Humanities desk
< October 11	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 13 >

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

October 12[edit]

Page numbers[edit]

Let's say a history book is published in hardcover, not a popular bestseller or anything like that, but they do a trade paperback edition a year or so later (same publisher).

Are the two editions likely to have the same page numbers, so if you cite something from the hardcover will people have a good chance of being able to find it in the paperback and vice versa? I know that the ISBN is a (supposedly) unique distinguisher but I'm asking how likely the pages are to correspond in practice, and whether this has changed much over the years. This came up regarding a book from the early 2000s and maybe back then they were less likely to re-typeset the book for a new printing. These days, typesetting = pressing a button, more or less, I gather. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays they are often, but not always, the same. Older works are more likely to vary owing to the different sizes of the pages - not much of an issue with modern techniques where the font size can be adjusted by the touch of a button. I tend to cite the chapter name or number as well as the page number to help if people do have editions with differing paginations. It's always best to give the editions details as completely as possible for just this reason. DuncanHill (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, typesetting a book was hard work, using linotype machines and a lot of hot metal. In the 1960s phototypesetting took off, which eliminated the hot metal and incorporated some 'modern' electronics, but it was still much manual work. As producing the plates for the printing process was so expensive, the plates where made just once and reused for every printing run. Even when a new edition was made on different paper size, the book was often not typeset again, but the pages were photographically resized, changing the font size, but not the layout.

Around 1980 computer typesetting took over. Since then a computer can re-typeset a book in just a few seconds, but it still requires a manual check. Sometimes the computer doesn't find a good solution for linebeaking or pagebreaking or it makes errors in the hyphenation. In newspapers, where there's no time for such checks, you often see such typesetting errors.

A book from the early 2000s must be entirely computer typeset, using basically the same software as nowadays. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My father worked in the prepress industry, for Compugraphic (now Agfa-Gevaert). Your summary is pretty much spot on, with Computer to plate printing hitting the market in the mid 1990s. During the 1980s to the mid 1990s, Raster image processors were used to prepare images for plate printing, primarily via Phototypesetting methods. --Jayron 32 11:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recall paperbacks from the 1960s stating up front (bragging?) that it was produced from new plates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was because after a set of plates had been used for multiple reprintings (and perhaps even been sold on from one publishing house to another), it would begin to accumulate flaws and to become generally worn, resulting in less crisp impressions, to the point where reading quality began to be impaired. Making new plates was also a good opportunity to eliminate any typos, since this was difficult to do "invisibly" on an existing plate. Mentioning this was equivalent to labelling washing powder "new and improved" and presumably had some measurable effect on potential sales. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.221 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers will do all they can to avoid repaginating a non-fiction book as, apart from anything else, it will mean renumbering the index, if the book has one. This is a major pain, and costly. Having worked in the UK book industry in non-fiction for over 20 years for all the big houses, I can think of a small but not insignificant number of instances where repagination has had to be done, often as a result of unforeseen legal issues arising from the HB or regrettable changes at the insistence of a finickety but high-status author whose whims simply have to be catered for. It's OK to have a new foreword or any other item in the prelims, as these are generally not indexed, and if there's a new chapter at the end covering recent events that's fine too, as it won't affect the index covering the original book. Very occasionally a book that's had a double colour plate section in the HB (16pp) will have the images integrated into the text in b/w for cost reasons, and that of course would affect pagination. Ericoides (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the Alfred Rose who sponsored Rufus Isaacs when he took the oath?[edit]

MPs elected at a by-election are accompanied to take the oath or affirmation by two sponsors. Rufus Isaacs entered Parliament after the 1904 Reading by-election. According to Hyde, H. Montgomery (1967). "Solicitor-General". Lord Reading: The Life of Rufus Isaacs, First Marquess of Reading. London: Heinemann. p. 59. "His sponsors... were Mr Herbert Gladstone (later Viscount Gladstone), the Liberal chief Whip, and Mr (afterwards Sir) Alfred Rose, who lived near Reading and had been of immense help to the new Member during the election". Judd, Denis (1982). "Member of Parliament and King's counsel, 1904-1910". Lord Reading: Rufus Issacs, First Marquess of Reading, Lord Chief Justice and Viceroy of India, 1860-1935. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. p. 57. ISBN 029778014X. says he was "sponsored by Herbert Gladstone, son of the great William Ewart Gladstone, and by Alfred Rose, who held a seat near Reading". Herbert Gladstone is of course well known, but who was Alfred Rose? I cannot find him in Hansard, Who's Who, or the ODNB. His only mention in the indices of the two biographies I cited is this occasion. The only reports of Isaacs taking his seat that I can find in the British Newspaper Archive just say it was amidst Opposition cheers, and do not mention his sponsors. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Sir Charles Rose, 1st Baronet was the sole Rose MP in 1904, and also a Liberal, but his constituency was quite far from Reading. --Soman (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But he lived at Hardwick House, which is very near Reading. And he was not created a baronet until 1909, so would still have been a Mr. in 1904. It does look like you're on the right track. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

70 you linked to a dab page that lists several different buildings named HH. If you have a chance could you please update your link for those following this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"On August 9 Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., M.P., took his seat in the House of Commons, introduced by Mr. Herbert (afterward Viscount) Gladstone, the Liberal Chief Whip, and Mr. (after-ward Sir Charles) Rose, member for the unexpectedly Liberal division of Newmarket, whose home was at Mapledurham near Reading, and who had rendered tireless and invaluable service during the campaign." ([1]) Seems "Alfred" would have been a typo. --Soman (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hardwick House, Oxfordshire was the Rose seat. It's about 6 miles from Reading. Alansplodge (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one! Thank you Alansplodge. Sorry MarnetteD. Great find, Soman. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks all. Looks like Judd copied Hyde's slip. Not uncommon amongst professional historians - and a great example of why we should never take reliable sources at face value! DuncanHill (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was an ambiguity, in that "seat" can refer to a Parliamentary seat, and also to the country seat or (main) country estate of one of the landed gentry (Wiktionary senses 2.1 and 2.4). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.221 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese acquisitions of US companies[edit]

Given the modern strained relations between the US and PRC, why there's no effective state regulatory mechanism in the US to prevent mass-scale acquisitions of major American companies by China and related expansion into own US market (including the likes of Motorola Mobility owned by Lenovo and others)? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily because the United States does not practice discrimination by nationality on such a broad scale. And, given that any one of the companies you mentioned already has many non-US shareholders, such a restriction would be entirely unworkable. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about unworkable. We up north have the Investment Canada Act, which has been used to block several Chinese takeovers.[2][3] Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't know that. Falls in line with the recent Huawei extradition case of Meng Wanzhou. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An exception might be if a nation was at war with the US or otherwise had no diplomatic relations with the US. Neither is the case where China is concerned, at least not yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you say there is no regulatory mechanism. Mergers and acquisitions require approval from the U.S. and other governments. Using your link to Motorola Mobility as an example, it required regulatory approval of the U.S. Dept. of Justice and the European Union. RudolfRed (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this panic regarding Chinese dominance has been played out before against the Japanese. The Hunt For Red October, etc. It ended with the deflation of the Tokyo land bubble. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

→ Plaza Accord. Oalexander (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not The Hunt For Red October. Which film am I thinking of? Imagine Reason (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Letter by Philo Cleveland[edit]

Hi all, I'm trying to track down the letter described here. It's described as being in Record Group 45 of the national archives, letters received by the secretary of the navy. I emailed the National Archives and they found no record in Copies of Letters Received, 1/3/1801 - 12/31/1884. Any ideas where I might go from here? There might be a different record group I could request. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way you can contact the author of your original source? Perhaps he can direct you to where he found the letter? --Jayron 32 11:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the letter cataloged again here and I emailed the guy who manages the project... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They advise that it would seem to be on reel 95 of Miscellaneous Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy 1801-1884 but I'm not sure where to go from there. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]