Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 April 19

= April 19 =

Kilmanton or Kilmainham Ireland
My ancestor fought at Walcheren, in the Peninsular War and at Waterloo from 1809 - 1815. According to War Office, he was listed as a Kilmanton man. From information in Medical Journals of the period, it seems that there was a hospital in Ireland, where seriously ill or wounded soldiers were taken to recuperate.

Unfortunately, I can find no other information on this, and I am writing the history of my ancestor and am trying to find out as much as I can about his life in the forces under Wellington.

Any help concerning this medical facility would be very much appreciated. 202.165.86.32 (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that he was taken to the Royal Hospital Kilmainham. The building's still there, albeit in use as a museum of modern art,but I live only a few miles away, so if you need any specific information from on-site, feel free to drop me a line here or on my talk page and I'll take a stroll across Phoenix Park for you. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, the records of the hospital are held by The National Archives (United Kingdom), since Ireland was part of the UK during the 19th century. In particular, you might find useful information in WO118 - Registers of in- and out-patients - and WO119 - Pensioners' discharge documents. Also relating to the hospital is T1/3850 - a record of correspondence. For more information about accessing the records, contact the National Archives, Kew. I believe there are also records available through findmypast.ie, but I don't have a subscription to verify this. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Age of Enlightenment and Renaissance
What is the difference between Age of Enlightenment and Renaissance? --Yoglti (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * About 300 years? Seriously, though, you'll have to make your question more focussed if you want sensible answers. As the articles you have linked to tell you, they are names given to two intellectual and artistic movements prevalent in Europe and places influenced by Europe. What kind of differences are you asking about? --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why Age of Enlightenment is viewed as something distinct from the Renaissance. Why it is not considered a continuation of the Renaissance? --Yoglti (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Between them were the Reformation and the Wars of Religion, including the Thirty Years' War, which weren't very enlightened. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because the Enlightenment was an intellectual shift and the Renaissance was a cultural and artistic one. There's overlap, of course, but our articles are actually pretty decent. Matt Deres (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another thing to consider is that the focus between the two was very different. The "Renaissance" was seen as a "rebirth" (as that is what it means) of Greek and Roman classical civilization.  It attempted to restore classical learning (that is, a rediscovery and wider spread of reading and learning from Greek and Roman thinkers), a return to classical artforms (sculptures in marble), etc.  At least, that's how the contemporaries thought of it (whether they were really re-establishing Classical thinking or doing something completely innovative is a matter of dispute).  The "Age of Enlightenment", which as noted was some 2-3 centuries later than the Renaissance (the difference between the two is about the same as the difference between modern America and the America of the American Revolution, let's say), was focused on a much more forward-looking philosophy, concerned with novel scientific discoveries, new philosophies, new political thinking, etc. and as such was a very different sort of worldview than the Renaissance.  Whereas the Renaissance was concerned with rediscovering and reestablishing the glory of the classical Greek and Roman world, the Age of Enlightenment was self-aware in its attempt to bring about a heretofore unknown and new kind of world.  And that they occured at very different times.  -- Jayron  32  12:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's right to say that the Renaissance was artistic and cultural and the Age of Enlightenment was intellectual; they were both clearly intellectual. I think Jayron is hitting on the right distinction: The Renaissance was a time of intellectual reorientation; the Age of Enlightenment followed when that reorientation was somewhat settled.  Maybe a bad car analogy:  The Renaissance was when the intellectual circles were shifting gears, the Age of Enlightenment was when the intellectual circles were on the new gear.  Unlike the car analogy:  There can be no clear and natural distinction between the two stages. There's a small textbook/sourcebook by Jocelyn Hunt published by Routledge in 1999: The Renaissance.  It has a little bit of general presentation and a little bit of actual sources talking about the nature of their time and work. The lesson you get is that there is no easy and agreed way of defining the Renaissance, or even of saying anything that's not contested.  For example, Jayron says that the Age of Enlightenment was self-aware in its attempt to bring about a new kind of world, but then you see Hunt saying of the Renaissance: "They talked about classical learning being reborn, while at the same time describing their world as new and revolutionary" and "The period known as the Renaissance was unique. In its self-awareness, and the confidence and self-congratulation of those active in the fields of art, architecture and literature, it is certainly different from earlier periods of change" (pp. 6 & 7).  Peter Jones, "Introduction", The Enlightenment World, edited by Martin Fitzpatrick (Routledge, 2004): "No single idea, belief or practice unites all of the writers associated with Enlightenment thought; no one meaning informed even the banners under which dispute was sustained; no one definition embraces the ways in which the most self-consciously used terms were employed".  There's a cool sourcebook, What Is Enlightenment? edited by James Schmidt (University of California Press, 1996) that has stuff like Kant's and Mendelssohn's essays on the nature of Enlightenment; I would stay away from some of the analyses in the latter half of the book, though. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, there is overlap, but I think the distinction is fair; it's no accident that one gave us a painted chapel ceiling and the other gave us an encyclopedia. Perhaps most important was my last point: our articles are decent places to begin the investigation. Both topics are huge, with tons of contrasting and conflicting scholarship. Matt Deres (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Mary Fairchild
Mary Fairchild was a Seamstress and Lady-in-waiting at the court of either Ann Boleyn or Elizabeth I in 16th century England. I want to find out more about her.Carolann130 (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolann130 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The only reference to a Tudor era Mary Fairchild that I could find on the internet was a character in a rather risqué historical novel, A Well Pleasured Lady by Christina Dodd. Are you sure that she isn't fictional? Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * She's the only one I can find too. And she's a seamstress. And a bit of a goer, apparently. Paul B (talk)
 * Verily, she goeth. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what olde worlde people would say to sleazy strangers in taverns when asked "Doth your wife go (wink wink nudge nudge)?". --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did the following originate:
"At the mouth of three witnesses the matter shall be established"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.252.148 (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Deuteronomy 19:15: "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." (KJV). Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sherlock, Moriarty and breaches in insider trading laws
While reading a little about insider trading I think I found a few breaches in the US law (although I'm also interested in the laws of other countries). It's difficult for me to verify - English is not my native language and I don't have any legal education, which makes it very hard to read legislative documents.

Anyway, suppose a person (from now on I'll call him Sherlock Holmes) meets an insider of a public company and deduces a valuable conclusion as to the company's future. If the insider had explicitly told him what he deduced, Holmes would have been prohibited from trading the company's stocks, but he didn't.

1. Can Holmes legally trade those stocks?

If not, let us assume that Holmes publishes the information that led to the conclusion. It's detailed in a way that makes it seem totally useless, so nobody will learn anything valuable from it.

2. Can he trade now?

Assuming the answer to any of these questions is "yes", say that now James Moriarty wants to join the game, but with a cunning addition of his own - he won't only use his deduction skills to infer information about companies, but he will also use manipulations to obtain clues. As a simple (and not so likely, but I'm not a criminal mastermind) example, suppose Apple Inc. has already set a date for the iPhone 5 launch but didn't publish it. Moriarty individually offers several of the iPhone developers a heavenly vacation at a laughable price, but only in the date range in which the launch is likely to happen. Under the assumption that the pressure will be at its peak before the launch and that the developers will prefer to go on vacation shortly after, Moriarty roughly deduces the date and trades correspondingly.

3. Not that he cares, but did Moriarty break the law?

I know that even if these are breaches they're not very easy to exploit, but the question is still interesting.

Thanks you very much, 82.166.216.211 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not just suppose that Moriarty has invented a method of telepathy and used it to read their minds? I don't think there is any value in trying to judge scenarios where the conditions are so implausible.  If you could invent a scenario that had any chance of happening, it would be much more interesting. Looie496 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I Really don't think it's that implausible, but fine: as a result of the economic crisis many companies were in danger of bankruptcy. Moriarty offers to buy debentures at a high interest, so only companies with very high chances of collapse will accept. However, he never actually buys the debentures but trades their stocks. That scenario is so simple that I'm sure it is already being used, the question is if it's done legally. Thanks, 82.166.216.211 (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not telepathy, mindreading. Sleigh (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes.
 * 3. No insider trading here.
 * Debentures scheme: No insider trading here. Sleigh (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Scenario 1 is not insider trading and happens in real life with great regularity. Holmes is not an insider, because he has no fiduciary or contractual obligation to maintain the company's secrets, and is not a tippee, so he has no obligation to refrain from trading. Scenario 3 is probably not insider trading either, although it's kind of hard for me to imagine.
 * The debentures scheme is not, strictly speaking, insider trading as described.  However, Moriarty's deception makes it a form of fraudulent or manipulative activity, so it would violate the securities laws.  In practice, a scheme of this type would probably require Moriarty to agree to keep the companies' information confidential, so he would be an insider after all.  I would also note that the information obtained by his manipulative scheme is of very little value; the interest rate that must be paid to obtain funding is not the same as a company's risk of imminent failure.  John M Baker (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)