Humanities desk
< November 12	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 14 >

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.

November 13[edit]

Except the 3-shilling what?[edit]

Please see this upcoming Picture of the Day. I'm curious about the three lines forming the main printed text on the bill. My reading using modern spellings and expanding the abbreviations is:

Pursuant to an act of Parliament authorizing bills to be issued for £1,200,000.
This bill entitles the bearer to five pounds to pass in all payments to receivers
or collectors of supplies for the war. Anno 1697 except the 3-shilling... then what? Ayd.?

Does it really mean "3-shilling aid", or what? And whatever it is, what is that and why is it an exception to the validity of the bill? Or does it change the meaning of the date somehow, since it's written after it? --76.71.5.45 (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Aid" or "Assessment" represented the tax payable on the bill, which went towards the war effort. In more modern terminology, the £5 is its gross value, and the wording is to remind the bearer that they still have to pay the tax. See this article for a similar provision (with a tax rate of 4/-) a few years earlier. The terminology goes back to the Feudal aids of the eleventh century. Tevildo (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. Putting it after the date still seems puzzling, almost as if they had done the typesetting and then realized they needed to add this. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the appearance of the text, I think it's engraved rather than typeset, which would make such a last-minute clarification of the bond's tax position a definite possibility. Tevildo (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Thanks. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

2016 vs earlier election turnouts[edit]

I found some NYT exit polls (linked further up) about how various demographics split according to which candidate they voted for, but I'm if there's a good place to find the actual turnouts in those demographic categories, for current and past elections including primaries. Specifically I want to compare 2016 to 2008, the last time the WH had a vacancy (no incumbent running again), in both the general and the primaries (mostly the Democratic primaries since the Republican side wasn't that competitive iirc). Any suggestions appreciated. Thanks! 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page has elections prior to 2016. This article (published yesterday) notes that reliable 2016 data is not yet available, but does make some estimates based on population trends. --Jayron 32 09:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1895 NYT article[edit]

Was this news article a original piece by the New York Times or a reprint of something in a New England newspapers. A Hawaiian newspaper reprinted this story again on February 12. Also can somebody help me find more sources about William E. Chase and The Daily Bee newspaper found in that story? The Library of Congress has an entry for the Daily Bee but it is not the right time period [1] since it was active when Peterson was not yet born. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were two Daily Bee active newspapers during that time period, but published in States far away from New England. The tone of the story is very local indeniably. Taking some freedom with the context, and WP:CRYSTAL, it could be that the title was that of a variant of a college newspaper. The two young men would have published it while they were serving in the Guards. --Askedonty (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that the story was written by a Times correspondent in Massachusetts, and I see no reference to a publication in a New England newspaper, but I suppose we cannot eliminate the possibility that it was a local paper's report. The Daily Bee must have been the Lynn Daily Bee, which Chronicling America says was published from 1888 to 1891, although the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court seemed to say in Moore v. Dick that its publication began in 1880, which must be correct if the timing is to work. I'm not sure if William Chase's middle initial was E., as given in The Hawaiian Star, or F., as given in The New York Times. A William E. Chase's brief biography is given on page 197 of Municipal History of Essex County in Massachusetts, and the timing and locality would work, but there is no reference to Arthur P. Peterson or the Daily Bee. John M Baker (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]