Humanities desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 22 >

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.

April 21

E. C. Mountford or E. C. Mountfort?

We have several Victorian cartoons, in the category c:Category:E. C. Mountford (linked to the Wikidata item E. C. Mountfort (Q64767592)); their descriptions vary between the above spellings. External sources vary, also. Can we find a definitive source, and clear up the confusion?

Do we know his (presumably not her?) first names? Or anything else about him? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mountfort for the Brum cartoonist, who worked for The Dart and illustrated Richard Tangye's Reminiscences of Travel in Australia, America, and Egypt. But I can't find forenames or a definitive source. DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he was Ernest Chesmer (some sources have Chester, I think a transcription error), born Edgbaston. Wife's name Mary Jane, married 1874 in King's Norton. But that would count as OR for Wikipedia purposes. Probably of the firm of Mountfort, fancy goods dealers of New Street, Birmingham. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is "given deserved consideration" in Roberts, Stephen; Ward, Roger (2014). Mocking Men of Power: Comic Art in Birmingham 1861-1911. Birmingham Biographies. ISBN 1502764563.. The Dart archives appear to be in the Birmingham and Midland Institute. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also named as Ernest Chesmer Mountfort in Jones, Aled (2002). "The "Dart" and the Damning of the Sylvan Stream: Journalism and Political Culture in the Late-Victorian City". Victorian Periodicals Review. 35 (1): 2–17.. That's on JSTOR, so you should probably be able to get it via the Wikipedia Library. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned here "received his early education at the South Kensington School of Art" and also worked for The Graphic and The Daily Graphic. DuncanHill (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you, Duncan. Jones' paper is interesting. The Tangye work is here, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jones cites an Obituary for Mountfort, Birmingham Mail 2 June 1922, but BNA does not seem to have it, sadly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probabte record, "Mountfort Ernest Chesmer of 36 Carlyle-road Edgbaston Birmingham died 31 May 1922 Probate Birmingham 17 June to Mary Jane Mountfort widow. Effects £619 7s 11d" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old custom of suitor hiding in attic…

There is an old (I think Indian) custom where the suitor hides in the attic and listens to the female that lives there and goes through steps to se how compatible she would be as a wife. It includes her also chasing him around and a couple of other things that I can’t remember. I only remember that there’s a documentary where this custom is mentioned. I would not be asking for a reference to this if I hadn’t already googled this to death (as well trying to get a man out of my attic, yes I’ve called the cops). Also, no I did NOT agree to this. Any more information would be very helpful to me. Thank you.Abreedlove0715 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

0.08

Why is the legal limit .08? Why not .07 or .06? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to blood alcohol, and driving motor vehicles. But you must be aware the legal limit varies from place to place, and you don't say which jurisdiction you're wanting to know about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such legally defined limits are usually the result of a compromise between those who wish to see lower limits (perhaps even 0.00% BAC) and those who prefer higher limits. A scientific study with a clear recommendation may help to reach a conclusion – either side can use it to argue that the other side's proposed limit is unreasonably high or low. A not totally clear recommendation was offered in a 1964 risk study funded by the US public health service and the Licensed Beverage Industries of New York, commonly referred to as the "Grand Rapids" study.^[1] Quoting from the abstract: "Blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) over 0.04% are definitely associated with an increased accident rate. The probability of accident involvement increases rapidly at BACs over 0.08%, and becomes extremely high at BACs above 0.15%." This was a strong weapon against advocates for a higher limit than 0.08%, but kept the field open for advocating for a lower limit. A 1995 study, "Grand Rapids Effects Revisited",^[2] conveniently stated, "Thus, countermeasures directed at those persons driving at BACs higher than 0.08% can be expected to be most effective in reducing the number of accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol. In contrast, measures directed at drivers with BACs less than 0.08% cannot be very effective. At most, 4% of all accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol may be prevented." (Never mind that the first study was based on US data and the second on German data, countries with very different driving behaviours.) This kind of disarmed advocates for lower limits, although (IMO) a preventable 4% of a very high number is high enough not to give up. --Lambiam 06:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]