Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

July 16

the Riverside Silk Mills in Paterson, New Jersey

Hello at the Reference Desk of Wikipedia,

I am putting together an outstanding historical documentary, titled: "The 1913 Paterson Silk Mills Strike", for television viewing. During my research, I discovered that 19 of my direct ancestors were involved in this strike. Many strikers died from tuberculosis or other types of respiratory diseases. One of my of ancestors died, on May 10th, 1913, from an unusual respiratory disease, due to being among the silk mills in Paterson. In total, three of my ancestors were silk workers. Two were living near Madison Avenue and one was living on Madison Avenue. At that time, Madison Avenue did cut right through the heart of the (781-821) River Street area which was near the Riverside Silk Mills and PS#18 (Paterson's Public School #18).

My three ancestors were employed within the "Riverside Silk Mills", during and possibly even before 1913, do you know where I can locate any of their work hire applications (before they began employment), or any of their other employment records, or any papers that were being circulated about the upcoming 1913 Paterson Silk Strike?

During and several years before 1913, within the 'Riverside Silk Mills' in Paterson, New Jersey, can you tell me more about what types of work was actually done inside each of the buildings, how many workers from "those mills" went on strike, when those mills were created and when they were no longer active, etc.. Can you supply me with map pictures of the 'Riverside Silk Mills location along the river? At that time period, how far was School 18 from those mills? Can this school be seen from any particular mills?

Sincerely,

Andrew Jacob Palamidy Sr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajp 4577 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "One of my of ancestors died...from an unusual respiratory disease, due to being among the silk mills in Paterson." Pneumoconiosis, by any chance ? StuRat (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there is a substantial quantity of information about a particular locality available on the internet if you know how to tweak Google, however it seems not in this case. I can only suggest that you try the Patterson Local History Center. The name, phone number and email of their Local History Librarian is quoted on that page. Good hunting. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you also need to search the newspapers (e.g. NYT 26 Feb 1913, p. 22). The IWW apparently objected to new self-stopping loom technology that enabled the use of fewer workers. - Nunh-huh 23:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a link to Luddites is relevant here. StuRat (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. The IWW, it seems, wasn't trying to protect workers from bad working conditions, it was trying to make sure that workers continued working in their former conditions—though our article tells a more one-sided story. -Nunh-huh 01:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Etruscan conquest of Rome

When did the Etruscans conquer Rome?Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very uncertain whether they ever did, since there's no account of Roman history written anywhere near that date. Livy and other ancient historians writing several centuries after the event say that the fifth and seventh kings of Rome, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus and Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, were of Etruscan origin and gained the throne by wealth and intrigue respectively rather than through military means. Some modern historians interpret that as a Roman face-saving revision of history concealing an Etruscan conquest of Rome, but there's no consensus on that ([1] [2]). The first Tarquin is traditionally said to have reigned from 616 to 579 BC and the second from 535 to 509 BC, but those dates are just as unreliable as everything else in this whole story. --Antiquary (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What can be said, without too much uncertainty, is that early Rome was a fairly insignificant town in an area dominated culturally and economically by the Etruscans. There may or may not have been an actual conquest - but if there wasn't it was probably because Rome accepted the situation and did nothing to provoke its very powerful neighbours (until they had grown strong enough to do so with some success at a later period). Wymspen (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Roman–Etruscan Wars and Roman conquest of Italy. According to Livy an Etruscan League of twelve cities was formed between 600 BC and 500 BC. The city of Rome founded some time during the 8th century BC was not yet a major power center. By 500 BC the political destiny of Italy had passed out of Etruscan hands as Rome gained regional dominance. By 218 BC Roman conquest of Italy had been completed. The last Etruscan cities were formally absorbed by Rome around 100 BC. The Roman Empire was established under Octavian in 27 BC, after Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul. Blooteuth (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Six-Part Seating

Do each of these six seats weigh 1500 pounds or do the six of them added together weigh 1500 pounds? Here is a good picture of kids playing around them. Or here is a woman sitting on one of them. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The formulation at the site of the National Gallery of Art is not entirely clear either, but they give the measures of the seats as 95.3 x 44.5 x 100.3 cm³. About 75 per cent of that volume is filled with granite, with a density of around 2.7 g/cm³. That gives an estimate of 860 kg or 1900 lb, and given the uncertainties in that estimate, it seems safe to say that 1500 lb is the weight of a single seat. --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The source quoted, The Collection - National Gallery of Art says: "overall (each of six elements): 95.3 x 44.5 x 100.3 cm (37 1/2 x 17 1/2 x 39 1/2 in.) gross weight: 1500 lb." I would say it obviously means each one of the six elements. This is borne out by the fact that granite weighs 2.72 tonnes (6,000 lb) per cubic metre. [3] Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Wrongfilter and thank you to Alansplodge. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Church decorations in different denominations

Um... I have no idea whether they're really called "church decorations". All I know is, they "decorate" the church in a way that aligns with the teaching of THAT church. For example, Catholic churches have pictures and statues of the Virgin Mary (the Madonna). Eastern Orthodox churches often have pictures of the saints as the most salient characteristic. Then I watched "Helena" by My Chemical Romance, and I thought the set of the music video looked very Catholic, but someone corrected me that it was a Presbyterian church. When I looked at the article on Wikipedia, I realized it was indeed shot inside a Presbyterian church. So, do Presbyterians emphasize anything about church decorations (statues, pictures of saints, pictures of the Virgin Mary, stained-glass windows, lofty ceilings, candles, pendulum thingy with the smoke)? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Pendulum thingy with the smoke' is an incense "censer" or thurible. Orthodox presbyterian churches tend to not have (or at least not emphasize) a raised altar, using instead a table for "the Lord's Supper". - Nunh-huh 23:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglican Church was recently told to take it easy on all the smoke, for health reasons. In other words, their incense censers were censored, leaving them incensed (if my 2 cents of nonsense makes any sense). StuRat (talk)

I love a nice frankincense & myrrh or a floral incense; it alters my sensorium—sensually—as I approach the altar. - Nunh-huh 01:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the Catholics are fine with hypoallergenic incense. But gluten-free communion wafers or non-alcoholic communion wine are definitely verboten. - Nunh-huh 01:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Anglicans, at the time of the Reformation in England, all church embellishments were thought to be "Popish" and successive acts of parliament forced churches to whitewash over wall paintings, remove precious artwork from altars and dismantle rood screens. During the English Civil War, Puritan troops often broke the faces off the remaining statues and smashed stained glass windows, since they represented "graven images" which are proscribed by the Ten Commandments (see also Iconoclasm). During the 19th century, the Oxford Movement led some Anglicans, later known as Anglo-Catholics, to rediscover their Catholic heritage, including devotional statues and images. These changes trickled down into the mainstream or Broad Church, meaning that stained glass and religious paintings again became acceptable, but for a majority of Anglicans, these are decorative rather than devotional objects. I suspect that a similar process has taken place in the Lutheran church, but they have a very small presence in the UK and are outside of my personal knowledge. Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, most protestant churches tend to avoid images in their buildings. Thus you will see a cross, but not a crucifix (which has the figure of Christ on it). Anything used will either have a symbolic meaning, or will represent one of the persons of the Trinity or a biblical character, rather than any of the saints or the Virgin Mary. So there may be a candle (light), or a dove (the Holy Spirit), or water (baptism), or a crown of thorns (Christ's suffering). There may be stained glass - but it is most likely to show biblical scenes, or be symbolic. There will certainly be a Bible, and a table for communion. Note that the Anglican churches fall somewhere between the Catholic and Protestant traditions - and vary widely among themselves: some may be almost indistinguishable from Catholic churches, while others will be much simpler - a good clue is whether there are six or just two candles on the altar. Wymspen (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not an unfailing distinction, unfortunately. Catholics are just fine with just two candles, as well. And some Protestant churches like to add additional candles – though, yes, not as much as Catholic churches seem to. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic churches are quite a bit happier with rituals than Protestant ones. However this idea that Catholics adore images and any statues or pictures should be removed or even destroyed is just some extremist idea Protestantism got when it first started up. It enabled them to say they were different like Sunni and Shia Muslims with five or three prayers a day and it led to destruction rather like that nowadays in Palmyra or Bamiyan. Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "just some extremist idea" is not quite right. The early protestants wanted to strip away all the accumulated dogmas and traditions to leave a faith in which each practice was specifically grounded in the Bible. How strictly this was to be applied led to the diversity of Protestant traditions that exist today, but very few of them include devotional images. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about Fundamentalism then which seems to lead to people killing each other in the name of a loving God in both Christianity and Islam. Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was an issue long before Protestants -- see Byzantine Iconoclasm... AnonMoos (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

Why are many major cities

Why are many of the major cities in Europe such as Rome,London, and Paris located inland instead of right at the mouths of their respective rivers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 23:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually London is at the mouth of the Thames. It was a major port of the British empire, as "the Docklands" in East London testify. Also it has a strong tide up to the Parliament. Any further East, and you cannot easily bridge the Thames, which makes it difficult to benefit from both banks.

For the others: not sure, maybe arable land matters more for city growth than immediate access to the City?

Cannot easily bridge at the Parliament? The Hudson River at Manhattan's CBD is almost a mile wide. 5 tunnels cross that, some over a century old. New York City has tens of 100-200 foot clearance bridge or tunnel crossings over c. 1/2 mile. The Hampton Roads area has four water crossings >c. 5 miles. It has had a bridge-tunnel c. 20 miles long since 1964 and is a much smaller metropolitan area than London. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Land was much more fragmented into smaller countries in most stretches of history and thus many countries only had a limited choice what to make their center. How each of them developed was much more dependent on political and diplomatic skill of their rulers and traders, and also luck ofcourse, then dependent on natural resources and alike local advantages. Local advantages and resources can vanish or become meaningless over time. Like a castle on a strategical position was a saveguard for local power until the canons where invented. What seemed a perfect choice 500 years ago may look like an odd one today. --Kharon (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse "cannot easily bridge" today for "could not easily bridge over 2000 years ago when the city was founded". New York City has many short crossings to the mainland, or indirectly through Staten Island, and the longer ones in midtown and downtown were mostly built in the 19th and 20th centuries. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Someguy1221. And I was unclear, Sagittarian Milky Way I meant "further East" of the Docklands, not at the parliament. Obviously you can easily bridge in the city centre , there were many bridges very early, including London Bridge probably around 50 AD. --Lgriot (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"At this location, the Tiber forms a Z-shaped curve that contains an island where the river can be forded. Because of the river and the ford, Rome was at a crossroads of traffic following the river valley and of traders traveling north and south on the west side of the peninsula." In other words, considerations for city locations 2-3000 years ago were a bit different than considerations 2-300 years ago. --Golbez (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian Milky Way, I'll take your "1964" and raise it. There's evidence of a bridge in London that's 3,500 years old and the point about going further east is well-made. Also bear in mind that London wasn't unambiguously the capital of any sort of 'country' at all until as recently (we're talking about the UK's history here) as the second century CE, and that after the Romans departed, it wasn't unambiguously the capital of a 'country'-type entity again until pretty much yesterday, say the late 10th century. That's only about a thousand years ago, but bridge-building was still fairly tricky then. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other 'capitals' you might like to look at in Blighty are Colchester (Romans) and Winchester (Anglo-Saxons, although the role of Winchester is disputed). As well as a host of capitals of small, fragmented early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms before bretwaldas became properly national kings. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Perth, Western Australia, is some miles upstream from its port of Fremantle. The reason for this is explained in the lead paragraph of Colonial Town Plans of Perth. 2A00:23C0:7F02:C01:9DCF:5631:446B:F686 (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That arrangement is fairly common, consider Ostia, Bremerhaven, etc.--Jayron 32 14:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why the OP would believe that large European cities would be located at the mouths of rivers? Worldwide, cities are rarely located at the mouths of major rivers (rarely being not a synonym for never, mind) and instead have always been located at places where the economics favors population density; i.e. at a nexus of trade, i.e. at a place that has a good natural harbor or at a crossroads or at a place where land and water transport have convenient interchanges (fords or portages etc.) Rivers are important as access to fresh water, but the mouth of major rivers is often not particularly good (the water is often brackish, the land marshy, there aren't often good harbors, etc.) Major European cities were located where major cities always are: transportation hubs. London has a good natural harbor (the Thames Estuary and the London Docklands) and was located where that estuary also had good land transport crossings (read Londinium, which notes in the first sentence why London is where London is). Paris is not a major port, but read the first sentence at Paris#Origins. The Île de la Cité is a location that at once provides easy defensibility AND an obvious transport nexus. History_of_Rome#City.27s_formation contains a similar story, and branching out to other major European population centers, Moscow, Istanbul, Berlin, Madrid, Kiev, etc. etc. are all located where river crossings (bridges, fords, etc.) or major natural harbors provide logical transport hubs, i.e. the place where lots of goods are going to all have to pass through from multiple locations. Looking beyond Europe, list of largest cities shows that where a city DOES exist at a river mouth (more often than not it ISN'T) it is because that river affords a harbor or otherwise is a good location as a transport hub (i.e. London, or Shanghai, whose location on Suzhou Creek mirrors London's location on the Thames). Karachi, the 4th largest city in the world, is noted as a "transport hub", and there's no river there, but there is a really good natural harbor. The story is the same everywhere: if a city exists, it exists because it is a natural location for commerce, which means a major crossroads, harbor, or ford/bridge site. --Jayron 32 12:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There could also have been military reasons. For example, if you were expecting an attack to come from the sea, say from Vikings, then you would want your city inland, so they would need to march inland to attack, giving you time to prepare your defenses (close and bar the city gates, place archers on all the walls, etc.). StuRat (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really needed a river though, since until the railways, transport in bulk overland was far more expensive and slow than by ship or barge. Alansplodge (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or harbor; there are several major cities without a navigable river. Istanbul, Karachi and Lagos are three of the ten largest cities in the world, and while they do not have easily navigable rivers, they are all located on major harbors that allow them to act as hubs of trade. --Jayron 32 19:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they definitely need some water supply, and a river could also be used for transportation, but if they are some distance up the river, rather than right at the mouth, that would prevent sneak attacks from the sea. Large ocean-going vessels may not be able to go up the river, and smaller vessels would have to fight the current, and perhaps archers on the shores, making it difficult to attack before defenses could be readied. (Sneak attacks from land may still be possible, but they would also be possible at the mouth of the river.) StuRat (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I had mentioned, off-hand above, that major cities are located at transportation hubs, and in listing those I'd mentioned a portage as one of those. Since my prior examples had listed both harbors and river crossings, but not portages, I thought I would give at least two example of an important city so located São Paulo, which is located at the portage across the Serra do Mar between the Tietê River and the Atlantic Ocean. Chicago also, as prior to the building of canals, is where it is because it was the best portage site between the Great Lakes (Chicago River) and the Mississippi River (specifically the Des Plaines River). --Jayron 32 20:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related to that, consider a few other US river cities: Louisville sits at the only waterfall site on the Ohio River, and many cities lie on the Atlantic Seaboard fall line. Also, more generally, consider that a city on the ocean is completely vulnerable to sea storms and to relatively unpredictable seaside erosion, and while both can be factors for river cities near the coast, neither one is as big of a deal in such a case. For example, Venice, Louisiana was almost completely destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, while upstream in New Orleans, neighborhoods sitting above the river (thus much less vulnerable to levee failures) didn't suffer comparable damage. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly Niagara Falls, New York, and the nearby Buffalo, New York are near the falls there, which is a definite portage site. On the Canadian side, we also have Niagara Falls, Ontario. Initially this location was of military importance, as if you could deny the enemy the ability to portage there, that would prevent access to 4 of the 5 Great Lakes. Later, the falls became an important tourist attraction and power source. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my comment about seaside erosion — see our article about Dunwich, once the capital of an English petty kingdom and a major seaport, but inhabited by eighty-four people in the 2001 census. It lies atop a bluff on the North Sea coast of East Anglia, and its prosperity was ruined by a series of heavy storms that caused much of the town to collapse into the sea. Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, placement right on the ocean, or a large sea or lake, can both be a long-term problem due to coastal erosion, and a short term problem due to storms. New Orleans found this out when Hurricane Katrina hit. Some of the lessons learned there, that coastal areas must be kept undeveloped to absorb storm surge, and houses in flood zones should be rebuilt further inland, have the effect of moving NO further upstream. So, this process of adapting building location based on weather and erosion remains ongoing, even today. A new element is global climate change, which may make it necessary to move many coastal communities inland, as sea levels rise. StuRat (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City placement is studied a part of Economic geography. In addition to the points above, a major consideration was how far upstream a seagoing merchant ship could easily get. It is much more economical to take your ship inland than it is to transship the goods into barges or wagons. -Arch dude (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no sources for either view I wouldn't think that the position of the city would have added much to the defences from the water. Any city that is able to handle trading ships is also going to be accessible to attacking ships. The Vikings managed it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It won't prevent an attack, but it will give the defenders time to prepare, which can be critical. StuRat (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is paraphrasing the historian Jürgen Osterhammel in his book "The Transformation of the World." He notes that before the 19th century, most of the largest cities were inland (e.g. Beijing, Baghdad, Cairo, Madrid, Moscow, and the ones mentioned in the OP). North America is an exception in this regard. Like others here, he suggests that other factors are important in the growth of a metropolis: trade, providing services, cultural or political importance, etc. Herbivore (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that; of the 20 largest North American mainland cities, only New York, Los Angeles, and San Diego are strictly coastal; of those only San Diego has it's urban core directly "on the beach" as it were; Manhattan is within a well protected harbor, and the urban core of LA is some miles from the sea, similar to "inland" European cities like Rome. One might also count Chicago in that list, if one considers Lake Michigan coastal. But other than that, most of that list is at least a few miles inland. --Jayron 32 19:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem with that analysis is that it's based on municipal borders, while metro areas are more relevant. For example, Indianapolis (#15 largest) is 30% more populous than Boston (#22 largest), but that's because it's annexed much of what was previously unincorporated suburbs, an approach not possible in Massachusetts, and Columbus, Ohio (#14 largest) likewise is larger than Boston because it's annexed significant portions of its metropolitan area. Greater Boston is the tenth largest metropolitan area in the country, and its metropolitan area is a good deal more populous than the Indianapolis and Columbus metropolitan areas put together. Take away Columbus and Indianapolis, and in place of two cities that are entirely continental, you get one that's directly on the ocean and one on a river big enough for a big naval base. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of inland cities have major ports or naval yards, such as Richmond, VA, Philadelphia, PA, or Houston. It doesn't make them coastal. A river is still not an ocean. --Jayron 32 12:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Boston also annexed many of its suburbs. Roxbury, Brighton, Charlestown, and Dorchester were all once independent municipalities. "Boston proper" is restricted to the Shawmut peninsula and the Back Bay. But even if we change to metro areas, that's now bumped us to 4 out 20 instead of 3. It hardly changes the math that much. --Jayron 32 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

Nobody south of the equator

A Christian theologian (Late Antique if I remember rightly) observed that temperatures got warmer as one went south and observed that the Bible commanded Christians to evangelise the whole world. Believing that temperatures would eventually get so hot that you couldn't survive to reach the southern temperate zone, and believing that God wouldn't have created people in a part of the world where the gospel couldn't go (since otherwise we couldn't obey the command to evangelise everyone), he concluded that the Southern Hemisphere was uninhabited. Two questions:

Who was this? It runs in my mind that this was St. Augustine of Hippo, but I'm not sure.
How long did this belief persist? Did it endure until the voyages of Bartolomeu Dias proved that the South was reachable, or was it already gone by then?

Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

torrid zone

frigid zone

temperate zone

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was Augustine. I can find references to common medieval beliefs in both an uninhabitable southern hemisphere and something approaching reality. This book refers vaguely to a common belief around the time of Dante, and represented in his work, that there was no inhabited land in the southern hemisphere, or perhaps no land at all. Eratosthenes mentions in his work on Alexander that the King considered sailing around the southern shore of Africa, assuming it to end basically as far south as explorers had reached at the time (well before the equator). On the other hand, this book refers to ancient Greek writers Paramenides and Strabo, particularly Strabo's Geography as positing the globular Earth had cold zones in both the far north and far south, warming to a hot zone around the equator. The medieval writer Macrobius specifically rebuts Augustine in Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis.

According to this book, Augustine's proposal was that there were no "people" in the southern hemisphere, but it's not clear to me what he meant by people. The only primary source from Augustine I can find is quite vague on the subject [4]. Another writer states that Augustine at one point argued that there could be no people on the other side of the Earth as there are no stories of disciples of Christ preaching there, and at another point argued that when Christ descends from Heaven for the second coming, people on the other side of Earth would be unable to see him and be saved, and therefore no people can be there. I can find no reference to anything about temperature.

So it sounds like it was a common Church teaching that no one lived in the southern hemisphere, and that scholars knew better the whole time. As to when proof arrived otherwise, some ancient explorers got about as far as the equator but it's not clear they went further, although some Greek works describe lands further south (see European exploration of Africa). By the time of the Kingdom of Zimbabwe, centuries prior to Portuguese exploration of the whole coast of Africa, there was robust trade between Northern and Southern Africa. However, much like the silk road across Eurasia, who knows what the merchants at either end of those trade routes really knew about the origin and destination of the goods. The Arab nations may have had knowledge of the southern hemisphere through the Arab slave trade, but I have no idea whether anyone in Europe would have been aware of that information. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The centre of the world was considered to be Jerusalem - and Dante placed his mountain of Purgatory at the Antipodes of Jerusalem. There wasn't the recognition that the earth spins round its polar axis, and the equator was more about the position of the stars than about a mid-line between the poles. Hemispheres were not necessarily northern and southern. More usually, the known world (Europe, Asia and Africa) formed the land hemisphere, and the rest was sea. Wymspen (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rotation about the polar axis was well documented [5], to the extent that it was predicted that winter days would shorten as people travelled north, to the extent that a point would be reached when day and night lasted six months apiece. 92.8.217.19 (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TGBOR vs. TGBOWR

From 1955 to 1998, there was a reference book annually whose cover simply said TGBOR, but which everyone called TGBOWR. Any reason for the slightly different titles?? Was there once a time when TGBOWR was what its cover actually said that people got into the habit of calling such even when its cover began to say just TGBOR with no W?? (Yes, the book still exists today, but now it's just GWR. This is just the question about the book's 20th century title.) Georgia guy (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you could tell us what the GWR stands for. Great Western Railway? Guiness World Records? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Guinness World Records, "known from its inception in 1955 until 1998 as The Guinness Book of Records and in previous U.S. editions as The Guinness Book of World Records." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first US edition (1956) was actually called the Guinness Book of Superlatives. Wymspen (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the history of both titles of the book?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it became GWR in 1998. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, we're only talking about the titles TGBOR and TGBOWR. Georgia guy (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else will have to weigh in, because I don't understand what your question really is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a picture of the 1973 US cover of the book.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, how come although the book's cover said TGBOR, everyone called it TGBOWR?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the British editions, but the American editions didn't literally say "TGBOWR", they said "[The] Guiness Book of World Records". The name was simplified to "Guiness World Records" in 1998 or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the UK edition of 1980 was called "Guiness Book of Records". Phil Holmes (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really complicated: The British edition was entitled "The Guinness Book of Records" while the US edition was "The Guinness Book of World Records" - somebody obviously though the Americans needed to be reminded that there were records in other parts of the world as well. There were plenty of other editions, in various languages (and still are) - http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/corporate/history Wymspen (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or just better marketing. If the original US edition said "Superlatives" it's a wonder anyone bought the book here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness Book of Records 1999 was published in Britain on 1 September 1998. Titled Guinness Book of World Records 1999 it was published in America in 1999. The next edition, Guinness World Records 2000, was published in both countries in 2000. 92.8.217.19 (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The autumn publishing date is due to the British tradition of buying a copy for a (usually male) relative as a Christmas present, when you can't think of anything else to buy them. "Almost as obligatory as a Satsuma in your stocking is a copy of the annual Guinness Book of Records". [7] I can't imagine many people actually buying one to read themselves. Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I question your premise that "everyone" called it TGBOWR. No we didn't. It has always been colloquially "The Guinness Book of Records" - at least here in the UK. I think we presumed that it automatically included records from everywhere and not just the UK - and certainly not just the USA! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm also in the UK, and I've never heard it called "the Guinness Book of World Records". Always "the Guinness Book of Records" in my experience. Proteus (Talk) 13:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the words get transposed a fair amount; I'm pretty sure I've heard it referred to quite frequently as The Guinness World Book of Records. Possibly an influence from World Book, an encyclopedia for teenagers and older children? --Trovatore (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

I have 3 questions regarding the history of Canada

1. Are any black Canadians today descended from black slaves in Canada? 2. Were any pagan or wiccans ever persecuted such as put on trial or burned at the stake? 3. Were any Inuit in northern Canada slaves? Thank you! 2001:569:766F:BF00:BDF9:DFA5:4B2F:757E (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. With 30,000 American slaves using the Underground Railroad to reach freedom in Canada,[8] some of their descendants are Canadian.[9]

2. In 1658 Quebec (pre-Canada), Corporal René Besnard was sent to prison and later exiled for sorcery.[10] Also, in 1684, Jean Campagna was charged, but later acquitted, of being a sorcerer.[11]

3. According to the Inuit Heritage Trust, First Nations people "were also known to take Inuit as slaves in raids." Probably before Canada was established, but the article doesn't specify. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on slavery in Canada (which I had not thought to look up before this question; amazing the things you learn on the refdesk), there was black slavery in both New France and British North America, so not all the slave ancestors of modern Canadians were American slaves. To be sure, the American situation was, at least numerically, much worse. --Trovatore (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also 2. Marie-Josephte Corriveau was rumored to have practiced witchcraft, but was actually executed for murder. This article also notes a few other trials in Canada during the colonial period. This may or may not be comprehensive. It should be noted that Wicca is a religion that was formalized in the 20th century, only a few scant years before Capital punishment in Canada was ended, so it seems unlikely that any wiccans were ever executed in Canada. As an aside, I did find this article which discusses a rarely-but-still-used law in Canada which even recently has been used to prosecute people for "fake witchcraft". Legitimate witchcraft appears to be legal in Canada, however. --Jayron 32 11:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the specific question seems to refer to black slaves in Canada so Trovatore's answer would apply but I don't see that US slaves who fled to Canada would be black slaves in Canada, unless they were also enslaved in Canada. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15 types of Gregorian calendars?

The seven pages like Common year starting on Sunday mention 15 types of Gregorian/Julian calendars (and how often they come up). How is it not 14 (common/leap times 7 starting days)? --Tardis (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone's confused, that's since been changed to "fourteen types of year". The statement that "The up to 15 types of years repeat in a 400-year cycle (20871 weeks) in the Gregorian calendar" was introduced by User:Crissov last year. I also find that puzzling, but perhaps he can explain what he meant. --Antiquary (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be perhaps a confusion for the fact that a Perpetual Calendar would consist of 14 possible calendars plus one chart designating which should be used for each year? (=15 pages) - Nunh-huh 10:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or could he just have been thinking of the original year repeating itself as the cycle starts again, though that would mean a 401-year cycle with still only really 14 different types of year. Well, just a thought. --Antiquary (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or the 15th type could be years of adjustment, which historically have been of unusual length in multiple eras :-) Nyttend (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What year had the most amount of different songs at hot 100 weekly billboard chart?

What year had the most amount of different songs at hot 100 weekly billboard chart?
If we count every-time a single gone to the hot 100 weekly billboard chart at a certain year, what year would have the most amount of different hot 100 singles?177.92.128.26 (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]