable by means of eg. allegory?

Our Narrative article points out that:

"Stories are an important aspect of culture. Many works of art and most works of literature tell stories; indeed, most of the humanities involve stories. Owen Flanagan of Duke University, a leading consciousness researcher, writes that “Evidence strongly suggests that humans in all cultures come to cast their own identity in some sort of narrative form. We are inveterate storytellers” (Consciousness Reconsidered 198)."

Humans are not simple computational machines. A complex emotional state, for example, cannot be conveyed by simply naming it in a "message". Some communication can only occur in the form of "direct experience"...

Interesting question! – sorry for disorganization of answer :S – WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jungle Book taught me eye contact was important. That made me better at being a normal person. So... 86.161.108.241 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I used to think in my youth. I read depressing classics like Jude The Obscure, which probably contributed to my gloom of that time. I now think that fiction does not improve you, that you'd be better off spending the time chatting with friends or just going for a walk, and that the idea that they improve you is just put forward by the book industry as a way of selling books. On the other hand reading literature is probably better than watching tv. 92.24.183.235 (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what you read. Garbage in, garbage out. I've certainly had my worldview expanded by various works of fiction. Some have just been entertainment. Some have been truly important. Knowing which those will be for any given person is pretty hard, but there certainly are some "classics" which seem to affect just about everyone who reads them one way or another, if they have two brain cells to run together and haven't decided ahead of time not to be affected by anything. Plenty of people will attest that they have read a book that has "changed their life." It's a lot more than just "the message" that matters. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting question reminds me of a passage in The Mote in God's Eye which I found online here, in which humans visiting an alien planet found that all of the aliens' artworks seemed to have been created specifically to convey or illustrate some message. "In the [human] Empire there are paintings that are just supposed to be pretty. Here, no ... How about [an artwork's message simply being] 'Mountains are pretty'?" An alien shrugged, not seeing the value. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add again that reading "the message" and experiencing "the message" are two very different things. Fiction often tries to get you to do the latter. So it's the difference between saying, for example, "a surveillance state would be pretty unpleasant to live in," or reading Orwell. Now maybe there are some people who can read "the message" and say, "oh, I get all of the implications of that, and find that either compelling or not." Some people are indeed clever and imaginative enough to do that without any cultural "help." But most of us get a lot out of "living" in that imagined world for a bit, see how it appears. We might not agree with the message or the world, in the end. But it's a different type of understanding that comes with reading (good) fiction. You could, of course, write extensive non-fiction about the same topic. For some topics, you'll certainly get more information across in the least amount of time. And in the hands of some authors, the end result can be as vivid as fiction. This isn't an argument for the supremacy of fiction, but it is an argument against degrading it before non-fiction. (I say this as a writer of non-fiction.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One might as well ask, what is the purpose of art? And are paintings of "real" (non-fiction) or "imagined" (fiction) scenes of different intrinsic value—whatever "value" is? I would argue it's irrelevant whether or not a work is fictional. Creativity, insight, and richness of expression regardless of the medium of choice: language, the brush, the crayon, the musical note; are the yardsticks for deeming worth. I have read compelling non-fiction and fiction as well as works of both genres which are neither informative nor stimulating. Creativity—whether as author or audience—surely enriches the human experience. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like the hero of À rebours. 92.24.186.163 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "just entertainment" idea? Fiction is certainly entertainment. Attempts to make fiction didactic will usually produce weak stories. Its purpose is to entertain, and the more thoroughly and completely entertaining it is, the better, but what do you mean by "just entertainment"? What's with the implication that entertainment doesn't improve us? I think you underestimate the breadth of creative thought and our capacity to learn from even the trashiest entertainment (and note that "trashy" does not necessarily equate to "most entertaining"). Does being taught improve us, if we're bored by the lesson? 81.131.9.41 (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary exchange rate for US dollar circa 1900

Where can I find exchange rates between the US Dollar and Chinese currency around 1900? I am trying to find out how much $0.25 American would be worth. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is by far the best site I'm aware of for currency history, but it only goes back to 1952 for US-China. Dalliance (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Yuan, which addresses the history of the Chinese currency, the yuan in 1900 was equal to one Mexican peso, which according to our article on the peso at that time was defined as equal to 24.441 grams of fine silver. According to this source, a troy ounce of gold in 1900 was equal to 26.49 troy ounces, or 823.9311 grams, of silver. Now, a troy ounce of gold was defined in 1900 to be worth USD 20.67 (see U.S. dollar), since the United States had adopted the gold standard (whereas Mexico and China were on a silver standard). Doing the math, that means that the yuan in 1900 was worth USD 0.6131 (61.31 cents). USD 0.25 would therefore be worth 0.4078 yuan, that is, not quite 41 Chinese cents or fen. Marco polo (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the U.S. coined trade dollars a few years earlier specifically for U.S.-China trade... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism-how many days after birth

Normally how soon did European parents baptise their children after they were born? I am especially interested in France and England. The time frame comprises the medieval period up to the 19th century. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to large a timespan to find a normally. You are going from the period where children were baptised within days because of the high rate of infant mortality to the period where people might wait a couple weeks so the mother was capable of being present and of hosting a party. And throwing in the complication of the Baptists (and related churches) after the Reformation who only accepted adults for baptism. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, in The Population History of England, 1541-1871 (1989) p. 289, say that baptism in the 16th century almost always happened "shortly after birth", which I take to mean a few days after, and that the interval later lengthened in some parts of England but not in others. They gave median figures of 8 days in the late 17th century and 30 days in 1800. --Antiquary (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ask is because Elizabeth I was baptised three days after her birth (1533), Catherine Willoughby four days after her birth (1519). This appeared to have been standard practise in the 16th century; whereas Madame de Montespan (1641) and Madame Du Barry (1743) were recorded as having been baptised the same day they were born.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal was to baptize as quickly as feasible (as seems to have been the case before modern times due to the high risk of infant mortality), then presumably royalty would have been baptized more quickly than commoners. Royalty, after all, had fawning priests at their beck and call, whereas peasants had to wait until it was convenient for the local pastor to conduct the rite. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare was baptized on April 26 and his birthdate is conventionally assumed to be April 23, on the theory that baptisms typically were three days after birth in 16th century England, although our article on Shakespeare's life says this was not always the case. John M Baker (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course in an emergency baptism can be administered by the midwife, or by anyone else who happens to be present. I suspect that might have been Madame du Barry's case. As Marco Polo suggests, a priest would almost certainly have been within call at the birth of Elizabeth I and very likely at those of Catherine Willoughby and Madame de Montespan. --Antiquary (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name-day could be a clue to this. Until fairly recently, the rural population here in Slovenia (not sure about other countries, but I assume it might be similar) took the name-day to be more important than the actual birthday. My grandfather would only celebrate his name-day. This could be of use here because names were given (in a baptism, of course) according to the patron saint of the particular name-day, and name-days were never more than a couple days away from actual birthdays. My grandfather's birthday and name-day were three days apart, confirming what has been said above. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not 1 minute after birth, by the parent? Why wait on church and great ceremony if an "Angry God" might punish unbaptized infants?Edison (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I tell you of my experience, Jeanne. In my family of origin, baptisms were conducted after Mass on the first Sunday the mother was able to attend after the birth, which usually meant the first or second Sunday afterwards. It was conducted in a simple 5-minute ceremony attended only by the priest, the parents, any older children, and 2 witnesses standing in for the godparents, who as often as not lived in a different place and were not expected to travel for such a short event. No other trappings or outward festivities. Then the family would go home and Mum would cook the usual Sunday roast for just the family. End of story. But when I got myself married, to a woman of Russian cultural background, things were very different when it came to our son's baptism. Three months after the birth there was a baptism and a big party afterwards, to both of which many family members and friends were invited. The party went into the small hours of the next morning. There were gifts, cards, speeches, and general merrymaking and wassail. Some members of my family of origin felt the whole thing was inappropriate and refused to attend. So, European tradition can vary enormously. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some information here[4], and a discussion here[5]. This pdf file[6] - part of an examination of 18th Century human remains from Spitalfields in east London - shows a table of birth and baptism dates (page 2/4); "the range is from two to 170 days, the average being 25 days." Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Awami league Bangladeshi nationalist party

which divisions of Bangladesh are Awami League stronghold and which divisions are BNP stronghold? and also which divisions are Jamaat e Islami stronghold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.112 (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tombstone orientation

I was told by a cemetery caretaker that my grandparents headstone was placed at the foot (apparently by mistake) when installed in 1941. My father was buried next to them in 1990. His tombstone was of the same orientation (some 49 years later). He said that the "foundation" and headstones must be moved before my mother can be buried in the same grave Lot, which has 5 grave spaces. Then he says my mother's headstone would be correct with my grandparents and my father (her husband). He wants me to pick up the expense of moving these tombstones, which sounds expensive to me. Now my questions are:

How come the tombstones were placed at the foot (apparently a mistake) - twice??
How does one know that in fact they were placed at the foot? Maybe they are at the head, which would be correct!
Since the original large tombstone (for my grandparents) was placed there in 1941, then what is the objection and why does someone care now AFTER all this time?
Why couldn't my mother's headstone then just be placed next to my father's and my grandparents with the same orientation (directly adjacent).
My father was cremated. My mother will be also. Can BOTH be laid then in the same grave space.
My grandparents use spaces #2 & 3. My father is in space # 4. Numbers 5 and 1 are available. The lot has already been paid for by my grandfather when he bought the Lot originally in the 1920s.

Picture is just a representation of what my grandparents tombstone looks like

My grandfather died in 1941 and that is when the large tombstone was installed.

My mother has arranged a pre-paid funeral with cremation.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to know what is *really* within the power of the caretaker to insist upon, you would need to consult the grave plot deed and a lawyer, and probably the cemetery regulations. The only time a burial site generates income for the cemetery after the purchase is when someone is buried there, and caretakers may sometimes overstate what is required in order to increase the costs. Probably will hit you up for "perpetual" care as well, which always seems to fall somewhat short of perpetual. With regard to your specific questions, the orientation of a body within the grave (head/foot) is usually noted in cemetery records kept by the sexton or caretaker; and certainly there's no reason that two cremated bodies could not be buried within the space of a grave that could hold one non-cremated body. But getting done what you want to have done may require a cooperative caretaker, and it sounds like you don't have one, or he'd simply call the headstones footstones. - Nunh-huh 23:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Christians were buried facing east, which would imply the headstone should be at the west end. I don't know if the facing east thing is either true or universal. 92.28.255.105 (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christians are buried facing in all directions. Christian churches were generally but not universally oriented (since the Middle Ages) with an east-west long axis, with the altar on the east side so the celebrants faced east during services. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not about the graves (I didn't think it mattered in Christianity) but re the churches, I have this theory that they faced east so that the sun had the biggest impact shining through the stained glass windows on Sunday mornings. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The orientation of churches pre-dates stained glass by a long chalk. See this[7] archeological report from Colchester of a Roman church and associated graves (320 AD) all pointing east-west. Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have at least one pair of relatives where the husband died first and was conventionally buried, and when the wife died, the remains were cremated and placed in the same grave. Whether that could be done in this case might depend in part on state laws regarding burials and cremations and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking back on cemeteries I've been to, it does seem that they tend to orient (literally) the graves in an east-west direction, but that's not always the case. The grave of Adlai Stevenson, for example, runs north and south. They might often be oriented east-west for the same reason that HiLo has in mind, i.e. to be able to read them more easily, since they'll be in sunlight at least half the day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't follow the logic there, Bugs. A South-facing headstone (in the northern hemisphere) would get a lot more light. I'm fairly sure that in western Europe at least, Christian burials are specifically oriented in the same way that churches are: to the east. As for why, the 'official' reason is probably 'in the direction of Jerusalem', but I think this may not be the whole story - one can find careful alignments on a north-south or east-west axis in varying cultural contexts, from pre-Columbian Mesoamerica to ancient Egypt and beyond. Maybe we line people up in neat rows when they are dead because it is so darned difficult to do this when they are living? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Great Getting Up Morning" some believe that in the resurrection folks will pop up from their graves like a mailbox flag. If their feet are to the East, then (depending on their location) they would face Jerusalem, which might provide the best view of the proceedings. Edison (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am missing something, but ashes have no head or foot so there is no impediment regarding orientation. If the cemetery buried your prior family members incorrectly (as monuments are typically in rows and all face the same direction as a group) that's their problem to fix, not yours, if you insist on reorienting the caskets. If the tombstone was placed out of orientation with all the others around it, well, it's a bit late to be noticing that. If the company that placed the memorial is still in business, then it would be their problem to fix, again, not yours. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Reorienting assumes a steel or concrete outer casket that is still intact and movable. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local to me in the UK, ashes could be scattered in a cemetery garden (along with lots of other people), and/or they could be scattered anywhere you like within reason. If I were you I would just scatter your mother's ashes on top of your father's grave with possibly some withheld to scatter in any other favourite spots she had. The position of the headstones is not very important. The pre-paid burial service - won't they just tell you to come and collect the urn a day or two after the service is over? Then you can do whatever you like with it. If this was in the UK I would suspect the caretaker was hoping to make a fast buck, but perhaps practice is different in your country. 92.24.186.163 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(NB: I run a cemetery, but it's both very old and not very busy) In theory, headstones should be placed at the head of each grave, unless there is a compelling reason not to. This creates uniform rows of headstones, meaning that a gravedigger who has to go past your graves can do so without disturbing the stones. A stone in the middle of the grave (and, thus, the middle of the row) might have to be moved if someone nearby needs to be buried. Even if the grave is opened by hand, most vaults are placed using a small hoist based on a cart, and that needs room to move within the cemetery. If there are graves one row further to the east (so that their heads are next to your grandparents' feet), then the headstone of your grandparents (at the foot of their grave) might be right next to the headstone of the people next door (at the head of their grave), so you have two headstones front-to-back, and no one can read yours - and it looks hinky, besides.

I don't know that they can compel you to move the headstone, or to pay for it - but IANAL - you'll want to look at the original deeds and purchase documents to confirm, as well as any fee they charged for the concrete the first time around. You might track down the headstone company - many of these, at least in the US, have been around for centuries, and this one might still be in operation. They may have some insight, or might - if you're lucky - have records that could show that the cemetery screwed it up. If you decline, and they really need it moved for their own purposes (access, etc), they'll just move it themselves and eat the cost.

Now, moving the headstone does NOT mean you need to open the grave to move the remains. Unless you have a strong religious or philosophical need to know with certainty which way your relatives are facing, there isn't a good reason to go through the heartbreaking task of digging them up. Adding to that is the concern that, depending on the container used in 1941, there might not be enough left to move. Even a metal container will show some deterioration. Finally, in many places in the US, you require a court order to disinter remains, even if temporarily for a purpose such as this. Not worth the trouble, I imagine. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your GREAT answers. I now have enough information to work from accordingly.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]