Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 26

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 26

Standard Oil

I know this company was broken into 33 different companies. I wonder how the process happened. Like who are the 33 different people that each own a company? Did John D. Rockefeller choose those people? Can those 33 people are all Rockefeller's descendants? And if his company was broken into 33 different companies so is that mean he is going to lose 32 out of 33 amount of his fortune? 184.97.240.247 (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Standard Oil wasn't owned by one person. It was a Joint-stock company which means it was owned by its shareholders. Anyone that owns stock in a company is an "owner". Rockefeller didn't own Standard Oil, as one might "own" a car. He owned a lot of shares of Standard Oil, was a founder of it, and served as its President and CEO, but founding a company is not the same thing as owning a Sole proprietorship. The specific ownership structure of Standard Oil in the early days is described at Standard Oil. Being the founder of a company is more like being the founder of a club: there are many stakeholders and many owners (those people who owned shares). Rockefeller owned enough shares to have a Controlling interest in the company. In his position as President and CEO, he directed the company through its major business decisions, but again it wasn't "his company" in the sense that he owned it as one owns an object. Standard Oil explains his role pretty well in the opening. It is also important to note that Standard Oil was basically a Holding company: it's main operation was the aquiring and integration of other companies into itself, or the founding of specific companies with specific purposes. So, Standard either bought an existing company, or would found a new company (wholly owned by Standard Oil) to cover some operation, either to market specific oil products in specific geographic locations, or to handle some aspect of the exploration, transportation, or processing of crude oil. Thus, the "break up" of Standard Oil wasn't arbitrary; the new companies already operated as semi-autonomous units within the Standard Oil Trust. What happened was that these companies were legally seperated into truly autonomous units, which were supposed to run seperately so they had to compete with each other and with other, non-Standard oil companies. The way this worked was that individual "Baby Standards" were granted regional monopolies over the use of the "Standard" name in a certain geographic area, but that's pretty much how Standard worked pre-break up. The only thing that really changed via the breakup was the corporate governance and ownership structure: The companies sold their own shares and had their own independent governance, and there was no industry-wide national coordination between them, though many of the companies did coordinate bilaterally (for example only a few of the Baby Standards were actual suppliers as well as marketers: Kyso stations soldExxon and Mobil products which were often rebranded as "Kyso", but they were manufactured by Exxon or Mobil) this page isn't strictly a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards, but it does have some good information on the history of the growth, domination, and later dissolution of the Standard Oil trust, as well as the modern fates of all of those companies. --Jayron32 02:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright to my understanding of your explanation, let me sum it up. So before the breakup there were many small companies that were part of the Standard Oil and after the breakup they became independent companies. So do those small companies within the Standard Oil has to pay the Standard Oil to breakup? Did the Standard Oil gain any money from the breakup? Or did it actually lose trusts in the companies without being paid?184.97.240.247(talk) 03:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. Since anti-trust court proceedings are civil and not criminal, it would seem that prima facie even without a direct link to answer your question, that the shareholders of Standard Oil could not have been deprived of their property without receiving equal value. So Rockefeller et al would have lost control of the Baby Standards from a corporate governance point of view, but they could not be deprived of the value of their shares when the breakup occured. As to the specific means of their compensation, I don't have any direct evidence yet (i'll look), but I suspect that there are a number of ways that could have happened. First, they could have been given fair market value of their shares; i.e. forceably "bought out" of their company by being provided cash at "fair market value" based on reasonable estimates of the value of the company: I.E. if Rockefeller had owned 30% of the company, he would have been given cash equal to %30 of the value of the company. The mechanics of how that cash would be acquired, and what would have happened to his shares (i.e. who would have bought them) sounds like a nightmare. The other possibility I can think of (one that seems more likely) is that he was given equivalentnon-voting shares equivalent to his former position in the companies: He still owns the same value of shares (the same part of the companies) but as his shares are no longer voting shares, he has no say in corporate governance. I'll do some searching to see if I can find any harder sources on what actually happened. --Jayron3204:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This source from The Economist doesn't directly answer the question, but has an interesting quote:

On May 15th 1911, Rockefeller, again out on the golf course, was told that the Supreme Court had found the firm guilty of antitrust violations, and ordered it to be broken up. “Buy Standard Oil,” he advised his playing partner. A good tip: its pieces proved to be worth far more apart than together.

In other words, if my second scenario holds true, financially the windfall would have benefited Rockefeller greatly, as he stood to make a LOT of money on his shares in the new, separate companies, even if they were non-voting shares. Still looking for more. --Jayron32 04:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This source of somewhat uncertain reliability, does state "The Court ordered the Standard Oil Trust to dismantle 33 of its most important affiliates and to distribute the stock to its own shareholders and not to a new trust." That is, the stock of the new companies was distributed to the existing shareholders of the old Trust. More evidence for my second explanation, though it doesn't indicate the nature of those shares (voting, nonvoting, common, preferred, etc.) --Jayron32 05:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

More: "Although Standard was physically broken up, Rockefeller maintained his one-quarter ownership in the business, only this time it was one-quarter of thirty-some new companies. J.P. Morgan was said to have remarked, "How the hell is any court going to compel a man to compete with himself?" The new set of companies continued to dominate the markets well into the 1930s." So more evidence of how the dissolution was handled. Stock exchange from the old Trust to the new individual companies seems like how it happened. --Jayron32 05:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

this book starting on page 106-107 largely confirms the last two sources. --Jayron32 05:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Geographical information on ancient cities

I am looking for geographical information on ancient cities. Primarily urban layout maps of cities built around large stone temples or acropoli. I am wondering about any large stone structure that is centrally located in an urban area, such as greek cities. For example, I am to understand that scholars believe the Egyptian pyramids were built far away from cities rather than in them. Mayan pyramids, however, were built in the center of large cities settled on flat open ground. A large stone in the sunlight would get warmer than the textured urban area adjecent, and would therefore create a convection current which caused air to flow across the city even during times of zero or very low winds. I am researching the possibility that early humans may have been aware of the phenomenon and even planned it into their cities in order to improve sanitation. The greek acropolis might have had this effect, as would a pyramid or maybe even a castle. I am also looking for any information that might suggest this is a possibility, or not a possibility. Such an engineering design might become obsolete with the advent of flowing water, which would allow for a level of sanitation not possible before then, and therefore post roman era (in Europe) would cease to be important to residents of such an area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by66.188.214.218 (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for information that would relate to the possibility that early human engineers were using large stone structures to create convection currents in the middle of urban areas on days with little to no wind. So, for example, a bunch of buildings have shade, indoors, fabric canopies, plants, etc. that would create a certain air temperature in sunlight, and the centrally located acropolis, pyramid, or other large temple would be exposed stone and therefore attain a higher temperature. This would cause the air in the urban area to flow, even at night as the heat stored in the stone was released, improving sanitation before flowing water became accessable via such means as the aqueduct. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 66.188.214.218 (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That theory doesn't sound feasible to me. For one thing, you'd want the central rock/stone to be black, but it often seems to be white. Also, there are many other reasons for building up in the center, from defense in depth to impressing all the citizens living below. Also, air pollution wasn't much of a problem prior to industrialization and cities with huge, dense populations. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the a white pyramid would work backwards, as well as provide access to upper air currents. And as to the smell of someone not taking a bath or shower, disposing of their waste in a chamber pot, owning several animals, and rarely doing laundry, I would say it might have caused health problems if the air wasn't being ventilated. So it could be possible that the smell was bad enough without the modern density. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.214.218 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The theory fails Occam's razor in the sense that it proposes a complex and far-fetched explanation for events that have more commonplace and easy-to-understand explanations (sometimes this is known as the "Zebra solution": If you hear hooves, you shouldn't think "Zebra" instantly, you should think "Horse": look for the easier explanation, because it is usually right). In the case of cities built around hills, like Rome or the various Greek cities like Athens built around the Acropolis, the answer doesn't have anything to do with knowledge of convection currents. It has to do with knowledge of pointy sticks: Defending a static position is easier from the top of a hill than anywhere else. Large structures are often located within cities because large structures need lots of people to build them, and cities have lots of people in a central location: you don't have to move your labor force far away to build your temple or pyramid or whatever. Even the Giza Necropolis, though not at the center of a city, is not far from one. It was within easy distance of Memphis, the capital of the Old Kingdom and thus the administrative and commercial center of the Kingdom. Using a latitude/longitude calculator available online and the coordinates from our articles finds that Giza was 18 kilometers from Memphis, i.e. not downtown, but certainly within a reasonable distance to administer the work being done there. --Jayron32 04:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

One further question I consider in response. Suppose that there indeed was such a convection current (it would occur regardless of engineering, the heating patterns of a surface determine the effects of convection) and suppose it did indeed create a healthier more pleasant atmosphere for those in the central location, it might have caused the people who lived there to be more generally successful, as well as drive immigration by making an area more popular, making that city able to grow more than a competing city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.214.218 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, again per the Zebra principle: Why search for an obscure, unlikely explanation for why people formed cities when there are a plethora of better reasons already availible. If you are generally interested in what actual historians have to actually say on the actual reasons why cities likely formed this page here[1] has a fairly easy to follow outline of the major factors in urban history and the development of cities, along with lots of good other sources to read. Wikipedia also has some good information at City#Origins. Does this help direct your thinking here? --Jayron32 05:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways to make your city more windy. Just putting it on a hill, like the Greek acropolis, would have made it much windier because no trees can block the wind. Building near a body of water helps, for the same reason the OP described, except that the heat sink is the entire ocean instead of a tiny piece of stone. See sea breeze and the corresponding land breeze. Narrow corridors like streets with buildings on both sides tend to channel the wind, which increases its speed. All of these effects dwarf any gain that could be had by placing a stone downtown. Needless to say, there are much more compelling reasons to build streets or locate your city on a hill and near an ocean. I'd be surprised if anybody who founded a city thought "oh, I'll build it on a hill to make it windier", instead of "I'll build it on a hill so the other dude doesn't kill me with his army".

Semi-random aside, because I've lately been obsessed with the Trojan War: the city of Troy was built on a hill, in between 2 rivers near their confluence, and beside a bay that extended from the Dardanelles (the bay has since dried up). The gods must have been with them, because that's just an amazing strategic location. Homer frequently calls the city "windy Troy". Gee, I wonder why... --140.180.252.244 (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably because it was windy. Meanwhile, the story makes it clear that the enemy had a tough time penetrating Troy due to those geographic features. Throughout history, cities have been built on high ground, primarily for defensive reasons. This was the practice for thousands of years. It was compromised significantly once gunpowder and cannons were invented. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 13:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Well into the "gunpowder age", armies which maintained the high ground maintained an advantage in battle. Consider examples like Fortification of Dorchester Heights where a vastly undermanned American army was able to drive a much better manned, better armed, and better trained British army out of Boston merely by getting to the highest point in the area. Or the Battle of Bunker Hill a nominal "British" victory, but one which was clearly Pyrrhic: the "losing" Americans exacted a heavy toll on the advancing British forces marching up the hill before their retreat. The cases where high ground didn't provide an advantage are often due to incompetence in leadership, more than anything, i.e. Battle of the Little Bighorn, where Custer and his lieutenants had a combination of poor strategic decisions leading up to and during the battle, and where a tragic lack of coordination in the command structure led to the American forces being crushed despite holding the high ground. Cases of military incompetence aside, ground forces have always had an easier time defending a static position from a place of high ground than their assaulters, and likewise attacking downhill provides a significant advantage. In the here-and-now holding high ground doesn't necessarily have an advantage, but that's because the nature of warfare is such that it isn't based on armies in the open field engaged in pitched battle. Warfare today is about flushing small bands of enemies out of positions of hiding, or using such small bands to harass ones enemy from a concealed position. But even today, if I was trying to beat another large army of men with rifles with my own large army of men with rifles in open battle, I'd want to be the one on top of the hill and not the one at the bottom. --Jayron32 14:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a sidenote—as I understand, it is quite unclear how the Battle of the Little Bighorn went. The traditional story of Custer and his men making a "last stand" on what is now called "Last Stand Hill" is certainly mythologized and probably wrong. It is likely that the main battle took place in the valley with various routed groups making "last stands" in various places, including hills but also gulches. Custer himself may well have been killed at Minneconjou Ford and his body taken to the hilltop later (perhaps by his own troops). In any case, I though I'd point out how this particular battle may not be the best example of defeat "despite holding the high ground". The historiography of the battle is interesting though, and a number of books have been written about it (the changing history of our understanding of the battle). Pfly (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; consider the Battle of Monte Cassino in 1944. However, in earlier times, the need for an adequate water supply was a factor against hilltop fortifications. The other consideration is that a city needs commerce to survive, and so a sea or river frontage was usually a requirement.Alansplodge (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, rivers aren't strictly required, but water supply is a key thing to having a defensible city. Ancient Jerusalem was cited where it was, both because it was on top of a hill and because of its access to reliable groundwater supplies. Jerusalem is an excellent example of a defensible city for those reasons: the Gihon Spring was able to supply Jerusalem with the waters it needed, and its position on the hill made it very defensible, despite being neither coastal nor on a river. Jerusalem's commercial importance came from its position along the Kidron Valley which was part of a series of natural "roads" through the area, and thus Jerusalem's position at a high point along the valley made it a key place to locate a fortified city to tap and control regional trade. --Jayron32 15:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you've got me there. Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me explicitly list some reasons why a hill is more defensible:

1) Increases the range of your weapons and decreases the range of enemy weapons. This is true of arrows and artillery, but less significant for bullets.

2) Your forces not engaged in fighting can hide on the far side of the hill during enemy fire, if the enemy is on one side only.

3) If your enemy charges up the hill, the sheer effort of scaling the hill will slow them down and cause fatigue. If steep enough, a fall can injure or kill the enemy. If even steeper, ladders may be required.

4) There's the possibility of using gravity weapons, like boulders rolled down the hill, or flaming logs.

5) It's difficult to use poison gas against such a target, as it will tend to either sink back down, rise up, or blow away.

6) If the hill has outcropping of rocks, those can be carved out to build bunkers. This is also possible in a valley, but rock outcroppings are more common on hills, as dirt tends to settle in low spots and cover rocks there. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on acropoleis in general, which is not very informative, and some small articles on the Acropolis of Rhodes and theAcrocorinth. The Acropolis of Athens article has much more information. Cities were built on an acropolis mostly for practical reasons of defense. It's more difficult to attack a city on a hill (although not impossible, the Persians sacked the Athenian acropolis for example). Rome and Byzantium were also founded on a single hill, originally. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Recognizing that indeed defense is an important factor, it must be considered that for the success of a settlement there are other needs, such as adequate resources and ineed a healthy atmosphere. wars lasted on very short periods of time and for all of the rest of the time the success of each citizen was based on peacetime activities. pillaging can only feed a raiding army during a raid. As to the desireability of other locations they were indeed settled first. coastal towns and cities and mountain towns and cities all existed by them time people started settling flat open ground, but there was nowhere else that was economically feasible to go. a temple or pyramid is hardly a mere rock, and if people were aware of the conditions of hte natural acropolis and how they were disirable, they may have wanted to create those conditions again. there is information to be found on microscale convective weather, and it would certainly have been occurring on the athenian acropolis. It would not create a wind, per se, but it would create the kind of airflow we create with our household ventilation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by66.188.214.218 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Until modern sanitation, cities were notoriously unhealthy but the causes were not understood. See miasma theory. Rmhermen (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Healthy atmosphere" sounds like a basic requirement, but cities like London pretty much fly in the face of that assumption. London has long been one of the major world cities, and it is basically built in a giant toilet bowl (i.e. Great Stink). If "fresh air" were such a necessity, or if nasty air were such a hindrance to development, London would have never grown into its massive proportions in the first place. Now, public health concerns in general did lead to London working very hard to clean up its air and water over time, but that came after, and not before, the growth of London into one of the world's great urban centers. Your hypothesis sounds plausible if you ignore actual data and history. But when you really look at how and when and where and why cities develop, having a "nice breeze" was never a primary motivation, either through conscious choice or by some "invisible hand", for locating a city or for a city's growth. It simply doesn't appear, from the actual historic references, to have been a factor. --Jayron32 17:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Also note that clean water is far more important than clean air. If everyone just craps into the same water they drink from, with no water or sewage treatment, water-borne diseases can cut life expectancy in half. By comparison, relatively few people die from stinky air. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

London became a major power long after the age of stone megaliths. I can imagine a place where if people had fewer technologies they might have been very high skilled in areas such as masonry, and building megaliths would have been easier than we make it out to be. If there were a major city on the nile and the economy grew significantly there would be a humongous growth in the population. Assuming a fair level of social development, the people might have tried to do things to improve the peacetime environment of their homes, and if it was readily apparent that living near a large stone construction, such a centrally located temple (probably reserved for the very wealthy) then they might build more. London as a power came from people outside of london being successful. The residents of london were subject to legendary poverty that could not have existed before that time. The more ancient empires might have had to have more success within their city limits. Clean water is important, but clean air still matters, and enourmously. If everyone doesn't crap in the water, where do they crap? where do they put food waste? Even buried crap stinks. London had more baths. Ancient poor peoples might have bathed for celebrations or rights of passage only in some places. Some days have virtually no flowing air. Near or in deserts this can last for a week or longer. Whole sections of town were evacuated even as recently as the aforementioned london due to gases from decay of sewage. This might have been encountered frequently in order for humans to learn about waste disposal. It might be that at a low enough level of technology (how expensive can wheels be?) living next to a landform that keeps the air flowing isn't much different than having a clean water source.

also I should add that these guys are right about defense, but there is lots of time and people have lots of other problems, and they solve them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by66.188.214.218 (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Child slavery in nineteenth-century America.

My son wants to know how children his own age (4 years) laboured as American slaves. Did their work differ significantly from that of grown slaves, both in the field and in the house? If so, how?

(I note our article's reference to Gwyn Campbell, "Children and slavery in the new world: A review," Slavery & Abolition, Aug 2006, Vol. 27 Issue 2, pp 261–285, but I have not yet had opportunity to read this.)

Any advice of interest to a 4-year-old is especially welcome.82.31.133.165 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously they did not do hard agricultural field labor that would have been far beyond their physical strength. Sometimes they might have done light gathering or cleaning tasks that would have been within their abilities and attention spans. According to the Autobiography of Frederick Douglass, until he was 7 or 8, "I was not old enough to work in the field, and there being little else than field work to do, I had a great deal of leisure time. The most I had to do was to drive up the cows at evening, keep the fowls out of the garden, keep the front yard clean, and run of errands for my old master's daughter, Mrs. Lucretia Auld." AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This source notes "Even small children and the elderly were not exempt from these long work hours." though it does not age "small children", so I don't know exactly what age (4 or 9 could both be described as "small"). This page states that "Slave children were sent into the fields at about 12 years of age where they worked from sun up to sun down." Though it doesn't note if other work or shorter hours were expected of younger children. This one states that "The combination of hard physical labor, corporal punishment, a diet often lacking nutritional value, and poor living conditions contributed to a very high infant mortality rate—at least 20 percent of the slave children died before the age of five—and a much lower life expectancy than southern whites.", though it doesn't strictly state what children younger than 5 died of: whether being overworked, or simply malnutrition and preventable disease. While none of those sources is strictly scholarly or detailed, I did find this source which appears to be much more so. It states "Generally, in the U.S. South, children entered field work between the ages of eight and 12." I hope that gives you some leads to follow. --Jayron32 12:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Another account of a slave childhood is in the first chapter of Up from Slavery, Booker T. Washington’s autobiography. He says when he was too small for field work he still worked, and mentions “cleaning the yards, carrying water to the men in the fields, or going to the mill to which I used to take the corn, once a week, to be ground. … required to go to the "big house" at meal-times to fan the flies from the table by means of a large set of paper fans operated by a pulley … ” There are lots of details that would interest a child – for example, the corn often fell off the horse and since he was too small to reload it, he had to wait for a chance helpful passerby. He often didn’t get home until after dark. His family never had a sit-down meal together. He longed to try cookies, which he saw white children eating. He went barefoot but had a pair of wooden shoes, which were very noisy. He owned one shirt, made of a painful, scratchy material, and no trousers.

FYI, there’s a very interesting list of autobiographies of slaves (with the texts), here.

Also, googling forpicture books about slavery brings up tons of age-appropriate suggestions. Taknaran (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Amplifying Jayron32's prevarication—simply because labour was beyond a person, does not mean that they didn't work it (I'm rereading the Gulag Archipelagofor "pleasure"). There are likely to be a wide variety of slave narratives covering a wide variety of resistance and accommodations by slaves and masters in local productive environments. Given that the purpose of this is to excite a four year old child further about a history they're already interested in, I'd suggest finding life narratives from individuals who you yourself admire. These seem particularly common for example, full text html; a discussion of the role of childhood slavery in recent history;a discussion on narrative source quality. Then there's this:intro to CHILD SLAVES IN THE MODERN WORLD. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

For background, and also an interesting story, I would recommend Harriet Jacobs' Incidents in the Life of of a Slave Girl, a slave narrative written in the 1850s and published in Britain in 1862. The short answer is probably "it varied widely". The Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin discusses the tearing apart of families. It is probably worth remembering that virtually everyone writing at the time had an axe to grind, and (some) more modern scholarly works go to great pains to avoid inheriting these biases. Rich Farmbrough, 18:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC).

(Deskers may note that Child slavery is tagged, rightly, for a complete re-write.) Rich Farmbrough, 02:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

In northern regions, where and how did people bury their dead during winter?

In the middle ages, and the old days in general, how and where did people bury their dead in the colder regions during winter? Obviously the ground was frozen, and likely covered by deep snow. If someone died during winter, what did they do with the corpse? You can't dig through frozen earth. Of course, some places probably had catacombs and crypts of some kind, but in places without such burial sites, what did they do?

Krikkert7 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

See our previous answer: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 6#Winter burials. Rmhermen (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Legally Protestant status of the Church of England

Is the Church of England still officially Protestant according to the laws of the realm? According to Universalis Ecclesiae, 10 George IV c. 10 (no clue what its short title is/was) was a law promulgated under George IV that referred to the Church as being Protestant, although of course I understand that it might have been repealed or superseded since then. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What does "protestant" mean anyways? In the broadest sense, "Protestant" can mean literally any non-Catholic western Christian denomination founded during or after the Reformation. There's not really any unifying theological definition beyond that. I'm pretty sure that the meaning of "Protestant" in regards to the C of E merely means "Does not recognize the authority of the Pope" and literally nothing else. I've seen several reliable discourses over the classification of Anglicanism and Episcopalianism, and from a theological perspective, it isn't a settled matter by any means. There are serious arguments to be made in both directions: That it is Protestant because it did begin as a rejection of the Church of Rome, or that it isn't protestant because the theology more closely allies with Catholicism than it does with Lutheran or Calvinist theologies. Protestant#Anglicans and Episcopalians has a brief discussion of the problem of classifying the Anglican Community as "protestant". Now, what this means for the legal status of the Church of England specifically within the Laws of the United Kingdom is another matter, but I am fairly certain that the term Protestant in that context merely means "Not under papal authority" and little else. --Jayron32 18:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

More: Anglicanism#Terminology states " In British parliamentary legislation referring to the English Established Church, it is described as the "Protestant Episcopal Church", thereby distinguishing it from the counterpart established "Protestant Presbyterian Church" in Scotland. High Churchmen, who objected to the term "Protestant"," That is, the term may have been imposed by Parliament on the church, but may not have been unilaterally accepted as valid by those within the church at the time of the legislation. --Jayron32 18:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Even more: This blog post and the missive it discusses both seem to be HIGHLY relevent to the nature of this question. --Jayron32 18:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And yet more:here is an interesting perspective from a single Anglican church on the distinction and use of the terms here. --Jayron32 18:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

At the Coronation of a British monarch, the new sovereign is asked (among other things); "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?" The required answer is "All this I promise to do."[2] Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Although it's about as likely as my being elected Pope, what would happen if the monarch-to-be refused to take this oath? Would that essentially be a statement of abdication? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No. A British monarch cannot unilaterally abdicate per se. But if they refuse to abide by any condition of their monarchy, I suppose the powers that be would be forced to take action, which might in extremis include passing a law deeming the monarch to have abdicated. Note that the throne is never vacant. The new monarch accedes the instant the previous one dies (or otherwise ceases to be monarch), simply by operation of the law. The Coronation, which might be 12-18 months down the track, does not make them the monarch, but it may well test whether they're suitable to remain monarch. Realistically, if the monarch had any issues about supporting Protestantism, I think they'd have raised them well before the Coronation, and probably well before they ever became monarch in the first place. A very unlikely scenario, as you say. But Pope Bugs I has a certain ring to it. Just remember we've always been the closest of friends, and I expect you to fast track my canonisation when the time comes.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You bet! Once I'm the Pope, you'll be at the top of the list. Saint Jack of Oz has a nice ring to it also. :) Oh, I forgot one thing. You'd have to be dead. :( :( :( But not to worry. I'll issue a decree that "going on walkabout" qualifies. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Bless you, my son. I'll now add you to the list of papabili, and you can add me to the list of santabili. What? No article? No matter, this is Wikipedia. Be bold and create one. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers; unfortunately I didn't have time to dig for resources earlier, beyond reading the article that I cited above. I emphasised the legal nature of the question largely because I'm well aware of the concept of via media and was surprised at the possibility of the law calling the Church Protestant. I was also thinking of the coronation oath, but I forgot the actual words and thought that it was something like "the true reformed religion", with "reformed" obviously meaning non-Catholic, not Reformed churches. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth: The Church of England is the Established Church of England and has been since 1689. That link makes no mention of it ceasing to be Protestant. From the Queen's point of view: the Church of Scotland is the Scottish counterpart to the Church of England. There are no Established Churches in Northern Ireland or Wales, or any of the Commonwealth realms according to that link (and I think it's pretty authoritative). --TammyMoet (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Anglican churches in Ireland and Wales have been disestablished (in 1871 and 1920 respectively). The movement opposing this was calledantidisestablishmentarianism providing generations of schoolchildren with "the longest word in the dictionary". Alansplodge (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

To answer the narrow question originally posed, 10 George IV c. 10, according to List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1820–1839, is theMilitia Act 1829.

This Act is not found on the legislation.gov.uk website, and I have not been able to find it even in professional citators of legislation - but there is a Militia Act 1661, Militia Act 1802 and a Militia Act 1882. All of these (but not he 1829 Act) were repealed by the Reserved Forces Act 1980. My theory is that the 1829 Act must have been repealed by a later legislation which itself has later been repealed and that is why no trace of it is left in today's database.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a tantalising "snippet view" on Google Books; Conscientious objection to various compulsions under British law, Constance Braithwaite 1995 which only confirms that Geo IV etc is indeed the Militia Act of 1829.Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Found something else on Google books: source has the long title and a summary of the chapters, but not the full text. --PalaceGuard008(Talk) 09:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Omzwervingen door de eilandenwereld van den Grooten-oceaan

Omzwervingen door de eilandenwereld van den Grooten-oceaan seems to be a German version of Promenades en Océanie: les Tubuaï et l'archipel de Cook. Is there an English translation of this?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not German, but Dutch. What makes you think these are the same books?

edit: "Omzwervingen door de eilandenwereld van den Grooten-oceaan" seems to originate in the Dutch 'travel literature magazine'De Aarde en haar volken. - Lindert (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry, not the entire book but this chapter same as Promenades en Océanie: les Tubuaï et l'archipel de Cook found in Le Tour du monde, Volumes 50. Does anybody know if there is an English translation?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm translating it correctly, the english title could be "Circumnavigating through the island-world of the great ocean." Definitely dutch. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a literal translation, but seeing that "Grooten-oceaan" is written with a capital letter, it should be translated 'Pacific Ocean'. I think "Omzwervingen" is closer to 'roamings' or 'undirected travels'. - Lindert (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I searched Google Books for "Edouard Petit" and "translated by" and nothing came up; had similar results in my university library system. Everything by Petit seems to be in French. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the Kaiser plan to invade Britain?

I've been working on an article about the British Volunteer Training Corps (World War I), a sort of early Home Guard. There seems to have been plenty of preparations for an expected invasion, but I wondered if there were actually any German plans. Apparently, the French had plans before 1908, but I haven't been able to uncover anything from the Germans, even a study that showed it was impossible. Can anyone help please? Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything either, despite several searches using German search terms. I think that British fears of a German invasion were overblown and not based on any real plans by Germany, whose attitude toward Britain was defensive. Plans for a hypothetical German invasion may have been part of a project on the part of Britain's military establishment to spread fear and loathing of Germany and to justify military expenditures, just as exaggerated estimates of Soviet military power were used to justify military expenditures to the public in the United States and other western allies during the Cold War. Marco polo(talk) 19:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, many thanks for trying. I found this alternate history site which has a scenario where Britain is invaded in 1915. It starts with the premise "...plans for invasion of Great Britain, in a possible future European war, were first proposed by the German Navy in 1912...". I wondered if this was factual or imagined by the author. Alansplodge (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article at invasion literature implies that public fears of such invasion were much greater than any actual threat, but there's no specific cite regarding Germany's actual plans one way or the other. Matt Deres (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

While not plans, we can infer a bit about the Generalstab's proximate intentions regarding Britain from the actions they assigned their secret agents there. Christopher Andrew's The Defence of the Realm discusses the activities of many, and they all seem to be concerned with the movements of Royal Navy and the goings-on in ports. This is unlike what Abteilung III b had their people in France and behind enemy lines in the Low Countries, where they were more active in the hinterland, reporting on movements of troops and materiel. The few German agents who weren't quickly British agents too don't seem to have spent any time doing the things you'd expect would be necessary when preparing for an invasion of a whole country. They're not scouting beaches, planning railway sabotage, or plotting with fifth columnists and dissidents. This doesn't entirely refute the suggestion that there was such a plan, as Germany would need to neutralise the Grand Fleet before setting an army over the channel in wobbly Rhine barges, but I think it does show that if such a plan existed at all, it was very low down in the Generalstab's priorities. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the Germans had no plans to invade Britain during World War I. Doing so would have been pretty much impossible given the Royal Navy's greater strength, and Germany's near total lack of amphibious warfare capabilities. The British actually developed plans to invade Germany by sea, but this was rejected as being a doomed venture (from memory, Churchill was the key figure in having these plans developed and advocating the scheme). Nick-D(talk) 03:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The Kaiser would have to be on quite a roll to be able to invade the UK. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I understand the probabilities; I was looking for a reference for an article. Alansplodge (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, that reads as rather blunt, but you get the gist... Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Gubernatorial primary elections (U.S.)

Hello, I have two questions about the primary elections for governors: At which time (month) do the gubernatorial primaries start and end? Are they beginning in January and finish in June like presidential primaries? I need to know that for writing a book about a story with a (fictive) governor. I'm esepecially interested in the state of California because the story of my book is playing in that state; and, last but not least, have those primary elections also been held in the 1960s? If not, how have candidates/nomiees for the general election been elected? --78.52.186.187 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The dates vary from one state to another. Also, typically primary elections for governor are held on the same date together with primaries for other state offices. The date of the state primary may be different from the date of the presidential primary in a given state. In California, gubernatorial elections are offset from presidential elections by two years. There have been gubernatorial primaries in California since the early 20th century. Since at least the 1960s, gubernatorial primaries in California have always been held in early June. See this source on the 1966 election and this one on the 1962 election. However, in states other than California, state primaries have been held in different months. Marco polo (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When they were held in June, that means nothing happend much before, like in spring? --78.51.166.21 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When you say "nothing happened", what are you referring to?... I would assume that the various contenders for their party's nomination would be attending rallies, giving speeches and holding fundraisers throughout the spring.

One thing to remember: Primary elections in the US are Party based... and if the Gubernatorial candidate for a given party is running unopposed (within that party), there is no need for that party to hold a Gubernatorial primary election. And if this is true for all political parties, then a State might not even hold a Gubernatorial primary election. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Which day of the week for elections, and why?

Here in Australia elections have always been held on a Saturday. That made a lot of sense to me as I was growing up because it avoided a work day for most people, and avoided the Sunday when your'e supposed to be going to church and resting. It also made it easier to find the thousands of people needed to operate the polling booths

The US election is on a Tuesday. I have a vague impression in my (repressed through old age) memory that UK elections are held on a week day too. What's "normal" around the world? Does holding elections on a week day restrict access to a vote for some classes of people? Is that deliberate? How did the non-Saturday voting days get chosen? (e.g Why Tuesday in the USA?)HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Many countries hold elections on Sundays (or the equivalent day-off of the week), in order to enable higher participation. For example in Sweden, general elections always take place on the third Sunday of September. Many countries have special voting days for people working in police or army (as they would be on duty during the polling day). In the recent West Bank local election, the polling station at the small Samaritan community was open for an hour longer than all others as the regular polling fell on the Sabbath.

Do note that the US stands out amongst Western countries in restricting its citizens from voting in general elections. Whereas some European countries have mandatory voting, the US employs the system of voter registration (unheard of in other developed countries). --Soman (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That last comment seems to be quite unrelated to the topic of this thread.

See Election Day (politics), Election Day (United Kingdom) and Election Day (United States). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the topic but relevant to Soman's last sentence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The comment is not only unrelated, but seems to be wrong unless Soman either means a specific form of voter registration or doesn't consider a number of countries most of the world considers developed. Voter registration mentions non automatic (albeit mandatory) registration in Australia (which also has mandatory voting) and the UK (a rather odd system of the head of household being the one registering which may be changed). New Zealand also has mandatory but non automatic voter registration (but not voting). As our article mentions, it's not generally needed in countries with Resident registration although some (or at least one non developed) countries still require voter registration despite resident registration. As I mentioned, the US system likely has differences from voter registration in other countries but Soman didn't specify that the specific voter registration system in the US is unique (besides as our article attests, there isn't one system in the US since it depends on the states) simply that the system of voter registration is unique. Nil Einne(talk) 09:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC) You yourself point out that the British, Oz and NZ voter registrations are very different from the US system. The US system still stands out, as it effectively disenfranchises large sections of population from voting (I know Guatemala has a similar system, effectively depriving tens of thousands of indigenous inhabitants from voting). --Soman (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC) But why are we discussing this issue at all? The topic is about which day of the week the election is held. Nothing to do with voter registration, (dis)enfranchisement of voters, or any of the zillions of other matters related to elections. I'm hatting this tangent. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 19:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC) I apologise for continuing this tangent but I strongly dislike inaccurate claims being made on the the RD and Soman did make the claim without any sources or any explaination and now seems to have even conceded that their initial claim was at least poorly worded. If people don't want their claims to be challenged, they're free not to make them. Nil Einne (talk) Actually you're mistaken. I never 'point out that the British, Oz and NZ voter registrations are very different from the US system'. I simply pointed out there obviously is going to be some differences. There are also differences between the British, Australian and NZ registration systems. How different the US systems are from the other systems, nor do I know it stands out, baring the fact it's at a state level. I have head a lot of controversy regarding US voting laws but I've never investigated it enough to know how bad it is in truth and in any case it seems to depend on the state, and a lot of the controversy does not concern registration but other stuff like voter ID laws and banning some perceived low level convicts. In any case if you are going to make the claim, you should at least provide the sources and preferably make an accurate claim in the first place and also do it in an on topic discussion rather then bringing it up off topic. As it stands I've provided the only sources (admitedly not for NZ but here[3] [4][5]), it seems the one which does stand out is the UK which per our article technically allows the head of the household to stop someone from voting. Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC) It occured to me I hadn't read our article properly so I checked it out and can't see any discussion related to the US registration system which makes it particularly distinct or bad compared to the rest in general. It mentions stuff like the disenfrachment of convicts and mentions how extreme it can be in some cases (anyone with a felony conviction barred for life) although as I discussed earlier this is distinct from the requirement for registration (you can bar convicts from voting with automatic registration or without requiring registration). Although I recall from some documentary that some states used private companies and ended up removing a lot of people they shouldn't have preventing them from voting which it's probably fair to say is part of the requirement for registration. It also seems to suggest in some cases it's better then NZ, Australia or UK since some states allows registration on election day whereas the best case for the other 3 appears to be NZ which allows it up to the day before (compared to according to our article, 3 weeks before for Australia and possibly slightly over 2 weeks for the UK [6]). P.S. North Dakota doesn't even require registration so it's even more unclear what's so unique about the US's registration requirement. Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In the UK General elections are traditionally held on a Thursday.No-one appears to know why. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jack and Mike. Very helpful. Those first two articles Jack referenced tell us what day voting occurs too, but also not why. The US article is excellent in that it tells us why - "In 1845, the United States was largely an agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicles to the county seat to vote. Tuesday was established as election day because it did not interfere with the Biblical Sabbath or with market day, which was on Wednesday in many towns." As with many other laws established so long ago (in many countries, not just the US), it's obviously an irrelevant reason today. But will it ever change? HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

NPR did a story on this just the other day. See this. Zoonoses (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)