Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 5

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 5

Lancaster (& Tudor) and York

Considering the fact that the houses of Lancaster and York no longer strictly included Angevin Plantagenets, but also their partisan relatives...about when did the Tudors become seen as their own house? I'm guessing the Stuarts decided to place emphasis on ancient British descent of the Tudors (and thus, their individuality), rather than their partiality in one English dynasty or another, each of which had greater claim to England than James I, even if he himself held a greater claim to both kingdoms combined. It seems ironic that the Lancastrians who were interested in Wycliffe under John of Gaunt, sternly anti-Lollard under Henry IV & Henry V and to eventually be assigned the "fidei defensor" title, should thenceforth institute schism. The Yorkists, who remained in Ireland and exile, would represent Catholic legitimism, "loyal opposition" and the "underdog". Thus, the Lancastrians were the court party and the Yorkists were the clerical party, going back to factions in the reign of Edward III, that exploded under Richard II? Do I have it right, that Tudor propaganda about the union of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York was a sham that lasted into the reign of Henry VIII, having plausibly been the ones to murder Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury (blaming Richard III and destroying Titulus Regius), executing the Clarence siblings: Earl of Warwick & Countess of Salisbury, nervously awaiting the White Rose (de la Pole, who died at Pavia plotting to retake England for York)? The Tudors were simply pretending to be neutral, but actively partisan to their roots as the uterine kindred of Henry VI. How could the Wars of the Roses be said to have finished in 1485, when the Tudor branch of Lancaster continued to face Yorkist and then Catholic revolts? Is it simply that the Throne would no longer change hands, as though that in and of itself, was "mission accomplished"? Perhaps the Tudor branch pretended Simnel and Warbeck were real people and not simply aliases of the true people they claimed to be? It is standard Machiavellianism; I have read that Henry VII was well versed in it. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A new British royal "house" is generally declared whenever the new monarch is not a direct legitimate male line descendent of a previous monarch, and the accession of Henry VII meets that criterion. As for the "princes in the tower", they mysteriously vanished when Richard III had control over the Tower through his appointees and chosen lieutenants, and he probably had the most to gain from their deaths, so the greatest suspicion will naturally fall on him -- in the absence of credible evidence pointing very specifically to an alternative culprit... AnonMoos (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a long time since I studied this period, but I was under the impression that the House of Tudor was created as an intentional piece of spin by Henry Tudor, to calm the particularist passions that had been so destructive for so long. I don't think they were pretending to be "neutral", just to be neither fish nor fowl. A subtly difference perhaps. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry VII was descended through a woman (Lady Margaret Beaufort) from John of Gaunt, so his coming to throne naturally marks a transition to a new "house", just as descent through Matilda marks the transition from Normans to Plantagenets, descent through Margaret Tudor and Mary queen of Scots marks the transition from Tudors to Stuarts, descent through Elizabeth (wife of the "Winter King" of Bohemia) and Sophia of Hanover marks the transition from Stuart to Hanover (Guelph), descent through Victoria marks the transition from Hanover to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, etc. The only royal "house" establishment in England which was more ideological than genealogical was renaming Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to "Windsor" in WWI... AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a little convenient that the deaths of the Princes wasn't "revealed" until after Henry VII took the throne? If they had still been alive, his claims to the throne would have been null and void under law. But then, his wife had the better claim, and yet, nobody even considered her as ruling Queen. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There were plenty of ominous rumors circulating before the Battle of Bosworth, and Richard conspicuously refrained from dispelling such rumors by showing the princes publicly. It's certainly arguable that Henry VII's wife and his mother both had better claims to the throne than he did, but in 1485 the principle that the English crown could pass directly to a woman (as queen-regnant) was not yet firmly established, and ideas about the "crown-matrimonial" and men married to a peerage heiress sitting in the House of Lords were still well known... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered about Edmund (and Jasper) Tudor's maternal heritage from France and how that may have played a part in anything, but all I have seen is that his father Owen was considered a traitor by the Yorkists and Henry VI promoted Edmund (and Jasper) as his uterine brother...it is often said that Henry VII drew his descent twice from the "wrong side of the marital bed", which notes the Beaufort line, but nobody really comments on the Somerset line of Beaufort as it is also a double bastardy and potential claims from them in comparison to the Tudors, which introduced a different dynasty out of the same party. English claims to France depended upon a French ancestor, but who knows what Catherine of Valois's blood gave to Henry VII to any advantage. I surely would like to hear it. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, England had a significant tradition of rule-by-conquest. See Cnut the Great, William the Conqueror, Henry IV of England, Edward IV of England. Indeed, up to and including the Tudors, EVERY new house in England had been established via conquest and/or civil war, The Normans via the Norman Conquest, the Plantagenets via The Anarchy, the Lancastrians and Yorkists via the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors at Bosworth Field. The ascension of the House of Stuart would be the first peaceful dynastic transition in England since, like, ever... Generally, the conquesting King always had a legitimate claim (sometimes, but not always, the best claim) to the throne, but it cannot be ignored that without military success, none of these houses would have ever gained control of the throne. --Jayron32 03:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered why Stephen of Blois would be considered Norman, when he was obviously French as much as the Plantagenets and even for most of his reign, Normandy was held by Geoffrey of Anjou. Then there are the cases of (Louis of France,) Philip of Spain, (Guildford Dudley, Mary Stuart's husbands) William of Orange, (George of Denmark,) and now it appears, that the Oldenburg collateral descendants of Queen Anne's husband will not assume his heritage and rights as successors, but envelop themselves within the "Windsors"...which seems to be a name of deception now more than once in the annals of monarchy. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Angevins didn't exactly take over by conquest, in that Matilda and Stephen came to an agreement that her son would succeed Stephen, although it was really only because Matilda's faction was gaining ground against Stephen's. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I said conquest and/or civil war. Mathildas arrangement with Stephen to get her offspring named as heirs did not exactly happen over afternoon tea. See The Anarchy. --Jayron32 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Best NYC Photospots

Where are the best places in NYC for photos? (skyline, other unique photo spots) also where in New Jersey is the prime place to take photos of the NYC Skyline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As a casual observer, a nice picture can be taken of NY from under the Brooklyn Bridge, looking across the water as can be seen on the cover of the albumb world coming down by type o negative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Promenade in Brooklyn Heights is a great place to take photos of the lower Manhattan skyline. And you can stop at Grimaldi's on Old Fulton St. for pizza. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I can share a few of mine. If you want a long distance view of the skyline, Upper Mountain Avenue in Upper Montclair, NJ is superb. Jersey City would be a closer location. As you head into the Lincoln Tunnel from NJ, the skyline is priceless. The Battery is best viewed from Ellis Island or the Promenade on Brooklyn Heights. I am trying to recall spots further north on the island. A great photo can be had from the Great Lawn on Central Park facing South. Quuens would be a great spot to view the United Nations. Other wonderful Central Park sites can be taken from the roof of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

I could spend several hours detailing my favorite photo shoots in Manhattan. My preference is for the ones that show that how NYers live and not the overly commercial, nauseating ones. Across the street from Lincoln Center is another good shot. 75Janice (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)75Janice

The train line from Newark to Penn Station, or the roof of the apartment blocks around 233th street and Broadway has a nice view both north and south. SGGH ^ping! 11:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For a wide variety of views all around Manhattan, try a Circle Line boat. — Michael J 00:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Senate quorum calls

I've been reading a lot of the Congressional Records and often, in the Senate, someone will call for a quorum call and it will get underway, and then someone will call for it to be cancelled and then it will be. This seems to happen several time a day. Is there any particular reason why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quorum call says "A member wishing to delay proceedings (for example, to allow other members time to get to the chamber in order to join debate) may request that the presiding officer determine whether a quorum is present.". --Sean 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another marvel of efficiency, that is... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As if they're fooling anyone. All a game. I'm reminded of something Will Rogers said, kinda like this: "A politician doesn't stand for much; but you can be sure of one thing - he stands for re-election!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Civilians on Apache AH-64D

Is it possible for me, Joe American, to ask to get a ride on an Apache AH-64D? Or do you have to know "someone"? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely possible for you to ask. Would not say the chances are good for your request to be granted. Googlemeister (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I found info on an Army Aviation open house that included Apaches, but no mention of getting rides. The Apache only being a two-seater would seem to make that particularly problematic; something like a CH-47 Chinook would let them get a significant number of people in the air. On the other hand, I'm sure it's not impossible -- civilians have ridden with the Blue Angels and the like, so why would Apaches be different? But that's back to knowing someone or being someone. — Lomn 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, this UK site offered the chance to bid to be the "first civilian to ride in an Apache". I'm skeptical that it would really be the first civilian (perhaps the first in the UK, but even that seems a stretch), but it emphasizes that it's not a common sort of request. — Lomn 21:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would love to get a ride in one! Oftentimes, you will see these lucky news anchors reporting from an Airforce base hitching a ride on one of the jets. I just wanted to know if I were to call the local US Army base here and ask them if it is possible for a civilian to get a tour of the Apache AH-64D and possibly be lucky enough to get a quick ride. How would the ride feel like? I vaguely remember being on a regular helicopter when I was little. Would riding an Apache AH-64D feel like being on a rollercoaster? Anyone one had any experience or are there any articles on this? --Reticuli88 (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just phone an appropriate company in your area and ask to pay for a (civilian) helicopter ride? That way, the flight will go exactly where you want it to go (within air traffic regulations) and it can be arranged for a time convenient for you, without having to beg for favors... 14:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Salvation Army

I'm sorry if this is on Wikipedia somewhere already, but I was passing an insitution of the society above, and noticed a poster. Usually they're quite interesting as clever puns, but this one read "Sinners only" OWTTE. Is this an original sin thing? Something else? I'm going away, so I might not reply for a while. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a reference to the Christian belief that everyone is a sinner ("Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" and all that). --Tango (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

True, Tango. It also emphasises that the church is there for people who know they aren't perfect, not as an exclusive club for those who think they are. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You're both right. It's a clever way of saying that "everyone is welcome". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jesus won't be welcomed in the Salvation Army?--Quest09 (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironic, ain't it? However, that theory could only be put to the test if He showed up at the door. When (or if) the apocalypse comes, I doubt the Salvation Army will be His first stop. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's an old joke where Jesus meets an outcast sitting on the steps of a church, and asks what's up. "They won't let me inside" he says, and Jesus replies: "No they won't let me in either.". DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

They probably thought He was a hippie. Hey, I wonder... if Jesus were to write that statement somewhere, would He capitalize "Me"? And if he used the common expression, "Oh, Me", wouldn't that qualify as swearing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because the proscription is on taking the Lord's name in vain. His name is not "Me". -- JackofOz (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Personality tests in careers recruitment

In the recruitment industry, questionnaires are frequently found where the applicant is asked to rate themselves against a certain criteria. Beaverbrooks [1] online recruitment is an extreme example. Often, they are given a list of four statements and asked to pick one which describes them best, and one which describes them least. For example:

How did you respond to customers in your last job?

1. I always find them the solution they need.

2. I was pleased to see them, happy to help.

3. I was approachable.

4. I try and avoid conflict with them.

The applicant might say that (2) is most like them, and (3) least so. It isn't an easy question to answer subjectively, as the applicant does not want to admit to being unapproachable. It is an ingenious means of catching the applicant off guard, and brutally honest with themselves. From it, the recruitment firm determines if the personality is the sort they seek, sometimes even after analysis by a computer.

What is the name of this sort of test, and where can I find material on giving the "right" answer?My name is anetta (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like a nanny, but you should give the answer that feels right for you, not the one that you think will win the job - because if you try to pretend you're the type they're looking for, but you're really not, then you're liable to be miserable. Besides that, it depends on the company. Any of the four answers could be what they're looking for. So answer as honestly as you can, and let the chips fall where they may. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Description 1 is obviously a false description of self, yet no one would want to say it describes them least.

• Description 2 is a reasonably favorable description of self; no one would want to say it describes them least.

• Description 3 is hardly a flattering way to describe oneself, yet at the same time one would not want to say it described them least.

• No one would want to describe themselves as description 4; someone may very well want to say that description 4 describes them least.

• I think this sort of thing merely requires thought. Maybe that's what the employer is trying to do -- provoke thought. Your mileage may vary. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's unlikely that being hired or not would turn on this one answer. Typically these kinds of tests ask the same question several times in different ways. Again I say, it depends on the job; any of the four could be the "best" or "least best" answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, I don't think the answers given on this sort of thing can matter much in a hiring decision. I guess it just shows if the applicant is thinking of all the ramifications of each choice. I think the whole setup is designed to be tricky. Maybe the human resources person is trying to impress someone else in the mega-grandiose-corporation. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen these kind of tests use quite effectively to help an potential application decide if the job would be right for them, rather than being used in the application process itself. That works far better since there is no incentive to lie. --Tango (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was getting at. If you perceive that they're hung up on answers to these kinds of bizarre questions, you might want to say, "See ya". I'm reminded of this Steven Wright story. He said he was in the middle of a job interview and pulled out a book and started reading it. The incredulous interviewer asked him what he was doing. Wright said, "Let me ask you a question: If I were driving at the speed of light, and turned on the headlights, would anything happen?" The annoyed interviewer asked, "How would I know?" Wright told the interviewer, "I don't think I want to work for your company." Anyone can take that aggressive approach - if they already have a job elsewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an aptitude test to me. Employers use them to find out if you are the type of person who they would like to employ, and for companies like Beaverbrooks (a chain of jewellery shops in the UK) they are probably looking for someone who is honest and likes helping customers pick the right out the right jewellery.

Beware though the psychological test used by a few employers. I was once asked questions like "Do you have a dog?" and "Do you love your father?" All very strange and totally unrelated to the job. Astronaut (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And many of these tests have some embarassing questions in them in order to attempt to discern how easy the subject finds it to lie. "How many times a day do you pick your nose?" Some recruiting agencies give the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test to recruits and will actually recommend a no-hire to the client based on the test results, even if the client loved the recruit in the interview stage. Tempshill (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't want to work for a company like that. Meanwhile, if you don't care whether you get the job or not, you could provide some interesting alternate answers. Like, "Oddly enough, my father is a dog." Or on the nose thing, you could answer, "So often you won't notice it after awhile." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You won't stand a job like that if you agonize, so I just see that you answered the question reasonably quickly without worrying too much. Dmcq (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, the way that personality tests (or intelligence tests, or pretty much any other test) like that works in employment is that they establish a statistically valid relationship between the test score and job performance. This is generally the product of extensive research done by the company. There is no way to know what score they are looking for or how you must answer to achieve that score. In reality, the answer to any individual question is irrelevant--all that matters is the total score--so there is no reason to get caught up over one question. Just answer it honestly. —Cswrye (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, we have an articles on employment testing and Unicru.[2]

Actually a lot of these comments above seem off-mark simply because they are unfamiliar with the questionnaire the OP is asking about. I happened to come across one of these questionaire's recently, along with the applicant's answers and the full assessment by the company that analysed the results. You are given approximately 30 sets of four answers. In each set you are asked to rate which one describes you the most and the least. Like most psychology tests they 'repeat' questions in different forms in order to detect lies and dishonesty. The purpose of the test is to assess personality and its applicability for the job. For example if you don't like controlling other people, and you like being told what to do, and you like dealing with other people, and you have a nice friendly disposition, then you would make a great receptionist/secretary and would be recommended for these types of roles. On the other hand if you are a control freak, like dominating and controlling other people, are organised, and like to oversee other people then you may be suitable for a management role. These are examples - I didn't write the test. There are also numerous management courses that asses your personality and try to 'file' you under various different categories and tell you where your strengths and weakness are. Such personality tests are useful to people even when they aren't applying for a job - to know what their shortcomings are. Rfwoolf (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, User:Rfwoolf, that is precisely what I mean, I did feel somewhat misunderstood. As with the Beaverbrooks example, there is an express warning about its wonderful anticheat qualities. It is difficult to make value judgements about yourself, especially when you can be many different things depending on the situation. The same answer can be seen to be repeated in the different form: in question 1, it may be answer C, then answer A, then D, A, B, and so on. One question even returned the same answer using the same letter to represent it. If you were outgoing, you could answer that D described you least on every single question, and it would result in a consistently outgoing person. My name is anetta (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, have you ever done those silly tests in magazines where they say "If you answered mostly 'A's then that means X, if you answered mostly 'B's then that means Y, etc". This type of scoring system is extremely simple and does not indicate a professional test. Perhaps this was a demo test, or a basic test, or even a test where they didn't mind you 'marking' yourself and being able to judge for yourself what each answer meant about your personality. By the way , Tempshill's link to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is worth a look - I'm sure that's exactly what these tests are. Rfwoolf (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Qing Dynasty bronzes and the sabotaged auction

What ever happened to the two bronze heads that were won by a Chinese art dealer who then refused to pay back in March?

I can't find any follow-up articles. Were they relisted? Sold directly to another bidder? Does Pierre Berge still have them?

61.189.63.167 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Berge said at the time that he would keep them, along with "a Picasso that also did not sell" (?!), but I also haven't been able to find anything more about the specific pieces, although auctioneers appear to have continued to tick off the Chinese by selling looted art [3], [4]. China sanctioned Christie's by making importing more difficult [5]. The payment deadline passed in March with no comment from Christie's and no further mention of what had happened to the pieces, although one of the articles linked above mentioned they were unlikely to be auctioned (Li, Raymond (2009-03-28). "Uncertainty as deadline to pay for bronzes passes". South China Morning Post.). The art dealer who made the protest bid quit his job after shunning by the art community (McCabe, Aileen (2009-03-19). "China shuns 'rescuer' of relics; Art Dealer Quits". Canwest News Service.), but was back by May (Mu, Eric (2009-03-11). "Cai Mingchao finds some art he'll pay for". Danwei. Retrieved 2009-08-08.). The Chinese government continues to try to repatriate the bronzes ("China to seek return of looted relics through "all necessary means" - ministry". Xinhua. 2009-03-12. Retrieved 2009-08-08.) but as far as I can tell, they seem to have passed out of public notice, at least as far as English language media is concerned. (Unfortunately I haven't been able to find free-access courtesy links to some of these stories - sorry)--☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)