Humanities desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

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.

June 18[edit]

J. Ewing[edit]

Who was J. Ewing? Where was he from? When was he active? When was he born and when did he die? He created a set of charcoal artwork of Hawaiian royalty around 1909 with Honolulu photograph James J. Williams. Also I still have no idea how these images were reproduced. Were they retouched by Williams and then drawn with charcoal by Ewing or did Williams provide the photographs and Ewing did all the work? Some of the photographs used were not Williams work but by earlier Hawaiian photographers and Williams name is situated so prominently on the shoulders of the finished works alongside Ewing's.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also does anybody know the J. in J. Ewing's first name and James J. Williams's middle name stand for. Getting the full names would be nice.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Hawaii State Archives, this image is "Charcoal artwork by J. Ewing, on a photograph reproduced by J.J. Williams. Original photograph by Menzies Dickson, 1840?-1891." You can search the Hawaii State Archives collection for Ewing, but make sure you click on the "show all 24" button. "Leleiohoku, William Pitt, 1854-1877" is another example in this collection of the Ewing/Williams/Dickson combination. Then there is also "Kaahumanu, Consort of Kamehameha I, 1768?-1832" which is described as "Original artwork by Louis Choris. Reproduced photographically by J.J. Williams with charcoal work by J. Ewing." The collection includes several additional examples of charcoal by Ewing on photographs "reproduced by Williams," but no indication of the original photographer/artist.--Dreamahighway (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am already fully aware of every example in the Hawaii State Archives, the Smithsonian and Brother Betram's photo collection. Unfortunately your answer didn't help much. Thank you anyway.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who was J. Ewing? Where was he from? When was he active? When was he born and when did he die? Does anybody know the J. in J. Ewing's first name and James J. Williams's middle name stand for. Getting the full names would be nice.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KAVEBEAR, you've been asking these questions for months (at least), does anyone ever have any answers for you? If you've already gone through all the possible archives and sources, how are we supposed to be any help? (And how was anyone supposed to know you were already fully aware of the archives? You never mentioned that.) I don't want to discourage you from asking, but it seems that you are already the expert here, in this extremely obscure niche subject. You could be doing your own original research. You could be famous! You could be the one guy, who works on this stuff. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank?... In the past, I've found people here who have answered questions here that have helped me in my research and providing context for images I've upload on the commons including names and lifespans on obscure engravers, artists and photographers and dating entries in primary sources accounts of certain traveler. I assume that my link to the commons category J. Ewing would show that as the uploader of these images from the state archives and the Smithsonian that I've seen them before when I was uploading them. I guess I need to be more specific next time. I don't think they are unanswerable. Askedonty provided an excellent answer and gave me access to a source that helped me a lot in citing two articles I was cleaning up. I got an answer for Lunalilo for the height question from a non registered editor who couldn't edit because of the security on this page a couple of days ago. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John McLaughlin, MSNBC[edit]

John McLaughlin hosted the McLaughlin Special Report on MSNBC for a little while in the late 1990s. Was it John McLaughlin (host) or someone else? 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely the same person.[1][2] The show was short-lived, but still warrants mentioning in the article. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Done~~. Thank you. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, wrong link. Done. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Male Naming Order[edit]

My son is named exactly after me, making him a "Jr". Does that automatically make me the "Sr"? Do I need to legally change my name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.216.74 (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the section on this subject in Suffix (name) and see if it makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this bizarre US habit of giving your children the exact same name as a parent (mostly in the male line, I think) come from? It's so odd! In the rest of the western world the fathers name would traditionally be the second given name. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"US habit"? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A similar tradition does exist in France with the suffixes père and fils, as mentioned in the "suffix" article, but the numbering of kings and popes and such is a totally different matter. -- BenRG (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty common in Britain, or at least it used to be. I have a number of ancestors whose fathers and sons and grandsons and so on had the identical name - starting that tradition in England for several generations before they came to America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not unknown here, but it does seem to be more common in the USA. We certainly don't have ordinal numbers after the name, like William E. Smith IV that I picked out randomly from Google. Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if there's any legal requirement that the names be different. As a practical matter, though, it's probably best to use both "Jr." and "Sr." suffixes as long as they live in the same house. That way, if you get mail or a phone call specifying either, you know who it's for, and if it's not specified, you can ask, if on the phone, or take a chance on opening a letter, knowing it may well be for the other. If only "Jr." uses the suffix, then mail and calls with no suffix might either be for "Sr.", or for "Jr.", but with the suffix omitted. Most companies will be happy to refer to you by whatever name you give them, with no requirement that you use your legal name, so you could get by without legally changing your name. However, there may well be exceptions, like when dealing with the government (taxes, etc.), where you can expect them to follow formal rules. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding changing one's name in the U.S., see Name change#United States and Talk:Suffix (name)#Promotion (especially the last reply by Gx872op). -- BenRG (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's George Foreman and his sons Jr., III, IV, V, and VI. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This link describes the traditional naming patterns used in Scotland [3] but summarizing for those who are only mildly interested:

1st son named after father's father

2nd son named after mother's father

3rd son named after father

All other sons' names on preference of parents

1st daughter named after mother's mother

2nd daughter named after father's mother

3rd daughter named after mother

All other daughters' names on preference of parents

This was not always followed and tended to die out in the 19th century. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. as well, while it often happens that the post-nominal numerals follow in direct line (I.E. Jr., Sr., III, IV, etc. or I, II, III, IV, etc.) there are no hard-and-fast rules. Pierre S. du Pont IV's father was Pierre III, but Pierre II was Pierre III's uncle, and the first Pierre was the great grandfather of II. Henry Ford II was grandson of Henry Ford. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was the son of Theodore Roosevelt who was the son of Theodore Roosevelt, Sr.. Cornelius Vanderbilt II was the grandson of Cornelius Vanderbilt. Joseph P. Kennedy II was the nephew of Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. and the grandson of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. and so on. --Jayron32 23:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia/Slovenia[edit]

Why are Slovakia and Slovenia so easy to confuse? Their flags are almost identical - the only difference is the small coat of arms covering less than a third of the flag: Slovakia has a double cross, while Slovenia has a mountain range and three stars. The main motives of the flags - the coloured stripes - are identical. The names are similar not only in English and other European languages, but also in the local languages: Slovensko vs. Slovenija. They are situated very near each other, separated by only one rather small country (Austria). While Slovakia is landlocked, most of Slovenia's border is on land, and only a little part of it is coast. And both use the Euro. Are they intentionally trying to confuse us foreigners? JIP | Talk 18:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have it's routes in an empire founded by King Samo in the Early Middle Ages, but there is little documented evidence to back this up. All we've really got to go by is speculation.
If you ever get confused, just remember: Slovakia is near the Czechs, Slovenia is further south. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the Czechs happen to be near the Slovaks. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JIP -- The flags are similar because they're both variations on the old Slavic tricolor or Peter the Great flag. The names are similar because they're both variations on words meaning "Slav/Slavic/Slavonic"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/news/17iht-flag_ed3_.html ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Austria and Australia have all the fun? I must ask the next koala I see in the Vienna woods. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica is geographically close to the Dominican Republic.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos has the basic idea. Both names derive from the "Slav" root. For more information, see Slavs, Pan-Slavism, etc. You can see similar related (but distinct) ethnic or national groups that share names in words like Dutch (referring to the people/culture/language of the Netherlands) or the Pennsylvania Dutch (from Germany and NOT the Netherlands, where Dutch comes directly from Deutsche). Also words like Romania, Rumelia, Sultanate of Rum all ultimately derive from Rome, through the Eastern Roman Empire (i.e. Byzantine Empire). All refer to different lands and/or peoples but still come from the same root. You can also have coincidentally similar names, such as Münster and Munster, which despite the very similar names, have nothing etymologically in common (the former derives from the same root that gives us "monastery" and "minister", while the latter derives from the name of an old Irish mythological figure, I can't recall which. But in the case of Solvenia and Solvakia, the names directly derive from the same root. --Jayron32 20:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Slavonia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information storage[edit]

Before commercial businesses used computers, for how long did they keep their financial records and records of postal correspondence (sent and received)? Nowadays, for how long do computerized businesses retain electronic copies of their financial records and (printed or electronic) correspondence? (Some related topics are compulsive hoarding and digital hoarding and statute of limitations.)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some, they kept them forever, moving them to a warehouse after they reach a certain age. As a practical matter, though, a fire or flood will tend to destroy paper records after a few decades, unless they've taken precautions like making a safe backup copy at an alternate location. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if they're stored below the water line, as the Chicago flood of 1992 demonstrated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, there is a legal requirement to "keep records for at least 6 years from the end of the last company financial year they relate to".[4] after that they are generally shredded because storage space costs money and lots of it. In my previous occupation in the London insurance market, files relating to liability for personal injury were kept indefinitely because claims could made many years after the contract had terminated, asbestosis being a prime example, because you don't know that you've got it until years afterwards. They were generally microfilmed to save space. Alansplodge (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some companies choose former salt mines for super-secure long-term storage (see Strataca#Underground Vaults & Storage Gallery etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retention periods vary by country, industry, and type of document. In some industries, retention periods are set by regulation. For example, the period of time that registered investment advisers in the U.S. must keep documents is determined by regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Retention periods are not in concept affected by the availability of computer storage. John M Baker (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]