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.
Why wasn't Washington, DC's famous street grid extended on the western part of the Potomac River that used to be part of the Federal District before its retrocession, where the western part of the city was given back to Virginia in what is now Arlington County and the City of Alexandria? Willminator (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The street grid was only installed in parts of DC that were not already settled. Georgetown, Washington DC and Alexandria, Virginia already had their own street network as they were already bustling river ports at the time of the district's formation. That's why Georgetown, though still in the district, had its own street names until the Georgetown street renaming in the late 1800s. Even today, you can see how the streets don't 'exactly' match up to the grid system in Georgetown. As Alexandria was returned to Virginia well before this, it never adopted the street plan. Additionally, Arlington County, Virginia was largely unsettled (and un-streeted) before, during, and after the formation of the district and the return of the Virginia portion, so when it became urbanized later, there was no impetus to adopt the District street plan. Remeber that the district was not really fully urbanized (and the street grid fully built out) until well after the Civil War.--Jayron3201:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
America! The land of Grid Cities! Our article (Grid plan) notes their usefulness for ease of disposing of newly auctioned state land. But above and beyond this Grids must have had social meanings for Americans. The regularity, linearity, disjunctures and differences from alternate city design mentalities are apparent merely in the ordering of the streets—compare to Umberto Eco on the ordering of spaces and the need to get lost. Grids are visually celebrated in advertising for land allotments. They are important beyond there mere material utility. But the social meaning of grids particularly for 19th century Americans eludes my grasp. I come from cities which "just happened," where roads and transport almost exclusively follow landforms and ancient property allocations (ancient as of the mid 19th century); and where industrial purposes have largely dictated land-uses (I suppose you could claim that agriculture as an industry dictated these landforms with US land release systems?). I don't understand being on the grid's meanings! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grids let people allocate property easily (plats are laid out in nice regular shapes and easy to keep track of property lines), and grids allow people to learn the street system and navigate easily (it is much easier to know where you are and where you are going in a grid than in a city without one, having navigated Boston and Chicago, the differences in navigation are readily apparent). I'm sure its also because it more easily allowed the bourgeousie to oppress the proletariate. (insert smirk here). --Jayron3201:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our article covers those meanings; but, I'm looking at associations of modernity, equality in the sense of res publica, "society as the result of an ordered mind and polis," type associations that I'd hypothesise from seeing advertisements much like the image associated, selling ideal cities in the 19th C to internal emigrants. The image of Kansas City, for example, shows a hell of a lot of unoccupied land within the grid, along with plenty of rail and river transport. 19th century settlements in other locations don't duplicate the grid with this regularity, even when they try to inspire similar material desires for land, so Americans liked the grid in exceptional ways. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that not all American cities are built on grids. Away from cities, things are even more chaotic. The appeal of grids is their efficiency. Within a grid, as soon as you know where somebody is on the grid, you also know how to get there (including alternate routes). No map or directions are required. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth looking back further [1] - the Romans set axes for their cities and marked the boundary with a sulcus primigenius to mark the future wall. The definition of the acre is based on the furlong, which is based on the mundane conveniences of plowing by animal. Many of the cities, especially in the Midwest, are based on original 40-acre farm plots. I have no idea if farmers actually had a specific, consistent way to set seed to one or more acres back then that would tend to encourage a consistent grid pattern. (for example, did they all plow north to south, east to west, etc.?) Wnt (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that Roman cities were usually laid out on any kind of strict rectangular grid, but Roman military camps were almost always divided into four quadrants by two perpendicularly intersecting streets... AnonMoos (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, the article quotes the Council's authorising act as having higher motives than sanitation; and, the criticism of the grid included aesthetic and social claims. The kind of content I'd look for is more of, or the inverse of, "These are men who would have cut down the seven hills of Rome." Fifelfoo (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least the large-scale grid covering ad defining much of the Western states go back to Jefferson's enlightenment sense for order and rationality. He indeed envisaged a regular grid system that scaled down from state level to individual homestead and city block. I think that for Jefferson, that just made things neat, simple, and consistent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jefferson gets short shift in my education zone, encountering his positive politics as portrayed in HBO's John Adams was enlightening regarding US ideologies; idealism in its most positive sense (as compared to the "base interest"s of Britain). Fifelfoo (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jefferson was really into "weights and measures". When he returned from France in 1789, to the United States newly reformed under the Constitution, he was made Secretary of State. George Washington addressed Congress for the first time in January 1790, outlining the most pressing matters that needed to be addressed. Defense and the economy were first and second on the list. The third was the need for a uniform system of weights and measures. Jefferson was given the task of drawing up plans to this end. This was basically his first job after being ambassador to France. The result was his Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States. He proposed a rather radical system--one that was metric, with everything tied together by common units, incorporating coinage units and weights, and with area units devised with an eye to surveying the vast western lands into a giant grid. The system was also meant to be worked out by common people using ordinary tools. While France ultimately based their metre on the Earth's circumference--something common folk could never hope to measure with the required accuracy--Jefferson's system used the seconds pendulum to define the metre (he called it a yard, I think). Everything was based on squares. Units of volume were based on square rather than cylindrical containers, because "square [measures] have the advantage [over cylindrical] of enabling everyone who has a rule in his pocket to verify their contents by measuring them". He very purposefully intended land area measurements to be easy for common folk to use, and based on a metric grid. He knew his radical proposal might well be rejected (it was), so he also drafted a less radical, non-metric proposal. The non-metric system was adopted in part. The grid survey system was adopted, albeit in a traditional "halved and doubled" form instead of a metric form. All this stuff is covered in detail in that Andro Linklater book I mentioned below, Measuring America. The text of Jefferson's 1790 proposal is online here, [2], it is interesting to read. He had a deadpan sense of humor, which comes through in several places. Pfly (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the earliest examples of a grid street plan in an American colonial town is the "nine square plan" of New Haven. Here [3]] is an article that explores the origin of the plan and theories about why it was done--apparently no one knows for sure. The article talks about how Roman military camp planning ideas were adopted to English colonial strongholds--in Ireland as well as in America. New Haven's grid seems to have adhered to the main principles set forth by Vitruvius. Somewhere I have a book that gets into this topic--I will try to find it tomorrow. From what I recall there was definitely some special social, sometimes religious and/or utopian meaning to some grid plans in the colonial era. But by the 19th century in many cases grid plans were used mainly because they were simple, easy, and cheap to lay out, and people were used to them and could readily see the value of one lot over another (a corner lot at the crossing of two major streets would be ideal for a business, for example). Still there are some obvious 19th century cases where religion and utopian ideals played a role--Salt Lake City being a particularly clear example. There's some stuff about Joseph Smith's ideas about the "plat of Zion" at Zion (Latter Day Saints)#History.
An interesting example of a grid being used even when it caused problems is the case of Tacoma, Washington. When the then tiny Tacoma was chosen as the Pacific terminus of the Northern Pacific Railroad there was a need to develop the town and sell lots. A normal grid plan had already been drafted, but town founders were not quite happy with it--for one thing Tacoma is located on a very steep slope. Frederick Law Olmsted was hired to design something special. He designed a network of curving streets climbing the slope gracefully and avoiding overly steep grades. Reactions to the plan varied--from admiration to bemusement to scorn. Speculators in Tacoma didn't like it very much as it lacked corner lots on four-way intersections and bottlenecks--both apparently ideal places to locate businesses. This local discontent coupled with an economic depression and the financial collapse of the Northern Pacific resulted in Olmstead's plan being rejected and a normal grid plan laid out instead. And so downtown Tacoma has, in one direction, streets that run more or less level along the side of the slope, while in the other direction the streets climb upslope in the most annoyingly stupid way. What a shame Olmstead's plan was abandoned. More about it here, [4]. Pfly (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another aspect that can't be ignored is that grids were not just used for towns and cities in America, but for dividing up land in general. Although Metes and bounds surveying for land claims was common in colonial and early US times there were examples of grids and other regular systems here and there. In time, and especially in the North, large tracts of land were divided up into grids. I grew up in Western New York where the Holland Land Company surveyed out of whole region into large square townships. This kind of practice spread and was eventually applied to most of the United States via the Public Land Survey System (PLSS). City grids in areas under the PLSS are usually aligned with the larger PLSS grid. So, I would argue that the "social meaning of grids" for 19th century Americans probably has more to do with the PLSS than with town and city street grids. And while the PLSS had the advantages cited above of being easy and quick (cheap) to survey, lay out, and sell off, it had other, more social meanings. It had connotations of a degree of equality among people--although the quality of land within each plot differed the differences were a random result of how the grid happened to work out, not because the first settlers were able to survey out plots of better land than others, in whatever shape best encompassed the best land. The grid system was also seen as empowering "the common man"--it was relatively easy to survey out a certain number of acres in a square than a complex metes and bounds shape. You didn't need more than the most basic math to stake your claim on the grid, or even in advance of the grid surveys. A rough estimate could be made simply by walking out distances, without even using chains and other survey tools, if necessary. But in a metes and bounds area, especially one with a jumble of claims already existing, the "common man" would likely have to hire a surveyor in order to lay out their 160 acres or whatever. There were a lot more lawsuits in metes and bounds areas such as the South, over the size and boundaries of properties. In time the PLSS grid system was seen as an orderly way to proceed, one that served to avoid the kind of conflicts that were common in metes and bounds areas. There are many other "social" aspects of the grid system. One is the way it ignored the natural landscape--the grid was extended, machine-like, across the land regardless of terrain. There is inevitably a symbolism in this of man's power and control over nature, as well as an Age of Enlightenment aspect of rationality and order imposed upon the chaotic wilderness. I suspect this kind of symbolism played into the creation of city street grids over hilly slopes. We can't let mere terrain boss us around! That kind of thing. Pfly (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! I looked for the book I was thinking about last night and found I have several that get into this topic in passing, but none that are specifically about it. There are two that seem particularly relevant, although their scope is much larger than just city grids: Andro Linklater's Measuring America: How an Untamed Wilderness Shaped the United States and Fulfilled the Promise of Democracy and The Fabric of America: How Our Borders and Boundaries Shaped the Country and Forged Our National Identity. Pfly (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noting that most Western US cities that were founded as towns along the railroads were designated as "town sites", thus instead of the unending grid of sections into townships, lots were sold. These were, most often, placed on flat land, and it made sense to have streets at right angles. Very often there was rampant speculation in town lots. Some became cities, and have long since overwhelmed the neighboring farmland. Others have tumbleweeds blowing through what's left of the streets.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A propos of nothing: I read somewhere (in a Canadian context, I think) that in some regions early settlers (each one having his quarter section or or two) would often choose to build their homes in the adjacent corners of their properties, rather than in the centers. As a result, at the junction of the 4 adjacent lots a hamlet of 4 farm houses would appear. That was a way to reduce their loneliness and isolation, before cars, telephones and internet came along. Some ethnic groups actually built a larger hamlet, and "commuted" from there to their lots. -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speeking of street grids and roads of Washington, DC, what’s the meaning of the light orangy color on the half square outline that you can see on the left side of the Freeway Map of Washington, DC, in contrast with the bold orangy color on the right side of the map that actually shows the boundaries of DC, the half square outline on the right side? Falls Church, Alexandria, and Arlington don’t make the DC area look so square anymore since they annexed land next to them. Also, these cities west of the Potomac aren’t part of DC anymore, so I don’t know why the outline that forms the half square on the left side is there. Same thing applies to the Area Road Map of Washington DC. What’s the meaning of the light gray color on the half square outline that you can tell on the left side of that map in contrast with the bold brown outline on the right side of the map that does form the borders of DC? I’ve noticed that an outline that forms the western half of the square that used to be Washington, DC are shown on some street and Beltway maps like the ones I showed above. In short, why? Willminator (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it seems that user SPUI is retired from Wikipedia and hasn't replied back to anyone on his talk page for a very long time, but I'll try. Willminator (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Baseball Bugs, I just ran my question to him like you told me to do. Like I said, user SPUI has retired from Wikipedia, but hopefully, he can still get to the question and answer it. Willminator (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem odd, to show the old full square on a map of modern DC. A Google search for maps of DC turns up a few similar examples. This one, [5], for example. You can see on that one that what is being shown is actually Arlington County, Virginia, which mostly makes up the rest of the original square (with a bite out of the southern part, [6]). It doesn't look like the maps you linked are showing the county (at least not properly), nor do they seem to show other county lines. But perhaps on other maps what appears to be the Virginia side of the DC square is actually the Arlington County line? Pfly (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a longtime resident of the DC area. No one here uses a map like this. The best I can imagine is that it's supposed to show what would have been the boundardies of the District, with the current set of highways. The fact that the Potomac River appears in the same orangish shade, rather than the more conventional blue, is similarly puzzling, as are the imaginary roads (I-70S, I-595, I-66 in the District). --- OtherDave (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secular scholarly studies on Christianity and the Bible
Have there ever been secular attempts from a scholarly perspective to study which Christian denomination's interpretation of the Bible is more accurate? As in, has there ever been a scholarly study where the researchers tried to find out which among Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Pentecostalism etc. has the most accurate interpretation of the Bible? Since the Bible is intended to have several interpretations, it is unlikely, but has it ever been attempted? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secular uses of the bible are fundamentally incompatible with the idea of theological "accuracy" to a revealed text; as revelation is not a secular occurrence. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From a secular perspective it's pretty clear that Deism is the sect with the most accurate interpretation, since it views the Bible as possibly full of errors. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to try and be funny, can you at least indent your posts? That makes it easier for the rest of us to follow the discussion. Regards, IBE (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure he was trying to be funny. In any case, I indented for him. I also made your post and mine small, which indicates they are not answers to the Q. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean have any scholarly studies been done on how closely or not modern texts of the Bible match extant ancient versions, the answer is yes, thousands of 'em. If you mean anything else, I'm not sure your question is meaningful; you'd have to start by defining what an "accurate interpretation" of the Bible is, at which point any discussion would seem to become very circular. FiggyBee (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The type of study you mentioned is one of those I was looking for. One of the things I was thinking about was if there were any studies as to which denomination's interpretation, not translation, of Scriptures is the one which is most similar to ancient manuscripts. Another thing I was thinking about is if there were also studies as to which denomination's interpretation best corresponds with historical evidence. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew09:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I doubt whether any meaningful research could be done comparing denominations because interpretations vary so widely within each denomination. Dbfirs08:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a relatively standard position in biblical hermeneutics, whether taken to mean that multiple overlaid simultaneous meanings (as revelation) are true; or, that the work is a compiled and redacted text produced from multiple texts and their intertextuality, and so have simultaneous conflicting meanings that are "valid" non-hostile readings of the text as literature. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that the Bible was probably written in such a way that it can be interpreted for uses depending on the circumstance of use. As in, it can be interpreted depending on the way of life of the believer and the situations he/she faces in his/her life. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew09:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If NLH means what I think they mean, then no, it isn't the opposite of standard Christian teaching. Consider, for example, the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on the interpretation of Scripture: [www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm] That's a standard, mainstream Catholic view, written up in the early 20th century with reference to earlier writers. Look at how it discusses multiple meanings for passages. 86.161.213.137 (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to the interpretation of scripture, I would say that as soon as you discuss accuracy you are no longer within the scope of "secular" study ... so I would answer your question with "no, there have been no secular studies" - by definition. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allegorical interpretation might also be relevant here. Who decides if it is more "correct" to interpret something literally or allegorically? Especially when it was written thousands of years ago in a now dead language? I actually find this the height of arrogance that some people presume to "know" what the authors really meant with any confidence at all. This was one of the final nails in the coffin of my religious beliefs. Vespine (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that hard to learn "dead languages" where there is extant writing from the time period. It is because of the language used in Mark that a date of ~60 AD is given as its composition. If you have a hard time trusting the opinion of others, learn Ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Coptic and Aramaic. It's not that hard.24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be practically difficult, but not impossible. If a passage describes beliefs (such as Hebrew cosmology) that the Hebrews were known to have, rituals that they were known to have practiced, or historical events with independent verification, they're more likely to be literal. Admittedly, it's more difficult to definitively show that a passage is allegorical. --140.180.5.49 (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it depends on how you're defining 'allegorical' and 'literal'. In Catholic exegesis, it doesn't really make sense to talk about choose between the literal and allegorical senses of a passage: the allegorical and anagogical senses are supposed to depend upon the literal sense. Of course, Catholic belief would also say that we can rely upon Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, so that we don't have to just look at a book in isolation and decide what the author meant. And the importance of the Biblical texts to Catholics is not completely dependant on what the human authors originally intended, anyway, so I guess the approach can afford to be a little more lackadaisical about that aspect. 86.161.213.137 (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to submit fan art to anything. I just want to make a twirling phantom zone prison for a personal project that I am working on. I will, however, check with them to see if they know of such a website. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched the archives but can't find an answer to this specific question.
I am aware that the title of 'professor' is defined differently in different countries. In America, for instance it seems to refer to any teacher at a college. However, I was under the impression that in Britain a professor is ONLY the holder of the 'chair' in a given subject - i.e. the academic head of that department.
Can anyone with a better knowledge our our university system confirm that please? By the way, the reason I ask is that I am noticing more and more that even news stories from the renowned BBC are calling university lecturers, 'professors'.
Gurumaister (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a detailed explanation at our article professor. The BBC policy will be to stick to the UK usage except for people who have posts in foreign establishments that entitle them to be called Professor. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
by the way in the UK it isn't just the head of department who is entitled to the designation. It's a promoted post for those with a distinguished research record. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any examples of BBC stories misusing the word? Are you sure they aren't talking about lecturers in the UK who actually are professors, or people in other countries where the term has a different usage? Another point of confusion is honorary titles - if somebody is an "honorary professor", it isn't necessarily considered correct to call them a "professor". 81.98.43.107 (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well since Manchester University calls her a professor [7][8], I don't think you can blame the BBC. Whether she's really going to be a professor, I don't know but my gut feeling from [9] is that she is. I don't know what other examples you're thinking of, but ultimately if a university appoints someone as a professor in accordance to their rules, the BBC is not misusing the title by calling them that. To clarify some of the examples, the key point in the UK AFAIK (definitely in NZ) is that 'Professor' is a formal position and title awarded by the university; normally this occurs after a long period of scholarship (not necessarily at the university where the position is granted) but I guess in certain cases like 'creative writing', the university may feel other records qualify. (Professor also normally implies tenure, which seems unlikely here.) [10] suggests there has been some controversy over the position in the past. In the case of Manchester, I noticed [11] which is interesting because it shows there are a few professors but the head of subject is not one. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My (very limited) understanding is that, at least in the UK, the head of department is usually elected or appointed from among the academic staff, and there is no particular requirement that they should be a professor (though they often are, as the more senior staff tend to be professors). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where I work, heads of department are elected from among the professors. If there is an exceptional reason to appoint a head of department who is not a professor, consideration is given to awarding them professorial status. This may vary by university, but I've never known a serving head of an academic department here not be a professor. However, many professors are not heads of department; many, but not all, hold chairs. Warofdreamstalk16:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There also is the difference between the position of professor, and the form of address. In the US, every college teacher is addressed as Professor X, but that does not mean that he or she is a professor. I don't know about the custom in Britain - I tend to call them all "Alan" or "Andrei" or "Simon" or "Renate" ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, only professors are addressed as "Professor" X. People don't use titles like that in informal speech. Students from countries where the custom is to describe every academic, or every tenured academic, as "Professor" are seldom corrected, as such usage really doesn't matter. Warofdreamstalk16:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In The Iron Lady (film), one of the ministers comments on Thatcher's humiliating behaviour towards Geoffrey Howe with "I wouldn't have spoken to my gamekeeper like that." This somewhat implies that a gamekeeper is a servant of very low rank and prestige and therefore is often treated badly by his lord. As a non-English, I fail to understand the reasons - is this the case for gamekeepers in England, and if so, why? In Austria, gamekeeper is rather a responsible, well-respected and well-paid job. --KnightMove (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the traditional English employee structure pertaining to the landed gentry a Head Gamekeeper was/is a fairly senior servant, who would usually have been in charge of a number of more junior gamekeepers, aka "keepers", with even lesser relative prestige.
Nevertheless, until recently even a Head Gamekeeper was regarded as a servant rather than an employee in the modern sense (let alone as a slightly junior colleague, as Howe actually was with relation to Thatcher) and might well be treated as such by an unprogressive employer. Moreover, in general outdoor servants were considered to rank lower than indoor servants, so even the most senior outdoor servant - the Head Gamekeeper - would rank somewhat lower than the most senior indoor servant - the Butler.
There might also have been an intentional degree of irony in the observation, with the minister in question deliberately employing a slightly dated comparison to suggest that Thatcher was exhibiting an out-dated, autocratic attitude, but I haven't seen the film, or read about any actual historical remark on which the incident might have been based. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the themes of that film was the condescension with which traditional, aristocratic Tories treated Thatcher, whom they viewed as a vulgar parvenu (the grocer's daughter). That line suggests an aristocratic Tory's disapproval (and maybe resentment) of Thatcher for her failure to appreciate the social proprieties to do with rank and hierarchy. Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; he is also underlining the fact that he has the social status to actually HAVE a gamekeeper. Note that in the British class system, being in possession of a traditional agricultural and sporting (ie hunting, shooting and fishing) estate carries more status than being merely rich (like the Thatchers). Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most English people have probably never encountered a gamekeeper, and would not necessarily have any preconceptions about their status. What the film was considering was their status as perceived 30 or so years ago, by one of the "landed gentry" of that time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know how I could find out John Slidell DATE of birth not just the year. I have researched other sources and come up empty. I have tried using his mother's maiden name, since his older brother went by Alexander Slidell Mackenzie but no luck. Can you please advise where else I might look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.132.4 (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that article is somewhat inadequate -- Slidell had a reputation as a behind-the-scenes political intriguer, schemer, and manipulator, and was sometimes successful in influencing the Buchanan administration... AnonMoos (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I once heard, in France, an ethnic Albanian (I don't remember if he was from Albania or Kosovo) who had a (presumably Albanian) surname ending in -aj and pronounced, when he spoke French (he had learnt French in his country of origin), this surname with the ending [aʒ] (as would have a native French speaker) while I was expecting [aj]. Is -aj sometimes pronounced [aʒ] in Albanian or did this man likely alter his pronunciation when he spoke to a French audience?
The only other Albanian I can think of with that combination is Enver Gjokaj who seems to pronounce it like "eye" (or [aj]). But then, "soja" is pronounced with a [ʒ] in French so maybe the Albanian you met did alter the pronunciation according to French expectations. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it generally possible to earn a single doctorate in multiple fields from US universities? One of the sources I used for Augustus Caine (which I don't now have available to consult) seemed to suggest that he had gotten a single Ph.D in sociology and anthropology, but I'm wondering if he perhaps earned two separate doctorates. Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some universities have a "department of sociology and anthropology" (e.g. [12][13]), and a PhD obtained there may be referred to as being in "sociology and anthropology". Some universities also have interdisciplinary programs[14], in which case you might want to speak of a PhD as being in 2 or more disciplines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if anyone knows where to find the intriguing poem this writer mentions (paragraph 8): "I can’t remember the name of it, or who wrote it, and I might even be misremembering what it’s about. But in my memory, there is a stadium filled with all of the lives that a person could have led, and they are all sitting there, watching the life you’ve chosen play out the rest of the game." Textorus (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I had never heard the poem and this is based on a bit of creative Google-fu, but the poem could well be Leaves by Derek Mahon. I won't link to a web page, because I'm sure there are copyright issues, but to be honest, it is on a lot of blogs. FlowerpotmaN·(t)23:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of you guys know/could recommend any book in which a jigsaw puzzle has a major/relevant role in the plot? That is, a short story/novel where the characters must solve a jigsaw puzzle or a jigsaw puzzle has some relatively significant incidence in the plot in one way or another... I don't know, I noticed Wikipedia doesn't have an article called "Jigsaw puzzles in literature" and the article "Jigsaw puzzle" does not have an "In literature" section. Thanks!! :) --190.224.187.169 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a recommendation, as I haven't read it; but I googled jigsaw puzzle novel protagonist (the latter word included in order to exclude the dozens of jigsaw puzzles for sale that come up), and Life A User's Manual was the first to come up. No such novels or short stories appeared until the 6th page of google results. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last substantive sentence makes me think this was a wind-up question. If I'm right, well done everyone for your helpful replies with links, which is what we're here for. If I'm wrong, well, I'm an old cynic. --Dweller (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
