Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 December 15

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Humanities
Humanities desk
< December 14 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 16 >
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.


December 15

edit

How is D-Day and the subsequent Western Allied liberation of France remembered by French people nowadays?

edit

How is D-Day and the subsequent Western Allied liberation of France remembered by French people nowadays? Do French people remember it as fondly as Americans remember France's role helping them in the American Revolutionary War? Futurist110 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D-Day anniversary: How France will commemorate 75 years since Normandy landings says: "For decades, French presidents didn't officially commemorate the D-Day landings... French Resistance hero and president Charles de Gaulle refused to honour the Allied operation in which he was relegated to a secondary role. However since then things have changed, with commemorative events lasting several weeks taking place in the Normandy region to honour the brave actions of the soldiers who played a role in a pivotal moment of World War II". Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also D-Day: Is joint commemoration possible?. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these links! I will make sure to check them out! Futurist110 (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to remember is the complex relationship France had with other Western nations in the years after World War II. De Gaulle was always suspicious of and aloof to the various Western alliances as he saw them as a sneaky force of imperialism and as such, did not favor celebrating things that put those alliances in a favorable light, such as D-Day and the like. If you start with the Wikipedia article on Charles de Gaulle and start reading at the section titled "Founding of the Fifth Republic" and follow on through the end of his presidency. You can see numerous examples of de Gaulle's fierce opposition to involving himself in alliances and collaborations that he thought threatened French sovereignty, from his partial withdrawal from NATO to his opposition to the EEC. Since D-Day was basically a celebration to honor the glory of the UK and US, it makes sense that it irked him and he wanted to downplay its significance. Gaullism remained an important French political philosophy for decades, even after he left power. --Jayron32 18:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes sense. That said, though, what about in the 12 years before 1958? After all, De Gaulle only came to power in 1958 (though I believe that he did lead a provisional French government between 1944 and 1946). What were the French attitudes towards D-Day between 1946 and 1958--when De Gaulle wasn't really involved in France's political life? Futurist110 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From personal experience, the Operation Dragoon landings are celebrated annually with parades in the towns along the South coast and many beaches and streets are named in honour of the liberating forces. As a more general thing though, once France was actually liberated the allied presence was not particularly well thought of. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:31EA:C16E:6F84:2C7D (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the French sour on the Western Allies after the liberation of France? Futurist110 (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a question of "souring" as making the difference between "liberating" and "occupying after the liberation". Jayron32 describes the situation well. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:31EA:C16E:6F84:2C7D (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I suppose. Futurist110 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just found one hit indeed mentioning "With the 1944 liberation of France, Allied soldiers replaced the Germans" but the subject is basically, tourism. --Askedonty (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! It's that scarecrow AMGOT military government that had been advocated in 1943, then more or less administratively prepared, and which was dropped after invasion plans were to include a united and credible Free French force. Those scandalous whereabouts came back into discussed a couple of decades ago. --Askedonty (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from France and I remember that when I was a kid, there was a lot of events for the 50th anniversary of D Day (or Le Debarquement / The Landing). There are some cities in Normandy where the allied flags still fly along the French one. Ericdec85 (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The war museum in Caen, Normandy, includes "three gardens have been created to honour the Allied forces who took part in the liberation" [1]. One has to admire their magnanimity, since the Allies carpet bombed the place, which "destroyed 70% of the city and killed 2,000 French civilians" for little military advantage, "one of the most futile air attacks of the war" according to historian Max Hastings, see Operation Charnwood#Bombing. Our article notes that post-war French Communists used inflated casualty figures from the event in their anti-British propaganda. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Future election of 2100

edit

Although the year 2100 will not be a leap year, there will still be a presidential election in 2100. The year 2012 had Election Day on November 6, and so too will 2040, 2068, and 2096. Also, the year 2016 had Election Day on November 8, and so too will 2044 and 2072. However, because 2100 is not a leap year, Election Day in 2100 will be on November 2.

We'll see what will happen in about 8 decades. Will people know to schedule the presidential election in 2100 about a week earlier (on November 2 rather than November 8 or November 9), while also knowing that it is not a leap year? It is assumed that America's election system remains unchanged throughout the 21st century. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote our own article: "In the United States, Election Day is the day set by law for the general elections of federal public officials. It is statutorily set as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November" or "the first Tuesday after November 1".[1] The earliest possible date is November 2, and the latest possible date is November 8. "
Whether a year is a leap year or not is not (directly) considered in setting election dates. --Khajidha (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's Tuesday to be over 24 hours from Sunday so Christian farmers have plenty of time to get there and even if they had to wait till 9am which is the latest start time now they still would've had all day to walk from the poll and not miss the weekly market day, and not Friday cause Jewish candle lighting time (and start of Sabbath mode) is tens of minutes before sunset and having to speedwalk to the polls then rush to get an inn for Sabbath and spend an extra night on the road would've favored the Christian religion, and Thursday would've hindered Muslims, and not November 1 cause that's All Saints Day, a Christian holiday (that gained importance from being put near the pagan end of harvest holiday of Oct 31, same reason we put voting day here), then why is Nov 2 allowed when that's All Souls Day? Or Nov 3 for that matter? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they are smart, they will have move election day to a Sunday by then. Voting during the week is ridiculous and I don't know many countries where that happens. Ericdec85 (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except where they well known, in a desert Sundays are reserved for triggering calamities --Askedonty (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By keeping it during the week, the intention is to cut down on voting by hourly workers (i.e. likely Democrats). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There'd probably be howls of protests about "government infringing on the Lord's day" if American elections were held on Sundays. There's still lots of people in my part of the country upset that you can buy beer on Sundays. Saturdays might be doable. As for your not "know[ing]" many countries where that happens", it seems to be more the norm than the exception in predominantly English speaking countries. While Australia and New Zealand have theirs on Saturdays, the UK uses Thursdays and Canada uses Mondays. I couldn't find anything designating a specific day for Ireland, but all general elections in the past century have been during the work week. --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although the UK does hold them on Thursdays because that was (is?) traditionally market day and thus was scheduled to coincide so that people could go to vote on their way to or from the market. Sundays were ruled out to avoid the clergy influencing people directly before their way to vote (which is something that actually still happens here where you can always predict a lot of people coming to vote once church ends). The problem could easily be fixed by declaring election day a federal holiday (see also Democracy Day (United States), Election Day (United States)#Holiday and paid leave) or allowing mail-in voting everywhere. Regards SoWhy 13:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my state we have early voting stations that are open for several weeks before the official voting day. These make more sense to me, as they allow the individual to vote on any free day they have. No matter what day of the week you choose, there will be some people who cannot get away from their job long enough to vote. --Khajidha (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an article on Early voting. The practice seems to have started becoming popular near the turn of the millenium, as of now 33 states have some form of in-person early voting systems in the U.S. --Jayron32 15:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2100 is a leap year. You mean, 2400 is not a leap year.
Sleigh (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Years ending in 00 are only leap years if the are evenly divisible by 400. So 2000 was a leap year and 2400 will be one, but 2100, 2200, and 2300 will not. --Khajidha (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the Eastern Orthodox calendar got so far ahead of the normal western calendar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Behind, I think. While they were still on February 29, we had already moved on to March 1 (in years we did not consider to be leap years but the Orthodoxes did). But this only explains why the 2 calendars have drifted 3 days further apart since the Gregorian was created in 1582. Back then there was a 10-day gap created when Wednesday 4 October 1582 (Julian) was followed by Thursday 15 October (Gregorian). The Orthodox Churches never accepted this, so were immediately 10 days out of synch. The gap has since widened to 13 days because of 1700, 1800 and 1900 (which are NOT leap years in Gregorian, but WERE in Julian). It will increase to 14 days in 2100 unless something changes. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
13 days is exactly right, Orthodox Christmas, where it is celebrated on a different date, is celebrated on January 7th (Gregorian), being 13 days after Western Christmas. January 7th is December 25 in Julian. This generally only applies to churches in the Russian Orthodox sphere, whereas those in the Greek Orthodox sphere generally have adopted the Revised Julian calendar. This is distinct from, but coincidentally close to, Little Christmas or "Old Christmas" which is the name given to some celebrations of Epiphany, which occurs 12 days after December 25, so on January 6. In some traditions, the January 6th date is used as the primary celebration, but not because of the Calendar conversion issues, rather because they are actually celebrating a different holiday. --Jayron32 19:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Best calendar I ever saw was 1584 1588 1592 1596 1600 1604 1608 1612 1617 1621 1625 1629 1633 1637 1641 1646 1650 etc. Stretch out 60 years of Julian leap years into 62 like this and it will get almost half day wrong, curve back to perfection and not breach half day wrong till almost 8000 AD, tracking the accelerating barrage of leap seconds better than cycles closer to the contemporary noons per year. The leap years in odd and World Cup years is ugly as fuck though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Gordon-Stables

edit

Who was "Mrs. Gordon-Stables", who gave talks on BBC Radio several times in the 1920s ([2]), and wrote for The Radio Times ([3])? When did she die? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A thorough Google search threw up only BBC addresses on subjects such as bedroom furnishings and interior colour schemes. I found an article in a blog which she wrote for The Girls Own Annual called Decorating Your Tree The 1919 Way.. Someone has added an unanswered question: "I AM INTERESTED TO KNOW WHERE THIS MRS GORDON-STABLES FITS INTO THE FAMILY TREE. I AM GUESSING THAT SHE IS A WIFE OF ONE OF DR WILLIAM GORDON-STABLES' SONS. IF YOU KNOW COULD YOU LET ME KNOW". We have an article, William Gordon Stables, who may or may not be related. Note that combining a forename with a surname to create a double-barrelled surname was not unknown; the Baden-Powell surname is an example, the family name was changed after the death of Baden Powell (mathematician). 19:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure she was "Hannah S Louisa Gordon-Stables" (nee Salom) known as "Louisa" (1875-1961) wife of "Lovat Lionel Gordon-Stables" (1876-1939). He was the son of William and Therse Gordon-Stables, William described as an Author in the 1901 Census. Hannah was described as a "Journalist (Retired)" born 31 March 1875 in the 1939 National Register. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that she was born "Hannah Sarah Louise Salom" in Kensington, daughter of Henry and Eliza Salom. Her father was described as a Master Optician in 1881. MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all. I have now created Louise Gordon-Stables (Q78668116) with what we know so far.

Art critic?
btw, almost all i see is w/o hyphen.—eric 04:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: Can you confirm the switch from "Louise" to "Louisa" (I'm aware the legibility of old registers, and transcription errors, are factors)? Which censuses are you citing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember I only found "Louise" used in the Birth Index, give me time to go through the notes and I will get back. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information for Andy Mabbett:

  • General Register Office Online Index https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_search.asp "Hannah Sarah Louise Salom" born 1875 Q2 in the Kensington Registration District, Mother's Maiden name "Hart".
  • 1881 Census at 42 Formosa Street, Paddington listed as "H S Louisa Salom" aged 6
  • 1891 Census not found
  • 1901 Census at 19 Portsdown Road, Paddington listed as "Hannah S L Salom" aged 26
  • 1910 Marriage Index as "Hannah S L Salom" to "Lovat L Gordon-Stables" in Paddington
  • 1911 Census at 32 Craven Road, Paddington as "Louisa Gordon-Stables" aged 36
  • 1939 National Register at 7 Lansdowne Walk, Kensington as "Hannah (S L) Gordon-Stables" born 31 March 1875 Journalist (Retired)
  • 1961 Death Index as "Hannah S L Gordon-Stables" in Hove Sussex aged 85
  • 1961 Probate Index https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/Calendar?surname=Stables&yearOfDeath=1961&page=2#calendar "Hannah Sarah Louise Gordon-Stables" of Hove, Sussex
All seem to use the hyphenated version, Louise only appear at the birth and probate index it appears she used "Louisa" during her life. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: That's all very helpful. Thank you. One last thing: do you have anything to confirm that her father in law was our William Gordon Stables? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andy pretty sure he is her father-in-law, Lovat appears with his mother and father in the 1901 Census, William is shown as being born at Aberchirder which matches the WGS article. The General Register Office birth index says Lovat mother's maiden name was McCormack and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biogrpahy says that William married "Therese Elizabeth Williams McCormack" (known as Lizzie) in 1847. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2019_December_15&oldid=932034882"