Humanities desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

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.

February 11

Kamloops Standard Followup

Thanks to the gracious help of my fellow editors I have confirmed that copies of this paper from its founding still exist but unfortunately I do not live in British Columbia. Is there any way to view these without traveling? The previous question can be viewed above. Thanks in advance. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to request the microform reels via Interlibrary loan if you go to your local library (or, better yet, a university library that you may be affiliated with as a student, faculty, or alumni). Librarians are, in my experience, more than willing to help with queries such as this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim women cyclists, requesting some more details

Cycling was adopted by Muslim women some time early 20th century itself. Some Muslim majority countries allowed cycling through out some did not.

I am looking for help in finding out

a) Which all Muslim majority countries have allowed women cycling and their Olympic participation throughout

b) Which are those Muslim majority countries sent women cyclists to Olympics intermittently

c) Can you name some prominent Muslim women cyclists from non-Muslim majority countries.

Bookku (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, I just came here to say that you have ruined the introductory paragraph of Bicycling in Islam with your latest edits. Are you a native English speaker? Your writing style suggests that you may not be. I can't be bothered to change it back myself or to discuss it on the article's talk page, but I really hope someone else does, because it's just not good enough. --Viennese Waltz 08:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I removed it myself, I had mentioned in summary to revert it if some one dose not like. You are a very experienced user, you could have reverted or helped out with ease and you certainly know this is not the forum. Any ways we shall do better Bookku (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for record I was already co-editing with another good editor and one more experienced editor to copy edited the article. Bookku (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a lot of research, but I want to note a few points.

Cycling, whether competitive or utilitarian, men or women, isn't very prominent in the Muslim world anyway. In my home country, the Netherlands, the large Turkish and Moroccan immigrant communities are strongly underrepresented on the cycling path and overrepresented in public transport buses, although they are on average younger and should be more capable of riding a bike. In professional cycling, only two Muslim majority countries are somewhat notable: Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, both secular former Soviet republics. I'm pretty sure that the answer to your question A includes both.

How many cyclists a country can send to the Olympics (or World Championships) is decided by the International Cycling Union (UCI). They have rules for this, depending on how that country is represented on the world ranking and on some continental rankings. Africa and Asia are usually poorly represented on the world ranking, so they only get a few tickets for the best countries on the continental rankings. Most of the African tickets normally go to South Africa and some East African countries like Eritrea, Ethiopia and Rwanda; there are very few tickets left for the Muslim countries. Even if a country allows female cyclists to go to the Olympics, it remains to be seen whether the UCI allows that too.

There are some Afghan women cyclist competing internationally. They are based in Switzerland, where the entire Afghan cycling union is based in exile since the Taliban took over in Kabul. They are supported by the UCI and could at least theoretically compete in the Olympic Games, even when the Afghan government (if you choose to recognise it) doesn't allow so. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I did not know about this UCI thing. Thanks for info. Bookku (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Booku: you can research women's participation in Olympic cycling events at [1], which is a comprehensive database of Olympic events and participants. This can at least give you a sense of which Muslim countries have, over the years, sent female competitors to Olympic cycling events. It is likely a lot more difficult to find information about other UCI-sponsored events, such as regional championships, but that is where you're likely to find more participants from countries where competitive cycling is not as developed (after all, the Olympics are for the best athletes in the world in their respective discipline). Also remember that there's a huge difference between cycling as a sport, and everyday use of bicycles for transport. Bicycles used to be the principal mode of transportation in China, for example, but the country was a non-factor in international cycling competitions at that time. Xuxl (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that while cycling has been part of the Olympics since 1896, I was surprised to find that there were no women's cycling events in the Olympics until 1984. Hence, there have only been 10 Olympics where any country could send any women cyclists, Muslim or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite surprising there were no women's cycling competitions until 1984. Link given by @Xuxl helped me in finding out a Malaysian woman participant. I am bit confused Malaysian page shows one silver for their woman participant but cyclist page shows she was @ 15 place or that is ranking distinct of medal. But her wp page to does not mention silver or may be I am making some quite a mistake in understanding info on that web portal. Bookku (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You probably weren't anyway, but it should not be assumed that an athlete from Malaysia is/was necessarily Muslim. Having lived in (what was then part of) Malaysia years ago, I know from first hand that other religions are not uncommon there – the article indicates that currently over 1/3 of the population are not Muslims. {The poster foremrly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more productive to look at the participation by women cyclists from Muslim countries in the Asian and African continental cycling championships. There may be Muslim countries which would be willing to send women cyclists to the Olympics but which don't have any women cyclists who were able to qualify for their respective events. This would be less of an issue in the continental championships. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tuppence thick

How thick was a UK two-penny coin in 1817?

This week, the earliest-known recipe for potato crisps was auctioned.^{Ref, which I'm afraid is "The Sun".} It was mentioned on the BBC Radio 4 show "PM", today.^{BBC audio link. The last 5 minutes is about crisps.}

The recipe says, "Peel large potatoes, and slice them the thickness of a two-penny piece".^Picture

I've found some info on two-penny coins from that era, in auctions and suchlike - but they don't give their dimensions, other than their weight. I've found information about "cartwheel twopence" of 1797, and of George III Maunday money, and all kinds of things - but nothing about thicknesses.

So - how thick should the potatoes be cut?

86.24.168.231 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I guess it's Twopence (British pre-decimal coin), but that article doesn't state the thickness? 86.24.168.231 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was the copper 'cartweel' twopence as described in our article, Twopence (British pre-decimal coin), we already have enough information to calculate its thickness if you ignore the fact that it isn't a perfect cylinder, since we know its diameter (41 mm), its mass (56.7 g), and its composition (copper, which has a density of 8.96 g/cm³). From my maths this works out to 4.8 mm. This website [2] (no guarantees as to its accuracy) says 5 mm.

Some Silver twopences were minted in 1817, which would presumably have been smaller, though I'd think the copper coins would have been more likely to be used as a descriptor for the recipe, since readers would have been more familiar with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] It would depend if it were the more common copper coin, or the silver twopence, coincidentally introduced in 1817. Assuming it was the copper, the article states the diameter as 1.6 in (41 mm), and shows an edge-on photo, which can be measured to give an approximate thickness of 3/16 in (5 mm), which should be good enough for culinary work. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider working out the density based on the composition, but - it's obviously not pure copper? ¬¬¬¬ 86.24.168.231 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia says "copper", not for example "bronze". Even if it wasn't pure copper, the amount of other metal would surely not be enough to change the thickness significantly, especially for culinary purposes. --174.89.12.187 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's just that 5 mm sounds rather thick, for a coin.

The current 2p, for example, is about 2 mm. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you have access to the internet you can google (other search engines are available) cartwheel twopence dimensions. Just under a table of the main dimensions is a link to a numismatic website, which says it was 5mm thick. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a George III cartwheel twopence and it's considerably thicker than the current 2p coin, especially the chunky rim which I suspect gave rise to its nickname. This website also gives a thickness of 5 mm or 0.2 inches for the unconverted. Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cartwheels were 'rather thick for a coin', and the largest coins to go into circulation. Their impracticality was presumably why they were discontinued. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree.

But I think, by 1817, the writer was probably thinking of more common 2d coins, not the cartwheel version.

I'm quite surprised how difficult it's been to try and find an answer to my question - I'd have thought a quick internet search would tell me, but I've been struggling.

I remain curious, because I'd like to know how thick those "proto-crisps" were. 5 mm would be more akin to scalloped potatoes than e.g. Pringles.

86.24.168.231 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the tuppence suggests the silver ones were a rarity, it was the cartwheels that circulated. DuncanHill (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia seems to be deeply confused by scalloped potatoes and potato scallops. Both terms, to me, mean the battered and fried slices we describe under potato cake! Anyway, the recipe isn't for potato crisps, it's for potatoes fried in slices. DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cartwheels - yes, but it also says that melting them down for their copper "became endemic by 1812". Then it talks of the "recoinage programme in 1816", but that doesn't say anything about such small denominations.

"potatoes fried" - Well, yes, because the word "crisps" in the sense of thin, fried potato, didn't exist at the time.

All I'm trying to figure out is, what a person of 1817 meant when they said "the thickness of a two-penny piece". If it's 5 mm, I think I wouldn't consider them crisps. If it's 2 mm, I think I would. I realise that's subjective, but I'm just trying to find the measurement, and then perhaps I'll experiement with the recipe. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long ago, I once held in my hands one of those "1797" George III copper pennies (half the weight of the tuppence), and I remember it being thick and heavy compared to any U.S. coins then current (maybe even the Eisenhower dollar, certainly all the others). I assumed at the time that it was typical of old base-metal coinage, but now I see from the Wikipedia articles that it wasn't typical. AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom education systems

How does the United Kingdom education systems compare to those in the United States? In the United States, it begins with pre-school, pre-K, then K-6 or 8, and high school, 9-12. 2600:6C52:7C00:3A26:8C29:38C5:1E42:D2DA (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Education in England might answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.168.231 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Education in Scotland, Education in Wales, and Education in Northern Ireland,

It tends to be rather different from that in the rest of Europe. NadVolum (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intricacies of education systems vary from country to country based on historic developments and current legal frameworks, and I doubt it would be easy to find two that would be similar enough for one to be mistaken for another. Heck, there are even differences among the education systems in the individual German federal states! --Ouro (blah blah) 14:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons of structure are quite easy. It is harder to compare the quality or effectiveness of education. I did wonder about a crude measure such as 'Nobel laureates per head of population', but I became concerned that St Lucia might leave the rest of the world in the dust! (See List of Nobel laureates by country) -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 14:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nowhere near productive I suppose. I expect such a comparison to be very, very complicated if serious and informative. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just talking about pre-tertiary education which the OP seems to be, there is Programme for International Student Assessment which both the US and UK do participate in. How useful it is is highly debated and it only measures 3 separate specific areas and notably isn't supposed to have an overall comparison. Note as our article mentions, some countries including Germany have their own additions for internal comparisons (or similar). Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been lucky enough to have traveled to the US, and to have conversed with a number of apparently intelligent people there. I have been asked such questions as: "Do you have refrigerators in England?" and "Is there often fog in Britain?" Full confession: my parents paid for my education. MinorProphet (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1950s and 1960s, the most distinctive part of the UK education system (at least from the American point of view) was the "Eleven-plus" exam in England, which seemed to perfectly reflect traditional pre-war British class hierarchies, but that's apparently been slowly declining since the 1970s... AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Eleven-plus article says that only 164 grammar schools in England still use the exam to select their students. The total number of government-funded secondary schools in England is 4,190 [3].

BTW, supporters of selective secondary education argue that it gives opportunities to high-achieving children of all social classes. Harold Wilson, the son of a factory chemist and Margaret Thatcher, the daughter of a shop-keeper, were beneficiaries of the Eleven-plus exam. The now prevalent comprehensive system has often struggled to provide the high quality for all that was achieved by the grammar schools for the selected few, especially in lower-income areas. Alansplodge (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Eleven-plus system allowed a few exceptional individuals to rise, but had a strong tendency to shunt ordinary non-exceptional students -- who did not come from solidly middle-class families or higher -- onto side-tracks where a university education would be almost impossible for them, based on the results of an exam taken when they were eleven years old... AnonMoos (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But note that wealthier families (your "higher") almost always opted-out by using the independent school system. The pros and cons are still being debated; see Grammar schools might be a leg up for working-class children from the left-leaning Guardian or Grammar school success 'down to privilege' - study from the BBC. Alansplodge (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the Eleven-plus system worked well for some people for some purposes, but for the majority of average students (not the meritocratic few), it was a government intervention with a barely-disguised goal of perpetuating traditional class hierarchies, in a way that was quite foreign to mainstream thinking in the United States at that time. AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The British and US systems evolved from very different starting points. You should read about the Education Act 1944 which introduced the Eleven-plus; "the act was widely praised... by Labour because it opened new opportunities for working class children". Previously, grammar school education was available only to those who could pay for it. The secondary modern schools for those who did not pass were intended to provide a vocation-focussed education, but were often under-funded and had all gone by the end of the 1970s. The 1944 reforms weren't perfect, but they were a great improvement in a country near-bankrupted by war.

Note that seperation of acedemic and vocational education at the secondary level, based on achievement at primary school, is still practised in Germany (Gymnasium/Realschule or Hauptschule). Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 1944 Act did not introduce the 11-Plus, nor did it introduce the grammar/technical/secondary modern split. The Act makes no mention of them or anything like them. They were a result of Departmental Circulars, and many in Labour actually objected to the division - I think the 1946 Labour conference actually voted against it, but Attlee and Wilkinson were fans of grammar schools - to the extent of refusing permission for counties to open comprehensives (or multi-lateral schools, as they were known), banning secondary moderns from running exam courses, etc. Provision of grammars varied hugely - some LEAs had spaces for fifty per cent of children, others 20 per cent or even less. In most LEAs the pass-mark for girls was higher than for boys, as there were fewer grammar schools for girls. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]