Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 November 19

= November 19 =

Woops, can't pick up that Nobel. Pre-existing commentments.

 * "Yesterday evening the Swedish Academy received a personal letter from Bob Dylan, in which he explained that due to pre-existing commitments, he is unable to travel to Stockholm in December and therefore will not attend the Nobel Prize Ceremony. He underscored, once again, that he feels very honored indeed, wishing that he could receive the prize in person."

I wonder what kind of pre-existing commitments could be powerful enough to prevent someone from collecting a Nobel Prize. I have a semi-annual dental checkup around that time of year, but I'm sure I could reschedule it if I got a Nobel.

Any idea what might be going on? Does Dylan have a concert scheduled around December 10? Studio time booked? Somebody's birthday? How hard is it to get out of something like that, really? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure. Bob Dylan's Never Ending Tour breaks at the end of November this year, as it normally does. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not attending in person to receive the award won't disqualify him, but not attending in person to deliver his Nobel lecture WILL disqualify him, so he's gotta go there at some stage. But maybe he's not interested.  I doubt he needs the money.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Why would he be disqualified for not delivering a speech? Says who?  There have been several awardees who were unable to attend due to fear of personal or political retribution (one was even in prison when he received the award), I don't think there was any discussion of canceling their awards.  It doesn't make much sense to me that an award of this caliber would be in any way contingent on attending in person.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See Nobel Prize: Nobel lecture - According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, each laureate is required to give a public lecture on a subject related to the topic of their prize... The laureate is only obliged to give the lecture within six months of receiving the prize. Now, special circumstances are always accommodated; but if Dylan were to say he has no intention of giving any form of lecture, without giving a reason, they could withdraw his award.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I checked and neither source cited in Nobel Prize actually says the lecture is required. Even if such a rule exists on paper, they never have withdrawn an award for failing to present a lecture and as discussed below numerous people have delayed, skipped, or given a proxy lecture.  It's a toothless rule if it is never enforced.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with Dragons flight on this. One of the previous times this came up, I provided some (well at least one) sources saying the money may not be given if an awardee does not give the lecture. However the person is still the winner of the Nobel Prize as far as the Nobel committee is concerned, no matter how much they don't want it. I believe the source was either quoting or relaying what a member of the committee told them. Note that Dylan's reaction has actually been less extreme than some other laureates as he eventually acknowledges it, said thanks etc. By comparison others have completely rejected it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Prize itself remains on the record no matter what the recipient's attitude is. But the awarding of the money is a different matter.  Jean-Paul Sartre rejected the Prize and refused to give any sort of lecture.  No money was paid.  Later, he needed the money and asked for it.  The request was declined.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that source is the same or some variation of what I read before, confirming what I said above. The Nobel Prize/award will never be withdrawn as originally suggested. However it's possible the money may be disputed. My original guess was the money was simply not provided until the requirements were fulfilled. But with 76's comments below I'm not so sure. It's possible that if arrangements are made to receive the money at the ceremony, it will be provided even if the requirements haven't been met yet. In that case, I guess it's possible if the cheque hasn't been cashed and there has been no agreement, after 6 months the cheque will be cancelled. I.E. the award money may be withdrawn, but not the award itself. If the cheque has been cashed, I guess it's even possible they will ask for it back. I find it unlikely they'll pursue this much more though if nothing happens. It may be more likely that if the money is provided but the requirements haven't been fulfilled, they largely just expect the laureate to fulfill the promise on their own initiative. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the straight dope on declining the prize and on giving the lecture: Nobel Foundation statutes, section 9. The second and third paragraphs are short enough to quote in full:
 * Should a prizewinner decline the prize, or before October 1 in the calendar year immediately following fail to cash the prize-awarding body's check in the manner stipulated by the Board, the amount of the prize shall be added to the Foundation's restricted funds.
 * It shall be incumbent on a prizewinner, whenever this is possible, to give a lecture on a subject relevant to the work for which the prize has been awarded. Such a lecture should be given before, or no later than six months after, the Festival Day in Stockholm or, in the case of the Peace Prize, in Oslo.
 * So they don't precisely say "no lecture, no money". I don't believe there's ever been a case of anyone accepting the prize and choosing not to give the lecture, though. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * To add a bit. Awardees in failing health or otherwise unable to travel often deliver a video recorded address (or in the old days provided a written letter someone would read).  In the case that an awardee dies after the announcement but before the medal ceremony, a family member or colleague is allowed to give the lecture and the award to still conferred.  When Liu Xiaobo won the award of prison, a Norwegian actress simply read a statement he wrote prior to his imprisonment and that was his "lecture".  Theodore Roosevelt delayed his lecture for 4 years to wait for the end of his presidency.  Wilhelm Röntgen won the 1901 physics award, received the award in person, and promised to come back to give a lecture but actually never did.  Similarly, according to NobelPrize.org, Henri Moissan, William Bragg, Niels Ryberg Finsen, Adolf von Baeyer, Marie Curie (1903), Adolf Butenandt, Jules Bordet, Isidor Isaac Rabi, Elias Canetti, Richard Kuhn, Egas Moniz, Edward A. Doisy, and Lev Landau never gave any Nobel Lecture.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to set the record straight.  The Reuter report quotes Per Wastberg as saying that Dylan's silence is "rude and arrogant".   However, according to the October issue of Fame magazine things have moved on:

"No sábado, 22, a imprensa sueca informou que o membro da academia Per Wastberg havia dito que caso Dylan permanecesse em silêncio seria 'rude e arrogante'. A academia, no entanto, informou que os commentários de Wastberg não refletiam sua visão.   'O autor premiado com o Prêmio Nobel toma sua propria decisão em relação ás cerimónias envolvendo a apresentação do prêmio', disse Sara Danius, secretária permanente da Academia, em comunicado." "A Academia Sueca nunca manteve uma visão sobre as decisões dos vencedores de prêmios neste contexto, nem ira agora, independentemente da decisão alcançada."

I translate this as

"On Saturday, 22nd, the Swedish press reported that Academy member Per Wastberg had said that if Dylan remained silent it would be 'rude and arrogant'. The Academy, meanwhile, stated that Wastberg's comments did not reflect its view.   'The author awarded the Nobel Prize takes his own decision in relation to the ceremonies involving the presentation of the prize', said Sara Danius, permanent secretary of the Academy, in a communication." "'The Swedish Academy never maintained a view on the decisions of the prizewinners in this context, nor are they going to now, independently of the decision reached.'"

Edward William Purvis
I am looking for sources in the British army records from the 1860s and 1870s which speaks of a Edward William Purvis. The sources I have in the current article speaks about his experiences in Hawaii but prior to 1879, he was in the British Army. The only reliable sources I could find about him from before 1879 are the two books (all Google Books has are these non-informational regimental list) which list him in the 70th (Surrey) Regiment and 31st (Huntingdonshire) Regiment (no details) and another book that he attended Cheltenham College. So I need help finding reliable sources about his British military services, maybe a reference that he attended the Royal Military College, Sandhurst or some sources about what those two regiments were doing with him in them. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Commissions could be purchased until 1871. Sleigh (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks but that is just speculation and not related to the subject I am asking about. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * E. W. Purvis wouldn't've gone to Sandhurst if he purchased his commission. Sleigh (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there available sources with list from the Royal Military College, Sandhurst from this period? Unreliable sources, which I can't use, stated he enter in 12th February 1876, so I need sources about the college from that period. Don't usually institutions like this usually have alumni list or register of students in contemporary or later publications? Something like this but for Sandhurst instead. His name could be listed as "E. W. Purvis", "Edward W. Purvis", "Edward William Purvis", "Edward Purvis", "Purvis, E. W.", "Purvis, Edward W.", "Purvis, Edward William", or "Purvis, Edward".  --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I take it that you've seen Edward William (Toby or Ukelele) Purvis which says: "Entered (12th February 1876) the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, Berkshire, England, joined (February 1877) the 70th (Surrey) Regiment in Bengal, India, as Sub-Lieutenant (learning to speak Hindi), and transferred (July/September 1879) to the 31st (Huntingdonshire) Regiment at Chatham, Kent, England, as Sub-Lieutenant. He then resigned his British Army Commission and travelled across the U.S.A. to settle (probably c.1879/80) in Honolulu". That web entry seems to use this book as a reference. If the above is correct, then his military service consisted of two years in Bengal and a few months in Kent, probably occupying his time playing polo or pigsticking. However, the rank is an error - Sub Lieutenant is a naval rank, the army equivalent is Second lieutenant. Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I need to correct that last - according to Ranks and Insignia for Infantry Officers through out the Victorian Era: "Until 1871 the lowest commissioned rank was the Ensign in the Infantry and Cornet in the Cavalry... Between 1871-1877 the lowest was the Sub Lieutenant, after which today's Second Lieutenant rank was established." I can't find a better source, but the fact is mentioned (unreferenced and without dates) in our Sub lieutenant article. Alansplodge (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By the bye, Purvis seems to have introduced the Macadamia nut to Hawaii in 1885.  Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That source is wrong. It was a second cousin William Herbert Purvis who did that. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This link suggests that the the records of the Royal Military Academy are not available online, but there is an email contact. Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A little more progress... I found that the National Library of Scotland has Hart's Army Lists viewable online. See New Army List 1877 - Unattached Sub Lieutenants (Students at the Royal Military College) which shows Edward William Purvis listed under 12 February 1876, which matches the entry date in the biography that I linked above.
 * Also there is New Army List 1878 - 70th (Surrey) which has the regiment at Mooltan Bengal. "Mooltan" in Wikipedia redirects to Multan in Punjab on the other side of the sub-continent, so I'm not sure where this Mooltan is, unless it's a transcription error. Purvis is listed amongst eight sub lieutenants in the battalion, with 2 years service. The title page says "Corrected to 31 December 1877".
 * Next, New Army List 1879 - 70th (Surrey) which has the Surreys in "Quetta, Bengal". Again, Quetta is nowhere near Bengal, (it's in Balochistan) so I'm growing a bit suspicious of Hart's geography. Purvis is still a sub lieutenant, now with 3 years service.
 * And finally, New Army List 1880 - Resignations, &c. which has under "Sub-lieutenants": "E. W. Purvis, 31 F." (ie: 31st Regiment of Foot). Hope this helps.  Alansplodge (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What do the dates mean in the first source? Are we sure they are the entry dates for the students?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't prove it, but it seems the most likely interpretation. If I've done my arithmetic right, Purvis would have been 18 years-old at that date.
 * I did find a tantalising Google Books "snippet view" which describes an officer called General Sir Archibald Hunter, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., D.S.O., who was an "Unattached Sub Lieutenant" at Sandhurst in 1874. The bit I can read on page 6 says: "These men would be known as unattached Sub-Lieutenants. Hunter chose to go to Sandhurst under this scheme. Due to administrative and other problems being experienced while Hunter was there, the Sandhurst records provide little information about his time at the Royal Military College. Strangely, he is recorded as having both arrived and departed on 13 June 1874! He certainly arrived on this date, but left about a year later at the conclusion of his course". Finding Hunter's entry in the New Army List, he is indeed listed on 13 June 1874, in exactly the same way as Purvis, so I think we can conclude that 12 February 1876 is Purvis's arrival date.   Alansplodge (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Medieval dinner
I've been challenged to organise a birthday party with a medieval theme, I've managed ok with the decorations, but I might need some advice with what else we can put on for food, any suggestions of the sorts of things that would be suitable, both in terms of main courses and snacks and other smaller items.

Many thanks,

86.24.139.55 (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * For starters, we do have a featured article on medieval cuisine. ---Sluzzelin talk  10:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This site has a bunch of recipes. Deor (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The guests must either eat with their fingers and maybe knives if they bring one, or drink from the soup bowl or dab one's bread in the broth. No fancy French tableware.  No potatoes, peppers, tomatoes, rice or anything from the East or the new world. Watch the movies Excalibur and Monty Python's Holy Grail. Do not wash your hands while preparing the food. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Bring out all courses including dessert at the same time. Do wash your hands while preparing food (germ theory of disease). Sleigh (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, Sleigh, I had forgotten Pasteur was a member of Charlemagne's court. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * See An Evening with the Tudors: How to prepare a Medieval Feast. The Tudor dynasty is widely regarded as belonging to the Renaissance period rather than the Medieval one, but unless you're entertaining the pedantic, I wouldn't let that worry you too much. Alansplodge (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * See Charles Laughton as Henry VIII. 2A00:23C4:8300:6C01:75C8:2661:C8F1:FDEA (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The Inn at the Cross Roads, a Game of Thrones/Song of Ice and Fire cooking fan blog, is good source for dishes that are reasonably authentic - but also palatable to the modern taste (medieval recipes were often sickeningly sweet, heavy on pungent herbs and spices, and used combinations of ingredients that we'd now find weird) and that use ingredients that can be found in modern shops. They write the official "A Feast of Ice and Fire" cookbook, which has two versions of each recipe - one based on genuine medieval recipes, altered only to replace hard-to-find ingredients and allow for the use of modern cooking equipment, and a more heavily modernized version, adapted to the standards of Nouvelle cuisine. Smurrayinchester 10:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie
Who pays Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie? Do both of these Royal Family members live off the British taxpayer, or do they have an actual job? --Camero-Belter (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's Princess Eugenie. Eugene is a male name. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Corrected. So how do they fund their lifestyles? --Camero-Belter (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * this, that states that the Duke of York supports them. Nanonic (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A good overview Wikipedia article is Finances of the British Royal Family. -- Jayron 32 16:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Her article states that Eugenie "work[s] for the Hauser & Wirth art gallery as an associate director". Rojomoke (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking in general, if you're rich enough it's possible to live off investment income, so one doesn't need "an actual job". --47.138.163.230 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Although if you believe the Daily Mail, Eugenie has given up her job with a New York investment firm, Sandbridge Capital, and started her own consultancy.  So it seems that they both work for a living. Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

About one particular baby name
From Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, after describing Thurgood Marshall's appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States:

"Johnson confidently predicted to one biographer, Doris Kearns Goodwin, that a lot of black baby boys would be named "Thurgood" in honor of this choice (in fact, Kearns's research of birth records in New York and Boston indicates that Johnson's prophecy did not come true)."

That got me wondering something. Did the name "Marshall" (admittedly more commonplace both then and now) become popular with that demographic instead, or were baby name trends totally unaffected by his appointment? And where would relevant resources be located? Airbag190 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, birth records for the relevant period (the 1970s) are not yet publically available, presumably for privacy reasons. The researchers must have had some kind of academic dispensation, or done their own survey/analysis - for example, she might have researched student records at her university. The New York Public Library gives a contact telephone number for people wanting to research city birth records after 1910. (The baby name wizard which is for all of the US, not just New York or Boston, shows the name Marshall peaked around 1900. It does not offer a breakdown by ethnic background.) 184.147.122.87 (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Top 1000 Names of 1965 — Male has Marshall at 265th with 780 babies whereas Top 1000 Names of 1964 — Male has Marshall at 267th with 825 babies. So there seems to have been a slight decline in the actual number of babies named Marshall after Thurgood's appointment, but again, no ethnic breakdown. This site has the name Thurgood at 11,979th place in 2014, but no prior data. Not sure how reliable this sort of website is - probably not very. Alansplodge (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If this site is to be believed, Marshall actually flattened and then experienced a bit of a decline around that time (and then became popular again much more recently. However, that source only segregates between males and females, not by race (however you want it defined). Given the flatness of popularity, it would be interesting to see if there was an increase in usage among blacks with a commensurate decline among non-blacks. At least at this remove, I don't think of "mashall" as being particularly connotative of the Justice, though; it's much more clearly tied to marshal. Matt Deres (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Chitterlings, yuk
What do other English-speaking countries call chitterlings? Even Canadians do not call it that. I need to know for Talk:Chitterlings and am having trouble getting search engine answers. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Chittlins? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't know, don't guess. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a guess - it's what they're called in America [maybe more often spelled "chitlins"]. What does the questioner mean by "other" English-speaking countries? "Other than" which country? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me. The question mark misled me.  If you misle me again, I'll, I'll ...  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Other than US and the country where the term originates, England. I wonder what intestines as food is called in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, Caribbean countries, African countries, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that the term is (as far as I know) entirely historical in England; I've never seen them for sale or heard of anybody eating them in my lifetime. Alansplodge (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And it hardly seems necessary to point out that what you (or any other individual) have experienced isn't necessarily representative of the entire country, since a couple of minutes on google reveals numerous sources of chitterlings for sale in the UK:, , . CodeTalker (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ... but Alan is correct that they are a specialist product not generally available in supermarkets.   D b f i r s   09:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction User:CodeTalker, your first link describes it as a "great West Country delicacy and a taste of the olden days". Both my parents came from the Devon and Cornwall borders, I have relatives living in Plymouth and Saltash and I'm a regular visitor there; I've never heard of anybody eating them, never seen them in a butcher's shop or on a pub or restaurant menu. I just wanted to point out to the OP that it wasn't an everyday item in the British diet. Liver and kidneys yes, and I remember as a child seeing tripe in a butcher's window, but not chitterlings. Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Grew up in Cornwall, family from Wiltshire and north Somerset. Have always imagined chitterlings to be the sort of thing Yorkshiremen eat to show off. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be interested to know that the OED puts the word in "band 3": "words [that] are not commonly found in general text types like novels and newspapers, but at the same they are not overly opaque or obscure". Such word might be typically found only once in fifty million words of text.  Compare this with "tripe" which the OED claims is ten times as common.  Google ngrams confirms this ratio for modern English, with the word chitterlings being less common in modern British English than in American by a factor of two.  Whilst we are exchanging personal experiences, I've only ever come across the word once (in an American text I think), and I've never seen the product on sale in the UK.    D b f i r s   22:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure intestine is still eaten in many of these: List of territorial entities where English is an official language, especially the poorer ones. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if it is an actual ingredient in ballpark hotdogs, and not just used as a casing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is a use of the word "Chitterlings" in an Australian source. And Another Australian source.  Here is a Canadian source using the "Chitlins" spelling.  Here is a forum discussing good chitterlings sources in Toronto, and uses that spelling.  Here is a review of the best places to get chitterlings in Halifax, NS and uses that spelling.  I'm quite sorry you're unfamiliar with the term, but you should realize that "I've never heard it" is not a synonym for "It's not common".  -- Jayron 32 04:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayron32. Thanks for digging those up. I really did try, and found nothing. I looked for African and Caribbean recipes in particular.


 * And I must say that "I've never heard it" is not a synonym for "It's not common", but they are similar. If someone who spent many years in Canada never heard the term (like me), then one may rightly think that it is not common.


 * Anyhow, many thanks to the responders. I guess a page move is not needed. I am still surprised. I would have thought that African and Caribbean recipes use it and call it simply intestines. Cheers to all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)