Humanities desk
< January 23	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 25 >

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.

January 24

Julius Caesar and The Netherlands

I've heard that Julius Caesar considered conquering all The Netherlands, but he was told that the (norther?) inhabitants "ate eggs and lived in trees," so he decided to skip them. Is there any source for this story? --143.44.75.37 (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about his considerations for conquest, but he mentions egg-eaters in that region in his Gallic Wars (IV, 10):

"The Rhine, moreover, rises in the country of the Lepontii, who dwell in the Alps, and in a long course flows rapidly through the territories of the Nantuates, the Helvetians, the Sequanians, the Mediomatrici, the Triboci, and the Treverans; where it approaches the Ocean it divides up into several branches, forming many large islands. Of these (islands) a considerable portion are inhabited by wild and savage tribes, some of whom are believed to live on fish and birds' eggs. It (the Rhine) flows into the Ocean through many mouths."--Cam (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note here that Caesar did not abandon conquering the area on account of the inhabitants eating eggs, nor that the Romans did not eat eggs themselves (they did). The point being in stressing that they lived on fish and eggs was that they had no agriculture and did not even hunt wild animals, and was thus in the eyes of the Romans, even more uncivilized than the average Germanic tribes who did both farm and hunt. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmuir (Gaelic: Dail Mhoire) : Farms: Dalmuir and Loretto in Limpopo, South Africa.

The two farms are located near Alldays in the province of Limpopo,South Africa. I found a town in Scotland with the name Dalmuir and a school with the name "Our Lady of Loretto Catholic Primary School" Question:

Are there a connection between the farm's name and the town Dalmuir in Scotland?
Who was the "The Lady of Loretto"?
What is the meaning of the word Dalmuir(Dail Mhoire)?

Thank you for the much appreciated information.

DRIES VERSTER. LIMPOPO. SOUTH AFRICA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.30.55 (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"dail" means meadow or field (ref). "Mhoire" is the Scottish Gaelic form of the given name Moira, or Mary. Mary in this case is the Virgin Mary, so literally it means "The virgin Mary's field". Loreto, or Loretto, is the house in which the Virgin Mary was said to have been born (ref). It's often the case that places in countries that were former colonies of European countries were named after places in the old country (Houston, Banff, Perth, Birmingham, etc.); it's likely that the namers of these farms hailed from sunny Dalmuir, but I think you'd need to do some checking with local historical sources to know for sure. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 11:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally this certainly doesn't mean that anyone thinks that the Virgin Mary is from Clydebank, but rather that the site of the town was formerly the location of a religious establishment dedicated to the Virgin (perhaps the Sisters of Loreto or a similarly named order of nuns). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 11:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paisley Abbey (which is about 4 miles south of Dalmuir) was dedicated (in part) to Mary; it may simply be that Dalmuir stands on fields that were once owned by the Abbey. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muir is also Scottish moor: "Dalemoor".--Wetman (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that this is a false friend. When Celtic, Brythonic, Old English, and Norse placenames got turned into their modern versions, they often got smushed around so they sounded right. So one can't simply take the parts of a modern placename, reverse translate them, and then get a definite answer what that placename means. The historical origin of the name is what counts. An example is that prefix "Dal": in many Scottish context it means "meadow", as in Dalmuir. But in many English (and some Scottish) contexts it isn't directly from the Celtic or Brythonic, but from the Old English "dæl", which means valley. That's the case for Dalton, Lancashire (valley-town) and Dalwood in Devon (valley-wood). As "dæl" is likely a descendent of "dail", the meaning of the two gets blurred sometimes, and Dalry, North Ayrshire is sometimes given either (or both). Things get worse, though: you'd think Dalston, Cumbria would mean "meadow town" or at least "valley town", but it actually means "Farmstead of a man named Dall", and Dalston in London (heck, it's the same exact word) means "Farmstead of a man named Deorlaf". Worse still, Dalkey in Ireland doesn't mean "meadow island" or "valley island", but means "thorn island", from the irish "deilg" meaning "thorn" (or is that Old Scandinavian "dalkr", which also means "thorn"). So there's no substitute for actually looking that specific placename up. Mills' Oxford Dictionary of British Placenames is a start. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comic strip

Hello. Do you know the author of this image (unreadable signature)? Sorry if it isn't the good place for the post. Thanks. Michael Laurent (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look professional. My guess would be that it was done by some random teen. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thorn bracelet seems to be a nod to Linsner's "Dawn", but I suspect that it's not by Linsner... AnonMoos (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this page claims it's Linsner but the signature looks different from the others.--Cam (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's Joe Linsner: AFAIK his babes are all redheads. Michael Laurent (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has since posed this same question on the Misc page.[1] So far, the Humanities page is leading the race to find the answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was not sure of what was the good place to post (and I wrote it). Win the race please! ;) Michael Laurent (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could also have gone under "Entertainment". If in doubt, post to Misc and someone might suggest a spot to move it to - although many of the same users watch several of the ref desk pages. The risk in posting it twice, other than redundancy, is that you might get two absolutely certain and contradictory answers. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "Entertainment" was only for music and video. ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Laurent (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, probably so. Looking at the illustration on that website [2]... (1) the website claims it's this guy Linsner; and (2) my own eyesight is not that good - where are you seeing a signature? In the circled item on your original posting[3]? All I see there is a copyright symbol and a year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The circled part on the original post is not a signature. It's the copyright symbol ("c" in a circle) with a "19" under it and a "97" under that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there is a (c) symbol but the signature of Linsner ("LINSNER") is missing. I think that the glyph beside the (c) is an abreviated signature or personal mark of the artist. Michael Laurent (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was "Alas poor goathead! I knew him, impractically-clad Horatio." DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author is Kevin J. Taylor (find by a member of a french comix forum). Thanks for your tries. Michael Laurent (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Barber, Barbour, Barbor, British sailor 1703

On tv last night was mentioned a British sailor who served for over forty years at sea, and kept an illustrated diary of his life. The date 1703 is associated with him - I forget in what way. I have not be able to find anything about him on the internet despite trying for a long time. Can anyone find any details about him or his diary please? 92.29.81.16 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say you saw it on TV, any clue as to which TV show you were watching? Nanonic (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Of The Seas: How The Navy Forged The Modern World. Episode 2, The Golden Ocean. BBC 2, UK. 92.29.81.16 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC microsite [4] is devoid of information on him, which is pretty poor really, comparing it to Channel 4 history microsites such as Time Team [5] I wonder if you contacted the National Maritime Museum [6] or the Royal Naval Museum [7] they could help you? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was Edward Barlow, born 1642 in Prestwich. Not much about him on the web, it seems. His journal, covering the years 1659 to 1703, was published in a 1934 edition edited by Basil Lubbock. I found a one-paragraph bio on him here (Google Books link, may not be viewable everywhere).--Cam (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

musicians and drugs

why do musicians take so many drugs? --Belchman (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That statement includes a presumption of truth without presenting any evidence in support. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please rephrase the question? Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys don't know the answer and think that musicians have the same addiction problems as, for example, engineers, I don't know what you are doing here. --Belchman (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that musicians have the same addiction problems as engineers. Can you provide any indication that my presumption is incorrect? Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that engineers know that a true high does not involve a rocket Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, you, sir, are an idiot. --Belchman (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retract that comment or you could get blocked for personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported the OP's behavior at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly wonder what you're doing here, User:Baseball Bugs. You don't answer questions, you just chit-chat with regulars and are arrogant to question askers. The Internet's huge, there are better places to do both things than Wikipedia's RD, which is a serious place. --Belchman (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)O[reply]

The OP was initially indef'd, soon reduced to a 5-day block. I don't care what he calls me, but he has yet to explain his comments directed at Bus Stop. Shooting at multiple targets is the primary reason I reported him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have over-reacted. The OP has a point, and he was provoked. Turn the other cheek. 92.29.74.148 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was not "provoked". He's not a puppet on a string. He chose to say what he said. You, on the other hand, are a one-shot drive-by. Amazing how you came straight to this page with your one and only edit, knowing all about this situation, or so you think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have actually been a few studies on the question how much drug use actually happens amongst musicians, and what the collective assumption of drug use amongst musicians does to musicians. I think it's undeniable that there's a cultural stereotype of drug use amongst musicians who do any kind of popular (e.g. not classical) music. This abstract discusses some of the results found—that these perceptions are linked to age and gender, no surprise—and this one further argues that type of music features heavily into these perceptions. As for how many musicians actually use drugs, and why, is not entirely clear, as far as I can tell. Speculation relates to the touring lifestyle, the access to easy money in some cases, and the age-old perception that being a musician is about wine, women, and song, and more modernly, sex, drugs and rock and roll. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing the OP's followup question... What would really be needed is a study to compare the relative use of any kind of substances (including alcohol and legally-used prescription drugs) between the entertainment world and the population as a whole. I have a hunch the difference is not as significant as pop culture would have us believe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The free-spirited ethos of a rocker and the free-wheeling ways of a druggie are largely overlapping. That, and rockers can afford drugs. That said, I don't think this stereotype has been at all accurate since the mid-80s. And to the above posters, please be nice to Bugs, whatever you think he is, he is certainly a regular and a good one at that. Vranak (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm in favour of being nice to each other, 'regular' status should have no part in this. It is irrelevant. 86.179.150.105 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got two edits to your name. How did you find this page? Regardless, the OP (who is a "regular", having been online since August) posed a question that assumed certain facts, and was challenged as to the veracity of those assumptions. Why do you have a problem with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have no problem with addressing the assumptions in questions, nor with reminding People to be nice to each other. I do have a problem with judging someone's behaviour differently, or letting them off the hook, because they are a regular. It's a dangerous game to play; I'm actually more of a regular than you are. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, a great many people have rotating IPs and, without them doing anything, are issued a new address after a while. Nobody else finds this hard to understand. One of the reasons I don't log in is to bypass the politics and have my edits judged entirely on their own basis,like in the early days. 86.179.150.105 (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retract your unfounded accusations of sock puppetry, please. --Belchman (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is true. Vranak (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. The question got off to a bad start here. I assume the OP wants to know why "so many musicians" allegedly take drugs and not a count of the drugs dosed. See the article Psychedelic music. Starting in the 60s there have been experimental music styles inspired by mind altering drugs and that development continues today. See the latter article for a long list of bands identified as neo-psychedelic. All the musicians in all these bands cannot be drug users but some may be, and some of them may believe drugs help them create their music. However musicians are just as likely to begin taking drugs for reasons unrelated to music such as Peer pressure, drug trafficking or curiosity. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The association between musicians and mind-altering substances of various sorts way predates the sixties. Marijuana and heroin were in common use in the jazz and blues communities pretty much from the start, as far as I can tell; Louis Armstrong recorded Muggles in 1928, and he certainly did not invent it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

How does it work? [abusive link removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.49 (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's either a joke or an abusive violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy. I've removed it; do not restore it. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the link in question was a form of Referrer spam. Nanonic (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the IP be blocked for that outrage? Will linking to that site infect one's PC? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours

I am interested in this area where someone in power (eg office boss, university teacher, petty politician, traffic cop) offers someone an unofficial usually secret reward in return for favours or personal loyalty (or vice versa). Where can I read more about the fundamentals of this general relationsip from a modern sociological or social-psychology point of view? I have already looked at Neopatrimonialism, Patrimonialism, Patron-client relationship, Clientela, Cronyism, Nepotism, Spoils system, Paternalism, Graft. It is a pity that Wikipedia does not have an article that links all these similar things together, and that links in these and other articles link to inappropriate things - it is as if they were trying to link to a general article that does not exist. 92.29.81.16 (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another term to add to the list is Wasta. AnonMoos (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions you scatch my back, I'll scratch your as being Stage Two in Kohlberg's stages of moral development. But looking at it, it could I think equally well be Stage Three or Stage Four if your culture has the above as part of its normal culture. 89.242.94.72 (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified batallion

Hey all. Sorry to bother you with another question so soon after the last one, but I'm trying to find out the identity of the battalion pictured. The photograph was taken at Colchester in about 1898, but that's all I know. In fact, without doing a quick head count and comparing against the article British Army, I wouldn't even know it was a battalion, and I don't even know if it's possible to find out which. I'm hoping there might be a clue as to their identity in the picture somewhere that I'm missing. According to the 1893 war list, the 1st Bn. Derby R., the 2nd Bn. Northampton R. and the 1st Bn. Suffolk R. were the only foot units stationed in Colchester, but I have no idea how much they moved around back then. Any help appreciated, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Military History WikiProject? DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the image in high resolution, it looks rather as though the "other ranks" are wearing Glengarry bonnets, which would suggest a Scottish regiment. English and Welsh line regiments would be wearing the Home Service Helmet (a bit like a policeman's) at this time (1881-1902). Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to ask them if I failed here. And yes, I'll look into that, thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Income inequality

Is there any measure of income inequality that takes into account redistriubtionist policies and welfare benefits? --Gary123 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate, please? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gini coefficient comes to mind, but I'm not sure whether you're looking for that or not. --Belchman (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he's looking for is a sort-of "Gini coefficient if you subtract all welfare given to poor people". I seriously doubt there is one (but look at the Income inequality metrics for details on the topic), because the whole point of these metrics is to measure actual income disparities, and welfare benefits factor into that. Such a metric simply wouldn't be measuring reality. I suspect the motive is that the questioner wants a metric that puts the US on a more even keel with Europe and Canada, but the reason the US does worse on these lists are not because of flawed metrics; it's because the US has more income inequality. You can debate all day whether redistributionist policies are good or bad, but if you are going to measure their effects, you have to base it on reality. Belisarius (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a measure that takes into account the kind of problems with measuring state benefits pointed out here in the gini article: "Comparing income distributions among countries may be difficult because benefits systems may differ. For example, some countries give benefits in the form of money while others give food stamps, which might not be counted by some economists and researchers as income in the Lorenz curve and therefore not taken into account in the Gini coefficient. The USA counts income before benefits, while France counts it after benefits, making the USA appear slightly more unequal vis-a-vis France than it admittedly is. In another example, USSR appeared to have relatively high income inequality: by some estimates, in the late 70's, Gini coefficient of its urban population was as high as 0.38[16], which is higher than many Western countries today. This apparent inequality ignored the fact that many benefits received by Soviet citizens were nonmonetary and were afforded regardless of income: these benefits included, among others, free child care for children as young as 2 months, free elementary, secondary and higher education, free cradle-to-grave medical care, free or heavily subsidized housing. In this example, an accurate comparison between the 1970s USSR and Western countries would require one to assign monetary values to such benefits (a difficult task in the absence of free markets). Similar problems arise whenever a comparison between pure free-market economies and partially socialist economies is attempted. Benefits may take various and unexpected forms: for example, major oil producers such as Venezuela and Iran provide indirect benefits to its citizens by subsidizing the retail price of gasoline." --Gary123 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find a list of Geni coefficients that are all calculated by the same economist, rather than just a collation of values calculated by different people. --Tango (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the OECD's stats are normalised in the way that Tango is talking about; but they may be worth a look at. Their main statistics site is here: [8]. You may be better off looking for one of the OECD's "issue" based statistical releases (I forget the name they give them) - they'd most likely have a better set of data, however it might be a few years old. Good luck! --Roydisco (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priamary and Secondary qualities

Regarding John Lockes primary and secondary qualities, as bescribed in book 2 of his work 'an essay concerning human understanding summary'. If I have understood correctly Locke defines secondary qualities as ones which do not belong to an object, but are invoked in a person studying the object, Locke references things like colour, smell and pain, as secondary qualities; and goes on to say that they cannot be understood seperately from the sense used to interpret them.

Lockes view was heavily influenced by his belief in Boyle's corpuscular theory that everything was made up of corpuscles which had the properties of shade, mass and motion, and that all other qualities of an object were derived from the complex motions of the corpuscles.

Given today's understanding of modern science, what senses could be said to be of Locke's secondary senses, seeing as we now know that colour is emission spectra, and is a distinct property of an object, scent is density of certain particles that excite our noses, and that our view of the nervous system has distinctly moved out interpretation of pain.

So in short, and to recap for those wondering what the question is about:

In the context of modern science, what senses could be said to be of Locke's secondary senses?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by the user currently known as 129.67.39.49 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some examples of the primary qualities please? 89.242.40.192 (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything, mass, colour, number, weight, brightness, smell, heat, temperature, are all understood in terms of their governing dynamics and not solely as an artefact of our interactions with objects. Does anyone have a helpful answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.118.228 (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've said that colour and smell are both primary and secondary qualities. Apart from that, perhaps qualities which are familiar in physics such as mass, number, weight, heat and temperature are primary qualities and the rest are secondary qualities. 89.243.82.225 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have totally missed the point, obviously to locke, some things were unseperable from his senses, however today almost everything is understood as an effect independent from our senses. We do not need to look at something to know its colour, it is a property of the objects emission spectra, and so on. So I am asking, are their any physical things which we can sense that are not quantifiably explainable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.116.165 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. 92.24.54.79 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure, I mean hunger is a tenuous hope. There is no object with the property of hunger. We know how it is caused, but we cannot quantify it. But I was looking for more real world examples...

Well, if you already know the answers....78.149.231.228 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Dictionary Of Philosophy has an article "primary/secondary qualities" which reinforces 89.243s suggestion above. The article says that Berkeley criticised the dichotomy. You may be able to find this or other dictionaries or encyclopaedias of philosophy online, eg Google Books, or in a library. Try looking it up in those. And from five minutes spent reading online about it, the scientific method was being slowly developed around that time, and it looks like Locke's dicotomy was dropped from it. At least its not mentioned in History of scientific method. 89.242.92.249 (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the movement to create Grammar Shools (in North America = 'Public Schools') arise?

Up until the 16th - 17th century in Europe education was reserved for the wealthy and the church. All of a sudden grammer schools for the children of commoners sprang up across Europe and soon became mandatory for all children to attend. It was a huge cultural change that seems to have had a life of its own. There really is no recorded movement or documentation that I can find that points to the start of this social phenomenon. There is lots of documentation about debates surrounding these schools, their curriculum, and style of teaching and who should control them but all those debates simply take the fact that grammer schools exist as a given.

The existence of schools for the children of the ordinary population, might have started a few centuries earlier in the Middle East and Asia but even they seem to have sprung up spontaneously at a certain point in a society's development. In North America, as soon as the original settlers had chopped dosee Vol. XIV, Cjapwn enough trees to start a framing community, almost without question the inhabitants cleared enough land to build a school house.

This may be as much a sociological question as a historical question. I am not looking for a long historical tritest but I would appreciate anyone who can point me to a competent history of schooling. So, ...

How and why did Grammar Schools come about? --Bill Case (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could do worse than to start with the article on Horace Mann and see where it takes you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) According to History of education in England Before 1870, education was largely a private affair, with wealthy parents sending their children to fee-paying schools, and others using whatever local teaching was made available. That article will useful, but more so Grammar school will be, which notes that before Victorian times Grammar Schools were not schools for general education, but just the rote learning of classical languages; and were genrally set up by the wealthy. I should imagine this was just part of the general social responsibility of the wealthier classes, and was not really anything of a sudden phenomeneon (the oldest Grammar school in the UK dates back to c700). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.49 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010

In the 19th century, government responsibility for education in England was greatly hindered for decades by religious disputes, with Church of England adherents insisting that nationally-established schools would naturally teach the national religion, while Protestant "dissenters" vehemently objected to being taxed in order to promulgate somebody else's religion, or have their children be subjected to proselytism. That's why several states of the U.S. more or less pulled ahead of England (though since everything in the U.S. was done on an individual state level, many states — especially in the south — lagged far behind). AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge History of English and American Literature - here - provides what seems to be a comprehensive overview - see Vol XIV, Chapter XIV - and bibliography. From a quick perusal, the Taunton Commission of 1864-67 seems to be particularly relevant (for the UK). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above suggestions. I have checked all the references provided. However, those references and others that I traced from them underline the difficulty. Horace Mann and Henry Bernard are both reformers of a system of grade (grammar, public) schools already in existence. "History of education in England" makes reference to Edward VI who in 1563 reformed schools for commoners and apprentices. One presumes that some sort of educational system already existed to reform.

On the other hand, when reading about the early medieval or dark ages, there is no mention of education for the young children of commoners or serfs. By the late 1500s the literature does talk about the local early schooling of various historical figures. For example, Shakespeare attended a school (albeit paid for by his step father) in Stratford-upon-Avon.

In Canada as well as the U.S. there are extensive histories of various Universities, but no record of any movement to set up local schools for children. In the historical documents of the early settlement period of both countries, there is a record of community debates about hiring teachers, curriculum etc. From my reading (I am a Canadian history buff) it seems that as soon as enough land was cleared to start a community or village, the top priority was to chop down a few more trees to build a church and a school house. In other words, primary schooling was a well established part of the culture. Yet when I look into European history for when and where this educational movement started; it's existence is just taken for granted.

If these schools were started by the church, for example, how, why and when did the church(es) decide to move out from cloistered education for the wealthy, into the countryside in order to educate commoner children? It seems a mystery to me that no reputable historian has analyzed and recorded the start of this most significant cultural movement -- universal education.

Not sure if this helps you much, but I've read that Scotland had universal (or near universal) education long before England. This article seems to confirm that. TastyCakes (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article, History of education in Scotland, is exactly the kind of thing I am looking for. Of course it only mentions Scotland and the documentation is brief, but it could be a start to finding out how universal education began in England, Europe and China as well. If the church is so intimately involved, which I am pretty sure is the case, it would be interesting to read their thinking, implementation and financing. --Bill Case (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One point I've seen mentioned is the Protestant emphasis on reading the Bible. This is said to have motivated Protestant states & churches to provide elementary education for as many as possible. Peter jackson (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double entry bookkeeping described in scientific terms

I'm used to the idea of a source, channel, and reciever (or destination you could call it) in communication. Apart from all the obfusticating jargon, is DEB simply about having batches of money travelling from one pot (source) down a pipe (channel) to another pot (reciever). That each time some money passes through a pipe, that is a transaction. That each pot is an account. Because you've always got two pots involved (source and reciever), you are doing double-entry bookkeeping. Pots can be both the source and the destination of money. Money going into a pot is a credit. Money going out of a pot is a debit. Naturally, the debits and credits must match. Is this analogy correct please? Have I left anything out? Thanks 89.242.94.72 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely familiar with your preferred jargon of "source' and "receiver", but if I'm reading this correctly, then no, double entry bookkeeping is not about visualising money as flowing from one pot to another.

Think of it as conservation of mass or conservation of energy - or in this case, conservation of (money) value. For every action done to the money value in the accounts, there will be an equal and opposite reaction - one a credit entry, the other a debit entry.

You push on a rock, the rock pushes back at you. You pay the supplier (credit cash, i.e. decrease cash), the supplier gives you some machinery (debit PPE assets, i.e. increase assets). Or, in another example, the customer gives you some money (debit cash, i.e. increase cash), credit inventory (i.e. decrease inventory) and also credit revenue (i.e. increase revenue).

That is to say, for every movement of value, there must be one account that is "debited" and another that is "credited", so that the overall amount of "value" in your accounts remain the same within an accounting period. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you havnt got debit and credit mixed up please? When I credit my bank account, the amount of money in it goes up, not down. A direct debit removes money from my bank account and the amount in it goes down. You also say "credit inventory (i.e. decrease inventory)...credit revenue (i.e. increase revenue)" - contradicting yourself. How do you explain "the customer gives you some money...., credit inventory...and also credit revenue". That would be triple entry bookkeeping. And if the amount of value remains the same, then how does a business ever make a profit or a loss? 89.242.94.72 (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Your deposit accountis a Liability owed by the bank to you. For the bank, it's on the right hand or credit side of the T-accounts in double entry book-keeping, hence why it's in "credit" when positive and "debit" when negative in the bank's accounts. On your own accounts, if you were to practice double entry book-keeping, the credit/debit will be reversed if you treat your bank deposit as an asset.

The bank's own cash account is an Asset, and on the left or debit side of the T-accounts in double entry book-keeping, hence why it's in "debit" when positive and "credit" when negative in the bank's accounts.

A direct debt "debits" (i.e. decreases) your account with your bank, i.e. decreases your bank's liabilities.

For the sale example, one side is "increase in cash", the equal and opposite force is "decrease in inventory and increase in profit". This is not "triple entry", because the sum of the amounts on one side is equal to the sum of the amounts on the other. If it helps, think of the payment (say $100) as in two oparts: one part for your costs (say $60 of inventory), and the other part for your profit (say $40 of profit).

It's like chemical potential energy in an explosion turning into sound, heat and kinetic energy. The sum on both sides balance. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The company makes a "profit or loss" even though the total "value" in the accounts remain the same during the period, because profit/loss is one of the accounts in the system. A business hopes that its profit/loss account will be positive at the end of the year, at which point it might distribute this away as a dividend, accounted for at the end of the period. In the new accounting period, you start with your opening balances and start running your accounts again. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section within the referenced article [9] gives a simple example of what happens, bookkeepingwise, on a purchase. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

89.242.94.72, I think you misunderstand what is meant by the two different accounts in double-entry bookkeeping. The basic idea is that the business enterprise has two different kinds of accounts: asset accounts, representing property the business owns, and liability and capital accounts, representing claims against the business (liability accounts are for amounts owed, and the capital account is for the ownership stake). Every transaction, then, requires at least two entries in these accounts, a debit and a credit. A "debit" is an increase in assets or a decrease in liabilities or capital, and a "credit" is a decrease in assets or an increase in liabilities or capital. Debits and credits must always equal.

This is just the business's own bookkeeping. If it has counterparties that also use double-entry bookkeeping, then those counterparties will make their own accounting entries. For example, if Widget Mfg. Co. pays its electric bill, it credits its cash account (representing less cash) and debits its Power Co. liability account (representing less liability). Meanwhile, Power Co. debits its cash account (representing more cash) and credits its Widget Mfg. Co. account receivable asset account (representing a lower account receivable).

Although it's called "double-entry," some transactions can require more than two entries. Suppose that an auto dealership is carrying a used car at $10,000, the amount it paid for the car. It sells the car for $12,000 cash. The dealership debits its cash account by $12,000 (more cash), credits its inventory account by $10,000 (less inventory), and credits its income account by $2,000 (more income). At the end of the accounting period, the net amount of its income account will be debited and there will be a corresponding credit to its capital account.

As the last example shows, accounting entries do not always reflect the movement of assets. Sometimes they reflect internal events with no third party, such as period-end accounting adjustments and write-downs of impaired assets. John M Baker (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any cartoon-style introductions to DEB please? The banks have a lot to answer for by confusing people with Direct Debits, when they ought to be called Direct Credits from the customer's point of view. 78.146.106.225 (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]