Humanities desk
< September 20	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 22 >

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.

September 21

Name of This Byam Shaw Painting

Hi. I've been scouring the internet looking for answers and have yet to have any success. I am trying to find the name of the following painting by Byam Shaw: http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/jasonminor2/Byam20Shaw.jpg

I know that it is from the First World War era (possibly painted in 1917, although that is only an educated guess), and is 'Canadian' in subject. I've only thus far been able to find information on his more famous Canadian-themed painting, "The Flag".

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

216.191.137.135 (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I poked around a bit looking for it but no luck. If you live near a large library, you might see if they have (or can get through ILL) a copy of The Art and Life of Byam Shaw, by Rex Vicat Cole, 1932, which apparently is the definitive work on this painter and might tell you the title of it. Good luck. Textorus (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of wikilinking Byam Shaw in the question header. DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A similar theme is depicted in his They Would Take Him to the Armoury Before He Left Them, c. 1907.--Wetman (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one?[1] An illustration for Pilgrim's Progress. Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to recognize the heraldic symbols. Other than the "leopard" of England and fleur-de-lis of France I don't know what they are. One of them looks sort of like an artichoke. Looie496 (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, those are golden maple leaves, not artichokes! See coat of arms of Ontario. The coat of arms of New Brunswick is represented too. I couldn't find the illustration. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the girl kneeling at the front is in an old version of the arms of Quebec. Girl on the right is New Brunswick, girl on left is Ontario. I think the chap's shield may be an old coat of arms of Canada. I suspect the idea is daughters (provinces) girding their father's (Canada's) loins before he goes off to battle. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the thing below the maple leaves. A little further investigation shows that the salmon and thistle (that's what it actually is) come from the Coat of arms of Nova Scotia. Looie496 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this; "The Strong Arms of Canada" which is in a similar mood and format[2]. It appears in a book called "Canada in Khaki"[3] although sadly there doesn't seem to be a companion piece. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this page [4] asking the same question! Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EUREKA!!! If you download the pdf file here[5], it's on page 32 (of 224) of "Canada in Khaki" (a different edition to the one linked above) and it's entitled "THE CALL". Phew! Alansplodge (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, good job. Textorus (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Unfortunately, it came a few hours too late. I was looking for the answer as part of a weekly trivia challenge that my WWI History class has for bonus marks. My professor informed us of the answer yesterday morning (after the deadline). No one in the class of 25 found the answer. So kudos to you for finding that! And thanks to everyone who helped! 216.191.137.135 (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using representation other than a Native Title Representative Body

In this news story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/21/3017302.htm a native title claim group, the Mayala group of the Kimberley, is asking that it be represented by a body other than the Kimberley Land Council. As I understand it, the KLC is a Native Title Representative Body so the claim group can only deal with the KLC. It seems like the Mayala group have no legal standing to pursue this case, so I'm wondering why the Federal Court would hear it at all.124.149.25.167 (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal standing is a complicated issue, involving a preliminary analysis of the merits and potential remedies. Reasonable people often reasonably differ on issues of standing. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't even know that "legal standing" was a specific technical term. I'll say it another way. As I understand it, all Aboriginal groups in the Kimberley must use the KLC as representatives to resolve Native Title claims. I'm pretty sure the ~~Malaya~~ Mayala can't choose anybody to represent them in Native Title claims, since I've heard that it is mandated by the Native Title Act that the KLC is the only body that can represent Aboriginal claims. If I'm right, that the ~~Malaya~~ Mayala can only be represented by the KLC, then why did the Federal Court hear the case in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.25.252 (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be blunt, the most obvious suggestion would be you are wrong, particularly since 'I've heard' isn't a particularly good source. From [6] it seems the KLC is the 'peak Native Title Representative Body' for the Kimberly region. [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11] have some discussion of representation and the role of NTRBs. [12] in fact seems to discuss people being represented by a variety of different groups. [13] mentions 12% of cases don't have representation from the NTRB and that Tasmania doesn't even have one. [14] as well as one of the earlier sources suggest that the current system has received criticism, in particular that it is difficult to get financial assistance which means people are forced to use NTRBs because they can't afford anyone else (but not because the law stops them using someone else).

Notably while these sources suggest that these bodies have been mandated (well have statutory obligations), recognised and receive government support to provide legal representation, nothing I've seen from these or from other sources I've found in my searches suggest that the government has mandated, whether in the Native Title Act or in some other way, that people must rely on these bodies, and can't chose who would represent them.

Of course even if they have, it's possible a party may argue such a requirement (which seems grossly unjust to me) is a violation of the Constitution of Australia or some other area of law. BTW, from the source you've provided they are Mayala not Malaya.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the Malaya are able to allege (they need not prove, initally) that they are not being as well represented by a body appointed to represent them by statute, and that they have more fundamental rights to competent representation, then they can likely challenge that narrow portion of the statute. I don't know much about rights in Australia, but if lawyers have been involved there is probably a fundamental right to representation which takes precidence over the Native Title Act. 208.54.5.65 (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another good point and somewhat distinct from what I've suggested. Even if it is mandated that a party must use a NTRB and it isn't held that this in itself is a violation of the Australian constitution or some other area of law, it's likely the Mayala could allege the NTRB isn't adequately representing them so they need to use someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank to all who answered. A special thanks to Nil Einne. Those references you supplied were a great help not only in helping answer the question I originally asked but also other questions that I had in mind. They are a good resource and I appreciate the time you took to assemble them. Thanks once again.203.56.233.122 (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate Medical Education

How does the Medicare Graduate Medical Education system insure that there will be a reasonable number of medical professionals and specialists to meet demand? Is http://www.cms.gov/AcuteInpatientPPS/06_dgme.asp useful in answering this question? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GME subsidizes the costs of training medical residents ([15] [16] [17]). This provides an economic incentive for hospitals to take on otherwise-less-profitable new MDs. It's not clear that this is synonymous with ensuring that demand is met; the links above discuss concerns regarding both the total number of and the distribution by specialization of residents covered by the program. Note that this discussion can be extended to the general case of whether subsidies are useful. — Lomn 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]