Humanities desk
< April 23	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 24

Patron saints

At one time, I recall reading a Wikipedia article about patron saints. It contained a list of saints and what each saint was patron of. So, for example, it would say "Saint Joseph, patron saint of carpenters", and so forth. I can't seem to find that Wikipedia article anymore. If the article still exists – I can't imagine it would not survive a deletion attempt – does anyone know the exact name of it, or can provide a link to it? If it no longer exists, does anyone know what happened to it? If it makes any difference, I am referring to saints in the Roman Catholic church. Many thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Patron saints, and it's possible that someone thought there was no need for both a category and a list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Patron saint and a List of saints, and when I searched for "list of patron saints", there's no article but there are several articles on sub-categories of saints. Presumably those could or should be added to the "see also" in Patron saint, unless it's already there and I overlooked it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, you are listed under patron saints of occupations and activities, patron saints of ailments, illness and dangers, and patron saints of places for example which are all basically lists (though the last one lists by region not by name). I agree with Bugs and have added these three links to the "See also" section (which is rather long now, but whatever). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Those are exactly the ones that I was looking for! Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph of Spadaro, Patron Saint of Wikipedia Editors? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

LOL. That's funny, Jack. I will have to run that by the Pope, and see if he approves! If so, we'll be good to go. Quite coincidentally, I had a meeting with the Pope scheduled for later on today anyway, on other matters. LOL. Thanks for a good laugh. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Our article says St Agatha is the patron saint of nurses; Shouldn't she be a Matron saint?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term apparently is "patroness". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, who is the patron saint of Wikipedia and its editors? Sjö (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be St. Anyone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anger. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's St Isidore of Seville. DuncanHill (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Hubbins? --Jayron32 20:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Eve Baker? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK House of Lords age minimum

Before Labour functionally abolished the lords of the realm, were there age qualifications for House of Lords membership for the hereditary peers? Edward Russell, 26th Baron de Clifford succeeded to the barony at age two, due to his father's death; I'm left wondering whether he were a member from age two, or from achieving majority (and if so, at what age?), or upon attaining some other benchmark. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Lords article indicates that 21 is the minimum age to take a seat in the House. This restriction is detailed in The Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to Public Business. The age limit is found on page 8, which notes that this provision was first recorded in 1685. - Eron^Talk 20:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd overlooked the bit about the age limit, so I also failed to see the citation. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Age of consent spain - wrong information in wikipedia

Hello,

someone changed the information about the minimum age of consent in Spain on this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Spain based on that article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/spain-raises-age-of-consent Actually the marriageable age was raised to 16 (with parental consent). But the raising of the age of sexual consent was just a proposal of the rightwing conservatives just as removing sex education from the curriculum, which would be ridiculous. You shouldn't change wikipedia informations based on such vague articles. In the article you can read "the change is expected to come into force this month". In this later article: http://theantifeminist.com/spain-raises-age-of-consent-to-16/ you can read "the measure is part of a draft law to be approved by the council of ministers by the end of this month. It will then be debated in Parliament for its final approval." It did NOT get it's final approval. I don't know how to change that information back, so I ask you, dear reader, to do so. Or tell me how to do it. Thank you very much and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.205.14 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've done a good job at finding sources. See WP:RS to make sure they qualify. Then, just click the "edit" button at the top of the page, and make it say the right thing! WP:STYLE has some info about how to write, but it's ok to be WP:BOLD. Since you've already made progress, please just WP:SOFIXIT! If you need further help on editing, you can ask at Wikipedia:Help_desk or look through Wikipedia:New_contributors'_help_page. Thanks for helping to make WP better! SemanticMantis (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Viking

A perennial problem with our Vikings article is its scope. In popular usage, a Norwegian peasant in 900 AD who never left his home region is apparently a Viking, but do any academic sources follow this broad definition, too? Calling all early medieval Norse "Vikings" strikes me as no less uninformed than imagining Vikings with horned helmets. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it says Vikings are Norse seafarers. A peasant who never leaves home doesn't travel the seas, so even with a magic hammer, wouldn't be a Viking by our lead. Not sure what the academics say. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the talk page this is a new development. I prefer it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps at all, as an example of usage, with an explanation, try the Oxford University Press's "The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings"; on page 2, in Peter Sawyer's contribution, it notes how the term was originally used by the English in the 9th century to refer to the Scandinavians, the changing meaning of the term over time, and how "it now has a wider meaning, and is used to describe many aspects of Scandinavian society in what is commonly called the Age of the Vikings". Hchc2009 (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This writer acknowledges the creep of the broader definition and makes a concession in his book, but "To the general public, however, it has apparently two meanings; both are respectable and hallowed in the English language by two centuries of usage. The first is in the sense of 'raider' or 'pirate', the second in the sense of the activities of the Scandinavians outside their own country in that period."

Wikipedia writes for the general public. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We write to inform the general public, though - not to confirm their misconceptions. And you only have to head over to the British Museums' Twitter feed this evening to see the word being put out by experts that 'viking' is not an ethnicity at all, but a lifestyle. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. A seafaring lifestyle. A pygmy could be a Viking, but a farmer couldn't, whenever he lived. Unless he stopped being a farmer, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, also, that the idea of "Norse = vikings" is a new idea; the word was in Old English, used for raiders. Look at the Wikisource text of "The Battle of Maldon", which constantly uses various forms of "wīcing" because it's dealing with a viking invasion, while the first lines of the account of Ohthere of Hålogaland, Ohthere sæde his hlaforde Ælfrede kynincge þæt he ealra Norðmanna norðmest bude, i.e. "Ohthere told his lord King Alfred that he lived farthest north of all the Northmen". Norðman is used in a substantially different sense from wīcing. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Normandy, treats Vikings and Norsemen as synonyms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Normandy, you wouldn't have been encountering Norsement who weren't vikings. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. In some places, I'd bet this is still an "American". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that "wīcing" is related to "wicca/n"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not. 'Wicca' comes from a proto-Germanic word for a sorcerer; 'wicing' is obscure, but is generally thought to relate to ON 'vik', meaning a gulf or bay. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OED disagrees; it accepts the seafaring origin of <víkingr> in ON, but it argues that the term appears in English and Frisian long before its appearance in ON. Therefore, it argues that the term arises from OE <wíc>, a camp, which is cognate with <wick> in toponyms such as Warwick. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to some traditional definitions, those who sailed west of the Skagerrak were Vikings, while those who went east were "Varangians"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. That's an additional problem. Are warriors/raiders/traders from early medieval Sweden Vikings? Only in a very loose sense. Are early medieval Swedish peasants Vikings? Affirming that would, in my eyes, mean to go even further into horned-helmets terrority. Why make "Vikings" synonymous with "early medieval Norse" when there is a perfectly serviceable word for the concept of the early medieval Norse in general, namely Norsemen? I'm pretty sure that nobody would call a Swedish peasant from any time period a Varangian, so why Viking, which is even less appropriate? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish/Irish currency

In the debate on Scottish independence, much has been made of the alleged difficulty of an independent Scotland sharing the UK currency. But how would this differ from the situation in the Irish Republic, whose currency (Irish Pound or Punt) was at par with the pound Sterling for 50 years, from 1928 to 1979?--rossb (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between choosing to peg your own currency which you issue as a sovereign state to another currency (as was the case in Ireland) and either using another sovereign state's currency as your de facto currency or forming a currency union with another state (which would be the two theoretical options that would enable Scotland to continue to use the UK pound). Valiantis (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful if we had better coverage of the settlement between India and Pakistan at Partition. In the meantime, this might be of interest. Partition and the 55 crore issue. DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Ireland, they were entirely at the whim of the British fiscal policy makers. As I understand it, the SNP were hoping that in a currency union, they might have some say it what happens. Alansplodge (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ireland were affected by British fiscal policy, but only because they chose to peg their currency - which they issued themselves - to the UK pound. They were in a sort of informal currency union. There came a point when they chose not to do that (in 1979 order to remain in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism of which the UK was not a member at that time). If an independent Scotland uses the UK pound as its de facto currency it will not have that option as it will have no currency of its own to de-peg. This situation would be avoided if there was a formal currency union but all parties who are likely to form a continuing UK government have said they would not enter such an arrangement. Now this might be a negotiating stance but I remain at a loss as to why it would be to the UK's advantage to form a currency union with an independent Scotland unless Scotland agreed to very strict economic rules which would remove much of its ability to spend its money as it saw fit which would largely invalidate the point of independence. Valiantis (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an additional complication: even though politicians may be adopting a "negotiating stance", if Scotland were to seek to "retain the pound" by some sort of currency union, the voting public in England in such a situation would quickly see the disadvantages of running such a policy and would punish any English politicians who supported such a currency union. (It would be interesting to see polls of English voters asking their opinion of Scotland retaining sterling in the event of a "yes" vote...) The best that the Scots would be able to do if they sought to retain stable trade with by far their largest trading partner would be to peg an independent Scottish pound to sterling and hope for the best. Over the short term this might work, but in the medium- to long-term, because it is likely that the Scottish economy would become de-skilled, this would probably be crucifyingly painful. Worse, the only reasonable alternative would be to peg to the Euro or adopt the Euro outright, either of which would create similar but worse problems. Really, the problem for the pro-independence movement is that Scotland, England and Wales have been so tightly integrated for so long that they form a single natural unit in which different national and regional traditions are underpinned by a unified economic and cultural framework. RomanSpa (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Scottish economy would become de-skilled" ? Why ? StuRat (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly clear that almost certainly in its earlier years, and very probably in later years too, an independent Scottish government would follow a generally less strict and more interventionist economic policy. This would likely to lead to some combination of a weakening currency, higher interest rates, higher personal tax rates, and higher corporate tax rates, relative to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Well-educated and ambitious people in such an economy are more likely to consider emigration than average, and just to the south of Scotland there would be a relatively better-placed economy with fewer economic disadvantages, shared language and communications, highly compatible employment systems, almost the same culture, an enormous pre-existing Scottish expatriate community, and a long tradition of welcoming Scottish migrants at all levels of society. It's hard to see how this would end well for an independent Scotland. RomanSpa (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might work out better for Scotland, as their economy is more similar and linked to to the rest of the UK's than back when Ireland was in poverty. The US/Canada case might be instructive. While those currencies aren't pegged, they always seem to trade in a fairly narrow range, due to the similarity and interlinkage of their economies, despite the difference in the scale of the populations. StuRat (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The US/Canada case is one of independent currencies that happen not to have diverged very far from one another since the Canadian dollar was de-pegged and floated in 1970. Probably this is, as you say, because the two economies and hence their monetary policies have been closely linked. An actual peg, such as existed between Canada and the United States before 1970 or between the UK and Ireland before 1978, comes with a loss of financial sovereignty for the dependent country and could make the country's central bank unable to respond to recession or speculative bubbles. Ireland had no voice in setting monetary policy for the pound sterling (and hence for Ireland's own currency), whereas Scotland wants to keep the pound sterling and have a voice in its monetary policy. The Irish peg happened to work generally in Ireland's favor when it existed because 1) it gave domestic depositors and foreign investors reassurance that the local currency was tied to one of the leading hard currencies, and 2) this was largely an inflationary period, and to the extent that prices in Ireland inflated more slowly than those in the UK, Ireland gained a competitive advantage. However, we are now in a period of disinflation or even outright deflation, and a peg tends to be harmful in such a context because the only way to maintain or increase competitive advantage is to compel workers to accept wage cuts or to put through other cost-cutting measures, which tend to be politically difficult or impossible. Also, it isn't clear from the outset that Scotland would gain investment by pegging to sterling as Ireland probably did because investors would probably have nearly as much confidence in a Scottish pound as they do in sterling, given the strong state of the Scottish economy. It is hard to imagine that Scotland would choose to peg its currency to a pound sterling without any voice in setting monetary policy for sterling, though anything is possible. If the Westminster government and the Bank of England reject a monetary union with Scotland (and after all, monetary union without fiscal union has not worked well in the euro zone), Scotland's most likely course would be to adopt an independent pound that would initially be valued at parity with sterling but that would then float in response to market forces, just as Canada's dollar has done since 1970. Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need to borrow some paragraph breaks ? Here you go: ¶ ¶ ¶. :-) StuRat (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]