Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 October 16

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.

October 16

Purpose of Toronto School District Board

What is the purpose of Toronto School District Board? Why isn't there a Ontario School Board if Education is a provincial thing in Canada (meaning there is the Ministry of Education)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.84 (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

As with every single local school board in the world, the purpose of the Toronto District School Board is to provide direct oversight to schools within a local geographic area. In the case of the Toronto District School Board, the board oversees the schools within Metropolitan Toronto. The Ministry of Education (Ontario) the same for the entire province. There does not appear to be a national-level Ministry for education in Canada, as I looked through Structure of the Canadian federal government and there does not appear to be any national-level education ministry or equivalent. The reason there are both provincial and local departments has to do with the administration of a large geography and population. Ontario is far too large for a single education board to manage the entire system, smaller school boards exist to implement policy at the local level. It would be unwieldy for a single body to manage such a large territory and population as the entire province. --Jayron32 01:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• As of 1998, make that Metropolitan Toronto. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Till 1843, there was a General Superintendent of Education for all of Canada, but all of Canada was still just the Province of Canada. So I guess it's never been a national thing, even when Ontario was "the West". No point teaching a Newfie much about farming wheat, and that's no joke. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, though, other large federations have federal education departments or ministries, such as the United States Department of Education and the Department of Education and Training (Australia) and the Ministry of Education and Science (Russia). Canada is somewhat unusual among federal nations in lacking a national-level education minsitry of some sort. --Jayron32 03:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we're a bit quirky, from the outside looking in. But those systems look weird to us, too. Probably how Rainy River District students look at the GTA city bus pass program, or cops visiting to chat about gangs. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is here in the U.S. the system isn't really that different. The state governments are what actually run public education (with responsibilities for primary education delegated to local school districts, as elsewhere). The U.S. Department of Education can't actually order state governments around (it's only even existed since 1980). They accomplish things through the "carrot" of federal money; states are given money for education from the federal government, but only if they comply with things the federal government wants. And even still these are very broad things, like "implement this testing system". The federal government doesn't decide where schools are built or anything like that. Contrast with unitary states like Japan, where the national-level education ministry runs all the public schools. To be fair, even quite a few Americans are confused about this, and abolishing the Department of Education is a idea with some popularity among the right wing. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Abolishing anything that might benefit anyone except the very rich is popular among the right wing... --Jayron32 12:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

But does the Ontario board have jurisdiction in Toronto? Hayttom (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The local and provincial boards have jurisdiction over different areas. The provincial board provides funding and sets the curriculum for all districts in the province. The local board allocates the funding and administers the schools. See Education in Canada and Education in Ontario. Marco polo (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And see also List of school districts in Ontario for all the other ones, as no one seems to have linked to it yet. The other fun thing about Ontario: there are overlapping Catholic and public school districts. My Catholic elementary school was right beside the neighbourhood public school. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There are similar issues in the U.S. In the U.S., private schools are not managed by local school districts, BUT are required to follow state school standards, usually. The point I was going to stop by to state, which the OP seems a bit confused about, is the difference in what the provincial and local organizations do. At the provincial level (and state level in the US), Ministries/Departments of Education are in charge of setting education policy: What is supposed to be taught in schools at various grades and levels, what Teachers need to do to be qualified to teach, etc. The local boards are charged with implementing that policy: hiring and firing of staff, allocation of resources to specific schools, etc. That is, the higher level organization sets policy, and the lower level organization implements the policy. --Jayron32 13:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Who was Hendrick Hudson?

He was referred to in a question above about early settlement of New York, and has a ship, USS Hendrick Hudson and a high school [1], a school district, [2] a bridge, [3] and even a choir [4] and a fishing club [5] named after him, but no Wikipedia article apparently. Alansplodge (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"A sea-faring man of renown", apparently. And it seems we do have an article on him. And, now, a disambiguation page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Blimey! Every schoolboy (one hopes) knows who Henry Hudson was, it's the "Hendrick" bit that was throwing me. Why do Americans call him that? Alansplodge (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Americans (or Canadians) don't call him Hendrick; it's just a Dutch version of his first name. It was quite common to turn the name of explorers into a version in the local language (we say Christophe Colomb in French, e.g.). Given the river that bears his name used to flow through Dutch territory, it's not unexpected that he would have been known at some point in what is present day New York state as "Hendrick Hudson". --Xuxl (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I take your point, but the widespread use of the "Hendrick" version (linked above) still seems odd considering how few modern New Yorkers speak Nederlands as a first language. Anyhow, many thanks both. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In history class in school, we were taught "Henry" Hudson. But in the story Rip Van Winkle, as I recall the author calls him "Hendrick" Hudson. That kind of thing might have helped keep the Dutch version of this name alive in American culture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Drone base on Cyprus

I was looking at this map[6] from the recent leaks[7] and it appears to show drone operations out of Cyprus, but our article List of United States military bases doesn't show any such bases. Which base is the map referring to? 731Butai (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well the map says "US/NATO Bases", not "US Bases", so presumably the base in question is the British air base RAF Akrotiri. Deor (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed: see also British Forces Cyprus and Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia; a relic of empire preserved for strategic reasons by the 1960 treaty of independence. Alansplodge (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

RAF Akrotiri also notes the use of the base by U.S. Forces. --Jayron32 13:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. gives out Operation Inherent Resolve service medals to those who pitch in from many countries, including Cyprus. That's not to say that all "supporting operations" in an aerial spying and bombing campaign have to do with drones, though. Maybe the Pentagon just airlifts the stuff they need laminated over there. It's not technically a preposterous waste of money if an auditor never sees it. Just a good, old-fashioned mystery. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Were there any indigenous Australian cities?

Is there any evidence of indigenous Australian towns and cities prior to the arrival of Europeans? I can see the reasons why on most of the continent a nomadic lifestyle was best suited to the land, but surely in fishing areas along coasts and rivers, there would have been strong pressures to remain in the area and for towns to develop - witness the settlements around oases and rivers in the Sahara and Gobi deserts, in the American west, and in the Arctic, built by cultures with similar hunter-gatherer, relatively low tech but well adjusted to the environment lifestyles. However, I never heard of anything similar in Australia. (Wikipedia's Indigenous Australians says "some built permanent settlements" but doesn't specify whether these were recognizable towns or just a couple of farmers' huts.) Is it just the case that the Europeans were more destructive than elsewhere when it came to archaeological evidence or that more perishable materials were used so the record is lost, or is it genuinely the case that social structures developed on such a different path to the rest of the world, the concept of "village" either was never thought of, or wasn't thought useful? 71.40.1.98 (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, there were no indigenous Australian cities. A city is more than a large settlement. It has to have people engaged in different occupations, it needs to have a formal government, and it needs to be a center of trade with other settlements. No indigenous settlement had all of these features. Most archaeologists believe that cities arose only after people began practicing agriculture. Indigenous Australians did not practice agriculture, as it is usually defined. (Torres Strait Islanders did practice agriculture, but they did not have cities either.) Marco polo (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Garbage dumps, sculptures and paintings indicate a civilization in the Berowra Waters area for at least 47,000 years before Wikipedia's history picks up. Their "permanent" houses weren't built out of stone blocks, though, so probably not quite "recognizable towns" to those who grew up that way, and not the sort of things that last for centuries. More like early North American houses, which also "vanished" soon after the tenants didn't need them anymore. Sort of like tent cities, minus the polyesters. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There were a few spots in what is now the US and Canada where there were abandoned stone cities [8], but yes, it seems rather odd that the majority of the natives there seemed to have stayed at, or returned to, a simpler existence than the great civilizations to the south (Aztec, Olmec, Maya, etc.) before Europeans arrived. As much of those lands certainly were capable of supporting extensive agriculture, the natives choosing not to do so seems like an odd choice that would be worthy of study. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The temple guys had the blessing of the sun god. We had the curse of the wendigo. Longer days, more leisure. Even if one could raise a reasonable labour force on winter food, no amount of whipping is going make a cold person move faster. Bodies just don't work that way. Trying to move anything through deep snow sucks; huge stones wouldn't be an exception. Best to just grab some quick, warm logs and skins. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if your temperature theory was valid (and I have my doubts since quite a few cities were built in cold climates in the old world long before this), it gets plenty warm in the Southern US, and even in the Northern US and Canada in summer. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Northeners could have worked in the warmer months, if they'd wanted. Where there's a will, there's a way. But why would they have that kind of will? Not sure which cities you mean, or when "long before this" was (five thousand years ago?), but chances are they had different considerations. Perhaps communities in the old world tended to be conquered by massive empirical armies more often. I can see how you'd want something fire and steel-resistant for that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ancestral Puebloan dwellings seems like a fine link to just drop here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

While I'm sure that the indigenous inhabitants of Berowra had a rich and sophisticated culture, it was not a civilization, and there is no evidence that their settlements qualified as cities. If their settlements were cities, then every village in Africa today is also a city. Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Aye, that's why the closest I came to calling them cities was "sort of like tent cities" (but with mud walls, too). Definitions of civilization tend to be written by the blocks-of-stone sort, so yes, I used that word loosely. Just meant it in a "people living together under roofs near other roofs, sharing resources and ideas" way. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering, the oldest "civilized" building in Australia is at Elizabeth Farm. 222 years old, which isn't so impressive when we consider its builder, John Macarthur was still alive (circa) when the house-tenant combo, Jonathan, was born. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yanzhou (ancient China)

I just created this stub. Calling any Wikipedia contributors who know anything about ancient Chinese history to add some more detail as it's very sparse at the moment. Tooironic (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Teacher - student relations

Hi! Some Wikipedia articles are just overviews of common relationships between two things, or are an overview of two topics combined, but only when it is important. As you all may know, the world has had a rare, but long history of teachers and students engaging in sexual/romantic conduct. The interesting thing is that as long as the student is the age of consent, the teacher cannot get arrested for it, but it is extremely likely that they will get fired from their job if it is found out that they have been doing such things with students. In my article, I want to talk about things like the legality and allowance of such things, as well as past (notable) teacher-student incidents, notable teacher-student relationships. I also want there to be a part of the article about the whole fetishism, or fantasy of such an act that a lot of students/other people have. Trust me, a lot of people have this fetishism, where they fantasize about having sex with a teacher as a student. So it's definitely something that should be talked about. The teacher-student idea is also often the central theme of pornos. So guys, there's three things I have to ask. 1.) Should I make an article about this? I mean is there already an article on Wikipedia that is exactly what I'm talking about? 2.) What on earth should I name this article? It's really hard to say. I'd say Sexual acts between teachers and students or Sexual relations between teachers and students, or something along those lines. 3.) Is anyone willing to co-create the article with me? It's a pretty hard article to create because it requires a very worldly view on a topic with a lot of spread out information. We can send each other drafts, etc. If you're interested, email me at msclayloveshistory@gmail.com ! Philmonte101 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't undertake to contribute actively, as I edit mostly from my Workplace in my break periods (a permitted activity) and this topic would be a bit too dicey. I would however mention that I have it on good authority that there is extensive fictional coverage of the subject in Japanese (and perhaps other) Manga and Anime. 185.74.232.130 (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was going to say too, was that it is an idea used throughout popular culture, and probably has a long history as well. This would make a very interesting article. I honestly am interested to know if any teachers ever end up marrying a former student in one of their classes when time goes on. I don't know if that'd be a part of the article, but it's definitely something I wonder. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau did. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Note at least 2 rock/pop songs with that theme: Hot for Teacher (male student/female teacher) & Don't Stand So Close to Me (female student/male teacher). StuRat (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

See also Mourir d'aimer and Noce Blanche (Mourir d'aimer true story). Akseli9 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And (if you dare), "The Sex Scene That's So Hot, No One Else Would Publish It". InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that laws vary regarding age of consent in relationships between teachers and students. This is mentioned in the "Position of authority/trust" paragraph at Age of consent#Defenses and exceptions. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We have List of pornographic subgenres. An example might be "Teacher and Student or Boss and Secretary pornography involves sexualized situations which take place between an authority figure, such as a teacher or boss, and an underling, such as a student or secretary..." Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:School sex abuse scandals could have some useful tidbits. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Epistolary cookbook novel

I need help IDing a book I saw recently at a secondhand store, whose title and author I don't remember. It was an epistolary novel formatted in a way similar to Griffin and Sabine with fold-out documents and letters inside envelopes. Many of the letters and other documents included recipes; cooking seemed to be a central part of the plot and it was hinted, if not stated explicitly, that some of the food had magical properties. The book was at least partially set in France, in a rural area. There were also a lot of sunflowers in the illustrations (every page and document was lavishly illustrated) in addition to many drawings of food. Anyone know what this is? 75.4.16.74 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't know whether this is the one you have in mind, but your description sounds an awful lot like the "Amazon.com Review" of The Secrets of Pistoulet—even down to the analogy with Griffin and Sabine. Deor (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That's it! The copy I saw had a cover more like this, though. Thank you.75.4.16.74 (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Why isn't a mob assault felony murder?

The U.S. is well known for putting people to death who agreed to drive a car or serve as lookout during a burglary or other crime in which someone gets killed by their companions, even though they intended nothing like that to happen. So why isn't a case like this treated that way? If one person in a group who are working together decides to beat someone, isn't that a felony? And if the person dies, isn't that murder? (So far as I know this case is pretty much typical for how deadly beatings are prosecuted; in fact the U.S. went the route of hate crime prosecutions to try to make certain assaults more punishable) Wnt (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• The "well known fact" in the first sentence is wrong; most crimes in the US are prosecuted under state, not federal law. The death penalty does not exist for state crimes in 19 states and is rarely used in some of the others. This is not a debate forum, so please let us not dispute which group of states are doing the right thing. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The article at Felony_murder_rule_(New_York) is not very detailed, but it does list some defenses against felony murder, such as not having a deadly weapon or intending death. RudolfRed (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's actually four parts of one defense. I've fixed that. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The sort of felonies (or attemped felonies) during which the homicide needs to happen are "robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree, or escape in the second degree."

Or, if the victim is under fourteen, "rape in the first, second or third degree, criminal sexual act in the first, second or third degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse in the first, second, third or fourth degree, or incest".

"Dangerous instrument" beatings get manslaughter charges. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• My OR assumption, which should not be construed as legal advice, is that felony murder requires malice aforethought (even if not a planned homicide), while mob action is normally spontaneous and hence shows no prior intent by the bystanders who join in. The premeditated instigators might, however, find the charges brought against them. It will vary by jurisdictions, so the best option is to consult with a local attorney. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

At common law, the predicate felony for a felony murder charge typically had to be one of a defined list (the original listing was burglary, arson, robbery, rape, and kidnapping). A mob assault as described in the original post would not typically involve any of these crimes. In some jurisdictions the list of predicate felonies may have been broadened, so to further answer this might require identifying the specific jurisdiction at issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much stock in the current charges. The suspects are not yet on trial, and prosecutors have not yet publicly stated what the suspects will be charged with, only what they were arrested for. The two need not be the same. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Is chess a sport or a game? Are all games sports?

Chess seems like a game, involving mental ability, knowledge and strategy, as opposed to a sport. (Granted, we call baseball and football "games.") Isn't there some difference though? I grant that it takes some physical skill to move the intended chess piece without touching other pieces, to use the available time carefully, and to hit the button on the game clock quickly, but similar arguments could be made for writing poetry, computer programming, playing a musical instrument, or playing card games or board games as being "sports" loosely speaking. But Olympic sports says chess is considered to be a sport by the Olympic committee, and FIDE is recognized as the governing body, although they have not succeeded in getting it to be part of the Olympic games. The Chess article says it is a sport, since a recent edit on Oct 3 which had the comment "Chess is recognized as a sport by both the International Olympic Committee, and the "Consejo superior de deportes" of Spain. Plus, the Spanish Wikipedia article explicitly defines chess as a sport. Some board games (in this case chess) are sports.)" Chess players were listed as athletes in List of Marathi People in sports until I removed them with the comment that chess is a game rather than a sport. Previously I removed a bridge player from the list of sports players in the Marathi article. Chess players were added to the article Oct 10 in this edit. Am I wrong in this? It is a question that applies to many articles. and I would appreciate any authoritative answers based on reliable sources. Is there some movement by chess players to become recognized as athletes? Edison (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The position of Contract Bridge as a sport has recently been decided by Dove J in the Administrative Court - this is the official judgement. In it, Dove J refers to the precedent of chess, which Tony Banks unsuccessfully attempted to get declared as a sport in 2000. The relevant EU definition is contained in the 1993 European Sports Charter - "Sport means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, [aim] at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental wellbeing forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels." The essential part of the definition is "physical activity", which is not a necessary component of chess or bridge. This only applies to matters within the ambit of the European Charter, of course, not the IOC or other organizations - and there's a WP:ENGVAR issue about whether or not "athlete" is an appropriate term to describe anyone who participates in sports other than strict athletics (track and field). Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Corrected a transcription error in the judge's text. Tevildo (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had this chat before, and it's only slightly less clear-cut than "What happens when I die?" or "Who should I vote for?". In my head, a sport is a game where the outcome depends primarily on athletic prowess. Chess is a board game and simply running or jumping is just exercise if there are no winners and losers. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

My usage is pretty much the same as yours. There are certainly some borderline cases, like shooting, which is a very intrinsically physical activity, but one that doesn't require you to raise your heart rate (actually, it helps if you lower it). --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edison, if you wade boldly into this, my recommendation is that you not bring in the question of the word "athletics", which is a separate can of worms. Apparently in Commonwealth English, "athletics" is restricted to what we in the states call "track and field" (not even swimming, which is especially weird to me). Etymologically, "athletics" just means "competition", and it's perfectly reasonable that it would include chess, but that does not seem to be the dominant usage in any variety of English outside of chess clubs. --Trovatore (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's the second-worst can of worms this discussion always opens. The password for the worst can rhymes with deerfeeder. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

May I confess ignorance and ask for another hint? I think demotic language is permissible in this context. Tevildo (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, but be wary. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I can understand chess players wanting the prestige of being considered as Olympic competitors, but I do not understand why the Olympic organization would see playing a board game or a card game to be equivalent to the sports which require strength, speed, balance, a steady aim and agility. I also see World Mind Sports Games which says that besides chess, other sports are "Bridge, Chess, Go, and Draughts" (the latter is called checkers in the US). I cannot think why these are more sports like than any card game, board game, or video game one could name. Why not identify every game player as a sportsman? Sport defines a sport as involving competitive physical activity, yet all these games seem to involve is competitive mental activity. Algebra and calculus problem solving seem as sporty as chess I'm all for students competing in "Math Olympics," "Science Olympics" and "Spelling bees," but it seems false and misleading to call them "sports champions" when they win. Edison (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Language peeve: ...the last is called checkers in the US.... "Latter" compares two things only. --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone in this discussion who hasn't seen it might be interested in Wittgenstein's concept of family resemblance, which the philosopher himself first illustrated with the concept of "game." 75.4.16.74 (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the famous Fisher-Spassky chess match was covered on ABC's Wide World of Sports. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

ITV's World of Sport had no problem covering this monkey business with straight faces, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WWI bombers

According to Timeline of the United Kingdom home front during World War I, the first bombs dropped on England from an aeroplane (as opposed to a Zeppelin) fell on Sittingbourne on 16 April 1915, referenced to this site. The aircraft is listed as an Albatros B.II; however, our article on the aircraft describes it as an "unarmed reconnaissance biplane". Is there any more information on the B.II's bombing career that can be used to correct the article, or is the aircraft type incorrect? Tevildo (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it applies in this case, but note that the earliest bombs were just tossed over the edge of the plane by the crew. The plane was not in any way modified to drop bombs. So, it would be entirely possible to drop bombs from an "unarmed recon plane", where "unarmed" means no mounted guns. (Enemy pilots and crew also shot at each other with personal weapons before guns were mounted on the planes.) StuRat (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Under the Idflieg aircraft designation system, "B" denoted an unarmed two-seat biplane "mostly used for training and other second line duties", although whether this included bombers in April 1915 isn't clear. There doesn't appear to have been a prefix specifically for single-engine light bombers - twin-engine light bombers were "K", as in the AEG K.I. A definitive reference will be needed, I think. Tevildo (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The bombs which were dropped weren't awfully big. There's some speculative discussion on this forum. According to a souvenir postcard issued at the time, the only casualty was a crow (see forum link). Alansplodge (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, bombs had to be small at the start of WW1 because those planes couldn't handle anything like the 2-4 ton blockbuster bombs of WW2. There's the weight of the bomb itself, plus the weight of the additional frame supports needed to hold it in place, the weight of the release mechanism, bomb doors, bomb sites, etc. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the bomb (not much bigger than a tin of beans) I doubt whether there were any frames or bomb doors involved, just chucked out of the cockpit as StuRat says above. Alansplodge (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The drawing of the bombs that Ian Castle included on his website [9], it looks like one of them had a handle and a hand-operated fuse. So yeah, looks like maybe these bombs (nine of them) were simply chucked out the side. Bomber#History briefly discusses pilots chucking hand grenades out the side of a plane. I haven't been able to find any other web based sources for the Albatross BII being used as a bomber, nor did Ian say where he got that information or image. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Some photographs of the technique are here and here. Alansplodge (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As for a reliable source, I found Cole, Christopher and Cheeseman, Eric Franklin (1984), The Air Defence of Britain: 1914-1918, The Bodley Head Ltd, ISBN 978-0370305387 (p. 50) which says; "16 April, 1915 (Daylight) Target: North Kent. Enemy force: One Albatros B II. Results: No casualties... This was the first sortie against England by a German army aeroplane — from Feldflieger Abteilung (Field Aviation Unit) No. 41, with the Albatros B II... It returned via Faversham — where it released five incendiaries — and Canterbury, finally leaving north of Deal at 12.50 hr." Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added the reference to the Albatros article. Tevildo (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)