Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 July 1

= July 1 =

CareTech residential homes
I just blocked an IP address registered to "CareTech residential homes, UK". What is this organisation? I ran a Google search for "CareTech residential homes" and got two pages of Facebook results and basically nothing else. And if I run a Google search for just "CareTech", I get companies in Iowa, New York, and Michigan, but seemingly nothing running residential homes in the UK. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you are getting such weird results. A simple search for 'caretech residential home' finds [//www.caretech-uk.com] for me. You're in the US so US results may be prioritised but it seems weird that the UK one doesn't show up at all. Did you happen to only search for "CareTech residential homes" with quotes? That's generally a bad idea. (And does give poor results even for me, although some are slightly relevant.) Quotes are useful sometimes but it's normally best to at least try without them if you don't get good results although frankly in this instance I wouldn't and well didn't bother with quotes from the get go and the evidence suggests this was the right decision. Note that "CareTech residential home" does still give the UK group as does 'CareTech residential home' and 'CareTech residential homes' i.e. without the quotes. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that's helpful. I didn't do a no-quotes search: the description in Shared IP corp made me think that "CareTech residential homes" was a proper noun (i.e. someone just hadn't capitalised two words), so my lack of relevant results made me guess that there was a mistake in the name.  "Residential homes" sounding redundant (how can a place be a home if it's not residential, or vice versa?), I figured that a search for all three words wouldn't work, so I thought I'd do best with a search just for CareTech.  But when I run a no-quotes search, I do get the UK organisation.  Thank you for the pointer; that answers my questions.  "X residential homes" sounded like a geriatric facility, which confused me as old people aren't our typical vandal population; it makes more sense that CareTech would serve children as well.  Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Birthdate of Edward Smith-Stanley, 12th Earl of Derby
A serious issue with Edward Smith-Stanley, 12th Earl of Derby's supposed date of birth has remained unresolved since 2012. Please see Talk:Edward Smith-Stanley, 12th Earl of Derby for details.

The basic problem is that we say he was born in December 1752, yet reliable sources have his birth being registered 2 months earlier, in October. The supposed September birthdate that led to this October registration is also a problem because it did not exist in Britain due to the elimination of 11 days from the calendar when switching from the Julian to Gregorian calendars.

Can anyone resolve this once and for all? Thanks. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Not only were 11 days removed but the beginning of the year was also shifted, from 25 March to 1 January. Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 says that in England and Wales, the legal year 1751 was a short year of 282 days, running from 25 March to 31 December (i.e. it was stopped at 31 December instead of carrying on). 1752 began (the next day) on 1 January.


 * Now in 1751, with the year beginning in March, December would have been the 10th month. This makes sense, since Sept-ember=7th month, Oct-ober=8th, Nov-ember=9th, and Dec-ember=10th. Assuming the birth occurred in December 1752, the discrepancy could have arisen because someone had a lapse of concentration and mistakenly entered 10 for the month December. This is most likely to have happened soon after the birth, less than a year after the shift to January 1st New Years Day. It seems very likely that December is the correct month of birth. Akld guy (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * But then why do reliable sources say he was born in September, and that his birth was registered in October? To make one mistake would be a misfortune; to make two looks like ... well, you know the rest.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I used December for my example because you stated above that the article says December 1752. But the same two month offset applies to September and October too (and November for that matter). Akld guy (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that the article currently shows no sources for DOB or registration. Akld guy (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no sources that say December, there are sources, such as the ODNB and History of Parliament Online, which say 12th September, as noted on the article talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, he may have been born in November 1752, and as I said, the pre-1752 numeral of 9 for November was mistakenly entered instead of 11. From 1752 onwards, the 9th month is September, so his DOB has been mistakenly shifted forward two months because the wrong numeral was used. Both errors (DOB and registration) may have occurred at the same time. I doubt we'll ever know. Akld guy (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * C'mon, everyone knows he was born on the Twelfth of Never. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Akld guy, the talk page has a link to the text of this book as a citation for the registration date. It makes the nonexistent-birth-date error, but overall it's a reliable source; the gentry and nobility would be expected to guard their history accurately (think of Sir Walter Elliot of Kellynch, brooding over his appearance in a genealogical book), so barring something that can be proven wrong, like the birth date, I expect that it can be trusted.  Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Similarly, if you look him up in Burke's Peerage, it gives 12 Sept 1752. However, Burke gave 18 Sept 1752 in its first edition in 1826 . You could look him up in all the editions over the years (links in our Burke's Peerage article) to track when and how it changed, but I don't know how you would determine Burke's own source. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Presumably you wouldn't. See Burke's_Peerage; apparently he's full of mistakes.  Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The House of Stanley from the 12th Century (Peter E. Stanley, 1988) (which I can partially see on Google Books) has September 1 on p. 277 and September 12 on p. 278, so that's no use (seems to be written by an amateur genealogist anyway). Derby: The Life and Times of the 12th Earl of Derby (Millard Cox, 1974) is not online, but maybe it has something useful if someone can track it down in a library. Some other results on Google suggest September 18. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold on, that may be of some use. If he were really born on 1 September 1752 [OS], that would be equivalent to 12 September 1752 [NS], because of the 11-day gap, which wasn't corrected in Britain until the day after he was born (2 September).  So, even though 12 September 1752 was a non-existent date in Britain, it was still a valid date in the Gregorian calendar, which Britain didn't start using till 14 September.  In other words, if Britain had converted years before 1752, and he had been born on what countries still using the Julian calendar called 1 September (e.g. Russia), he would have been recorded in Britain as having been born on 12 September (Gregorian).  I suspect this is the closest we have come to the truth.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be best if this discussion were continued at Talk:Edward Smith-Stanley, 12th Earl of Derby. I've copied all the above there.   --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)