Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 October 31

= October 31 =

Sarmentitii
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmentitii - does English Wikipedia have an article about this? There's none under the exact title and there's no interwiki from the German article, but maybe there is an alternate spelling that I didn't find with a minute or so of searching. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * These may help: Death_by_burning and tunica molesta. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Zomg, so that's what it was about :(. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

1945 UK General Election
How did Churchill react to his defeat in the 1945 United Kingdom general election. Did it come as a surprise to him that the country had rejected the man who had led them to victory in the Second World War. Was he disappointed, or did he view the country as ungrateful, or did he accept the defeat with good grace? He seemed like the sort of character who had a strong ego, and that this defeat would have dealt it quite a harsh blow, but that's just speculation on my part. --Andrew 14:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some information, with references for further reading should you wish to follow up for more details, at Winston Churchill and Later life of Winston Churchill. As a note, both articles seem to imply that voters seemed to have liked Churchill but disliked the Tories, and some may have mistakenly believed that he could stay in office even if his party was defeated; after all there had been coalition/national Governments since 1931, and had minority governments for years before that (see National Government (United Kingdom), Churchill war ministry for examples.  Perhaps the people had grown used to this; for example Ramsay MacDonald had repeatedly led governments for which his party did not have a majority, and by the 1930s, Britain had moved into a period where party loyalty became weak; the National Governments of the period often had a mix of Labour, Liberal, and Conservative ministers, etc.  Hell, MacDonald, originally a Labour Party member (though they expelled him) led a government during a Parliament when the Conservatives held 518 seats.  However, the governments of the 30s and 40s were a response to a series of crises, being in turn the Great Depression and the Second World War.  By 1945, the sense was that the UK would be returning to business as usual, and strong party politics would return.  The days of Labour and Conservatives getting along to move the country ahead were over.  The 1945 campaign was particularly bitter; Churchill himself made a bit of a fool of himself by trying to compare Labour to the Gestapo and accused Attlee of trying to set up a Nazi-style dictatorship if he were to win.  -- Jayron 32 15:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "I must confess I found the event of last Thursday rather odd and queer, especially after all the wonderful welcomes I had from all classes. There was something pent-up in the British people after twenty years which required relief... We must expect great changes which will be hard for the departing generation to adapt themselves to." (29 July 1945, Churchill to Conservative peer Lord Qickswood who had been his best man). See Winston S. Churchill: Never Despair, 1945–1965 by Martin Gilbert (Ch. 6) which has a lengthy Google Books preview. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As a reminder for those less familiar with the British parliamentary system and more used to Presidential elections, there was no direct vote for the post of Prime Minister itself, and Churchill personally was re-elected as Member of Parliament for his constituency, remaining influential nationally and internationally as the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition for six years before commencing his second term as Prime Minister in 1951. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.237 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While that is true, people's votes in the UK have multiple influences: While people may vote, in part, for the specific person they want to represent their local constituency, they are ALSO deeply aware of the importance of which party has control of Parliament and who would be Prime Minister upon the conclusion of the election should their party win, and many voters weigh that rather heavily when deciding who to vote for. A vote for your local candidate is also a vote for the leader of their party as Prime Minister.  -- Jayron 32 18:02, 31 October 201)9 (UTC)


 * 2.122.179.237 -- Don't want to be annoyingly nitpicking, but it would have been "Leader of His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" at the time... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A fair point: I copied the Article title without thinking enough about it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.237 (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed, but I bet someone changes it back. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comparisons could be drawn with the landslide defeat of Herbert Hoover to FDR in 1932. Hoover's approach to "wait for the market to right itself" during the Great Depression was not appreciated by those living in poverty. Similarly, the post-war shortages in the UK would likely need more than just waiting for the markets to right themselves, at least if relief was expected anytime soon. So, Churchill's defeat was due to the economic policies of the Conservatives, not anything against him personally. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * See also BBC History - Why Churchill Lost in 1945 for a brief overview. The voters saw the Conservatives as a return to the pre-war muddle, while Labour held out the prospect of real social reform, which by and large was achieved. People wanted a change. Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Churchill was salty about it in Triumph and Tragedy, the last volume of his WW2 history book series. It's been ages since I read that thing though, so I don't remember any particulars. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ticker tape transmitter wanted


I would like to find a ticker tape transmitter to purchase as a fundraiser goal for a local nonprofit museum open to the public, ideally from a private collection but possibly from another museum. Our donor pool is enormously wealthy to be completely honest, but I understand these items are extraordinarily hard to come by (e.g. because the museum in question would certainly already have one if they could -- they have multiple ticker tape printers in their collection.)

Do auction houses or some such help with these sorts of quests? How do I find a broker for tech antiques? Is it appropriate to ask another museum how much they would be willing to part with theirs? Are there mailing lists for antique finders? Is a 5-10% finders fee reasonable in this space? Any help is most appreciated.

If we get a choice, Royal Earl House's second printing telegraph of 1849 (shown as #33, "House's Type Printing Telegraph 1849" here) would be our first choice, but honestly anything with a piano-style keyboard used to send to a printer over telegraph wires will fit the bill. Fundraiser Throwaway (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I would expect that any auction-house would put a notice online that Google would find. However, at any given time it's unlikely one will be on offer, so you would need to be patient and repeat the Google search often. Or, you might find one in a collection that isn't currently for sale, and make them an offer. Also, if the original is prohibitively expensive, you might commission the production of a replica (either functional or purely decorative). SinisterLefty (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ticker printers are easier to find than transmitters but these sources may help: . The Wikipedia article is Ticker tape. DroneB (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Brokers specialized with such antiques do exist: here such broker, Germany. There they have many things and early type writers, with price-tags ranging well from anything to what would be that of a House's Type '1849 (which is doubtful they have but keyboard printing telegraphs are much less rare). --Askedonty (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)