Humanities desk
< November 12	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 14 >

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.

November 13

Birmingham, England hotel, meals, and transportation fees

I am planning to go to Brimingham, England for a business trip. How many hotels are there in Birmingham and which mode of transportation are available to use like taxi or transit or bus? Also, how much is the meal at the hotel that are found in the city? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels: there are lots, at all different quality levels and distances from the city centre. Tripadvisor.co.uk found 137 hotels in Birmingham.

Transportation: There are regular buses to pretty much everywhere in the West Midlands; a single ticket is £1.80 and a day pass is £4. Birmingham is a major railway hub, so has regular trains to most of the UK's major cities, plus most local towns and some of Birmingham's suburbs. There is one tram line that goes to Wolverhampton via West Bromwich, but no underground (subway). Taxis exist, but are pretty expensive (about £2 / mile for black cabs; private hire cabs are cheaper) and fairly uncommon compared to some other countries (I'm not sure where you're from); unless you're in the city centre you'll probably have to phone for a taxi instead of hailing one.

Meals: It depends heavily on the hotel and what you want to eat and drink. An evening meal at a mid-range hotel might cost you around £10 - £20 including drinks.

59.108.42.46 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an extensive article on Birmingham. I suggest you read that and follow the links you're interested in. As stated above, there is a huge range of options. City centre hotels are, of course, expensive, but there are plenty of cheap hotels a little further out, especially along the Hagley Road. A minor correction to the above is that single bus fares are now £1.90. Don't bother with the tram; it is slow, uncomfortable and doesn't go anywhere useful (unless you're planning to watch Aston Villa F.C. playing at home).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham is a fairly sizable city. You could help us help you if you told us two things:

where in the city you need to go to for your business meetings and
approximately what star accommodation you'd prefer to have

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that you may be better off visiting one of Birmingham's many restaurants or pubs for a meal, rather than staying in the hotel to eat. There are 3 Michelin starred restaurants in the city. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you want to try a real curry, visit the Balti Triangle. --Viennese Waltz 10:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bus services in Birmingham are more numerous and more frequent than in, for example, the USA, but, like bus services in most other parts of the world, they're not always terribly convenient if you're not already familiar with the service and the area. So for example, even if you check bus routes and timetables to find a bus that goes past your destination, you may still run into the problem that you might not know what the area around your destination looks like - some bus drivers will remember to tell you when to get off, but many won't. Also, buses can be slow, or might not go near to your destination. If you're in a hotel, the hotel reception can arrange a private hire taxi for you, which shouldn't be too expensive. But do also get an idea of the geography of where you're going to and from - a destination that lists Birmingham as the nearest big city, could perhaps be forty miles away from the city centre, and that would be somewhat expensive by private hire taxi.

Most hotel meals will be less good value than local restaurants. Partly this is because they usually pay their staff a living wage (so the expectation of sizeable tips is not the same as in the USA). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. In the United States, restaurants outside the hotel also usually offer better value than hotel restaurants. Marco polo (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I can answer that. It was to do with the original poster's question, which concerned transportation and the cost of meals. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a new brand project to answer thinks like that.--85.55.218.120 (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Kanahele

Was George Kanahele a descendant of Isaac Davis' son George Hueu Davis?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azania

Azania/South Africa is a redirect to the article on South Africa, while Azania is about "various parts of southeastern sub-Saharan Africa". I recall that some wanted to change the name of post-apartheid South Africa entirely, and that Azania was one of the candidates for the new name. This is perhaps confirmed by the redirect, but there is nothing about the naming issue in the South Africa article. Can anyone point to sources that would confirm my recollection? (And yes, I do realize that this would be better brought up on the article's talk page, but I have left so many similar queries on other talk pages which have never been answered that I have had enough of that method.) --Viennese Waltz 10:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A senior government official has stoked up the debate on place names by suggesting that South Africa should be renamed Azania.

SA should be called Azania, says youth group

South Africa vs. Azania (academic paper from 1985)

Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania ...South African organization and later political party pursuing “Africanist” policies in South Africa (which they would rename Azania)

Hope one of these helps! 184.147.123.169 (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Azania/South Africa-naming debate has largely died out. It was relevant when the PAC was somewhat strong and a real competitor of ANC for domestic and international support. Since PAC had good links with China, pro-Chinese groups around the world would use 'Azania' in a simila fashion as to 'Namibia' (instead of South West Africa) and 'Zimbabwe' (instead of Rhodesia). --Soman (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom marry King George V of Hanover?

Had Princess Victoria of Kent married her paternal cousin, Prince George of Cumberland, rather than her maternal cousin, the Kingdom of Hanover would have remained in personal union with the United Kingdom - perhaps even to the present day. Victoria's infatuation with her actual husband is well-known. However, it is also well-known that a majority of marriages at the time were marriages of convenience, not love. George was only three days younger than Victoria. He was a British prince and therefore would've certainly been more popular than Albert. So, why didn't the Parliament (or whatever) urge her to marry him? Surtsicna (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven forfend, Parliament would have had no role in it. Our article Albert,_Prince_Consort#Marriage, makes it clear that Victoria fell in love with Albert from an early age, despite the King's disapproval. In Victoria's eyes, he was better looking than the King's preferred candidate. A royal princess in that era may have been introduced to appropriate suitors, but would have had considerable freedom in choosing among them and others who were appropriate. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna -- I don't think Victoria liked him that much (he was blind, and adopted somewhat the views of his father, who was a famous ultra-reactionary), and many in British politics were just as happy to let the continental entanglement lapse (Britain's general policy was a strong navy and no permanent European allies, but rather intervening to maintain the balance of power when necessary). AnonMoos (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that continued personal union between Britain and Hanover was not necessarily in either nation's best interest. Denmark had a personal union with Holstein, and that turned into the biggest charlie-foxtrot of the 19th century, the Schleswig-Holstein question. Britain probably got off easy by dividing the crowns. As no British monarch was directly involved with the day-to-day operations in Hanover since George II (they generally worked through viceregal representatives that were given free rein in Hanover (i.e. Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge). --Jayron32 18:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would not George, a king in his own right, and in the line of succession for the British crown, have expected to be a King Regnant, rather than a ~~King~~ Prince Consort like Albert settled for? μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albert settled for Prince Consort, not King Consort. --Dweller (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Prince, but I had the mindreading function of the spellchecker disabled. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George would not have been made King Regnant under any circumstance - he couldn't legally have been made King Regnant simply by marrying Victoria. The Sovereign is chosen based on the provisions of Acts of Parliament, at the time primarily the Act of Settlement 1701; there is no provision to throw a Queen Regnant off the throne and replace her with her husband, which is what "making George King Regnant" would have meant. Nobody would have changed the succession to supplant the Queen. Famously, Victoria could not even get Parliament to extend the wholly symbolic title of King Consort to Albert.

This, incidentally, is why newspaper articles that claim Elizabeth II could bypass Charles and make William her heir are 100% genuine bovine excrement. Elizabeth has no say in who succeeds her; the succession is based on acts passed by the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms. The only way Charles will not succeed her is if he predeceases her, converts to Roman Catholicism before he succeeds, or remarries before he succeeds to someone who is a communicant of the Roman Catholic church on the day of their marriage. --NellieBly (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that he would automatically become King Regnant, only that he likely would have expected it. Had such an idea been broached to Vicky her biographical films make it seem unlikely she'd've tolerated the notion. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was the precedent of Philip II of Spain, who married Mary I of England and was accorded the dignity of King of England jure uxoris. See also List of English monarchs#House of Tudor, where his case is discussed a little. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask the same question three years ago?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a new record for the longest time between the exact same poster asking the same question twice? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously did! In fact, it appears to have been the same time of the year. That's incredible. I don't think I saw the answers though, otherwise I would have responded. Perhaps that's why I forgot about asking it. Your memory is excellent, though. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's tremendous. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations back in the day

How did people cite sources, back in the day, before typewriters and computers? Did they put in quotes, italics, and underline? Were people forced to write in print writing and italics had a little slant? How do you put in italics on a typewriter? Did people of long ago use a citation formatting style without using italics - maybe an earlier version of MLA, APA, AMA? This inquiry is out of personal interest and curiosity, thank you very much.

Back in the day, about 10-20 years ago, I do remember libraries would catalog things by hand in file cabinets. Each book would be properly cited and formatted on index cards and placed in the file cabinet in accordance to the Dewey Decimal System. It seems that nowadays those file cabinets have been replaced by computers and floppy disks have been replaced by USB drives. Libraries used to stamp books for their due dates; nowadays, they just have self-serving tables where clients may borrow books electronically and be given receipts.

140.254.227.136 (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends largely on what you mean by "back in the day". For starters, you may enjoy browsing the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. You can get free access to many articles, starting with their first issue in 1665, here [1]. One thing that stands out is that early science "articles" were styled as letters. As such, citations to others' work were simply described in words. Here's a snippet of how citations were handled in the age of reason, where most of our modern western academic customs originate:

"There was lately sent to one of the Secretaries of the Royal Society a Packet, containing some Copies of a Printed Paper, Entituled, The Ephemerides of the Comet, made by the same Person, that sent it, called Monsieur Auzout, a French Gentleman of no ordinary Merit and Learning..."

-- It goes on and on - an 11-line sentence! As you can see, these articles were typeset, presumably from a hand-written source. So they can and did make free use of italics, capitalization, and other typographic tools. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone to high school and college in the pre-personal-computer, pre-stand-alone-word-processor era (without being too precise, lets say prior to the mid-1970's), I can attest to the fact that we most certainly did have to cite sources and did so exclusively through quotation marks, underlining, and punctuation. Citation form was very well developed at that point for legal matters, but at least in my experience was not nearly so well-defined nor so strict for literary citations (my only other encounter with formal citations). I'm not familiar with scientific, medical, or other specialized disciplines. Italics, boldfacing, and small capitals were not required in handwritten or typewritten material. The lack of flexibility that those provided, along with the fact that most citation guides were written for typeset (i.e. professionally printed) materials, often resulted it quite a bit of confusion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC) PS: By "stand-alone word processor" I meant electronic typewriter. The first access I had to italics (and woo-hoo!! typefaces other than Courier, was the IBM Selectric typewriter, but many institutions would not allow their use even after that. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that, by 1801, something similar to a modern parenthetical citation format was in use by Roy. Soc. publishing, see here [2]. Being a math article, it also illustrates the great lengths that they were willing to go to to typeset their content. Further browsing of the archive might illuminate how and when the citation styles evolved. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read all about it: [The Footnote: A Curious History ]. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, once submitted papers in university using just a typewriter (though my university career spanned the widespread adoption of PCs and Macs). To produce a footnote, I would turn the cylinder to lower the page just a bit, then type the footnote number. At the end of the paper, the footnotes would be listed in order and citations written in proper style. Since italics were not possible, text that would be italicized in print was underlined. In text parenthetical citations were easier, using the same underline-for-italics convention. Marco polo (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, underlining was considered equivalent to italicizing, so if you had a typewriter of the pre-IBM Selectric type you would use underlining, which required you to type the words, then move the typewriter carriage back and type underlines. As for footnotes, my dissertation from the 1970s has bottom-of-the-page footnotes, which of course required the typist (not the author, who usually hand-wrote) to do some planning as to how far down to put the footnotes at the bottom of the page: If you went too far down the page to start the page's first footnote, and there ended up being a lot of footnotes on that page, you'd run out of room for them at the bottom of the page. On the other hand, if you started too far up the page you could end up with blank space at the bottom of the page. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I'd forgotten about the professional typist corps. Back in the old days most students didn't know how to type. If you needed a paper typed you needed to hire a typist, which in turn meant that you had to have the work complete and correct well before it was due. --NellieBly (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) I was one of those beneficient women back in the day and made quite a good living out of it. Wish I could do the same now! Anyway, the answer was that footnotes were not allowed in the style guides of the institutions whose students I worked for: there were, rather, endnotes. (What I don't miss was all those carbon paper sheets - if you made a typing error it would take ages to correct!) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nakai Nalimaʻaluʻalu Davis

A while back ago, I edited Isaac Davis (Hawaii)'s article and said his first wife Nakai Nalimaʻaluʻalu died in the uku'u plague, but I didn't leave any reference to cite this. I am currently going back to cite most of my articles, but I am having difficulties finding where I got the info from. It could be from the http://familiesofoldhawaii.com/getperson.php?personID=I4054&tree=Ano website but it could from somewhere else too. How do I search google without getting clone wikipedia entries; I mean searching with "-wikipedia and -wiki" doesn't even work anymore.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try a minus sign and then a phrase from the article in quotes which you don't think will be in your target, for example -"chiefs became angry" --Cam (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God's grace

In Christian theology, what does it take for a (Christian) person to do something in the bad graces of God to the point that God forsakes all hope for that person's salvation? Is there a sin that is unforgivable? 140.254.227.134 (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to read Eternal sin.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See post above. The way you phrase it (God forsaking hope) sounds a bit strange, but see Eternal sin. Jesus said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but there are different views among theologians as to what constitutes this sin. - Lindert (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation required for "Jesus said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven". It's commonly understood in Christian theology that there is simply no such thing as an unforgiveable sin. If there were, there could be no such thing as unconditional love. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Jack, it's Mark 3 (plus Matthew 12, plus Luke 12), the first scripture cited in the twice-linked eternal sin article. As noted, theologians don't agree on what the passage means, but the surface reading is pretty straightforward. — Lomn 20:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cites. My brain was partially out of action due to an eclipse of the sun. Lucky for me I wasn't in North Queensland. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of an unforgivable sin is not incompatible with unconditional love if God preserves those that He loves unconditionally from committing that sin. This ties in with perseverance of the saints. - Lindert (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which also gets into the thorny issue of predestination. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 18:21-22 should also be mentioned in this context ("seventy times seven"). I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that we're allowed to commit 490 sins with impunity and 491 irretrievably sends us to the hot place, but the passage can be interpreted as Dominical authority for the concept that we don't have an _unlimited_ reserve of divine forgivness to draw on. Tevildo (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, that causes God to for sake you. The unforgiveable sin indeed is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but this sin is not unforgivable for the reason that God will not forgive, but that He cannot forgive those who do not seek to be forgiven. Blasphemy against the Spirit refers to pride agianst the Spirit's convictions, refusing to recognise your own sins. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cousins

One person is the great-grandson of an individual, his wife is the great-great-great grandddaughter of the same individual. How are they related?

They're second cousins ~~once~~ twice removed. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cousins share a grandparent, second cousins share a great-grandparent. When the same person A is the grandparent of B, and the great grandparent of C, then B and C are first cousins, once removed - once, because there is one "level" added in the grandparent vs. great-grandparent issue. When A is the great-grandparent of B, and the great-great-grandparent of C, then B and C are second cousins, once removed. So, I think the answer to your question is "Second cousins, twice removed." See the nice pictures at cousin, but understand this is not really a formal nomenclature... SemanticMantis (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Second cousins twice removed. Jack is still struggling with that eclipse! --Tango (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I miscounted the greats. I'm having a hell of a day so far. Who says humans are not susceptible to celestial influences? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought fourth cousin, twice removed would work too since they are two generations removed from being fourth cousins along with being two generations removed from being second cousin. So it is always relative to the most senior person that the degree of cousinage is defined by? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The "removed" bit goes downward. The "senior" person drives it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here I though they answer was they were married. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses are typically not related, i.e. blood-related, but rather "related by marriage". In this case, it's both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia article on Cousins for easy to understand charts and diagrams. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

found an old handwrite book and want to know what is his origins

hello my father found a persian old book i think about a 200 years and its got 2 stamps can any one can tell me what is that book ? its in a lather case and i can show images as well as u need idont know this lang that why im seeking for help thnx for the helpers

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/2589/cimg4264.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img404/6049/cimg4256.JPG

http://imageshack.us/a/img100/4615/cimg4257z.jpg

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6509/cimg4258w.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img507/1245/cimg4259n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.232 (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read that language either, but it looks almost like an autograph book, with different scripts (and maybe different languages), in different styles, written at different angles. I would have said it's just scrap paper, except that some of the writings look like they were made rather carefully, what with drawing lines first, and filling the letters in with color later. Another possibility is that a student was practicing his writing there, trying different styles out. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't offer much helpful advice, but those stamps might be Ex Libris. 192.51.44.16 (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked an editor who knows Arabic if they would provide some input. I just realised that the text in the book actually may be Farsi, it seems their script looks similar to the untrained eye. Whichever language, hopefully we will learn something when an expert takes a look at it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farsi and Arabic are written with the same alphabet, though Farsi has certain extra letters (پ گ چ), and sometimes tends to favor different calligraphic styles (Nasta'liq vs. Naskh etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first page of the book (image 4264) I am sure is in Arabic and it seems to be like a prayer. The first line "Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim" is obvious and the rest could be a few verses from the Koran or just some standard prayer which I don't recognize. This by the way is very common even today especially if the book is of a religious nature. The rest is Farsi I am sure but can't say anything about the text or the seals.184.96.226.214 (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]