Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 March 22
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 21 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 23 > |
| 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. |
March 22
[edit]Learning performing arts
[edit]Any open course sites where course content pf performing arts (acting) can be accessed ? Where can I download class lectures ?
Learnerktm 11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have you tried iTunesU?
- Typically, most performance artists learn most of the important stuff on the job. The essence is in connecting with people, and figuring out what does that best comes with trial, error and listening to criticism. Even if you just intend to work in film, you'll need to impress in auditions and on-set. Best to train with people, too.
- That's not what you asked, but it's a free mini-lecture. I'm not certified to give paid ones, so take it as you will. Here's WikiHow as a bonus. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Age of Cambridge University Press Bible by edition notice
[edit]I have a Cambridge University Press Bible whose leather is impressed with "French Morocco", which would imply that it was printed between 1912-1956. However, its edition notice does not include dates. It says:
Published by the Syndics of Cambridge University Press
Bentley House, 200 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB
American Branch: 32 East 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10022
Printed in Great Britain
at the University Printing House, Cambridge
This is clearly not the modern form of edition notice. I was wondering whether that fact could help me further rein in the possible printing dates: Does anyone know when the modern edition notice, which contains copyrights, ISBNs and printing dates, first became the standard in British printing? --2.98.123.111 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- According to Postcodes in the United Kingdom, modern 6 character alphanumeric post codes in the UK didn't exist until 1959, so the 1956 date seems too early. In fact, if I'm understanding the article correctly, the NW1 post code probably didn't come until 1970. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- And the American ZIP codes weren't introduced until 1963.Taknaran (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, and French Morocco is a name for imitation (made of sheepskin) Morocco leather, says that article. Also, some information in Copyright notice might be relevant - though a Bible is public domain - it says such a notice was required up to 1989 in America (so I suppose it's unlikely a big company would omit it) and has been optional since. There are also some interesting dates give in How to Identify Simon and Schuster First Editions - I could not find something similar for Cambridge University Press but the dates in that article possibly reflect standard practice in America. Taknaran (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, was going to say something similar to the ZIP code point. Further evidence, take a look at this from 1962 [1], with neither ZIP code nor post code (and also a Nigerian office). As for the copyright notice, as you mentioned if it isn't a modern translation, there may be nothing anyone can claim copyright over. The example above does include a simple claim of copright which may have been sufficient for the US and most other countries. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Seems the 1970 date is probably right. None of these, probably from 1968 [2], 1969 [3] [4], 1970 [5] [6] [7]; have the UK post code. Meanwhile these probably from 1971 [8] [9] do not. While these also probably from 1971 [10] [11] do have the UK post code. So I expect the bible is 1971 (perhaps 1970) or later. Note that these tend to have simple claims of copyright too except for one which sounds to be a bit old, some I'm guessing it may be similar, no claim of copyright. Interesting these do tend to have standard book numbers and often US Library of Congress numbers. All 1971 ones seem to have ISBNs. It may be they didn't bother with that for a bible. Note that they all have some date, generally the copyright one, or often a reprinted date. Again, I would guess they didn't bother for a bible. (This is also the reason I say probably. I'm assuming the latest date is the date of printing, but I could be wrong, e.g. if someone forgot to update it (although this would probably mean they didn't update the other stuff anyway so it's a moot point for out purposes). Also depending on how it was implemented, they may not have be entirely consistent in stuff either. So it wouldn't be completely surprising if a book printed in February 1971 has a UK post code, but one in November 1971 doesn't. Hence the possibility of 1970. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Final quicky comment. These probably from 1974 [12] [13] as with these probably from 1975 [14] [15] have the same addresses as above only. These probably from 1975 [16] [17] have an Australian and Cambridge, UK address. Bearing in mind the above caveats (they may not have been entirely consistent, can't be sure of dates), I would suspect 1975 or may be a bit later would be the upper bound year. I did try looking for the Australian address in 1974, couldn't find anything but results which weren't from 1974 (reprints or Google error), except for one I wasn't sure what year. Of course there's also OCR difficulties and the the unknown sample of books Google even has indexed, but it wouldn't surprise me if 1975 was then they started with the Australian and Cambridge addresses. There is a slight possibility that they went back to the same 2 address at some stage later, but probably not. (I saw a small number more examples besides the ones were I particularly looked for it with Australian or Cambridge addresses.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Nil Einne, I think that you misread our "Postcodes in the United Kingdom" article which says; "On 1 May 1967 postcodes were introduced in Croydon.". I grew up in London in the 1960s and we certainly didn't use any post code other than the London postal district until the end of the decade. Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Alansplodge, do you mean the date of 1970 for the NW1 post code is wrong, or the (October) 1959 date for first trial use of 6 character alphanumeric postcodes in the UK (in Norwich) is wrong or something else? I don't particularly get the importance of Croydon in relation to this question. While that may have been the beginning of the proper rollout, it also postdated the first trial introduction. If we're looking at 6 character alphanumeric postcodes in general, they already existed in trial form in Norwich at least as per our article, albeit in slightly different form to the above (2 numbers rather than 1 after the first 3 characters) since October 1959. So if the above address was a Norwich one, it probably could have had a 6 digit post code if it was any one of the 150,000 places that we part of the trial. I guess since if you take the above postcode, it does have only 1 number after the first 3 digits so we can see offhand it's not trial one. But I didn't look carefully enough to rule out Croydon following the current format, although looking now, it sounds like it did. However if we're going to look more carefully at the post code, we might as well look at the fact it doesn't seem to be either a Norwich (NOR) or any of the Croydon postcodes. So the perhaps more important point if we're going to look at the postcode beyond the fact it was a 6 character alphanumeric one was the introduction of the NW1 postcode which was probably in 1970 at least if I'm understanding our article correctly when it says "1970 codes were introduced to the London W and North Western postal districts". Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Many apologies, I somehow misread your post (that Monday morning feeling!). 1970 seems to be a plausible date for full London postcodes, although of course the NW1 part has a much longer history. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Alansplodge, do you mean the date of 1970 for the NW1 post code is wrong, or the (October) 1959 date for first trial use of 6 character alphanumeric postcodes in the UK (in Norwich) is wrong or something else? I don't particularly get the importance of Croydon in relation to this question. While that may have been the beginning of the proper rollout, it also postdated the first trial introduction. If we're looking at 6 character alphanumeric postcodes in general, they already existed in trial form in Norwich at least as per our article, albeit in slightly different form to the above (2 numbers rather than 1 after the first 3 characters) since October 1959. So if the above address was a Norwich one, it probably could have had a 6 digit post code if it was any one of the 150,000 places that we part of the trial. I guess since if you take the above postcode, it does have only 1 number after the first 3 digits so we can see offhand it's not trial one. But I didn't look carefully enough to rule out Croydon following the current format, although looking now, it sounds like it did. However if we're going to look more carefully at the post code, we might as well look at the fact it doesn't seem to be either a Norwich (NOR) or any of the Croydon postcodes. So the perhaps more important point if we're going to look at the postcode beyond the fact it was a 6 character alphanumeric one was the introduction of the NW1 postcode which was probably in 1970 at least if I'm understanding our article correctly when it says "1970 codes were introduced to the London W and North Western postal districts". Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Nil Einne, I think that you misread our "Postcodes in the United Kingdom" article which says; "On 1 May 1967 postcodes were introduced in Croydon.". I grew up in London in the 1960s and we certainly didn't use any post code other than the London postal district until the end of the decade. Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Final quicky comment. These probably from 1974 [12] [13] as with these probably from 1975 [14] [15] have the same addresses as above only. These probably from 1975 [16] [17] have an Australian and Cambridge, UK address. Bearing in mind the above caveats (they may not have been entirely consistent, can't be sure of dates), I would suspect 1975 or may be a bit later would be the upper bound year. I did try looking for the Australian address in 1974, couldn't find anything but results which weren't from 1974 (reprints or Google error), except for one I wasn't sure what year. Of course there's also OCR difficulties and the the unknown sample of books Google even has indexed, but it wouldn't surprise me if 1975 was then they started with the Australian and Cambridge addresses. There is a slight possibility that they went back to the same 2 address at some stage later, but probably not. (I saw a small number more examples besides the ones were I particularly looked for it with Australian or Cambridge addresses.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Seems the 1970 date is probably right. None of these, probably from 1968 [2], 1969 [3] [4], 1970 [5] [6] [7]; have the UK post code. Meanwhile these probably from 1971 [8] [9] do not. While these also probably from 1971 [10] [11] do have the UK post code. So I expect the bible is 1971 (perhaps 1970) or later. Note that these tend to have simple claims of copyright too except for one which sounds to be a bit old, some I'm guessing it may be similar, no claim of copyright. Interesting these do tend to have standard book numbers and often US Library of Congress numbers. All 1971 ones seem to have ISBNs. It may be they didn't bother with that for a bible. Note that they all have some date, generally the copyright one, or often a reprinted date. Again, I would guess they didn't bother for a bible. (This is also the reason I say probably. I'm assuming the latest date is the date of printing, but I could be wrong, e.g. if someone forgot to update it (although this would probably mean they didn't update the other stuff anyway so it's a moot point for out purposes). Also depending on how it was implemented, they may not have be entirely consistent in stuff either. So it wouldn't be completely surprising if a book printed in February 1971 has a UK post code, but one in November 1971 doesn't. Hence the possibility of 1970. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, was going to say something similar to the ZIP code point. Further evidence, take a look at this from 1962 [1], with neither ZIP code nor post code (and also a Nigerian office). As for the copyright notice, as you mentioned if it isn't a modern translation, there may be nothing anyone can claim copyright over. The example above does include a simple claim of copright which may have been sufficient for the US and most other countries. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, and French Morocco is a name for imitation (made of sheepskin) Morocco leather, says that article. Also, some information in Copyright notice might be relevant - though a Bible is public domain - it says such a notice was required up to 1989 in America (so I suppose it's unlikely a big company would omit it) and has been optional since. There are also some interesting dates give in How to Identify Simon and Schuster First Editions - I could not find something similar for Cambridge University Press but the dates in that article possibly reflect standard practice in America. Taknaran (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- And the American ZIP codes weren't introduced until 1963.Taknaran (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Non Home Office Police Forces in England and Wales
[edit]Do police officers and PCSOs in non home office police forces, such as the BTP and the CNC, have the same powers as their home office counterparts? Given the specificity of their remit, do they have any additional powers when compared with home office forces? Thanks. asyndeton talk 21:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have you read British Transport Police#Powers and status of officers and Civil Nuclear Constabulary#Legal jurisdiction? Rojomoke (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Police powers vary, for a start. 'Police powers' are mostly the same for any constable, from Special Constable to Chief Constable (best example, power of arrest for up to 24 hours). Other examples (eg. extend an arrest to 48 hours) needs to be a senior officer, such as Inspector. PCSO powers are simply set out by the Chief Constable of the force. I doubt the Civil Nuclear Constabulary or Ministry of Defence Police have PCSOs at all, because they are very specialist forces (uniquely, they're armed). Military police officers do not have the power of 'constable', because they have jurisdiction over military personnel/property only.
Some exceptions worth noting: Royal/Diplomatic protection officers in the Metropolitan Police have UK-wide jurisdiction. Special Constables have only had England & Wales-wide jurisdiction since 2006 (?), before which it was their own force and ajacent force areas only. The BTP are Great Britain-wide (not Northern Ireland). The trump card for police powers is the NCA, whose officers have a catchall toolkit of constable, customs officer and prison officer (?).--92.17.0.197 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Further: constable/rank specific powers are set by law. PCSOs only have whatever powers their Chief Constable says they have. The law on arming police officers is the same, it varies because forces set different policies. An Authorised Firearms Officer is an AFO; simple as. It just happens to be that the CNC and PSNI have opted to arm all constables, the MOD Police most of them, and the BTP none whatsoever. --92.17.0.197 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- The BTP now have firearms officers: [18] Proteus (Talk) 17:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Napoleon discriminated as a Corsican
[edit]Our article about Napoleon Bonaparte says that he always spoke with a Corsican accent and was teased at the military school. He even had an early period of Corsican nationalism. My question is: Was his Corsican origin used later against him by his revolutionary or Bourbonic rivals or did they find other issues to attack him on? --Error (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- I found World Military Leaders: A Collective and Comparative Analysis by Mostafa Rejai and Kay Phillips (pp. 78-79) which has more detail. Apparently, it was not only the Corsican issue, but also his comparative poverty and lack of self confidence and patrician manners. I couldn't find much about his Revolutionary rivals, but I imagine that his skill on the battlefield overcame most objections. Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)