Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 17

Why do Guyana, Suriname & French Guiana have smaller populations?

The South American Spanish-speaking countries have huge population in the millions. But the three Guianas have less than one million people in each of their countries. Why do Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana which are about the size of some U.S. states, have very small populations? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The land and climate in those three countries are quite inhospitable. It's no coincidence that the French established their infamous Devil's Island penal facility in French Guiana. Neighboring areas in Brazil and Venezuela have very low population density as well. --Xuxl (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Tropical rainforests predominate Suriname, Guyana, and French Guiana. It goes without saying that this sets significant limitations on human settlement. The vast majority of people in each of those three countries live along the coastline, which is more hospitable than the inland regions. There's also some historical context to take into account. The regions that border northern Brazil were basically seen as no man's land in the late 1700s and early 1800s; the French and Dutch empires did not want to stir up a hornet's nest by encroaching too close to Portuguese territory. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Edward Teller, giving bomb secrets to Israel, security clearance, prosecution?

Hello, the wikipedia article says Teller gave advice on nuclear weapons to Israel. Was, and should, this have been considered espionage? Was there, and should there have been(in the legal sense of espionage), an effort to take away Teller's security clearance and or prosecute him? Thanks.--Rich Peterson76.218.104.210 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Should" questions are beyond the purview of this board. I can't speak to the "was". Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

In "should", I meant given the laws of of the United States at that time, would there have been expected to have been a prosecution of Teller? I should have said it that way, I guess.76.218.104.210 (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

On what grounds specifically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked the original question, indicating I am seeking knowledge, not providing it. Why do you expect me to know all the arcane details of United States espionage law and the grounds a prosecution might be based on? Nor do I expect you to know, it's great if you do, but fine if you don't. But if you don't know, don't feel bad about it, and please don't heckle me with quibbles about grounds or "should vs could" as a substitute for your lack of information.76.218.104.210 (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The right question is could he have been charged with espionage. There's no indication in the article that he ever was charged nor that charges were considered. But keep in mind that Israel was an ally, while the USSR was considered an enemy, hence the Rosenbergs' trial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "could" was the right question to ask because that's not the question I was primarily interested in. I knew, because of reading the article and reading many many things for many years since I was a child, that Israel was and is an ally of the United States, and thus spying for them might be considered by some to be less heinous, rightly or not. I don't think you intend any offense, but I have a right to be interested in my own questions, and I thought "should" would briefly connote the raft of consequences Teller might have been liable to.76.218.104.210 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Citizendium article says nothing about Teller giving secrets to Israel.[1] Maybe it would be a good idea for someone to review the allegations in the Wikipedia article and see if they have any basis in fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, Baseball Bugs. Thanks!76.218.104.210 (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't deal in facts, we deal in reliable secondary sources! —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Given stated ref desk policy, should this question be answered? Or perhaps just be removed without comment? μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to know if the OP's premise is true. Is the Wikipedia article soundly sourced on this point, or is it just somebody's conspiracy theory? Because if it didn't happen, the rest of the question becomes moot. And if it did happen, it's pretty obvious nothing was done about it, so the only conclusion we can draw, without further research, is that he was not considered to have committed espionage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It's not a request for medical advice, and it's quite a stretch to call this legal advice: I'm assuming that Rich Peterson is not Teller risen from the dead, and that's really the only way this could be legal advice, as (presumably) nobody's going to do anything to Teller as long as he's still dead. Why else would we remove it? Either answering or saying "we can't determine" is better. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just a thought -- I don't know this is relevant -- but I see the article suggests Teller did all the important consulting in or before 1967. Note that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was opened to signatures in 1968, and was ratified in 1970. I would think that the existence of such a treaty would put the U.S. government in an uncomfortable position regarding, say, Jonathan Pollard in 1987, because if the government said hey sure, you're our friends, we won't hold a grudge, that would make the treaty pretty much valueless as long as someone always said "oops, it was just a spy." Anyway, I see that a search for Teller, non-proliferation and Israel pulls up a large quantity of material ... whether any of it is good enough and on topic enough to cite to provide some context for the article, I'll leave to someone more devoted to the task. Wnt (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Who is Arabic?

I recently saw some movie, the name of which I can't remember, where the people were called Arabs and they were all "We're PERSIAN!" It got me thinking, I really don't know what either word means. Wikipedia seems fairly descriptive when it comes to the word Persian, but considerably less so when it comes to the word Arabic. Other google searches seems to be equally vague. Some narrow it down to language, others geographic location, others a combination. I know a decent number of people who speak Arabic, but most of them are African immigrants who speak half a dozen other languages as well so it seems sort of arbitrary to define them by that specific language as opposed to their country of birth. It also seems fairly arbitrary to group people together who were born in different countries, are different races, have different religions, and have no other shared characteristics other than language. I have always referred to people by country, as in "This person is Iranian". Does anyone have any insight? Does anyone use the word Arabic? How do you define the word when you use it? Bali88 (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Arab people are a subset of people who speak the Arabic language. Arabic-speakers are so diverse I'm not sure there's any other useful way to describe them collectively. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And Persians are those who speak Farsi as their main language; most of them are in Iran, but 1) there are minority populations in Iran (Azeris, Armenians, Arabs) and Persians living outside of Iran. Nowadays, like Arab or Arabic, it's more of a cultural than a geographic or political term. Centuries ago, however, there were both a Persian and an Arabian Empire, with very different histories - the former traced its origins to Antiquity, while the latter was set up by the successors of Muhammad 2000 years later. And, by the way, Farsi (or Persian) and Arabic are entirely different languages, and not even from the same linguistic family, even though they're written with the same script and share some vocabulary. Turks are another group from the same general geographic area who don't like to be confused with Arabs. --Xuxl (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Persian or Farsi is an Indo-European language, and quite closely related to Sanskrit (and more loosely to most modern European languages). Arabic is a semitic language, and closely related to Aramaic and Hebrew. Turkish is a Turkic language. These three major language groups are quite distinct, and they are used by different cultural groups. Now between the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great and the Diadochi, the Parthian Empire, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, the Sasanian Empire, the Muslim conquests, the Crusades and the Ottoman Empire, with a bit of Ghengis Khan for good measure, I suspect every people in the area had plenty of opportunity to lord it over the others, to exchange culture, food, words, and genes, and to form a number of interesting cultural amalgamations. But there remain significant cultural differences (and as often, the closer two neighbours are, the stronger the rivalry). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Arab people comprise what is called a panethnicity — a broad national identity that covers multiple countries with differing genealogical heritages. They are unified by the fact that they speak Arabic as a first language, and have been heavily influenced by Arabian culture since their conquest at the hands of the Islamic Caliphates during the Middle Ages. There are also some genetic commonalities as a result of interracial sex over the centuries. This should not suggest that countries of the Arab World all have the same exact cultural identity; Lebanon is very different from Morocco, for instance. It's just that "Arab" is a common denominator which they all share. It is very similar to how Mexico and Argentina are both considered part of Latin America. Those are two entirely different countries with unique cultural identities, yet they are linked by virtue of being former Spanish colonies. Thus, they have adopted the Spanish language and were heavily influenced by the culture of Spain.

  Now, Persians are different from Arabs altogether. The Persian ethnic group constitutes a majority in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it can also be considered a panethnicity of its own (albeit much smaller than the Arab or Latin American groups). That is because there are several people in Central and Western Asia who speak some local variation of the Persian language (otherwise known as "Farsi"). This category includes almost everybody in Afghanistan and Tajikistan, as well as a significant minority in Uzbekistan. The Tajik language is itself a variant of Persian, so ethnic Tajiks can be seen as having a cultural connection to Iran. Likewise, Afghanistan uses the Dari dialect as its lingua franca, but has significant minorities that speak the Tajik, Aimaq, and Hazaragi dialects as well. That's beside the point, though. When someone is referred to as "Persian", it generally means they are from Iran and do not belong to any of its minority ethnic groups (in other words, Afghans and Tajiks would not openly identify as Persian people).

  In many cases, it's best to refer to people by their specific countries. People who identify themselves as Persian, Lur, Kurdish, Azeri, or Baloch can broadly be identified as "Iranian" if they are actually from Iran. With Arab countries, it's always better to be specific. Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, and Lebanon (among others) are all unique countries within the lexicon of Arab culture. Does that make any sense?

  Hope this helps! Kurtis ^(talk) 00:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You can read endless debate on the subject (not always very edifying) at Talk:Arab people and its archives... AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

An exception in the particular context of Israel: Israeli Druze, members of that Arabic-speaking minority religious community who don't intermarry, are always designated as Druze and not referred to as "Arab." The Bedouin in Israel, while culturally distinct within the Arab population, are adherents of Islam and are considered Arab. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a political movement called Pan-Arabism in the 1950s and 60s, which aimed to unite all the Arab countries into one nation. One result was that Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Sudan and Yemen all have very similar flags. See Pan-Arab Colours. Alansplodge (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pan-Arabism as an immediate concrete action plan has been much less prominent in international politics or diplomacy since the death of Nasser, the rise of political Islamism, etc. However, Arab nationalism is still very much part of the aspirational sentiments or long-term vision of tens of millions of people... AnonMoos (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

June 18

J. Ewing

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

John McLaughlin, MSNBC

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)

It's definitely the same person.[2][3] The show was short-lived, but still warrants mentioning in the article. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Male Naming Order

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

This link describes the traditional naming patterns used in Scotland [4] 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)

• 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)

Slovakia/Slovenia

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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

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)

Dominica is geographically close to the Dominican Republic.

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

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)

Information storage

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)

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)

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)

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".[5] 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)

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)

June 19

Tuha'a Pae

Can anybody fill me in on the history of the usage of the term "Tuha'a Pae" for the Austral Islands? Is it a historical term? Or a native slang with only modern context. This state it means the fifth part which doesn't sound very meaningful to me at least if it was a native historical term which dates prior to Western contact. It sounds like some sort of Tahtiian translation of a French colonial term for the island division. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Based on my research, "pae" means five in Tahitian.[6] I think the book you cited is accurate, and the name was given in reference to the territorial division of French Polynesia. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I find a lot of references [7] to "Himene tuhaa pae" meaning traditional songs of the Austral Islands, and lots of references [8] [9] [10] to a cargo ship named Tuhaa Pae, that supplied the islands at least from the 70s to 2002. So I don't know where you draw the line between modern and historical, but the term has been linked to the archipelago for at least 40 years.

Although it is true that there are five administrative divisions of French Polynesia (of which the Austral Islands are one) I haven't found a reference in French yet to these being referred to by number rather than by name. However, I did find a tourism document [11] that says (first sentence, roughly translated) In the polynesian language, the Austral Islands are usually called Tuhaa Pae, referring to the the five islands that make up the Austral archipelago. 184.147.135.33 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Medieval German equivalent

Since I'm not sure whether Herr and Meister are good candidates, what was the medieval German equivalent of medieval Italian messère and French messer (particularly, in the Holy Roman Empire)? Brandmeister^talk 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but would you mind being a bit more specific in your question? It's hard to discern exactly what it is you are asking. Are you referring to archaic forms of address (similar to modern-day Italian "signore")?

  If it's a matter of linguistics, the language reference desk would probably be your best bet. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is the medieval Meister Eckhart, although that is an academic title in his case, the Latin magister, and not the equivalent of messer/monsieur. "Herr" should be the equivalent of that (for example, see Freiherr). I don't know how to spell that in medieval German though... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The direct literal translation of monsieur is mein Herr, which IIRC, is a bit formal in German, which usually just uses "Herr". Sieur in in French being the English equivalent of "Sir", as a title for a Knight originally, thus Herr is probably the best equivalent. --Jayron32 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

June 20

Maoism before Mao

This Google Ngram, not surprisingly, shows an increase in the appearance of "Maoism" after about 1940, peaking around his death, and declining since. However, it occasionally appears in the 19th century, with a higher spot in the early 1840s. In what context would these six letters be appearing in this order in the 1840s? Is it perhaps just the result of mistakes in Google's OCR software? Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps they meant Daoism/Taoism ? StuRat (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this section, as it was likely to be offensive to many people from China. Looie496 (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I get that all the time. Occasionally Google mixes up archive dates, meaning something that pertains to the Qing Dynasty would show up in a search for "Mao" or "Maoism". Sometimes the search results are even stranger, although I can't list any specific examples off the top of my head. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If you do a Google Books search for "maoism" in the 19th century you'll find indeed that every single match is an OCR mistake. Some of them are way off, but "magism" can easily be mistaken for "maoism" if the 'g' is unclear. - Lindert (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating how far off they can be. One hit was apparently occasioned by the numeral 1889. How 1889 becomes Maoism is a bit hard to reconstruct. --Trovatore (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There's Mohism... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

US primary elections in the 19th and early 20th century for other offices than President

Dear everyone; I can't find any information about American primaries in the 19th and early 20th century for other elected offices than president. I am especially interested in governors and senators. Which way lead to the party nomination as governor or senator back in those days? --Jerchel (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but it's worth keeping in mind that senators weren't uniformly elected by popular vote until after the Seventeenth Amendment and although some states brought in popular votes before that the earliest was apparently Oregon in 1907 [12] so in the 19th Century, the question with regard to senators is "how did the state legislatures choose the senator?" Valiantis (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Jerchel -- You should keep in mind that even when running for the U.S. presidency, as late as the 1950's primaries were not really decisive in themselves, but were a kind of a supplement to the main action of smoke-filled-room negotiating and convention-floor balloting. However the White primaries of Texas and some other states were notorious... AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

1968 Democratic Party Primary results.

Actually, the modern Primary system really didn't become the way we know it today nationwide until the 1970s. Check out the picture to the right. These are the states that had primaries in 1968. In the 19th and early 20th century, delegates met at the national conventions and selected the candidates by ballot. Each state's party had its own procedure for selecting delegates, but once the delegates got to the convention, they were free to nominate and subsequently vote for any candidate they chose. That's how we ended up with so many Dark horse candidates in the 19th century: At the convention, it was often difficult to get a candidate who could get an absolute majority of the vote. There could often be a dozen or more rounds of voting before a candidate finally won their party's nomination. It was a gradual process through the 20th century that caused the transition from the old system (where the Convention itself chose the candidate) to the current system (where the candidate is selected through the primary process and the Convention is a mere formality). --Jayron32 20:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• The point should be taken that parties are private organizations, and that while they may back candidates there is no constitutional right for them to "have their candidates". Anyone who meets age, residency, and local petition requirements gets on the final ballot. How the state primary runs, if one is had, differs by states. Even though the NY state primaries are publicly funded the party bosses can reject candidates. In 1996 Pat Buchanan met the eligibility requirements for the state GOP presidential primary, but the party kept him off anyway since they wanted a unanimous choice for Bob Dole. The state court allowed this.

Recently rep (dem) Conyers forgot to get enough signatures to qualify by law for his primary. A lower court said the law applies to all, the state court decided the law did not apply to a powerful sitting politician. A decade back sitting (NJ, Dem) Senator Toricelli who was about to be arrested dropped out of the final race less than 30 days from the election. State law required all names on the ballot to be certified 30 days before the election--there was no legal way to replace his name. Retired Democrat Laughtenberg was put on the ballot after the legal deadline when the NJ supreme court decided along party lines that the people had a right to vote for a Democrat candidate regardless of the law.

Publicly funded primaries are part of a gradual "establishment of party" in the US. In the cases involving the Democrats above, the needs/desires of the parties were explicitly place above existing law. By the time the final election comes along, "the" candidates are named--you can vote for John D Corruption or John R Corruption, or go third party, and throw your vote away. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Engagement photographs

I'm interested in understanding photography sessions for couples who have got engaged to be married. This seems especially prevalent in the United States but I believe it's reasonably popular in the UK and other parts of the Western world. Who is interested in these photos? Why are they being taken, considering that the wedding is the real event and will occur with reasonable likelihood? They are often posed and horribly, awfully cheesy. I can understand perhaps one photo or two of a smiling couple for an announcement (local newspaper, facebook, etc), but entire extended sessions with multiple poses seems like overkill. Is there an appeal in this that I am missing? Or is it likely that only the couples themselves think it's important/are self-obsessed, just because they are happy with their own engagement? 2601:9:F80:1CA:4013:ED09:51D0:967D (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Some couples (or at least one of the partners) will probably look back at least some on the photos later. My parents being almost old enough to be my grandparents, I only found out about people taking more than a couple of photos a year or two ago. I suspect part of it may be that the photographer is already hired for that time, or that they figure it's a better deal to hire a friend of a friend for multiple photos instead of just getting a couple. At least, that's what the polite part of me suspects, other parts want to make accusations of people confusing money, attention, and love; but it could be a spectrum, or even matters of degree for various reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As for them being "cheesy", telling them to "look lovingly into each other's eyes" is bound to make people wretch. A more imaginative photographer might have them dress up, say, as Bonnie and Clyde, complete with mock machine guns. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What kind of wretch would misspell that word? --70.49.171.225 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Be quiet, or I'll hit you with a rench (or maybe a wench). :-) StuRat (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The bride-to-be, and quite possibly the groom and the families, are the ones interested in these photos. Whether such photos make unrelated, unromantic observers cringe is probably not on their list of things to worry about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

June 21

Manuella Kalili

Anyway to find out when Manuella Kalili died?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Coronation vs. enthronement

Can they be used interchangeably nowadays? 112.198.77.159 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh... Enthronements aren't necessarily royal, while coronations usually are (the Papal coronation being the only religious example I can find). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No, because in the former you get a hat, and in the latter you get a chair. --Jayron32 02:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

And many kings have definitely deserved to get the chair. StuRat (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

I'm not looking for legal advice. I just want to understand the situation better. I use MuseScore, a free music composition and notation software, to create sheet music. MuseScore also gives you the possibility to share your created scores with the MuseScore community and therefore the whole Internet since Google indexes shared scores. I had created a score of a song by listening to it and had asked the community to find wrong notes, so it was unfinished. I never claimed it to be my own work and even put the composer's name on it. It was finally taken down after nearly a year with the argument: "This score is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Hal Leonard". Other people who had tried to upload their versions of the song received the same message. I would've understood if it had been the composer himself, but this company(, which I have never heard of before because I don't live in the US,) seems to publish only arrangements of songs. How does it own the rights of the original song? The company publishes everything from classical to pop and I doubt every composer is affiliated to it. It just seems that the company is very sensitive since you need a permission for pretty much everything. I'm sure there are other publishers who have published sheet music of that song. Let's assume I got the permission from one company to publish my score and the other company still sued me for copyright infringement. How would this make sense? Back to my real case. I have never seen the arrangement of that company and my version is similar (not identical) to theirs because we both refer to the same song and neither of us are the true owners. Why does Hal Leonard has the right to claim the content? Also consider the fact that it's just self-created sheet music, I did not copy the actual song. --2.246.24.41 (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Several things 1) The song itself (that is, the actual arrangement of the notes) is under copyright. The hummable tune (more than just the expression of the tune) is itself what the copyright holder holds. So, when you create sheet music by ear from a song, and then publish that music on the internet, you are likely violating copyright against the original composition. That's like listening to a book-on-tape and then transcribing the book. You still violate the copyright if you publish the transcripts (copying for purely personal use, without showing it to anyone, may constitute fair use in some jurisdictions, however) 2) The sheet music published by a company like Hal Leonard is itself also copyright separate from the music it represents. Hal Leonard itself has a license to publish said sheet music from the original publishers. They may have exclusive right to publish said music under agreement with the publisher, and may have the legal right to defend that license against unlicensed competition from others publishing said sheet music for free (read: you). Copyright law IS very complex, which is why it needs lawyers to understand it, explain it, and defend it against problems, rather than people like me (that is, random strangers on the Interwebs).. --Jayron32 03:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A note on Hal Leonard: It is the largest sheet music publisher in the world, and as such, have a decent amount of resource to pursue legal action, warranted or otherwise. Mingmingla (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I rather doubt they'd actually pursue legal action against the OP, it's just not worth it - but, as the OP has seen, they will attempt to get the hosts to remove the material. It isn't worth the while of hosing services such as MuseScore to stand up for their users' rights, even when the purported copyright-holder's demands are legally unwarranted. (Not that I'm saying they aren't warranted in this case). My advice is to contact Chilling Effects - they may just be able to help on these sorts of issues? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Not A Separate Peace

Some book identification help, please. I thought that I was thinking of A Separate Peace by John Knowles, but probably not. What young-adult novel takes place in an all-boys boarding school during the Spanish Civil War? One of the students, a secondary character IIRC, goes off to fight in that war, and we later learn that he went to fight for the "wrong" side. Now that I think about it, the book may be British rather than American. I believe that I read it in high school (1989–1993) as assigned reading. A Separate Peace took place during World War II, so it is a bit too late. Thank you. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This actually sounds like The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (novel), in which a girl runs off to fight in the war. (I haven't read the book, but I did see the movie.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That does sound awfully like what I described about the war (and I would certainly call the Nationalists the wrong side), but I do not recall reading this book, and I could have sworn it was boys (of course H.S. was over 20 years ago, so maybe I'm forgetting). Thanks! —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

SC justice recusal

What if all United States SC justices recuse from a case, do then the judges of the courts of appeals jump in? Or the case is simply dismissed? 112.198.77.214 (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

To know for sure, you would have to find out if it's happened before. I googled the subject and didn't find much. However, the article Judicial disqualification indicates that recusal could be overridden by the need for at least one judge to hear the case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• OR, but if the judges recused themselves but with conflicting interests, they could be paired up: three justices who sold stock in the company, three who bought it. Plus, of curse, judges aren't recused, they simply recuse themselves. They could simply say, in a case like this I would recuse myself because of X which I have detailed in this 5 page report, but in these circumstances I will remain seated.

Finding half-remembered books

What are the best places online for finding books you can't remember the title or author of? Obviously I know some details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.139.70 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the best place, but we seem to do a pretty good job of it here. Why not give us a try? Matt Deres (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll try it here, why not. Allow me to copy and paste:

• Children's fantasy series, possibly a trilogy
• The premise is that a dream world exists parallel to our own
• A major feature of the dream world is a spiral staircase that rises into the sky, made from/embellished with thousands of seashells. This was probably featured in the title of one of the books, but if it is I'm not remembering it properly.
• The plot of one of the books involves a villain that is kidnapping children through their dreams and using them as slave labour. The dreams would be false awakenings; the kids would believe they were going about their normal daily routines before ending up in his clutches. The only way to pre-empt this would be to realize you were dreaming before that happened. For example, one of the protagonists dreams he is waking up and going to school before seeing the moon shining brightly in the sky, realizing he is dreaming, and forcing himself awake.
• Another of the books features a prophecy that the villain would only be defeated by doing nothing and acting like you'd already lost. In the end, the protagonists sit back and allow the villain to consume enough energy to overload and destroy himself. In all honesty, I'm not 100% sure this is the same series, but I am MOSTLY sure. 90.222.139.70 (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See The Neglected Books Page at http://neglectedbooks.com/.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Could it be Garth Nix' series The Keys to the Kingdom, which (apparently) features a magical staircase to everywhere called The Improbable Stair? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

How does ISIS know how to use sophisticated weapons they capture?

When the Iraqi army collapsed, they left their ordnance behind for ISIS to appropriate. How much advantage will ISIS be able to take of this windfall? The heavy vehicles and armaments are complex and require a lot of training to master. My nephew as a government contractor trains US marines to operate some of these vehicles. This is advanced training for the marines, and it may require weeks. --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's very easy to make a tank move around, even without training. It's much more difficult, without training, to make it move around efficiently, quickly, smoothly, and without smashing into buildings, other vehicles, soldiers on your own side, or indeed off the edge of a deep canal or river, or ripping one of its tracks off or damaging the gearbox by not driving it in a sensible manner. ISIS fighters may not care much about some of this, but sophisticated tanks also require sophisticated maintenance, which would also be an issue in the medium term.

Likewise, it's possible to work out how to fire the tank gun of even a sophisticated modern tank, though you might do some damage to the tank or yourself or nearby friendly forces while working it out. Without training, though, it's much more difficult to make use of the tank's sophisticated optics and targetting, or firing on the move. One video snippet I saw apparently showed ISIS using a captured tank firing while stationary and with the gun reversed, which is maybe an indication of this. Without the ability to engage other armour at long range and the ability to fire on the move and otherwise maneuver how highly trained tank crews would, even the very latest models of captured U.S. tanks would probably be of little more tactical value than ye olde T-55. (And would probably break down sooner in the absence of spare parts and trained maintenance personnel.)

The Islamic regime in Iran inherited a large number of F-14 fighters - leading edge technology at the time - from the previous regime which was supported by the U.S. These were very useful during their war with Iraq, but are now supposedly incapable of even taking off due to lack of spare parts and maintenance.

Many other weapons systems have similar issues, for example I think Stinger missiles require (or required) particular sorts of battery packs that can sometimes be hard to obtain. So some of this equipment could be very useful - or very dangerous - in the short or medium term, but will likely be next to useless in the long term.

Islamic states tend not to develop their own indigenous technologies based on technologies they have access to, like for example Israel has. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Free markets and efficiency -- any economists here?

I have a quick question about free markets and economic efficiency.

My textbook claims that free markets will generally lead to maximal economic surplus -- with the usual caveats about perfect competition, externalities, etc.

The proof my textbook offers goes as follows: first, it notes that "1. Free markets allocate the supply of goods to the buyers who value them most highly, as measured by their willingness to pay; 2. Free markets allocate the demand for goods to the sellers who can produce them at the lowest cost. Thus, given the quantity produced and sold in a market equilibrium, [a] social planner cannot increase economic well-being by changing the allocation of consumption among buyers or the allocation of production among sellers."

So far, so good.

Next, the author asks if "[a] social planner raise [can] total economic well-being by increasing or decreasing the quantity of the good?" The answer, apparently, is 'no'. That is, "[f]ree markets produce the quantity of goods that maximizes the sum of consumer and producer surplus." To prove this statement, the textbook uses the following figure.

The accompanying text is: "To interpret this figure, keep in mind that the demand curve reflects the value to buyers and the supply curve reflects the cost to sellers. At any quantity below the equilibrium level, such as Q1, the value to the marginal buyer exceeds the cost to the marginal seller. As a result, increasing the quantity produced and consumed raises total surplus. This continues to be true until the quantity reaches the equilibrium level. Similarly, at any quantity beyond the equilibrium level, such as Q2, the value to the marginal buyer is less than the cost to the marginal seller. In this case, decreasing the quantity raises total surplus, and this continues to be true until quantity falls to the equilibrium level. To maximize total surplus, the social planner would choose the quantity where the supply and demand curves intersect."

I really don't understand this supposed proof. Consumer surplus is defined as the difference between the willingness to pay and the price of the good. So while it may be true that "at any quantity below the equilibrium level, such as Q1, the value to the marginal buyer exceeds the cost to the marginal seller", I don't see what that has to do with consumer surplus (or producer surplus), because there's no reference to prices.

I would appreciate any clarification. TIA. 65.92.5.124 (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't need any reference to prices. You only need to know the maximum price a buyer would buy for, and the minimum price a seller would sell for. If I would buy 100 ballpoint pens from you for $50, and you would sell them for $5, regardless of the actual price, the total surplus is $45. If we trade at $5, I get all the surplus. If we trade at $50, you get it. If we trade at $27.50, we split the cookie. So if you artificially shift the quantity to the right, all the existing consumers and producers will still make a sale, and regardless of price, their total surplus will be the same. The marginal buyer (the extra person who bought some pens) and the marginal seller (the extra person who sold them) will have a loss of surplus.

You can proceed as follows: draw a vertical line from Q2, intersect the seller curve and the buyer curve. Suppose the point on the seller curve is $80, and on the buyer curve, $30. The point on the seller curve is actually the cost to the marginal seller at this point, because at that price, he stops producing. The point on the buyer curve is also the value to him, because at that point, he stops buying. So you can compute the change in total surplus using just the marginal seller and the marginal buyer.

Implicit here is at least one more assumption, that the marginal value is different for each unit produced. The first unit is reckoned to be cheap to the seller and dear to the buyer, because somebody really needs a ballpoint pen, and someone has already built a factory, and is desperate to sell. It is believed, or deemed by assumption, to change slightly for each unit produced. This gives us a clear enough theory, that is good enough in the long run. IBE (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

June 22

Shadows in Flight download link

I've looked everywhere but I can only find downloads for the abridged version of Shadows in Flight, which is called the enhanced edition. Does anyone know where I can download the unabridged version? Any format is fine. 92.16.58.125 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A map of the Hawaiian Islands according to the latest surveys, 1838

Does anybody know where I can find the rest of this map made by Simon P. Kalama, a Lahainaluna student in 1838? It looks likes a corner of a larger map. I got it from the Library of Congress. I've check all the other maps in the Library of Congress linked to the side of this image but they all correspond to different time periods. There is a similiar map by the same student called Na Mokupuni o Hawaii Nei but it was made in 1837 and does not have the Lahainaluna School logo on the upper right corner. Google image searching it I see fragments with other islands such as Kauai and Niihau but not the complete thing. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

British Abdication

Who are the known monarchs of the British Isles who abdicated their thrones before Edward VIII? I know some Anglo-Saxons did. Were there any other Welsh or Norse-Gaelic monarchs who abdicated?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

See list at Abdication.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)