Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 4

= May 4 =

Simeon Sakskoburggotski
He served four years as prime minister of Bulgaria from 2001, after reigning as Tsar of Bulgaria from 1943 - 1946. Our article claims he is "one of the few monarchs in history to have become the head of government through democratic elections". It does not provide a source or examples. Does anyone here know another example of a monarch who abdicated or was forced out of power only to be democratically elected some years later? Xenon54 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stanisław Leszczyński, for one. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? What democratically elected office did he serve in after being ousted as King?  He was ousted twice, after the first time he was given some minor principality, and after the second he spent his time as a pensioner in France hanging out in salons.  I think you are mistaken.  -- Jayron  32  02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect the office being alluded to is "King of Poland", for he certainly was a monarch who was elected king, resigned the crown and was later elected king again. He is certainly a monarch who became the head of government through election. Twice. The only thing to cavil about is whether the definition of "democratic" necessarily implies "popular". - Nunh-huh 02:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. He was elected King of Poland.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Being an elected monarch is not a democratic election. They are different concepts entirely.  Lots of monarchies are elective in nature, it doesn't make them democratic.  In general, the elections are restricted to a small number of nobles (for the Holy Roman Emperor it was seven, see Prince-elector).  In the case of Poland, the election of the Polish king is covered in Free election; it was restricted to the noble class, which was a tiny sliver of Polish society.  Additionally, those standing for election needed to be of the noble/royal class themselves, sometimes Polish, and sometimes foreign.  It's isn't democracy, its just elective kingship; i.e. the nobles choosing from amongst their own kind who would be king.  -- Jayron  32  02:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It probably depends on your definition of democracy. Was Athens in the 5th century BCE democratic, if it excluded everyone except free male citizens who had done their military service and paid there debts on time? Was 19th-century United States a democracy, if it excluded women and slaves? Is modern United States a democracy, if it excludes minors and non-US citizens? The nobility in pre-partition Poland acounted for about 10 percent of the population, much more than nobilities in other countries at that time, and more than just a "tiny sliver" of the society.
 * As for Stanisław Leszczyński, his first election was a complete sham even by 18th-century standards. A small bunch of nobles were rounded up in the election field surrounded by Swedish troops and told to vote for Charles XII's protégé. Stanisław was a mere imposter, an anti-king at that time. It was his second election, this time under France's Louis XV's protection, that was actually genuine and reflected the popular support that he had gathered by then. His second reign didn't last long though, as he was ousted as a result of the War of the Polish Succession. It was after the end of his second reign that he was given the Duchy of Lorraine as a consolation prize. That said, I'd say it's at least a stretch to claim that his case was similar to that of Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. — Kpalion(talk) 11:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In 2001 the media in Bulgaria were sometimes mentioning that this case was a precedent in the world's history, but Bulgarian media are not to be always trusted because journalists here are brightly distinguished by their remarkable lack of professionalism. Some googling helped me find this - a Bulgarian website quoting a publication by Reuters of 16 June 2005, a few days before the parliamentary elections of that year. Here's what the first sentence states: "'The only former European monarch to be elected a Prime Minister ought to be a favourite for the elections on 25 June thanks to a policy that has been defined by observers as the most successful since the collapse of the Soviet Union-supported communist regime [in Bulgaria]. Instead, he is struggling to survive politically.' This writes Reuters today, commenting the upcoming elections." Please note that this is a self-made English translation of the Bulgarian translation of the English language publication by Reuters, so it is surely not accurate enough (I couldn't find the original publication in the archives of reuters.com). The most important, however, remains that Reuters refer to Sakskoburggotski as the only example of a European monarch to have done what Xenon54 specified, and mention nothing about the rest of the world. --Магьосник (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume we're ignoring the numerous instances of elective monarchies? Other than that, I think Simeon's situatuin is unique. I know that Archduchess Walburga of Austria (a direct descendent of the last Austrian monarchs) is an MP in Sweden, but that's not quite the same thing. Gabbe (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "one of the few monarchs in history to have become the head of government through democratic elections" would also cover someone like Napoleon III who was elected President of France, then later seized power and declared himself Emperor (except I guess he was head of state, rather than head of government). Warofdreams talk 00:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cases of democratically elected leaders who later undemocratically clung on to power are common. We're looking for cases where it was the other way around. — Kpalion(talk) 08:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what the quote given in the relevant article specifies. It simply mentions that the individual became head of government through democratic elections, and was a monarch.  No mention of the order of these events.  Besides, very few heads of government have declared themselves or been declared to be a monarch. Warofdreams talk 10:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Pope's apartment
In the article about Pope, it is stated that a dead Pope's apartment is sealed. How long has this tradition been practiced and for how long are the apartments kept sealed? How old are the oldest sealed papal apartments left? 87.108.22.140 (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Papal Apartments are reopened (and redecorated) on the election of a new Pope. FiggyBee (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. 87.108.22.140 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The Papal Apartments article says that there are privately-owned apartments in Vatican City. I am surprised that there is any real estate not owned by the church/state in Vatican City. Where can I learn more about this? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say any such thing. It uses the term "private apartments" to refer to the areas in which the Pope lives, as opposed to "state apartments" where he works, accepts visitors, etcetera.  The current Pope's private quarters are relatively modest, compared to the areas of the palace occupied by Pontiffs in earlier times. FiggyBee (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thanks. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When did the medieval day begin?
Does anyone happen to know when the day actually began for medieval Europeans? Was it at midnight like it is for us? Or perhaps sunrise or noon? I am curious because sometimes a birthdate is given as two different dates, for example 7/8 December. I would greatly appreciate any answers. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See for example the final paragraph of Julian day. Gabbe (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It says the day began at noon. I had suspected Julian days (or the medieval day) didn't begin at midnight. This would mean that someone born let's say 6 April 1357 could very well have been born on 7 April, but if his or her birth had occurred before noon, it would have been recorded as 6 April. Thank you so much, Gabbe. This explains why Mary, Queen of Scots is given two different DOBs (7/8 December 1542).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, in her case, I think it has more to do with disagreement among biographers. See, or  for example. Gabbe (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the consensus among her biographers is that she was born 8 December, despite Leslie having claimed the 7th. Mary, herself celebrated her birthday on that date.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt the average person was thinking in technically defined astronomical days, though. For most (even educated) medieval people, like most modern people, I expect the day started when they got up in the morning. One thought; clocks were rare and inaccurate even in the late middle ages, so perhaps such double dates arise from midnight births when no-one could tell exactly what day it was? FiggyBee (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's also a plausible theory which I have considered. A woman who went into labour late on the night of 7 December might actually give birth in the morning of the 8th; however, it would be recorded as the 7th. There's the 20th century case of George Harrison, when the opposite happened. During the confusion brought about by the bombing raid which was going on at the time of his birth, the nurse wrote down the correct time of 24 February 1943, 11.45 PM; however, it was registered after midnight so they wrote it down as 25 February!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That story is given the lie here, Jeanne. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was John who was supposed to have been born during an air raid, anyway. (But probably not.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Albert Goldman in his bio of Lennon, the latter was born at 6.30 PM 9 October 1940 during a heavy bombing raid on Liverpool, and the babies were placed underneath the hospital beds for protection. This could be easily verified, I'm sure. As for Harrison lying about his DOB in order to obtain a better chart; well, he was wasting his time as he only managed to get an erroneous one. Astrology is based on precision. I was lucky to have had a doctor who was extremely precise when it came to recording my time of birth. I was born at 10.59 PM and it says this on my birth certificate. Most doctors or midwives would have just rounded it off to 11.00 PM!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Julian day is not a medieval concept (as you can read in the "History" paragraph linked above). Days did not begin at noon, they began whenever the sun came up, if you're a regular peasant or whatever. If you're a monk and your day depends on praying the Liturgy of the Hours, then your day probably begins at midnight or 3 am (or 6 am maybe...it varies and probably also depends on the sunrise anyway). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Adam Bishop on this, except that according to our article Day, in medieval Europe, the day was considered to begin at sunset, as it does in Jewish tradition. It is probable that a medieval event recorded as occurring between or on the cusp of two different dates would have occurred between sunset of the first date and sunrise of the second date.  Marco polo (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also possible it began at Prime, which means first hour. We have the example of the Battle of Agincourt which occurred on 25 October 1415, recorded as the feast of St Crispin which falls on the 25th October. So in this case they didn't date it from sunset.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Marco, you are referring to the Florentine Calendar which was only used in Italy. Hmm, that would explain why I have seen Lucrezia Borgis's DOB as 19 April 1480 when all the encyclopedis give it as 18 April 1480. This is very confusing though because if we haven't got the hour of birth, we don't know whether they were born 18 April before sunset or 18 april after sunset (making it really 17 April.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of prayer (as Adam mentions as one case) then Prime would probably be considered the beginning of the day (I believe Prime means the period from the beginning of the day to an hour later, rather than a specific time - hence "first hour" not "hour one"). I think there is some variation in the definition of Prime, though (it can be the first hour after sunrise, or after 6am, depending on whether you like the times to be consistent from day to day - of course, the latter only works if you have a half-decent clock). The length of an hour also changes under some definitions as the length of daylight changes so that there are also 12 hours of daylight. --Tango (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Prime as used in liturgy means the first hour of daylight. The use of the term prime does suggest that some considered the day to begin at sunrise.  However, Italy was in some ways the hub of medieval Europe, so Italian practice would have been influential.  In such a situation it would make sense to give two dates for an event that occurred at night.  (One date would apply if the day were reckoned to begin at sunset, the other if it began at sunrise.)  I'm not sure how the date of the Battle of Agincourt is relevant.  The battle happened during daytime, so it would have had the same date regardless of whether the day was considered to begin at sunset or sunrise. As for the birth of Lucrezia Borgia, if you have seen both 18 and 19 April, that would suggest that she was born after the sun set on  18 April but before it rose on 19 April.  Marco polo (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then Mary, Queen of Scots was likely born between sunset of 7 December and sunrise of 8 December. It was noted by contemporaries that she celebrated her birhtday on 8 December. Things are beginning to fall into place now. OK, what about the Byzantines. In an article I recently created a contemporary source said the daughter of the Emperor was born around April 6, Good Friday 1357. Well, I checked and discovered that Easter fell on 9 April in 1357, making 7 April the date for Good Friday. Wouldn't that indicate that the girl was born sometime between sunset 6 April and sunrise 7 April?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems plausible. Marco polo (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate everybody taking their time to answer my question. Thank you fellow Wikipedians!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Talent<->Denarius exchange rate
Around how many denarii was a Greek talent worth in the Classical era? 64.179.155.63 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If our articles Attic talent and Denarius are anything to go by, a talent (which was 26kg of silver) was 2340 days' wages in Greece in 377 BC. A denarius was one days' wages in Rome in a period several hundred years later.  Thus, very crudely, a talent was worth 2340 denarii.  On the other hand, if you want to talk about how much 26kg of silver would have been worth in later antiquity, the answer will be greater.  In 211 BC, when the denarius was introduced, 26kg of silver would make 5777 4.5 gram coins.  By the end of the Roman Empire, the actual silver content of the denarius was negligible. FiggyBee (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On the other other hand, if you want an actual ancient Greek coin, the drachma was the Greek equivalent of the denarius, and they'd probably be considered roughly interchangeable by traders. FiggyBee (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect the OP is asking because of the Bible story "Parable of the talents". The article discusses contemporary equivalents for 1st century AD values for those monetary amounts, quoted to the OED.  -- Jayron  32  14:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

flea in flea market --- what does it mean?
What does "flea" in flea market mean? I would appreciate an etymological explanation. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.161.139 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The flea market article's history section has some theories. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The "flea", comes from the "second-hand" bit, meaning you could be buying more than you bargened-for! Caveat emptor, clear?  MacOfJesus (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Times Square bomber + Freedom of Information
Why would reporters state (at the end of this article) that Faisal Shahzad became a citizen and that's what helped investigators seize him because they had a recent photo and were able to have witnesses identify him with it? It's like the CSI effect, allowing criminals to get around police? Don't the police give reporters information but then tell them that, in the hopes of not blowing future cases, such details should not be published?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your question carries with it the assumption that the information that the assistance lent by the person's citizenship application is information of the sort which the police would prefer not to be published. But it is just an assumption. A rule of thumb, when dealing with the press, is not to tell them things that you do not wish to see published. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're asking, do police consider this kind of thing before telling things to reporters, the answer is yes, definitely. They can and will tell reporters some things but tell them not to reprint them if they think it will harm the investigation. If you're asking, in this instance, does revealing the "methods" of the investigation harm future investigations, that is not necessarily clear, but presumably the police did think about this before releasing the information. If you're saying, "won't this lead to terrorists in the future not becoming citizens"—maybe, sure, but I'm not sure a one-off case is a good basis on which to try and make future policy. The 9/11 hijackers, for example, did not become citizens—it's not like all foreign terrorists up until this point have become citizens first and been caught because of it, and this one fact will change things significantly. Note that in this case, 1. the photo thing only mattered because the guy's bomb didn't blow up, 2. there were VIN plates that he didn't know about under the engine block, and 3. this sort of thing is only helpful after the fact anyway (it is not preventative). Personally if I were inclined to worry about information given out, I would worry about other things, like making it clear that he had the wrong type of fertilizer, for example, which is a clear sign to wannabes in the future to pay attention to that sort of thing more closely (I personally think it would have been better if they had just said it was an amateur job that wouldn't quite have worked and left it at that, without getting into the specifics). But the reasons they release things (or things get out whether they want them to) are often complicated and it can be hard to figure out what the right balance is. Attempting to draw lines of secrecy around everything potentially threatening can itself be a hinderance to law enforcement and preventative measures. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The more I look at the article, I think it's worth noting that this is all information that was filed in open court when the filed charges. I'm not sure how much they could have limited explaining how they knew it was the right guy; that's necessary if they are going to charge him, I am pretty sure. Now maybe they could have gone to the press there and said, "please don't tell anyone how we knew," but that probably wouldn't have been super effective in today's media environment, and it would all be there in the public court records anyway. There are some instances where the government can invoke secrecy overs its "sources and methods" to keep this stuff out of the public record, but they are controversial and generate a lot of unwanted publicity on their own. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would the police release this information? Well, in doing so they are saying "Look - the procedures we follow as a nation when admitting people to citizenship serve to protect you." They are doing it to reassure. DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh? I'm not sure that follows. I see it as more of a, "look how clever we are, taking things from one source to another and using them to quickly figure out who it was." On the other hand, I'm a little confused as to how they knew to show his picture to the car guy in the first place. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As part of the United States immigration process, applicants are fingerprinted. Additionally, CIS will have recent passport/green card photos on file.  caknuck °  needs to be running more often  05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a secret that when you go through the immigration and citizenship process, you send photos of yourself to the government. And certainly police departments know not to tell reporters anything they don't want to see in print. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (OR) Speaking as a reporter, there have been a number of times when police give out information they don't want published. Sometimes it's done to give us a better background of the situation, so that we might better be able to translate the story into layman's terms. Other times it's because they are legally obligated to provide certain information. For example, when I make routine checks of court dockets, I will occasionally find a report indicating charges have been filed against someone, and a warrant is out for his/her arrest. Often the report has a little tag on it, requesting "do not publish." I am under no obligation to adhere to that request, but often it makes sense to do so, because if I help the cops out this time, there may come a time when they'll give me preferential treatment over my competitors. Of course, if in my opinion the case is serious enough to warrant immediate publication, it will run, usually after I've told the police my intention. (That is a rare instance, though.) — Michael J  21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Safe deposit boxes after death
I recently received something in the mail from my alma mater, telling me that if I wanted to bequeath them something, I shouldn't keep my will in the safe deposit box: apparently many U.S. states prohibit anyone from opening a safe deposit box after the owner's death unless there's a court order. Two questions — (1) why would such a law be in place? I can't see why the law would more carefully protect a safe deposit box than other property of a deceased person. (2) If no will has been found, but someone suggests to the probate court that the will could be in a safe deposit box, why wouldn't it be normal for the court to order the box to be opened? Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Death presents a great opportunity for theft and with a document like a will in which things divert to the intestate heirs in the absence of a will you want to be sure yours is preserved in a manner where records of all sorts are generated when it is disturbed. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Yes, but obviously many people don't keep their wills in safe deposit boxes. I'm not asking for advice on what to do with a will; I'm simply curious why the law might restrict access to safe deposit boxes in a way that it wouldn't restrict access to a dead individual's other possessions.  Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Depositing anything in a bank box (normally) is an act of a single person's will. A very private one. There is no counter-party (as is the case of bank deposits), no brokers (stock purchase), no state registrars (houses, cars) no witnesses of any kind. "Other property" is safeguarded by contracts and/or public records; contents of a bank box are not. The bank does not know what the client holds there (and if it does, it's a whole different deal). The only way to find out is to open the box. The uncertainty, the absence of written evidence, the ease of misappropriation (as well as the bankers' CYA reflex) compelled the lawmakers to provide added safeguards - court orders, witnesses etc. Joint lease of a box (normally by spouses) makes the whole affair easier for the banks and the legal system (survivor normally retains unlimited access) but may backfire to the owners (cf. "Casino"). NVO (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd usually leave the will with your executor. DuncanHill (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

dried up river beds
The place in Southern Iraq where the Sumerians built the first city, is this where the two rivers that dried up passed nearby and where desert now stands and if so were the presence of these rivers the reason the first cities were established here and if so was it due to trade via the rivers or agricultural development? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Tigris and Euphrates? Gabbe (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The city in question is likely Ur, located in modern southern Iraq. At the time, Ur was a coastal city, located at the outlet of the Euphrates.  It is now many miles inland, owing to silting in the Tigris-Euphrates delta, and also many miles from the Euphrates, owing to the river drifting across its floodplain, a common occurance for large rivers.  The site was abandoned by 500 BC, likely for both of these reasons.  -- Jayron  32  23:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You may not be aware that dried-up river beds are often referred to as Wadi. The Thames River in London has the same problem of silt deposits.   MacOfJesus (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are 2 additional rivers that once flowed into the Gulf, as satellite photos revealed some years back. They are dry but their channels are still observable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You may also be interested by our article on the Sarasvati River. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)