Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 May 14

= May 14 =

Finding source in Paradise of the Pacific
Can anybody help me find the exact page numbers, author and section/article of this part of the Paradise of the Pacific?



--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Oak Apple Day
Why was Oak Apple Day abolished as a public holiday? DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:


 * 1) You just naturally have to drop some old holidays to make room for new ones, or eventually every day would be a holiday. And as events recede farther and farther into history, they become less significant relative to more recent events.


 * 2) A celebration of the restoration of the monarchy might be a natural time for those who oppose the monarchy to protest, so they might have wanted to avoid this. StuRat (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I just found this from Bolton Museums which says it was abolished "as part of a campaign to remove public holidays which had become associated with drunkenness and disorder", which seems like a miserable reason to abolish it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Our List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1840–59 mentions an Observance of November 5, May 29, etc. Act 1859, but I can't find anything more about it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (Many EC) Not directly answering the question but this source says
 * ".... issued a royal warrant abolishing the so-called "State Services" (Gunpowder Plot, November 5; Martyrdom of King Charles I, January 30; and the Restoration of King Charles II, May 29) and ordering the removal of these forms from the Book of Common Prayer."


 * Not knowing that much about the organisation of the British government at the time, I don't quite understand if the state services part mean it abolishes the public holidays per se (bearing in mind our modern understand of these terms is likely quite different from what they were then anyway) or instead just the official religious stuff but I think it's the later. However, at a minimum, this provides some clue, so the next obvious place to look is at Guy Fawkes Night which says (link is in original):
 * "and months later the introduction of the Observance of 5th November Act enforced an annual public day of thanksgiving"


 * Checking out the linked article we find (red link in original):
 * "The law was repealed in March 1859, as part of the Anniversary Days Observance Act.[5]"


 * While the red link isn't helpful, the name of the act and the source [//books.google.co.uk/books?id=mHoDAAAAQAAJ] is a bit. If you check it out, you'll see it does repeal the requirement for the keeping and observance of the Twenty-ninth Day of May. BTW [//books.google.co.uk/books?id=mHoDAAAAQAAJ&vq=Anniversary%20Days%20Observance%20Act&pg=RA2-PA4&q=Anniversary%20Days%20Observance%20Act] is probably a little easier to find the exact ref since it's page 4 of the 1859 Compendious Abstract which is not near the beginning.
 * Some more searching finds [//books.google.co.uk/books?id=mbEaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3] which I think suggests I'm right and the royal warrant was just about the official religious stuff.
 * All this still doesn't answer the question, however knowing it's the Anniversary Days Observance Act should hopefully make searching the reasons behind it clearer (e.g. Hansard). Alternatively since the 5th November is I think the most high profile of the public holidays that was cancelled, it may be a good place to look.
 * Actually, while looking at the earlier search results, I did see (so relating to both avenues) [//books.google.co.uk/books?id=xAPeYLg0clUC&lpg=PT104&pg=PT104] which says
 * "debated the removal of the 'political' services"


 * which provides some limited answer.
 * There is more on the controversy surrounding November 5th. To me it sounds like this drew the strongest passions on both sides so you'd need to take some care if you do look for stuff about November 5th/ Although since the source is about November 5th it may have just didn't give an inkling of the strong passions about the other observances. I guess some of what Charles II did was contentious to parliament in 1858/1859.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At the Restoration four services were provided in the Book of Common Prayer relating to the deliverance of the Monarchy.  These were:


 * the Martyrdom of Charles I (30 January)
 * the Accession Day (currently 6 February)
 * the Restoration (29 May)
 * Gunpowder Plot (5 November, when a plot to blow up Parliament was foiled)

There were so many holidays that by the 1830s the Bank of England hardly opened at all. So the number was reduced to two - Good Friday and Christmas Day (apart from Sundays). In the 1870s a Member of Parliament, a Mr Lubbock, managed to get four additional "Bank" holidays created - Easter Monday, Whit Monday, the first Monday in August and Boxing Day (26 December). This is why Good Friday and Christmas Day are not "Bank Holidays", although the traffic wardens do not ticket you if you park on those days.

At the beginning of each reign, these services were authorised and a proclamation to that effect bound up at the end of the prayer book. In 1859 it was decided to do away with all but the accession service, and another proclamation giving effect to that was added. As the content of the prayer book could only be altered by Act of Parliament the legislation referred to above was passed. Nowadays only the proclamation relating to the accession service appears. I see that the term "Oak Apple Day" does not refer to the anniversary of the day Charles hid in an oak tree but to his restoration. It might be interesting to read the service in the prayer book to see if it throws any light on that, which I will do when I get home. 5.150.93.133 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To provide added support to what the IP said above, the bit about authorisation at the beginning of the reign is mentioned in my first source at least for Queen Victoria (but I didn't think it matters, seems I was wrong). Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Restoration of the Royal Family. "A Form of Thanksgiving with Prayer to Almighty God, for having put to an end the Great Rebellion, by the Restoration of the King and Royal Family..." from the 1812 edition of the Book of Common Prayer. As Nil Einne says above, this is not included in any modern edition of the BCP. Alansplodge (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at the old Book of Common Prayer, I see that George II made two proclamations, one for the three commemorative days on 12 September 1728 from Windsor and one for the Accession Service on 14 May 1728 from St James'.  By contrast, Victoria made a proclamation for all on 21 June 1837 from Kensington (i.e. the day after she became Queen).
 * The 5 November service commemorates not only the Gunpowder Plot but also the arrival of William III.  Old Style and New Style dates has a bit about him leaving Holland on the 11th and arriving on the 5th.   What mode of transport was he using that the journey took him four days?   There is some strong language:

the most traiterous [note the spelling] and bloody - intended Massacre ... Popish treachery ... Popish tyranny ... secret contrivance and hellish malice of Popish conspirators

Antonia Fraser's book explains the reasons for the discontinuance well. 5.150.93.133 (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * On the point of William's arrival at Brixham, he travelled with a large invasion fleet. He was aided by a fortuitous wind that allowed him to pass down the Channel in the "wrong direction" (the prevailing wind from the south-west would normally make this very difficult) and it also prevented James's Royal Navy from leaving port to intercept them; it was therefore described as a "Protestant wind". This source says that he arrived on the 4th, but was persuaded to wait for the 5th to disembark as it was a more propitious date. The choice of the West Country for a landing was because it was a hotbed of anti-Jacobite sentiment, especially after the failed Monmouth Rebellion, ("the Revolt of the West") and the Battle of Sedgmoor, the Bloody Assizes and the arrest of Bishop Trelawny ("And shall Trelawny live? / Or shall Trelawny die? / Here's twenty thousand Cornish men / Will know the reason why!").  Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Farrah Abraham
Does somebody of you know if the deflowered women Farrah Abraham has arabic ancestry or jewish ancestry? Her Name just sound very much foreign and she does look even like other very famous arabic women, for example Karima El Mahroug (an arabic prostitute) or the cute Zahia Dehar. I haven´t found anything with google about this case.--Ip80.123 (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Deflowered"? Did you beam down from the 19th century? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing beats actually reading the article, which states that she is an American of Syrian, Italian, Sicilian and Danish ancestry, though the reliability of the source seems weak at first glance. Farrah is a name derived from Arabic that means "Joy". I have a good friend who is an Iranian Jew named Farrah. As for "Abraham", that sounds Jewish but could be an Americanization of the Arabic equivalent "Ibrahim". So, it seems that she is a 100% American of mixed ancestry including some Middle Eastern ancestry, but we do not know her religious ancestry. Please avoid demeaning terminology in the future. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  00:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much User talk:Cullen328. Yes Baseball Bugs, I am beam down. If you love deflowered girls like Farrah, its really good for you, I can not love this person. Especially not if somebody find out, she is a moslem, like Zahia Dehar or Karima Ruby. That takes the cake. --Ip80.123 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject is a living person, and we have rules about WP:BLP here, so watch your comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your behavior here is way out of line, . Stop insulting living people, or you will most certainly be blocked. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

D'oh! I misread the heading as "Father Abraham"! Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article you linked to, Farrah Abraham, discusses her ancestry. There's nothing else we have to add.  -- Jayron 32 14:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

ISIS uniforms
Discussion I was having with someone today - help me clear up. Do ISIS wear their famous black uniforms as a deliberate nod to the nazi SS, or is it that they wear them for the *same reason* as the SS (i.e. the psychological connotations of black)? --146.90.120.170 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * First, is it a verifiable fact that they wear black? Second, if it is so, then there could be any reason for it - like maybe they got a good volume discount price on black clothing at their local Sam's Club. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * They don't have uniforms, per see, but do tend to wear all black when they want to make an impression. When they are hiding from drones or soldiers, they wear civilian clothes. StuRat (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See Black Standard. Black has a long history of symbolism in Islam. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the standard tactical uniform of ISIS fighters is camouflage. Spanish authorities siezed a shipment of 20,000 such camouflage uniforms to ISIS. It is true that senior ISIS commanders wear black uniforms off the active battlefield, and that ISIS victory parades include combatants dressed in black. But that is for their perverted propaganda show routines, not for everyday combat. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Nazi SS didn't wear black in combat. They wore camouflage uniforms. They wore black when on parade. We've had this discussion before. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 14:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, black uniforms is a kind of dress uniform both for Nazis and ISIS?Llaanngg (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)