Humanities desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 10

The Kaiser Bun

During World War II, the German Kaiser was one of the most hated people in the world, but even so, there is a kind of bread called the Kaiser bun. Was the Kaiser bun named after the German Kaiser? Thanks, 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 00:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Kaiser roll is confused about this. It contradicts itself, gives no references, and has more opinions on its talk page. de:Kaisersemmel offers yet more opinions (but they have references, which we ought to steal). Briefly, the possibilities are:

Named for Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, who had rolls baked with his face on them.
Named after a Viennese baker, Herr Kayser.
Named because Emperor Joseph II was convinced by a baker's guild to revoke price caps on bread rolls, allowing more expensive and profitable ones to be made.
A general term for "quality", applied to various foods and beverages, during the reign of Franz Joseph I. (The term Kaisersemmeln appears in this book published 1865, and the bread product "gained international fame at the Paris World's Fair in 1867" according to the German article, so we would be talking about the early part of his reign, long before the Great War.)
From Italian "a la casa", meaning "house style". (This has no citation, and it's Spanish anyway, Italian would be "alla casa" and just means "at the house").

So yeah, we don't know. It was WWI that had a Kaiser or two in it, by the way, not WWII. Card Zero (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And we had to use "dickety", because the Kaiser had stolen our word for "roll"! ––47.147.118.55 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OED Online cites an example of "Kaiser roll" being used in English as far back as 1898; they too connect it with Kaisersemmel, for which they give a date of "1849 or earlier". So it was already an established term well before WW1 made Kaiser Wilhelm a hated person in some countries. --174.95.160.48 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way the original question is phrased makes it seem that the OP think "Kaiser" refers to only one person, Emperor William II of Germany. It should be noted, then, that Kaiser is simply the German word for "emperor". — Kpalion^(talk) 09:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Kaiser rolls were known in the UK, the Great War probably put paid to that (even the Royal Family had to change their name). Alansplodge (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If named after an emperor, then almost certainly an Emperor of Austria, not of Germany. It is thought to have been named after Franz Joseph I of Austria.^[1] It appears, though, that the term was used before his coronation in 1867: "Das Gewicht der Kaisersemmel wurde vom Marktcommissariate vom Jahre 1852 an notiert."^[2] The table in that source shows that the historic weights, as recorded for a two-crown Kaisersemmel, Mundsemmel and Ordinäre Semmel, were increasingly heavy, which makes me think the Kaiser- qualification may have been merely a quality indication, "fit for an emperor". --Lambiam 17:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term Kaisersemmel is at least as old as 1825.^[3] As far as Emperors of Austria are concerned, that leaves only Franz I of Austria as possible eponym. Any earlier candidates were Holy Roman Emperors. --Lambiam 18:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

138 Dutoitspan Road and Cecil John Rhodes

Good afternoon. I am the Manager of Cecil John Rhodes Guesthouse in Kimberley, South Africa. I am trying to find more history tying Cecil John Rhodes with our Guesthouse, 138 Dutoitspan Road, Kimberley. Is there perhaps anyone available to assist me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.163.0.52 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are several ties between Rhodes and Kimberley: he made his fortune in the diamond trade at Kimberley, and, although a civilian, he was a de facto commander during the siege of Kimberley in 1899–1900. The guesthouse is said to have been built in 1895.^[4] It is conceivable that Rhodes used some of his immense wealth to fund its construction and that it was therefore named in his honour. It is also possible that it was renamed in his honour after the siege, or after his death. I expect that the best source of information may be local librarians, such as at the Kimberley Africana Library, who can consult archived newspapers. In view of Rhodes' record (see also Rhodes Must Fall), it is not a name to be proud off. --Lambiam 16:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There’s also an archival picture of Dutoitspan Road in our article Du Toit's Pan – the road was named after one of the mines that Rhodes bought. Also perhaps of interest is Rhodes’ will, which shows he didn’t have any property in Kimberley when he died. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instalment payment

If a buyer use instalment payment and disappear after first instalment, how can is possible to complete payment? Apple Pay Later have this risk? --151.95.69.59 (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The buyer has a contract with the seller, by which they have the legal obligation to pay, eventually, the full sum (plus possibly an extra amount to compensate for the delayed payment). Essentially, the seller has given them a loan that they must repay. If a buyer defaults on their payments – fails to pay as agreed – the options of the seller depend both on the terms of the contract and on the local laws. One possibility may be repossession. Another possibility is to start a civil court case. Or the seller may sell the debt to a debt collector, taking a certain cut. --Lambiam 01:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite difficult to disappear completely in the modern world where nearly everything is governed by identity. One in the UK who tried and failed was John Darwin, "the Canoe Man". Alansplodge (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Schneier statement regarding National Guard troops stationed at US airports with guns but no bullets

Bruce Schneier wrote this on his blog post:

Airport-security examples include the National Guard troops stationed at US airports in the months after 9/11—their guns had no bullets.[5]

There were no references or sources to back up this statement in his blog post. Is this statement actually true?

I found this news article[6] that stated that National Guard troops stationed at US airports would "not be armed". That seemed to suggest that the National Guard troops had no guns and no bullets (as opposed to guns but with no bullets).

I also found this bit that gave some context behind the National Guard deployment:

When President Bush gave authorization to deploy troops to airports across the Nation after the September 11th attacks, New York was of course among the first to respond. Because this mission was a Title 32 status, where troops are paid federally but remained under their State's command and control, rather than in Title 10 status, where they would have served under the Active Duty Army, we were able to meet this requirements quickly, smoothly and with the troops best suited for the task. [7]

I'm not sure what exactly a "Title 32 status" entails. Maybe it's helpful in some way.

Thank you for your assistance. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Posse Comitatus Act for basic ground-rules in using the U.S. military in a domestic non-military capacity. AnonMoos (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This sentence in particularly seems relevant:

The Act does not prevent the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor.

If I'm understanding the "Title 32 status" from above correctly, President Bush gave the orders and the federal government paid their wages, but the National Guard units were under each state's governor control. So in this case the National Guard troops were able to act in a law enforcement capacity. But I'm still not 100% sure whether that allowed them to be armed or not. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second longest railway in 1886

I was reading the Canadian Pacific Railway and came across this:

It was by far the longest railway ever constructed at the time.

If the completed Canadian Pacific Railway was the longest railway at the time, what was the second longest?

Thank you. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Grand Trunk Railway states that by 1867 it had become the largest railroad system in the world – but the size of 2,055 km (1,277 mi) refers to the adding up the lengths of all tracks, not that of a single continuous track. Still, if true, there obviously was no continuous railway track of that length at the time. The line from Halifax to Chicago (see this map of about 2,640 km (1,640 mi) may have been the longest at the time, but it was beaten by America's first transcontinental railroad in 1869, covering 3,075 km (1,911 mi). --Lambiam 01:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. As you'll see at that link, the so-called "first transcontinental railroad" consisted of the Union Pacific Railroad and the Central Pacific Railroad, of which the UPRR was the larger at 1,085 miles (1,746 km). (And the claim of being "transcontinental" meant only that it connected the eastern US railway network, not the east coast itself, to the west coast. The CPR similarly was not really transcontinental either, until it acquired the Dominion Atlantic Railway in 1912.) As far as I know the GTR is a legitimate answer to the question. --174.95.160.48 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While parts of the railroad were built by different companies, it was, nevertheless, a single continuous railroad line connecting Omaha and San Francisco. The Canadian Pacific Railway was also built as an extension of the earlier Canada Central Railway. --Lambiam 13:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to reason that way -- indeed, to answer the original question at all -- you need to define what is a single railway. My view is that it has to be under the control of a single company, so the UPRR/CPRR line as opened does not qualify, and my opinion is that this is obvious. --174.95.83.56 (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as if two independently constructed branches happened to become connected. The companies involved agreed to build the line, and engineers selected its entire trajectory, before construction started. The point of connection, Promontory, Utah, is kind of in the middle of nowhere; it was simply the point that had been agreed upon as the point where the final spike would ceremoniously be driven. You could just buy a ticket for the Pullman Palace Sleeping Car Train and later the more luxurious Golden Gate Special and remain ensconced in the comfort of a Pullman Vestibuled Train for the entirety of the journey.^[8] --Lambiam 11:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in my opinion irrelevant. --174.95.83.56 (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Daniel T Wolters (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]