Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 August 11

= August 11 =

Luxembourg royal burials
Where are Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg and William IV, Grand Duke of Luxembourg buried? Their articles indicate they've been buried in Schlosskirche (“Castle Church”) in Weilburg since 1953 while a category to Burials at Notre-Dame Cathedral, Luxembourg is also linked. Were they originally buried in Luxembourg than transfer to Weilburg in 1953? Also the article Weilburg indicate Schlosskirche is of the Lutheran denomination but the Nassau family have historically been members of Reformed Church not the Lutheran Church. Isn't that as bad as burying them in a Catholic cathedral.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to de:Schlosskirche (Weilburg) the church is a union church belonging to the Protestant Church in Hesse and Nassau. According to the same article more than 30 princes of Nassau and Luxembourg are buried there in the burial vault, and it mentions explicitly the two princes in question. Another surprising feature: the article states that the burial vault is under the sovereignty of Luxembourg. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know what happened in 1953? Also what denomination was it before the union of the Reformed and Lutheran churches?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Americanization of the BBC
BBC programing seems to have become Americanized over the last decade or so. Is there any critical commentary on this? And if so, could responsibility for it be laid at the feet of any specific individual or policy? I have read our basic articles on the BBC and its history but I have had a hard time even determining who is responsible for programing decisions, or whether they are independent between the various channels. (In the US it's easy to identify eras in the programming of the big three (now four with FOX) networks and point to eras like NBC's domination of thursday night programming during the Brandon Tartikoff period.) Is there any evidence or explanation for this at wikipedia or in reliable sources? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends on what you mean by Americanization. Do you mean actual programmes, or style in the news broadcasts? Mingmingla (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I rarely watch the US thing called the BBC News since it is not on at a convenient time and is shown as a 42 minute long broadcast interrupted by 18 minutes of commercials. I get my news from google, WP and aggregators.  I am thinking more of things like The Weakest Link.  Like the dumbed-down, hyperemotionalizd, super-effects over plot-lined Doctor Who. (What prompted this was the recent cringe-making BBC special announcing Capaldi's casting.) Even to Top Gear, which is not that new.  Footballers' Wives.  Or Sherlock, (starring the weirdly sexual Cumberbund Bandersnatch) which reminds me very much of the perverse Dexter.  Of course I'd still be interested in hearing about the news if there is good level commentary.  Just to mention, the fact that the Daily Mail is now the most widely read newspaper in the US is also interesting, but a bit tangential. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that dumbed-down and hyper-sensational content is typical of the US, but not of the UK or other countries? Otherwise, Americanization might more accurately be described as dumbing down, sensationalizing, etc, and you might get more results by searching these terms.  --Bowlhover (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you asking about the BBC that shows in the UK or the thing called BBC America which is not the same? RudolfRed (talk)


 * I am an American, and am asking about BBC shows regardless of venue. I see them about half on PBS and half on the internet and I seriously don't think ever in full on the BBC America thing. What is relevant to my question is the distinction between shows from the 70-90's and shows in the last decade, not what venue they were viewed in.  (The trend to me seems the same on ITV --footballers wives-- and Sky --the cafe-- as well, but that's harder to tell from over here.)  It seems rather reasonable to describe them as having gotten more Americanized. The changes in Doctor Who, for example, all seem to be in the direction of Americanization: format, special effects, show tempo, the end of the world at least once a season.  Some of this dates back even to Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy. Is this trend limited to Doctor Who? Is it general?  Am I imagining it?  If I could answer this myself I wouldn't be asking. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Doctor Who is certainly Americanised. When Russell T. Davies revived it in 2005, he looked for examples of sci-fi/fantasy shows that had been successful in recent years for inspiration - and the examples he followed were US shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Smallville, because they were successful. Also, it's an expensive show to make, and as the BBC is a non-commercial broadcaster it can't make its money back in the domestic market, so it relies on selling it abroad to defray costs. The US is the biggest and wealthiest market for anglophone TV, so it makes sense to tailor it to appeal to American viewers. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your comments seem very likely.  Unfortunately I have only seen the commercials for Buffy and Smallville. I suppose I will have to watch the former at some point if I want to keep my passport. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have a reference for you, but US TV material has become increasingly popular in the UK; House (TV series) and CSI New York for example. Therefore, if producers want their output to be watched by British viewers, I suspect that they will tend to follow the most popular formats. I like to think that US shows have sometimes been influenced by British productions too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Funny. You do realize Hugh Laurie's an Englishman? :)  (Honestly, his American accent is better than any American's I have ever heard.)  A lot of US shows are remakes of British shows.  The only ones I can think of that are obviously British are things like American Idol, which I don't watch, as it is too American. μηδείς (talk)


 * It is difficult to answer this encyclopaedically, but, being a british resident and having seen the similar BBC Entertainment in Switzerland recently (which was mainly The Weakest Link) I think I understand what you are talking about. The BBC is an enormous organisation with a £5 billion income and is nearly 100 years old. It held a state monopoly on all broadcasting until 1955 and the tradition here has been to regulate all broadcasting. The CEO and Chief Editor of the BBC, who is supposed to be responsible for all output and answerable like the editor of a newspaper, is called the Director-General of the BBC, and two that are perceived as 'era-definers' are Lord Reith and Hugh Carleton Greene. But nowadays, the BBC has four television and at least 6 radio channels broadcasting continuously, and there are a number of management positions in a Byzantine arrangement, who have overlapping responsibilities for various aspects of the output. The running joke is 'there's a crisis at the BBC, deputy heads will roll'.
 * BBC Worldwide is a separate organisation which buys in programming from the BBC (and others) for rebroadcast on its various channels, including BBC America. Although this provides an income stream for the BBC proper, the lion's share of its income comes from payments by UK residents of the Television licensing in the United Kingdom. The terms of the regulations that the BBC must operate under are renegotiated with the Government every 10 years when its Royal Charter is renewed. This system means that the BBC is not directly tied to advertising revenue and viewing figures for its income, and can afford not to budget each programme directly on the advertising that would be sold during that programme (the domestic service is not allowed to advertise at all). But, in successive negotiations, the Government, which at first was focussed on maintaining the appearance of independence from Government control, has increasingly put pressure on the BBC to produce popular programmes or risk losing some licence fee income to the competing broadcasters (who somewhat resent this subsidy). So the BBC produces popular programmes on high budgets, designed to maximise viewing figures, and also slips in cheaper but more worthy programmes where it can afford to, hoping to maintain its reputation as a high quality broadcaster while also satisfying itself and the Government that it could manage with advertising income instead of licence fee income.
 * It should also be noted that some national newspapers consider themselves to be in competition with the BBC in the area of news; there is a BBC News website which competes directly with the newspapers' sites, which is also paid for by licence fees, and is free to use. At least three newspapers are owned by organisations that also have british broadcasting interests: Channel five is related to the Daily Express and the Sun and (London) Times are part of the same corporate structure as BSkyB, a major satellite broadcaster. The newspapers have been accused of using their position (they are allowed to take a biassed viewpoint) to attack the BBC's (who have an obligation to report news in an un-biassed way, whatever that means). These biassed sources have chronically accused the BBC of bias, and some might say (who? Well, Private Eye for a start) that these attacks have succeeded in reducing the BBC's willingness to enter 'controversial' waters.
 * It has been widely reported that Mrs Thatcher was incensed by the BBC's decision to report on the Falklands War in terms of 'British soldiers' and 'Argentine soldiers' rather than 'our brave lads' and 'Argie madmen' which led to a sticky Charter negotiation in 1986 and the Broadcasting Act 1990 and that the BBC has been on the back foot since then. If you want a single moment that the rot set in, that's as good a point as any.
 * See also John Birt who introduced 'blue sky thinking' to the BBC, and Greg Dyke who might have been capable of improving the situation, but he was felled by the scandal surrounding the death of David Kelly (weapons expert). There have been other scandals and errors of judgement, all of which lead the Corporation to err on the side of popular, family-friendly (lowest common denominator, dreadful) entertainment. For some reason this is further emphasised in the selection made by BBC Worldwide in its output.
 * You might be able to get "BBC World News" bulletin at 2pm Eastern time, which isn't too bad; Doctor Who holds many nostalgic 40 and 50 year-old brits in its grip and we still watch no matter how dilute it becomes. I think the producers know that they can Americanise it to their heart's content and we will still follow loyally. Perhaps an analogy would be if the producers of the Wire made CSI:Sesame Street with the original puppets and sets, but new voices for the characters. The chances are it would be awful, but the temptation to watch would be very strong...TrohannyEoin (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a great comprehensive answer, and with the links quite useful. I'll be reading for quite a while. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It works both ways. See The Office, Pop Idol, Weakest Link, Top Gear (1977 TV series) etc. for British shows that later showed up in American versions.  -- Jayron  32  17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the typical hollywood "copy what is successful, just do it worse" thing. Thinking about it in detail I think "class" and "reticence/reserve" are the two especial characteristics of British broadcasting.  Those seem lost in things like Torchwood, unfortunately.  Even Jean Hardcastle has become an Air Elemental. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I think of "class" and "reticence/reserve", The Benny Hill Show is always what comes immediately to mind. Deor (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I could just say he was on Thames, not BBC. But it's obvious the shock of his humor was precisely for its take on notion of class and it's violation of British reserve.  Same for Python and Dudley Moore and Peter Cook and so forth.


 * I don't think British TV shows being like American shows is a recent thing. Take Are You Being Served?, from the 1970's-1980's, which had sexual innuendo very similar to that on Three's Company, of the same era.  The BBC has also had it's share of cheesy sci-fi, from Space: 1999 to Red Dwarf. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you being served came out five years before Three's company, and Ritter didn't mince and lisp, nor was he "really" gay. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think Mr. Humphries did those things either, and his sexual preferences were only implied, like when he said "I was in the Navy once for a couple of weeks" ... and we can imagine why he was thrown out. StuRat (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Islamic republic article
The article Islamic republic does not include Sudan. Sudan is a republic that has a legal system based on Islamic law. Should it be included in the article? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Our comments on the article will have no standing there. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The other countries listed are called Islamic Republic of Place while Sudan calls itself the Republic of Sudan.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just took it to the article's talk page to continue the discussion. I know it isn't called the "Islamic Republic of Sudan", it jis just that Islamic law is practiced by the Republic of the Sudan.  108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Product placement in movies
Is there a source anywhere that goes into detail on product placement in movies and how much advertisers pay for product placement in various types of movies? Our product placement article has a large list of movies and TV shows that include some product placement, but doesn't have a single figure for how much it costs. Bononoko Clavier (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's likely highly variable. If you can watch The_Greatest_Movie_Ever_Sold, it covers this topic, but I can't recall how much detail they disclose.  RudolfRed (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The smell of bacon
For observant Muslim and Jewish people who have never eaten pork, what percentage think the smell of bacon is disgusting instead of mouth-watering? Bononoko Clavier (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * People who abstain from pork for religious reasons may do so, because they believe that the pork is not halal or kosher. If they find pork tasty, even though in their worldviews, they know that the pork is dirty food, then that still means that they still shouldn't eat it. Put it into perspective: would you eat food that has been tossed into the garbage and has weird mold growing on it? IIRC, a Christian would fast during Lent and avoid meats (except "fish"), because the meats are believed to be related to a sensual appetite. So, meats are avoided by Christians during Lenten season. I'm not sure if the same concept applies in Islam and Judaism. According to chabad.org, Jews are allowed to eat fish with scales and fins, so aquatic mammals are forbidden, which seem to contrast the Christian eating of aquatic mammals (i.e. capybara) during Lent in Latin American countries. Sneazy (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That is generalising, not all Christians observe lent, in fact, I have never heard of lent before joining Wikipdia. On another note, since becoming an SDA two years ago, I've forgotten the taste of pork, but I still find the smell of bacon to be delicious. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You've become a Structured Digital Abstract? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure if that is a joke on account of my Asps, but I'll correct anyways: Seventh Day Adventists. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The above doesn't address the question at all. Probably good statistics on this do not exist, but google for "jews like the smell of bacon" gives several results. Here's one which suggests that Jewish people do indeed like bacon: http://forward.com/articles/139697/the-bacon-problem/ Staecker (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You might as well ask: how would a lifelong vegetarian (or convert) respond to the smell of cooking meat? People who choose to follow dietary restrictions related to a belief system or ethics, probably haven't evolved some physiological response but rather a subjective one. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pork... So juicy so irresistible... I think some smells, like bacon's, are undeniably awesome-smelling and anybody who smells it will like it. But in a split-second reaction, the devout Muslim will turn away and stick to his discipline. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 10:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A quick strawpoll of some lifelong religious Jews reveals that universally the ones who have encountered the aroma of bacon (some hadn't) found it delicious. Some of them found the concept of eating it disgusting, others were more neutral (ie along the lines of "I won't do that, but I'm not revolted by the idea").

To counter some misinformation above, Jewish law does not perceive pork as "dirty" any more than any other forbidden food (eg mutton, crab or pike). It's just forbidden. While some have tried to rationalise the Jewish dietary laws, ultimately, they are statutes. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything that's considered a "bottom feeder" is considered "unclean", which is why not just pigs, but also crustaceans and catfish are also off-limits to anyone observing strict kosher rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mutton is forbidden to jews? I kinda doubt that, given that "an angel of god" provided a ram to be sacrificed by Abraham in Isaac's stead, and that sheep are explicitly listed among the pure animals. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I meant sheep hind quarters, which are problematic at best and not permitted in most of the world for religious Jews. See Gid hanasheh. Porging is extremely rare, worldwide, these days, outside of Israel. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that the majority of Muslims don't relate to bacon at all. Bacon is not sold in shops across large parts of the Muslim world, and virtually no restaurants serve it. As to the notion of eating pork, it tends to disgust people (in same way most Westerners feel about eating dog or snake meat). --Soman (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I stopped eating bacon a while ago, though I liked the taste. Still like the smell a lot, but it doesn't make me want to eat it. Just makes me want to smell it some more. On the other hand, I dislike cigarette smell, but enjoy smoking (if only because it stops the non-smoking feeling). A bacon-flavoured cigarette could be amazing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

mom-and-pop shops
Recently, I watched a PBS Masterpiece Theatre making of the Great Expectations, and I noticed that Pip was called "boy of the forge". So, that got me thinking. Would a forge be considered as a mom-and-pop shop, or is the forge the place where metal is made but not where metal is sold? How small is this "small business"? Can this small business become wealthier over time and buy out other competing small businesses, transfer its resources to one location, maintain the same private owner(s), and still call it a "small business" or mom-and-pop shop? At the end of the film, Pip returned a shilling or a guinea to his brother-in-law, and said that he did not deserve it, because the money was all that his brother-in-law could earn. Seriously, how much can a shilling or guinea buy in those days? Sneazy (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Mom-and-pop shop" is not a usual expression in British English. Nor is "Mum-and-dad shop", which would be the translation of it into British English. A "forge" would not be considered any kind of "shop" in British English - a shop is where you buy things, not where things are made. (There are certain contexts where "shop" can be used for "workshop", but this is not one of them). The arc you have described could certainly happen, and did so, but the classification "small business" would not have meant anything in particular in the era of Great Expectations. Neither a shilling nor a guinea exists today: in 1971 a shilling became 5p (£0.05) and a guinea became £1.05. Obviously their buying power was many many times greater than those sums today. --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, a guinea was 1-2 weeks wages for a full-time laborer during the time period when Dickens was writing. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In 19th century rural England most communities had a forge, also called a smithy or a blacksmith’s shop, where the smith worked. Normally he sold his output then and there to the locals. I don’t think village smithies expanded into chains but stayed, like farriers, under a single craftsman. I don’t understand your reference to a shilling or a guinea, both of which have significance for Pip and Joe. They are very different things of course. In 1830, for example, a shilling was equivalent to about £3.67 today and a guinea about £77. --Hors-la-loi 16:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)


 * I think that the modern term would be sole trader. Blacksmiths did most of their business shoeing horses, but would also make anything else from iron or steel that was required by the community; tool heads, hinges, grills and so on. These items began to be made in factories around the time that Dickens was writing and smiths then began to specialize in horses and became farriers or in ornamental wrought iron work. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

John, Duke of Beja
Could someone help me find Portuguese secondary sources or or even primary sources calling John, Constable of Portugal Duke of Beja? My hypothesis is a mistake in this book led to his being Duke of Beja becoming a fact. This only stands if no Portuguese sources or even primary sources call him "Duque de Beja." Please don't mention other wikipedias.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Wikipedia has John, Constable of Portugal, as Duke of Beja. Are you looking for an explanation that John, Constable of Portugal, may be falsely named the Duke of Beja? Sneazy (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. I am trying to find evidence that calling him this was a mistake. Portuguese sources or primary sources would indicate this was a mistake arising in the English sources which was later proliferated into other secondary English sources.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the English Wikipedia has John, Constable of Portugal as Duke of Beja. But going to the Portuguese version of the site and translating that version instantaneously to English bring results that John, Constable of Portugal is not the first Duke of Beja, because the title was created for the king's brother, the man who is in second place on the English Wikipedia. This discrepancy proves your point: that John as the Duke of Beja is a questionable fact. Sneazy (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read my "Please don't mention other wikipedias"? Bringing up Wikipedia articles doesn't prove anything and doesn't answer my question. Saying other wikis has this or that isn't much of a good prove because I can just say that those articles have been written with a false understanding of the subject and that this new fact/addition on the English wiki is the actual correct fact, especially since the Portugeuse article is written without sources. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the old "Do not think of the number 8" trick. The human brain is not wired to exclude something without first thinking of it.  The moral is "Do not give negative instructions". :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Even though these are Wikipedia references, both Duke of Beja and Duque de Beja say the title was created in 1453 (nine years after John’s death) for Infante Ferdinand. Plugging the name of the dukedom into google scholar comes up with this reference, which confirms the creation of the dukedom for Ferdinand (though not the year) on page 227. That’s all I can do as someone who can’t read Portuguese – hope it suffices for you. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Question is answered.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon name for British royals
Has there been any British royal with Anglo Saxon names other than Edward since the Norman Conquest?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Define "Anglo Saxon name" and "British royal". I guess the other English/GB/UK monarchical names (Henry, Richard, Stephen, John, George, James, Charles, William; Anne, Elizabeth, Mary, Victoria) are not AS, but there was a King Edgar of Scotland, and one of Edward III's sons was called Edmund.  Rojomoke (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Any name with an Anglo Saxon origin and English and British royals from 1066 to present. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So both my examples qualify. Rojomoke (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I didn't notice the Edmunds.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You can ask an editor in Category:User ang.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironically, William is of AS origin (Willelm). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not according to William (name). Germanic, but from Old Norman. If you cast the net a bit wider, we almost had a King Roger (Hroðgar).  Rojomoke (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * William (name) is typically misleading information. Yes, it is common Germanic, but the name indubitably existed in Old English spelled as Willelm. Philologists who pretend that Modern English "William" has nothing to do with Old English "Willelm" would be, well, lying. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Klein, William is not from Old English.  He's not pretending that it has nothing to do with OE "Willelm", but he is implying that "Willelm" is not the etymon. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Matilda an Anglo Saxon name? Warofdreams talk 10:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Empress Matilda, (1102–1169), also known by her Saxon name "Maud" or "Maude" (she was briefly Queen Regnant of England but was never crowned). Alansplodge (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are counting royal family members in addition to monarchs (as with the Edmunds), right? What about Alfred, Albert, Maud? 184.147.136.32 (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a little pedantic, I believe that Prince Albert was more Saxon than Anglo-Saxon ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Great Pittsburgh Fire of 1845
I'm curious where the info on the Great Pittsburgh Fire of 1845 came from. The article says that only two people died and it names them. In a brief paper that my father wrote, he says that my great, great grandfather had a canal boat and tried to save it during the fire. He died in the fire in the failed attempt to save his boat. His name was Patrick McCambridge. Wondering how to check the information of yours and his. Any help you can give would be appreciated.

Sincerely, John E. McCambridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.250.188 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the article Great_Fire_of_Pittsburgh, it lists the sources used. The information on the deaths came from books written by Cook and Hoffer.  RudolfRed (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)