Humanities desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

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.

March 18

"Condemned" prisoners in England, 17th century

Law French#History quotes a passage from the 17th century (terminus ad quem 1688), which it translates thus:

"Richardson, Chief Justice of the Common Bench at the Assizes at Salisbury in Summer 1631 was assaulted by a prisoner there condemned for felony, who, following his condemnation, threw a brickbat at the said justice that narrowly missed, and for this, an indictment was immediately drawn by Noy against the prisoner and his right hand was cut off and fastened to the gibbet, on which he himself was immediately hanged in the presence of the Court."

Should we assume that the prisoner had been condemned to death already, or that "condemned" merely means that he's been sentenced? I'm unsure whether hanging were the punishment for throwing the brickbat at the justice, or if they merely carried out the sentence that had already been imposed. It seems awfully harsh to hang the guy for assaulting the justice with a piece of brick (without the indicted crime being tried by a jury, too), but if they're merely carrying out the existing sentence a bit faster, I'm a lot less surprised. Seeing that (1) Oliver Twist depicts people being hanged for petty thefts, (2) Dickens is seen as an accurate depictor of early-19th-century English society, and (3) criminology probably didn't get far harsher in the intervening 200 years, I'm suspecting that lots of felonies could result in death sentences in 1631. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "brickbat que narrowly mist", every legal history prof's favourite quote. A felon is not always condemned to death, but in this case, the prisoner had been - by the justice, moments before the attempted murder. The amputation of the hand is for committing violence in front of the justices (a misdemeanour). All very dramatic. For further reading: doi:10.1017/CBO9781316090930.062 -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, to get at the implied question: in the middle ages through to about the Restoration or so, felonies do almost always result in the death penalty (the ones that don't are exceptions, eg benefit of clergy), but what they do always result in is the loss of all your stuff. (Further reading: doi:10.1080/01440360903353948) If you've heard about cases where an accused is crushed to death because they refuse to plead, this is why - being executed for this by peine forte et dure meant that the accused died, but their heirs still managed to inherit. Felonies continue to mostly result in the death penalty into the 18th and 19th centuries - possibly because they started packing people onto ships to Australia and so on instead. -- asilvering (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some background at Bloody Code. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule against airport codes moving to a different city?

With the permission of everyone involved and possibly some money from the code covetors. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about IATA airport codes, or something about else? Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IATA. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen an example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know most of the 11,000 codes. I don't know if something like EWR and NEW agreeing to swap codes at 3am on the next convenient Christmas is allowed. What if a dictator fancies the code of another and the other's willing to change code for money? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While not to another city, the code IST was transferred from Atatürk Airport to Istanbul Airport. The two airports are apart by about 39 km (24 mi), which is more than the 27 km (17 mi) distance between Newark Liberty International Airport and LaGuardia Airport. If such transfers are possible at all, I don't think there can be a requirement that it is an intracity transfer. --Lambiam 11:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that it doesn't make sense for code transfers to be limited to the same city for the simple reason that cities are administrative regions peculiar to a particular country which could change at any time without the airport moving in any way. An airport in the city of Bidenville one day could be in the metropolis of Trumpland the next. An move of 50km could be in the same city for one place, a different city for another and this is even within the same country.

For example, I'm fairly sure that Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport used to be KUL before that was transferred to Kuala Lumpur International Airport. (That article also claims so albeit it is unsourced.) The distance between the two seems to be roughly 50km. The former is in Subang Jaya which is in Petaling District while the latter is in Sepang District. (You could say it's part of Sepang (town) but frankly the airport is more significant than the town and I suspect most people visiting the airport never see anything of the town. This map File:Map of Sepang District, Selangor.svg showing how the airport spans two mukim and is a substantial part of one of them may be of interest.)

Note that I suspect RMAF Kuala Lumpur Air Base may have also had the code KUL when it was Kuala Lumpur International Airport, which if true is also the only time the airport was ever in what is formally Kuala Lumpur although this was before it was a city or even a federal territory.

However nowadays both the current and previous airport are in what is called Greater Kuala Lumpur and also the Klang Valley. (As our article mentions, the former is actually a more recent term and the latter is more established to the extent that I'm not convinced it would have been well understood when the current KLIA opened. This is putting aside the question of whether it would have been well recognised as part of either when the airport was opened, and definitely when it was proposed.) They are intended to serve the same population base and the new airport largely took over from the former one, as also happened with the Sungai Besi one.

I don't think this is particularly uncommon especially in developing countries with enough space undergoing considerable urbanisation, politicians with their visions (realistic or not), etc. E.g. Don Mueang International Airport and Suvarnabhumi Airport or even the earlier example of Turkey. Even in the US, our article claims the Nashville International Airport's BNA either came from Berry Field or Barry Field.

If there were limitations, it would make more sense for them to be based on other factors especially ensuring the airports basically cover the same area, so maybe something based on distance or similar factors rather than random concepts like cities. In other words, to stop stuff like people who left BNA who chose it for their return flight suddenly finding themselves in Brunei rather than Nashville. (Although to some extent people are always going to make mistakes e.g. people who use to be confused when they booked a flight to Swaziland and found themselves in Africa instead of Europe.)

Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NB I've corrected/unified the Barry to Berry. Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the code changing the city it serves completely, not the city limits. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the point is airports often may not serve any particular city. They serve specific areas. The question of whether it's one city or more than one or not a city at all is an administrative issue for the place the area is in. You seem to have an idea of how governments organise their territory (and maybe their airports) that only applies in certain places not only worldwide but even within the US e.g. Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex or Kansas City metropolitan area. Indeed the airport for the former is given as an example of how codes may sometimes use the names of both in the case of Twin cities. Probably also of relevance in explaining why it's not so simple as being a matter of cities, is something else I learnt today from the article namely that EuroAirport Basel Mulhouse Freiburg actually has 3 codes because it serves 3 countries. The airport itself is entirely in France but is jointly administered by France and Switzerland with Germany only getting advisory roles. I think it is closest to Basel although such measurements are complicated by how you measure. I assume our article uses something like the CBD. Another thing I learnt is that the Cross Border Xpress means that the Tijuana International Airport (which only has TIJ) serves both Tijuana and San Diego the latter of which also has the San Diego International Airport (SAN). And final one which may be of relevance, some codes including NYC, LON and JKT are used for a city (or I suspect area) when the cities have multiple airports. Actually JKT is a particularly interesting example since our article says it used to refer to a specific airport but no more. Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW to give one hypothetical example of why we shouldn't think of an airport only serving a particular city. If we imagine a large urban area with multiple cities particularly two large ones in the south east and north west respectively which only has one airport for commercial traffic at the southeast albeit named after the city in the northwest. We can assume the entire area largely relies on this airport. If the government finally agrees to build a new one in the north west but decides to keep the south east one as the main airport and so keeps the names and codes as is. It may be that for those cases where it matters i.e. short flights people in the northwest including the city are more likely to use the new northwest airport than the southeast named after their city at least compared to those in the southeast. In other words while both airports nominally serve the whole area in so much as there is a split it's actually people in one city not using the airport named after their city. So the government while not moving anything and keeping everything with the same name has actually made the airport serve its 'city' less than other cities. Hence as I said IMO it's flawed to think of an airport serving a particular city. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note about the Cross Border Xpress, I can't help wondering if the hope at least for some is for the terminal to have its own IATA code, CBX but for whatever reason this hasn't happened yet. I also forgot until now that Kuala Lumpur Sentral station#KL City Air Terminal has its own IATA code XKL. Although AFAIK it has never been possible to book a flight to there albeit I assume some systems may recognise you want to go to KUL. From what our article says I wonder if XKL even really formally belongs to the train station or is actually just like LON etc. Note that you can check in at the train station (which to be clear is a ~55 km train ride away) for some airlines but have never been able to check out probably given the complications that makes for customs and security etc. (This also means whether XKL formally belongs to the train station of largely moot.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I should've wrote metro area or actually general area would be better, some airports are about 100 miles from the biggest downtown, a bit far for a daily commute. And it's debatable if Tijuana is the same metro area as San Diego cause the hours long lines to go to America limit daily cross-border commuting but it's the same general conglomeration. Dallas-Fort Worth is considered one bi-centric metro area, Washington-Baltimore is the same CSA ("greater metro area") but different metropolitan statistical areas, Kansas City is not even close to being two metro areas. City codes like NYC+LON are common when airlines go to multiple airports in the general area, it returns the flights of multiple airports when searched. Lots of train stations that go to other metro areas also have IATA codes I don't know what's the most important reason why. I don't think you can check in at NYP train station. The point is that if a code switches sides of a population conglomeration you might be up to a few hours drive away if you didn't know it moved, if there's no distance limit you might end up on the wrong side of the planet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which you have noted. I wonder how many people have flown to Swaziland by accident? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And not things like Bidenwhich there are (BID) becoming Trumpton without changing to TRU or. something. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagittarian Milky Way: According to the IATA airport code article, code assignment is governed by resolution 763, which from [1] is the "Passenger Services Conference Resolution Manual". That website does not have it for free online, only for purchase. You might want to ask at WP:RX if someone has access to a copy and can look up the rules for moving codes. RudolfRed (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where was Mary, mother of Jesus born?

The first line of our article says she was a "woman of Nazareth" but the reference given doesn't seem to support this. Ericoides (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts vary. She could be considered a "woman of Nazareth", but that doesn't necessarily mean she was born there; she was said to reside with her parents (Joachim and Anne) in Nazareth when she received an annunciation from Gabriel.^{[Luke 1:26-27]} However, it is believed that her parents first lived in Sepphoris and then Jerusalem before Nazareth. The Church of Saint Anne, Jerusalem was built in the 12th century near where it was believed her parents lived when Mary was born: near the Sheep Gate and Pool of Bethesda.^[2] --136.56.52.157 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Luke 1:26–27 Mary lived in Nazareth at the time of the Annunciation. Luke 2:39 relates that after Joseph and Mary, at the time great with child, travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be taxed according to the decree of Caesar Augustus and paid a visit to Jerusalem to present their newborn child, the Holy Family "returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth". --Lambiam 10:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to both respondents. Is there any biblical support for the claim she was born in Jerusalem? Ericoides (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Someone has collected all biblical references to Mary here. The personal details are scant. Apart from being from Nazareth, being married to Joseph and having an oldest sun Jesus, we learn that she had an older relative (not necessarily a cousin) named Elizabeth (or Elisheba) who was living in a Judean town, apparently several sons, and a maternal aunt also named Mary. That's it. --Lambiam 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very helpful link. Thanks! Ericoides (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran mentions Mary about 50 times, way more than in the Christian Bible. In fact, Mary is the only woman referred to by name in the entire Quran. May be worth checking out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran was written some 600 years after Mary's lifetime, so more a matter of faith than historicity. On the other hand, Christian traditions about Mary's parentage are contained in the Gospel of James which is not given much credance by most mainstream Christians. Alansplodge (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, but the canonical gospels were also written at least two to three generations after Jesus birth, and are of rather uncertain provenance. The Gospel of James is another two generations later... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So the correct answer is probably "nobody knows". Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "credence of most mainstream Christians" (in what is largely a created mythology based on a very restricted and extensively altered corpus) is very different from the conclusions (from tentative to firm) of scholars who also deal with the much larger corpus of Jewish and other records and traditions (surviving or quoted in other records) that can be found outside "the Bible" (Mandeism, anyone?). The oral traditions that Mohammed would have been familiar with, for example, included major, now extinct, branches of Christianity or near-christian [to coin a term] schools of thought not censored or suppressed to suit the Pauline/Roman agenda. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.64.160.67 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5.64.160.67 -- Mandaeism is a Gnostic offshoot which is interesting in its own way, but basically no scholars think that it presents a more accurate view of 1st century Judaea than New Testament texts do... AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_of_Oz -- If you say that Mary is the only woman mentioned by name in the Qur'an, then you're claiming that the Qur'an conflates Miriam the sister of Moses with Mary the mother of Jesus as the same woman (even though in the Bible they're two women who lived over a thousand years apart, in two completely different historical eras). This has been a controversial and disputed issue in the past... AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just reported what I read in Wikipedia, of all places: see Mary, mother of Jesus#Islamic. If you know more about this, please improve our article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is confusing and depends on who you choose to believe, critics or Muslim interpreters of the Qur'an. See Biblical and Quranic narratives § Miriam and Mary. --Lambiam 23:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has protocols for dealing with cases where reliable sources have very different interpretations of the same texts. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term "Mainstream Media"

I just saw an interview with Ian Hislop wherein he claimed that the phrase “Mainstream Media” was first used by Joseph Goebbels . Having googled, I found no good source for this. I realize the problem that the origin must have been in german. I was wondering whether anyone here could find a good source for the claim? Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he was thinking of Lügenpresse or "lying press", a term used but not invented by Goebbels. Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, "lying press" was what google gave me for several pages. This misinterpretation does not make any sense to me, however. In Europe, at least, we do not generally associate the two terms with each other. I think it had more to do with the combination of "Goebbels" and "Media" to google. I have seen Ian's claim in other places, but none of them a good source, mostly comments to blogs. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in Newspapers.com (pay site) for the exact term "mainstream media", it first appears in 1973, in the British press, although its casual usage implies that it's already a well-known term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the OED Online for the phrase. The dictionary does not give it an entry, but does use it a couple of times in defining other terms. --174.89.12.187 (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hislop imply Goebbels spoke English? There is no good German equivalent of the word mainstream. What is he supposed to have said? Hauptstrommedien? I think he was either confused with Goebbels' documented use of the term Lügenpresse,^[3] unaware that the term is attested earlier, or repeated an unsubstantiated claim he had picked up somewhere. --Lambiam 17:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the WP Mainstream media article doesn't mention anything about the origin of the term. According to this post on The Phrase Finder website, the origin of the term mainstream is discussed in:

Safire, William (2008). Safire's Political Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 429–430. ISBN 9780195340617.

The Phrase Finder post doesn't mention Goebbels. I haven't accessed Safire's book. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had it, but it suffered water damage and was unsalvageable. Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a free copy of Safire's book available (for one of us at a time) at OpenLibrary. He credits Ralph Nader with coining the phrase in 1985 (p. 409). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, "media" as a term to describe newspapers, radio, etc, first appeared in English in 1927. [4] Not sure when it found its way into German. Alansplodge (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking "mainstream media" on Google ngram indicates that the term picked up steam shortly before 1980, at about the same time as "mainstream press". "Lügenpresse" has a more interesting history, starting up before WW1, with a peak during the war, then a drop-off to a plateau and a second 1000 year long peak after 1933. Then it dropped to nearly nothing until it went to the moon starting in 2010. "Systempresse" and the more general "Systemmedien" might be the conceptual equivalence of "mainstream press/media", and "Systempresse" does show an extremely pronounced peak during the Third Reich [5]. So that might be the source of that claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest use I can find of the term is in Los Angeles: Viability and Prospects for Metropolitan Leadership: "In short, most of our sample was tuned in to the moderately liberal , mainstream media, yet still emitted much symbolic racism". 'Mainstream press' seems to be very slightly earlier, there was a dissertation entitled "The ultraconservative and the mainstream press: a comparative analysis" written in 1969. 'Mass media' is an older term, but has been used in English since at least 1923 (interestingly, predating 'media', which is probably a shortened form). Warofdreams talk 01:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan was an influential 1964 work that introduced the pithy aphorism, "The medium is the message. Cullen328 (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]