Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 June 7

= June 7 =

Richard III's hunchback
How pronounced was Richard III's hunchback/spine curvature? I've seen the bones and know of the facial reconstruction of the king based on his remains. But has anyone reconstructed his full body/torso or written about how pronounced his spine curvature may have appeared when he was alive since the finding of his remains. --96.41.155.253 (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * rather pronounced . --Dr Dima (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Historian Dominic Selwood, amongst others, have argued that we don't know if that body really was that of Richard: --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * NB This notable opposition to the accepted theory is not in our Richard III article, nor in Exhumation_and_reburial_of_Richard_III_of_England. Happy for someone else to add it, or I'll get to it eventually. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Road safety
The concessionaire for the London cycle hire scheme provides two columns of six "Tips for safer cycling" at its docking stations. Tip No. 1 in the right - hand column is

Don't ride through red traffic lights-you may be fined

More to the point, you might be killed. Are there any other examples of fatuous road safety advice? 81.148.128.200 (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not fatuous at all, in many jurisdictions it is legal to go through a red light (turn on red), so it makes sense to emphasise for tourists. Fgf10 (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You have to stop first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not every jurisdiction is Idaho. Paris (France, not Texas) allows cyclists to make a right turn on red or proceed straight through a T-intersection without stopping, under some circumstances: .  The Dutch have been doing the same sort of thing for decades: . TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. You don't always have to stop first, therefore it makes sense to emphasise this. Fgf10 (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In America, a right on red requires a stop first, and you're supposed to yield to oncoming traffic before turning, whether you're a car or a bike. I couldn't say how it works where you come from. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. Hence why I said "You don't always have to stop first". Your categorical statement earlier was an overgeneralisation. Fgf10 (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * According to it is legal for cyclists to do so (in certain circumstances) Brussels and some cities in Germany (as well as the aforementioned Idaho, Paris and the Netherlands). And evidently San Francisco considered doing so and London considered trialing this. So yeah there is actually a very good reason for this advice. Especially since tourists from those parts of Europe would be one likely user of the scheme. Note it doesn't matter whether you have to stop first or not anyway as the advice simply says "Don't ride through red traffic lights-you may be fined" because it doesn't matter in London whether you stop first or not, you're still liable to be fined. The advice is useful both for those familiar with the Idaho law, and for those familiar with the law in Paris and elsewhere; and any other laws which allow people to cycle through red lights. (Of course this doesn't mean it's okay to say you always have to stop first when you don't.) Of course if you come from a place like NZ where the law is there but rarely enforced the advice is also theoretically useful except that I wonder how many people will appreciate it's not just empty advice and people are evidently regularly fined for this. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not everyone knows that you can be fined when driving a bike in the same way as a driver of any motor vehicle. Clipname (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The question claimed this was an example of "fatuous" advice and asked us to find more. But if the cyclist has enough common sense to not attempt passing a red light when there is oncoming traffic, then it makes sense to warn them that they could nevertheless be fined. In other words, this is saying "We enforce the law against cyclists even when they can see that there is no danger." That may or may not be true, but it's not fatuous. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the law often requires doing dangerous things, all in the cause of "safety". In the case of the bicyclist, crossing when there is no traffic is probably safer than when the light says to cross.  This is because they are often "invisible" to motorists. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * --69.159.63.238 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , . StuRat (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See also SMIDSY. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In this country, there are many junctions where you are permitted to turn right but not left.  This throws up a hazard for unsuspecting pedestrians.   At the weekend, seeing a red light at the junction I began crossing three lanes of stationary traffic on a dual carriageway.   Unbeknown to me, while the light remained red an ill - lit green filter arrow had come on permitting drivers to cross the junction and the cars started moving. 81.148.128.200 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to add some context, in London, many cyclists routinely ride through red lights and the police have only recently taken steps to prosecute anyone. A Transport for London survey in 2007 showed that only 84% of London cyclists obey red light signals. Therefore, people hiring a bike in London might assume that it is legal for cyclists to pass a red light.  Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * More to the point, it seems that the majority of cyclists who cycle in London after dark do so without lights, and an awful lot of them cycle on pavements with no regard for pedestrian safety (remembering that they are a completely silent form of transport). 81.148.128.200 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Although that's not more to the point in respect of the original question. However, I take your point. A friend who is a special constable has recently been involved in an operation to crack down on cyclists' dangerous behaviour in London, so it seems something is being done at last. Alansplodge (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (EC) I wonder if 69 is confused about why some cyclists feel it's safer to go through red lights as this doesn't intrisicly common from cyclists being invisible or not being seen. In NZ it isn't uncommon some cyclists will go through a red light when it's clearly safe to do so and safety is one commonly cited reason (I'm lazy to dig up references but see some of the replies to these articles, as well as  which isn't from NZ). This is generally for 2 reasons. 1 if you are going straight and the lane is both for people turning left and going straight (people drive on the left in NZ) there's a risk a left turning driver may hit you if you're going straight. The second is regardless of where you're going, it puts you ahead of the traffic, hopefully increasing the chance you'll be given sufficient room (while things are improving even in Auckland there still aren't that many cycle lanes or other cyclist facilities like special traffic lights etc). Or in some cases, depending on where your traveling, when you cross, the speed of the traffic, the distance to the next light etc, you may even avoid the traffic completely. Getting back to the first point, it may also be particularly beneficial at the light especially if both of you are turning in the same direction. Note that as evidenced from the earlier references this isn't without controversy and most cyclist advocacy organisations don't support it, and yes not all cyclists are as careful to ensure it's safe to do so as they should be. Of particular contention is when it happens during pedestrian crossings and the cyclist travels into the path of the pedestrian crossing, although a lot of drivers seem to just complain about it because it's illegal (regardless of circumstances) and cyclists clearly don't think the road rules apply to them (I think a lot of them are complaining despite regularly driving 60 km/h on a 50 km/h road or going through an orange light when they could clearly stop safely in time). Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On your second point, traffic lights in London now have a "bike box" just ahead of the other traffic, which gives cyclists a bit of a head start. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that a "bike box" is officially called an Advanced stop line. Alansplodge (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You also get these in Auckland with some traffic lights, especially where there is a cycle lane. [//www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDYbhxbl0hQ "early release"] and [//www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFL-c7Sv9Q8 "hold the left turning traffic"] (mentioned in the Guardian article I linked in my other post above) are AFAIK extremely rare in Auckland although I admit I don't travel much in the more cycling friendly areas (whether driving or cycling) although I'm not sure how common these are in London at the moment anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * One problem with many laws to "protect cyclists" is that they are passed by people who drive cars and not bikes, who don't really understand the differences. For example, there's often a requirement that cyclists drive on the same side of the road as cars.  That is, that Eastbound bikes drive on the same side as Eastbound cars.  The assumption here is that this makes it safer for cyclists, by reducing the speed differential between the two.  However, this also gives the cyclist less visibility of an approaching motorist, and this can be dangerous, if the cyclist needs to move out of the way of a motorist who isn't paying attention (or is outright trying to run them down).  Rear-view mirrors help, on bikes, but it's still difficult to keep track of both what's in front of you and what's behind you, at all times.   Thus, such a law really takes the safety of the cyclist out of their own hands and entrusts it to the motorists, who have been shown to not be at all good at protecting the lives of cyclists.  StuRat (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Christians and the holy land
When have Christians dropped their claims to the holy land? Why are only Jewish people and Muslims dead set on it? --Clipname (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * After the last of the Crusades, Christians stopped trying to control it, although Britain did control it after WW1, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, but by that point it was no longer important for Christians to have exclusive control over it and they eventually decided to pull out. See British Mandate. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The question remains: why isn't it that important to Christians? The holy land is holy to the three Abrahamic religions. No one really needs to lay claim to it, but two of them do it anyway. --Clipname (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Jews seem to feel the need for a place to be safe, since they were massacred when they were a minority. See Holocaust and pogroms.  As for Christians, the Reformation gave the Church less power and more threats to worry about, closer to home, and corresponds roughly with the end of the Crusades, so that may be relevant. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We need a "wild speculation" tag for StuRat's answers. Hofhof (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * StuRat's comments match my own understanding of it. What have you read that disagrees? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * StuRat has rewritten his comment. Just take a look at: [] and tell me with whom you agree.Hofhof (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody had yet responded, so I continued to improve my answer, just as you did below by finally including some links. It's rather pointless to ask if people disagree with the part I removed, because I disagree with it, too.  This is why I removed it. StuRat (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Jewish people were 'given/promised' the country by the UK, and they needed a safe haven. The Muslim were/felt displaced. Both consider themselves as the rightful inhabitants of land and try to keep/fight for it. Christian are/were just a minority in the region. Hofhof (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I provided several links, but see none provided by you. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Balfour Declaration, 1948 Palestinian exodus. Christianity in IsraelHofhof (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The casus belli of the Crimean War was a row over access to Christian sites in Jerusalem, see Crimean War, but it was more about Catholic vs Orthodox rather than Christian vs Islam, plus a lot of superpower rivalry.  Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Questioner, it's more the other way round. Why was Christendom interested in the Holy Land in the first place after about 1,000 years of not particularly caring about who has control of it. The origins of the First Crusade are murky and much argued about by historians. Yet another occasion when the much-missed User:Clio the Muse would have shed some light. My befuddled memory of the debate is that the appeal of the Byzantines for help catches peoples' imaginations and coincides nicely with some societal pressures and issues to create a potent cocktail. I'd imagine that certain types of historians would argue that the changes in society, eg the rise of the European middle classes, release some of those tensions. Others might argue it's about the rise of the nation state. Others still that leaders eventually worked out that Crusading in Outremer was futile without demography behind it. In any case, understand the original cause before you can understand why it stopped applying. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Dweller -- it's not actually that murky; it's a reasonably direct consequence of the Battle of Manzikert, which destroyed the Byzantine Empire's hold on Anatolia, a region which was actually predominantly Greek-speaking at that point, and the main foundation of Byzantine power (far more so than Greece itself). The conquering Turks, as relatively recent converts to Islam, tended to be intolerant and more likely to cut off Christian pilgrimage routes than the Fatimids had been.  Also, some Christians perceived the danger of a two-front pincer movement against Christian Europe, with Turks advancing through Anatolia into the Balkans (which actually did happen) in the east, while in the west there might be renewed Arab and Berber assaults against Spain and ultimately France, accompanied by renewed piracy and naval invasions in the Western Mediterranean, such as had resulted in Muslims having a base in France (Fraxinetum) a century earlier.  From that point of view, the first Crusade was an attempt to take the battle directly to the enemy heartland.  The first Crusade had elements of both chauvinistic religious fanaticism and sober military strategy... AnonMoos (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Previous to that, Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (the "Mad Caliph") had banned his Christian subjects from celebrating Easter or using wine in Holy Communion in 1004, and in 1009 ordered the demolition of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, arguably the holiest Christian shrine. Although the Byzantines soon reached a workable access agreement with Al-Hakim's successor, his actions provided ammunition for the European rabble-rousers who initiated the First Crusade. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to add to AnonMoos' and Alan's responses, it wasn't 1000 years as Dweller says - Christians had lost control of the Holy Land about 400 years earlier. If you think, well, 400 years is a long time, why do they still care? That's a good question but irredentism is a hell of a drug. Some of the people who actually participated in the crusade believed that it was the natural conclusion of the Muslim conquests in the 7th century, and events like al-Hakim and Manzikert in the 11th century were still fresh to them. It was all connected in their minds, some of them anyway. And Dweller is right, "certain types" of historians argue about the origins of the crusade a lot, and have done so for decades, centuries even. Currently the consensus seems to be that crusaders mostly had sincere religious beliefs and went on crusade for pious reasons and considered Islamic expansion a threat to their way of life or whatever (although not all historians think so, some *cough cough* consider this to be a useless pantsload of an explanation). By the way, hopefully we don't actually summon Clio the Muse. Her powers of "restating the relevant Wikipedia article but with bigger words" were never very useful. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's not as if Christian control of the Levant was a given before the Muslim conquest - Heraclius had only just got Jerusalem back from the Sassanids when it was lost again after the Battle of Yarmouk. And given that Christianity only became the State church of the Roman Empire in 380 CE, the period the Holy Land was under control of a Christian state really was not that impressive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In the decade of the 1090s, the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 1009 was history that was felt to still have relevance, but the Battle of Manzikert was basically current events. That is, given the state of communications, transportation, and political organization during that period, by the time knowledge of the battle had been diffused throughout Latin Christendom and understood by informed people there, and knowledge of the various political/military/religious changes resulting from the battle had been diffused throughout Latin Christendom and understood by informed people there, and people were considering and discussing whether Latin Christendom should offer any collective response to this threat, it was already the 1090s...  AnonMoos (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Socioeconomic status women and men / wives and husbands at wedding day
How does the socioeconomic status of wives and husbands compare to the situation of women and men in the general population? That is, how fluid is the socioeconomic status of the partners in a marriage? --Clipname (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Generally they converge as a result of marriage. That is, the lower socioeconomic status partner rises up, and perhaps the upper partner falls down, until they are close to equal in status.  There are many variations on marriage, though, and especially in societies with multiple wives for each husband, the status of the women can be far less than the men. StuRat (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That sounds like wild speculation or just the first thing someone could think of. I'd dare to say that the socioeconomic status of bride/bridegroom is the same as avg.man/avg.woman in the general population. But that would be just a personal opinion too. We need to find sources though. --Hofhof (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you interpreted the Q differently than I:


 * 1) My interpretation: How do the socioeconomic status of a bride and groom change, following marriage to partners of a different status ?


 * 2) Your interpretation (?): How does the socioeconomic status of married couples differ from the general population ? StuRat (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: I asked at wedding day. What's the distance between the partners, what's the distance between men/women in the general population. I'm interested specially in the economic part. Clipname (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, that sounds more like the 2nd interpretation. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW, in the UK, married couples used to receive significant tax breaks and other benefits in comparison to single people, although they have been reduced in recent years. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No time to google further, but for those good at searching: The relevant terms seem to be heterogamy (for partners who come to the marriage with different socio-economic status) and homogamy (for partners who come to the marriage with the same socio-economic status). Another keyword you can try is “assortative marriage”. Possibly some American data here . Are you looking for a particular country?184.151.231.149 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Fifty leading American companies
In an opinion column published on June 5 in the New York Times (and in today's international edition), Antony J. Blinken states: "Just nine months ago, President Obama convened a special leaders summit meeting on refugees during the United Nations General Assembly. Fifty-two countries made commitments to increase their financial contributions to international humanitarian organizations by $4.5 billion over 2015 levels, double the number of refugees they resettle, and improve access to education for one million refugee children and to lawful work for one million adults. As well, 50 leading American companies committed to provide education opportunities for 80,000 refugees and employment possibilities for 200,000." Is a list of those last-mentioned 50 leading American companies accessible? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * right here Eddie891 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops. I mean right hereEddie891 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! This source (obamawhitehouse.archives.gov) was previously unknown to me. I'm hoping it will serve as a WP:Reliable source so long as the citation includes the access date - as perhaps there's reason to believe even an archive might be dynamic (i.e. mutable) when we can't be sure of "its" integrity, etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wars of the Roses
What was the Wars of the Roses referred and called by academics and historians before the 19th century reference by Walter Scott?--96.41.155.253 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As it clearly says on the page: "During Shakespeare's time people used the term Civil Wars: cf. e.g., the title of Samuel Daniel's work, the First Four Books of the Civil Wars" Eddie891 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. So when did the term English Civil War come into use for the next civil war in England, and did the Wars of the Roses go by another name during, say, the 18th century? --69.159.63.238 (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did more digging and found this book which says "what we now call the Wars of the Roses were sometimes referred to by contemporaries as the 'Cousins' Wars" (as a matter of fact, Cousins' Wars is much more commonly accepted as the pre-Walter Scott name) Eddie891 (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? There are also books from before the 18th century on Google Books, I am not finding Cousins' War in any of them. --96.41.155.253 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed; as Alison Weir is to historical research what Ronald McDonald is to cuisine :)   &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At 69.159.63.238, Interesting question. I like to know too.--96.41.155.253 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting article on this, from the Catholic Herald. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/10/15/the-wars-of-the-roses-must-not-be-rebranded-as-the-cousins-war/ Wymspen (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * David Hume's great 18th century work, The History of England, describes the events in some detail without actually giving them an inclusive name (as far as I can see). The relevant volume is here, should anybody want to go through it more thoroughly. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Re Hume, using the search function at, I find these quotes: "…those of York were denominated from the white; and these civil wars were thus known, over Europe, by the name of the quarrel between the two roses." and "There is no part of English history since the Conquest, so obscure, so uncertain, so little authentic or consistent, as that of the wars between the two Roses."
 * (P.S. When Hume writes of the English Civil War in volume 5, he uses "Commencement of the civil war" as the heading for chapter LVI and continues to use the term, lower case.)
 * (P.P.S. A contemporary of Walter Scott, John Lingard never uses the phrase "War of the Roses", although he refers to "the bloody feuds between "the two roses".") 184.151.231.149 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)