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

November 9

Photo-dating: File:Jozef Haller.jpg

Any thoughts on when this photo was taken as the file description page was missing a date and an author? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a higher quality original, with a link to the original source in a Polish archive. No specific date is given except "before 1939". --Jayron32 00:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Polish military ranks, the three stars on his rogatywka make him a generał broni or lieutenant general, so if you know when he held that rank it would give you a time frame. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Our Józef Haller article says that his final promotion to lieutenant general was on 10 June 1920, so that doesn't narrow it down much I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I decided to check into his decorations (see #Honours and awards), and the one that looked most similar to the one he's wearing in this image was the Order of Vasa. A conclusive identification would probably help a little, as he wouldn't be likely to be honoured by a country that he wasn't involved with (until he became really prominent other than in wars during which Sweden was neutral), but we still have three problems: no source for the Order of Vasa in the first place (or any other decorations, for that matter), I couldn't find any online references to him having it (aside from wiki-type websites), and even if this were conclusively proven, I couldn't find any dates for when he got it. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Cross of Valour (Poland) Maybe? Image is black and white so I can't match the colors..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

U.S. senators who have resigned

Is there a chronological list of members of the United States Senate who have resigned? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't appear so. The closest I could find is List of United States Senators expelled or censured#Expulsion proceedings not resulting in expulsion, which lists a few who resigned before being expelled, but that obviously is nowhere near complete. Seems like a good list to create (hint, hint). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

We have List of special elections to the United States Senate. Neutrality^talk 05:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Christianity, the old testament, and prohibitions on homosexuality post st peter

(As a barely-active wikipedian, I usually don't log in these days, so please overlook the fact that I haven't made any edits with this account for a while)

Apparently, a significant number of christian denominations, including the Catholic church, believe that male homosexual acts are prohibited by the bible, in particular, the verse in Leviticus.

My question (and please let us stay on track here) is; Why, according to these denominations, has this specific old testament prohibition been maintained, whilst almost all the other hundreds of rules, laws and prohibitions of the old testament (including "abominable" prohibitions) have been allowed to fall by the wayside (due to something to do with St Peter abolishing the requirement to keep them)?

I'm interested in answers of either a historical and theological nature, but as I said earlier, I hope this question doesn't lead to people going off in totally unrelated tangents. Thanks. Eliyohub (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

See First Epistle to the Corinthians, specifically 1 Corinthians 6:9. There is, of course, some question among theologians if Paul can override Jesus, for example whether Jesus's general pronouncements against people passing judgement against fellow people, for example the Parable of the Tares where Jesus makes clear it isn't people's job to deal with sin, of any kind, or more to the point the Great Commandments mentioned in Matthew 22:35-40 "...On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." where Jesus makes clear that people's responsibility to the Law requires only loving God and loving one's neighbor. It isn't clear that Paul's later pronouncements against what is and is not allowable for believers can override Jesus's pronouncements on the same. Remember that the Bible is filled with convenient contradictions and ambiguities. It's why even Christians can't generally agree on this stuff. Most major Christian denominations do accept that the Law of Christ replaces or overrides or takes precedence over Old Testament law, see Abrogation of Old Covenant laws, Supersessionism, Dual-covenant theology, and more articles linked from there over the general theological opinions (of which there are as many as there are different Christian sects, and which may differ from actual practice of individual Christians). --Jayron32 13:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several biblical reasons why Christians condemn homosexual acts:

- In all discussions of appropriate sexual behavior in the Old and New Testaments, heterosexuality is assumed by the language. Sex outside of marriage is considered sinful, and there was no question in contemporary Judaism that marriage is by definition heterosexual, see also Jesus' definition of marriage in Matthew 19:4-6.

- Jesus condemns "πορνεία" (sexual immorality), e.g. in Mark 7:21. The word πορνεία was a generic term for all forms of forbidden sexual acts, including homosexual intercourse.

- The apostle Paul reiterated the prohibition from Leviticus, as mentioned in the above comment, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 among other places, where he uses the term αρσενοκοιται, which is derived from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22.

If you want more details, I recommend the works of Robert A. J. Gagnon, who is the foremost scholar advocating the traditional Christian view on homosexuality today. In addition to his books, you can view a number of his lectures and debates on the subject on Youtube. - Lindert (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A more cynical take is this is simply explained by cherrypicking, fearmongering, and homophobia. But note that Christians are not a homogeneous group. Many of them are fine with homosexuality, and many homosexuals are Christian. Here's a website by and for gay Christians [1]. Then again some Christians like to wear hair shirts and flagellate themselves, here's a site that caters to those desires [2]. So Christians, like people in general, do all kinds of things that are hard to justify to those outside that culture. Here's an article that discusses why some Christians may choose to view homosexuality as a sin and yet happily eat shellfish, wear clothes of blended fibers, and do all sorts of other things that a literal reading of the Bible would prohibit: [3] SemanticMantis (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I assumed from SemanticMantis' description that this link was a sceptic's website, condemning those who eat shellfish etc. but consider homosexuality sinful; I was wrong, as it's defending such a position. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, based on various combinations of the links Jayron gave above, it's easily to arrive at a position like that. Jesus abrogated the Old Testament laws, oh, but not natural law of course, and homosexuality is against natural law, therefore...you can't win with these people. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, sorry for the confusion, perhaps it was due to my initial tone. While it's easy to find refs critical of this seeming hypocrisy, OP is looking for defenses mounted by people who take such a position, so I gave a ref of that nature. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

on anyone holding the interpretations that Jayron suggests beginning with "There is..." Besides the 1 Corinthians 6 passage, see verses 26-27 of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; I can't speak to the original, but every recent translation I'm checking (as well as older ones, including the Geneva Bible and the Authorised Version) renders it as an obvious condemnation of homosexuality. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that it's a condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's voice. The issue is whether Paul's authority supercedes Jesus's authority in matters such as this, such as when Jesus makes it clear in several passages that it isn't the role of believers to condemn anyone, or that fullfilment of the law is achieved through loving God and loving one's neighbor. This theologian for example spends considerable text discussing the ways in which Paul's teachings and Jesus's teaching contradict each other on several issues. this list also notes several discussions about contradictions between Paul's teachings and Jesus's teaching. My note is not to say that one is correct or another. That's for the OP to decide. Mine is merely to present the various perspectives on the matter, and to note that Christianity is not unified in its condemnation of Homosexuality, even with Paul's writings on the topic. There are gay Christians, gay Christian theologians, gay Christian clergy, just as there are Christians who condemn homosexuality. This is not a contradiction because Christianity is not a monolithic set of beliefs, but a wide range of beliefs, and there are multidudes of earnest, sincere, deeply religious Christians who deeply believe in both sides of this. --Jayron32 02:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's easy to understand why both extramarital sex and same-sex are considered "sinful" - it's because sex is supposed to be a sacrament, within marriage, for the purpose of reproduction. Theoretically, any sex that's purely recreational is sinful. That's the strict-Christian view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Back to the original question — the Westminster Confession (WCF) is the basis for the Presbyterian/Reformed perspective on the question. See [4] for a discussion of the concept. In short, the WCF teaches that Old Testament laws can be divided into three groups (although of course you get the occasional one that's ambiguous and therefore disputed, e.g. Sabbath in Christianity#Reformation), being ceremonial, civil, and moral. Ceremonial embraces things like the dietary restrictions; these were implemented to set Israel apart from its neighbors, and Israel's special status being ended after Christ, he abrogated it (as announced to St Peter, but not done by his authority). Civil embraces things like the Cities of Refuge, matters such as the details of criminal law; aside from the Reconstructionists, WCF adherents generally consider the civil law to be abrogated, again because Israel lost its special status after Christ. Moral embraces fundamental elements of morality, concepts that transcend culture and history to be applicable in all situations, basically because they're reflections of God's nature and (unlike the other two) not simply tools meant for a specific group of people in a specific situation. Because moral laws are held to continue after Christ, the appearance of Old Testament commandments after the death of Christ (e.g. the aforementioned condemnation of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9) is taken as a premier indication that they're elements of the moral law. The URL I cited claims that the concept of a threefold division of the law is at least as old as St Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) and that the concept appears in the early writings of other Protestant traditions (e.g. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith), but aside from those comments, I can't speak to the extent to which this concept is influential in Christian traditions aside from Presbyterian/Reformed. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

PS, I just discovered Christian views on the Old Covenant. I haven't read through it, so while I'm guessing that it might be useful, the {{rewrite}} at the top makes me hesitate to suggest it as a good summary. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sinful sex

Baseball Bugs said above, "...sex is supposed to be a sacrament, within marriage, for the purpose of reproduction. Theoretically, any sex that's purely recreational is sinful. That's the strict-Christian view." Logically, that strict Christian view would therefore be that a married couple physically incapable of conceiving should abstain from sex and that if they did not it would be sinful. Is that correct? --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that would logically follow, because there are other reasons for sexual intercourse besides procreation and pleasure: 1) strengthening the marriage bond (cf. becoming one flesh) and 2) avoiding fornication (see e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:2). - Lindert (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Good answer. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There must be also somewhere in the Bible, the idea that in case a married couple is physically incapable of conceiving, they should still try and try in the hope it would finally work some day? Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Abraham (then called Abram) was an octogenarian when informed by God that not only would his similarly-aged wife Sarai conceive a child, but also that he would become the father of an entire nation. Poor woman. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Abraham wasn't a Christian, so didn't have to worry about Bugs' comment, which reflects Christianity's views, not Judaism's. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Christians certainly have clear views on Abraham as an important figure; while Abraham#Christianity doesn't include as much detail as it should, it isn't as though Christianity doesn't view Abraham in the same light as other pre-Christian biblical figures, or ignores him entirely. Many Old Testament stories are recast by Christianity in a Christian paradigm. For example, the fourth figure in the Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego story is often interpreted to be Christ by many Christians, much of the Messianic parts of the Book of Isaiah are interpreted to be referring to Jesus, Christians view the Song of Songs allegorically using characters from the New Testament, etc. The entire first chapter of the Gospel of John provides the theological basis for reinterpreting Jewish Scripture from a Christian perspective, by establishing that Christ is God, and that Christ has existed since Creation (see also Logos (Christianity)). The argument, from a Christian point of view, that Abraham predated Christ and so can be ignored as "not christian" doesn't hold water from the point of view inside Christianity. Now, arguing from a historical point of view, I'm inclined to agree that basic logic dictates that people born before the first century CE cannot be Christians. From a theological point of view, however, John 1 provides the basis for holding that Abraham's story can be understood from a Christian perspective, since Christ has existed from creation itself. So, while Bugs's statements have clear issues (because, like much of what he has said, it contains assertions but no references) one of them isn't that Christianity has no interpretation of the Abraham story. They clearly do. More Christian writing about Abraham can be found directly in the Bible itself; Paul's Epistle to the Romans discusses Abraham's story (Romans 4). Here is a brief overview comparing all three Abrahamic religions views on Abraham. --Jayron32 13:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

So, a Christian theologian would expect Abraham to have had practical and philophical perspectives on marriage that match the Christian ones? --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but the view among Christian theologians is rarely "Christianity began with the ministry of Jesus and didn't exist before then". The view is more "Christianity has existed since Creation, but God's Plan for humankind entered a different phase when Jesus began his ministry..." Christianity views the Old Testament through the filter of the New Testament, thus will interpret passages of the Old through the understanding of the New. Also, Christians have no expectation that any person, save Christ, has lived a sinless life, and that includes Abraham and every other Old and New testament character. So, there is not, nor has there ever been, an expectation in Christianity that any character in the Bible has led a life which should be 100% a model. If Abraham had a view of marriage that Christians deemed to be sinful (i.e. Hagar), so what? No theologian has ever said that every event in the Bible means "This is how you lead your life". So, it doesn't mean that Abraham is expected to have the expected Christian view on marriage (whatever that means), it DOES mean that the story of Abraham isn't ignored as irrelevant because it happened chronologically before Jesus was born. --Jayron32 16:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, but that doesn't prevent some people from e.g. objecting to gay marriage because gay sex is not procreative. Then again, gay sex can also strengthening of marriage bonds and becoming one flesh... SemanticMantis (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Not if you hold to a biblical definition of marriage obviously. - Lindert (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What biblical definition of marriage? --Jayron32 21:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't seriously suggest that whenever the biblical authors talked about marriage they understood this to include homosexual unions?! It's just a simple recognition that in ancient Judaism and early Christianity the notion of 'homosexual marriage' would have been regarded just as nonsensical as a square circle. As for the closest thing to a definition in the Bible itself, see Mark 10:6-9. - Lindert (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Au contraire. See eromenos, a form of homosexual relationship that St Paul would have been familiar with. In 1 Cor 6, he does not use this word (or anything similar) - he uses ἀρσενοκοῖται ("defilers of themselves with mankind"), which appears to be unique to this epistle, and μαλακία ("the effeminate"), which is used elsewhere in the literature of the period to mean "soft" in the literal sense, not being applied to people. See The Bible and homosexuality#Other epistles (which I don't think we've had a link to yet). Tevildo (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I never said or implied that Paul was unaware of homosexual relationships, just that he (and any Jew of his day) did not consider them marriages (btw ἀρσενοκοίτης also occurs in 1 Timothy 1:10). - Lindert (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The claim by Baseball Bugs isn't in line with the modern church (I'm not sure it's in line with any historical period of the church). Google for "christian sex books" and you'll find lots and lots of them, and they're not about child-conceiving. "Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment in Christian Marriage" seems to be a popular one. Staecker (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

When did the Catholic Church recant its position opposing artificial contraception? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The Church endorses various Calendar-based contraceptive methods, the entire point of which is to have sex without conceiving. Staecker (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeh, right. I recall one of my college instructors talking about the costs of contraception. He said the "rhythm method" is by far the most expensive, since you'll probably have a child 9 months later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it works, or that this Church teaching is reasonable (I'm not a Catholic). But a mainstream "strict Christian" does not view sex without conception as sinful. If you really think it does, then give some references. Staecker (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Half the world's Christians are Roman Catholics, and a significant portion of the other half also teaches against artificial contraception (and they all file lawsuits to prevent it from being covered by insurance). And if the rhythm method fails, they'll say it's "God's will". And if it happens outside marriage, it's a sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. And also Christians (even "strict" ones) overwhelmingly believe that sex without conception is not sinful. Isn't that what we're talking about? It's OK for you to just admit that you were wrong about that one, or just stop commenting on this thread. Staecker (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wrong. Are you saying I should accept your argument, rather than trusting my own eyes and ears? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As they say, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you can't have your own set of facts. Seeing as this is the reference desk and not the random misconceptions desk, can you point us to a mainstream authority who thinks that sex without conception is sinful in Christianity? (I'm losing patience anyway and won't be arguing this any more- hopefully anybody who really cares about Christian doctrine can investigate for themselves rather than taking my or your word for it.) Staecker (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Read Catholic teachings on sexual morality and get back to us if you have questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Staecker challenged the accuracy of your original statement and you have still not provided anything to back up that assertion. - Lindert (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That article says what I was saying, only more eloquently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for/against rule of the shorter term

According to List of countries' copyright lengths, the Marshall Islands currently has no copyright legislation. Let's say I become the benevolent dictator of the Marshalls, and I decide to implement copyright legislation; being a longtime Wikipedian, I've heard of the rule of the shorter term, so I'm careful to include a provision either implementing or rejecting it. What factors would I consider? In other words, what are some pro/con ideas on it? The article on the rule doesn't discuss anything about the effects of implementing or non-implementing it. I can imagine that it might improve foreign trade by a little bit, since affected foreign authors might be more interested in selling their works in the Marshalls because they can get additional years of royalties, while it might cause local problems, because it increases the time during which locals can't exploit the work. What other factors would be considered? Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose if the term is absurdly short, then the governments of other nations might retaliate with economic sanctions such as tariffs, quotas, and boycotts. StuRat (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line with this question is a matter of politics and lobbying. It's well known that the last extension of copyright in the US was driven by Disney's desire to maintain control of the early Disney cartoons. (As if anyone has cared about Mickey Mouse since before I was born.) Copyright is rather artificial compared to normal property rights. There are plenty of essays on the topic at http://www.Mises.org. The US Constitution offers limited terms for the purpose of encouraging innovation. At some point extending copyright will obviously fail at that purpose.

As for some small island allowing all of John Grisham's works to be published as if they were in the public domain, it's clear there would be no profitable domestic market for the books on the island, and a simple civil suit would be enough to prevent them from being exported to the US and its treaty-cosignatories. That is, sanctions, tariffs, boycotts and quotas would not be necessary, since simple court injunctions should work. But the existence of easily reproduced electronic documents should force a rethink of copyright. It's sort of like the fact that while the technology existed for decades, the Bell System maintained a monopoly on the phones and mechanical devices attached to its network until the mid-1980's. Eventually, systems like that become too burdensome on the public for the state to continue their monopoly. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Numerous countries still have telecommunications monopolies or near-monopolies, such as Japan (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone) and the UK (BT Group). The AT&T breakup was motivated more by a shift in ideology in the U.S. towards favoring deregulation. The 1970s also saw deregulation of trucking and airlines in the U.S. (the suit against AT&T that led to the breakup was filed in 1974, though it wasn't settled until 1982). Some people have argued the breakup was a bad idea, in retrospect. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

November 10

Which king?

I'm not entirely sure which king is referred to here, in: "At last that child, which was yet in the Queen's Womb was elected for King, and being yet unborn was prefer'd in that Assembly before his elder Brothers". Is it Edward the Confessor and is that statement factually accurate? Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 10:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be talking about Edmund Ironside, who was also king before his older brothers, and a son of Ethelred the Unready. Later on in the next paragraph mentions the death of Ethelred and succession of Edmund. Wikipedia's article cites the very same passage you cite for the statement "The Life of Edward the Confessor, written fifty years later, claimed that when Emma was pregnant with him, all Englishmen promised that if the child was a boy they would accept him as king." Him being Edmund Ironsides. --Jayron32 11:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The text says it is Edward the Confessor: "sc" means scilicet 'that is to say'. It clearly does not mean Edmund, since it refers to him as having invincible strength of body, while the boy named is the one in his mother's womb. I don't know about the event described: Edmund Ironside in fact succeeded Aethelred, but that doesn't of itself disprove the account in the text. --ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be correct. Looking later on in the same text, it says that "Ethelred, died at London, leaving his son Edmund heir...that Edmund Ironside was chosen king after his Father's death". It seems that there are two events here 1) The first election of the unborn Edward the Confessor as King to succeed Ethelred (perhaps as a Junior king, c.f. Henry the Young King for a similar situation) and 2) The naming of Edmund, by Ethelred later on as his heir, and a second election confirming same, upon Ethelred's death. If so, then the statement in the article Edmund Ironside needs to be amended. --Jayron32 13:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be noted here, is that many of these statements of "elections" and "inheritances" were made as part of the political maneuvering which occurred during the complex political landscape that was 11th century England. During the 11th century, there were often many claimants to the English throne, based on various conflicting principles of inheritance and what passed for constitutional law of the time. The House of Wessex (various branches thereof) and the House of Godwin were each native English dynasties which laid claim to the throne, as well as the House of Knýtlinga (Sweyn, Cnut, Harthacnut) which had claim by right of conquest and subsequent inheritance, as well as the upstart House of Normandy. During this time of transition, it wasn't always clear WHO got to decide who the next King of England would be, whether the king was a purely elective position selected by the Witenagemot; whether the primogeniture ruled, or how the Will of the sitting king in selecting a successor among his sons, or even others more distantly related to him, would factor into the succession. When a claimant came forth, they often had only their own word that they had been "named" the next king by any one of those principles (election, primogeniture, Will of the last king, Conquest). Ultimately, the ability to take and hold the throne was all it took, "justifications" for the "right" to do so often invented for the purpose of doing so. The succession of kings upon the death of Æthelred the Unready until the Norman Conquest demonstrates how messy it was for over 50 years. --Jayron32 13:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Witchking? The Witchking of Angmar. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Identifcation query on File:Marshall Kiev 2014.JPG

I can identify a British Foreign Secretary, but are there any other notable officials in this image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign nations whose subnational units have their own constitutions

Each state in the United States, as well as its territories (such as Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas Islands), has its own constitution. Is such a practice unique to them, or are there other federations and unitary states with similar arrangements among their constituent sub-national divisions when it comes to constitutions or equivalents thereof (such as basic laws)? The most similar case I can think of is the Bangsamoro Basic Law of the proposed Bangsamoro autonomous region in the Philippines; however, the law (which is actually, as far as I know, just a bill/law rather than an actual constitution) has yet to be passed (and depending on the political situation the country, might not be passed at all), and should it be passed the law would be unique to it as none of the other provinces or regions of the Philippines have a constitution-like charter (cities have charters but they are laws rather than constitutions or basic laws). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe each of the constituent republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had its own constitution. The Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR is mentioned in some places at Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic mentions a "Constitution of Soviet Georgia", though we don't have any Wikipedia articles on them, they all existed as far as I can tell. The Autonomous communities of Spain each have their own Constitutions, called the Statutes of Autonomy. Those are just some examples I can think of. --Jayron32 13:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The SSR constitutions were mandated by the Stalin Constitution; I'm not familiar with other union constitutions, so I don't know about SSR constitutions before the 1930s, although I'd guess that they all had constitutions after the 1970s union constitution. State constitution (Australia) is relevant. A quick scan of Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Politics of Saarland, and Politics of Baden-Württemberg doesn't mention anything (as far as I saw) about constitutions or Basic Laws for the German Länder. Administrative divisions of Mexico says that all 32 states have their own constitutions. States of Brazil only mentions the federal constitution. Federal subjects of Russia says that all the federal subjects (oblasts, okrugs, krais, etc.) have their own constitutions. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

And of course there is Hong Kong Basic Law and Macau Basic Law --Lgriot (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The German Länder have their own Landesverfassungen. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 20:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There is the Constitution of Quebec, which is an uncodified quasi-constitution containing things such as the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Neutrality^talk 00:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK all of the Malaysian states have their own constitutions. See e.g. Selangor#Constitution, Kedah#Governance, Negeri Sembilan#Constitution, 1966 Sarawak constitutional crisis, Kelantan#State Executive Council, Terengganu#The State Executive Council, Penang#Legislature, Pahang#Politics and Government, 2009 Perak constitutional crisis, [5], [6], [7], and either Johor#Monarchy or State governments in Malaysia#Heads of state (which actually applies to all). Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Does Category:Constitutions of country subdivisions help? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is the signature "A.C.J." in the Jewish Quarterly

Hi. I wonder if anyone knows who the signature "A.C.J." in this short article in the Jewish Quarterly, Volume 15, Issue 1-2, 1967 is? Thanks – P. S. Burton (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly A. C. Jacobs (Arthur Chaim Jacobs, 1937 - 1994), himself a poet, who wrote reviews for the JQ in the 1960s and 70s (and later). There is some more information about him in a review of one of his poetry collections by Charles Hobday or in this obituary by Anthony Rudolf ---Sluzzelin talk 17:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

November 11

the superstitions/beliefs of people who used bamboo as a construction material

Hi - years ago I read an excerpt of an account by a Westerner working with Asian construction workers in the early 20th Century. Their primary material was bamboo, about which they had some interesting ideas - I can remember only one of them, though, and that only vaguely: that the stems were to be laid in a certain way when stored, lest the spirit run out of them.

Can someone point me to this record, or something like it?

Thank you

Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like Feng shui, as applied to bamboo. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Stu. I found this today - haven't read it in detail yet, but it looks like just the thing. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Strange that they use "bamboos" as the plural, I always use "bamboo" as it's own plural. Reminds me of a spoken joke: "Be careful to avoid bamboo slivers". "What's a bamboose, and why do I need to avoid it's liver ?" StuRat (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

When was the District of Columbia named?

The District of Columbia was originally created as simply a 'federal district' in March 1791. In September 1791, the commissioners supervising the planning of it termed it the "Territory of Columbia". The 1801 organic act specifies "District of Columbia". However, it seems to indicate in the text of the act that the term "District of Columbia" may have already been in use (for example, "in that part of the District of Columbia" in the first section of the act); was it? Basically, for Territorial evolution of the United States, should I say "created March 1791, named Territory of Columbia September 1791, organized District of Columbia 1801"? --Golbez (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A surprisingly complex answer to a seemingly straightforward question. See William Tindall, "Naming the Seat of Government of the United States: A Legislative Paradox," Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C. Vol. 23 (1920), pp. 10-25 (available on JSTOR and Google Books):

The first statutory mention of the name "District of Columbia" in an act of Congress, is in the title, but not in the body, of "An act authorizing a loan for the use of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes therein mentioned," approved May 6, 1796; but a previous statutory use of the name appears in the fourth section of the act of the Maryland legislature, approved December 28, 1793, entitled "A further supplement to the act concerning the Territory of Columbia and the city of Washington." The seat of government is mentioned in at least one act of Congress as the Territory of Columbia and the District of Columbia indiscriminately. (2 Stats., 193 and 194.)

The territory at the seat of government is referred to in a number of subsequent statutes as "the District of Columbia," but it was not until February 21, 1871, that Congress directly legislated on the subject of naming it, which it did in the act of that date, entitled "An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia," as follows:

"That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes." (16 Stats. 419.)

It will be noted that this statute does not name it "The District of Columbia" as the designation of the seat of government; but only created it into a local government for municipal purposes, by that name. ...

Congress again legislated on the subject, in the act entitled "An act providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia," approved June 11, 1878, as follows:

"That all the territory which was ceded by the State of Maryland to the Congress of the United States, for the permanent seat of government of the United States, shall continue to be designated as the District of Columbia." (20 Stats. 102). ...

...In brief it appears that Congress sought by the acts of February 21, 1871, and June 11, 1878, to name the territory at the seat of government of the United States, "The District of Columbia," ...

Tindall goes into great additional detail about the complexities of this, including Congress's confusing 18th and 19th century references to the "Federal Capital," "the City of Washington," "the Territory of Columbia," and "the District of Columbia." Neutrality^talk 05:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A number of things in American culture have acquired their names via popular usage before they became "legal". In 1878, I expect everyone would have said "The Star-Spangled Banner" is the national anthem. But it wasn't "legally" so until the 1930s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the capital of the United States is popularly thought to be named "Washington" or "Washington, D.C.", but it's (apparently) never been so styled; the City of Washington embraced only part of the District at one time (most of the rest was part of Washington County), and none of the District has officially been named "Washington" since the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't "Washington, D.C." an accurate reference to the City of Washington, in the District of Columbia? It's not implying that the entire District is called Washington, just like "Los Angeles, CA" means the city of Los Angeles, in the state of California. According to the article on the Organic Act, the City of Washington appears to legally still exist in its original boundaries, although it has no government separate from that of the District as a whole. These are the kinds of technicalities a lawyer would love. And it's true that "Washington, D.C." is commonly used today to refer to the whole District, but that's just an example of how common usage of names often differs from official naming. In a somewhat similar vein, Tokyo today is legally a prefecture containing dozens of individual entities, each with its own government, but in non-legal contexts, "Tokyo" is generally considered a single city. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A song is a bit different from a territory or a state, though. --Golbez (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Paul Grignon: English and French language versions of his DVD "Money as debt"

You may be familiar with Canadian Paul Grignon's theories, but his theories is not what my question is about.

Watching the French and English language versions of his 2006 DVD "Money as Debt" (in French: "L'Argent dette") I was startled by the following:

Towards the end of the DVD the English sentence:

"Few people are aware today that the history of the United States since the Revolution in 1776 has been in large part the story of an epic struggle to get free and stay free of control by the European international banks. This struggle was finally lost in 1913 [etc.]"

is translated into French (or vice versa) as follows:

"Peu de gens savent aujourd'hui que l'histoire des États-Unis depuis la révolution de 1776 a été en grande partie une lutte épique pour se libérer du contrôle des banques mondiales dominées par les Rothschild. Cette lutte a finalement été perdue en 1913 [etc.]"

The animation in both DVDs is identical, showing at that point a "financial octopus" living inside a "Central-Bank-somewhere-in-Europe" and busy (presumably) siphoning resources from the whole planet into that "Central Bank" building.

Now my questions: Any narrow explanation for this discrepancy in this particular case, e.g. an original contribution from the French translator (if the English version is the original one, which I don't know)? Can a larger conclusion be drawn regarding the cultures of the French vs the English speaking world (admittedly this is a very small sample, but this is why I am asking the question), e.g. that there is more tolerance for antisemitic tropes in the French-speaking world than in the English speaking world? Have you come across this sort of discrepancy in other French language version vs English language version of some material?

Thanks.

Contact Basemetal here 10:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

For a larger conclusion about tolerance for antisemitic tropes, I think we would first need something more convincing than just comparing "banques mondiales dominées par les Rothschild" with "European international banks". As it is in this translation example, one could equally not convincingly enough, draw a larger conclusion about censoring in the English version, certain names that could help a better understanding of the world banking system of the past century? Akseli9 (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), 3rd President of the United States. Akseli9 (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. To prove something about antisemitism, it would have to say "banques mondiales dominées par la famille juive les Rothschilds" or something like that. Theoretically, it could be a covert attempt at encouraging anti-semitism but it's hard to prove without something explicit. Munci (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The use of an octopus based in central Europe in the accompanying image is telling, although it's not as obvious a smoking gun as your hypothetical text would be. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that including the Rothchilds makes this an antisemitic trope, whether the "juive" is explicit or tacit. You'd have to use the release dates to determine if it was added for consumption by the French, or removed to make the stance more palatable for the English speaking. - Nunh-huh 23:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought the silliness of the contention that you'd need to specify that it was about the Jewish Rothschilds (I mean, not the Episcopalian ones) was so obvious to everyone that no response was necessary, but thanks for reacting. For anyone entertaining any doubts check out article Rothschild family and especially the paragraph Conspiracy theories and the references provided there, or more simply go to YouTube, type "Rothschild" and see what comes up. Incidentally, here is one Frenchman who seems to think like you and me. He even quotes the sentence I referred to above but does not seem to be aware it is specific to the French version.

As to the question whether it is an addition to the French version or if it is the English version that was "censored" I took a look again at the two videos and noted that the credits of the English version do not make any mention of a translator whereas the French version credits two translators, one Marc Simon who contributed a "première traduction", that would, I would guess, have been a straight translation of the English text, and one Sophie Arthaud, who contributed the "traduction finale", which might have included any tweaking and departure from the English text. The same Sophie Arthaud also contributed the voiceover of the French version. Judging by her accent she is a Frenchwoman (I mean, not French Canadian). Does anyone have any idea who that Sophie Arthaud might be?

Contact Basemetal here 11:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that "Rothschild" was present in the English-language source text supposedly final draft from which the French was translated, then the name was omitted from the English production version due to an editor's afterthought regarding PC or similar considerations. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey look, it's one of everyone's favorite fake Jefferson quotes. The first sentence is a fragment of a sentence he wrote, but the rest is just made up. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Foreign historians of the Western world

I've mostly never heard about this, and I am relatively well versed in the humanities.

There are many historians (in the West) interested in topics like Chinese, Japanese, Islamic, etc., history. However, the reverse seems rather rare. Notably if you exclude colonialism or race as a main or corollary subject matter. For example, a Senegalese scholar of the European Middle Ages, a Chinese one of the U.S. Civil War. Is it because of the language barrier, or it's a cultural thing? Matt714 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it will be very hard to find a WP:RS that has nicely compiled data on this. But just to offer a bit of a counterexample, note that Fudan University has a center for American Studies, established over 30 years ago. See their page here [8], it's far from my field, but it seems to me that many of the faculty are well-regarded historians of the Western world. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I offer a third hypothesis: they are just not well-known, and perhaps did not even get far in their field. Munci (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they are well enough known in their own fields, but not popular figures. Some of the following faculty have many fine accomplishments, and are probably known to many other specialists around the world. Bilkent University has two faculty members focused on history of the USA - [9]. Tokyo Metropolitan University has a few western history specialists, one even in Ancient Greek [10]. Mind you I'm just picking non-western country names at random and searching for things like /[country adjective] university American (studies/history) department/. I think many many more examples can be found with more similar searching. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is an overview written in 1988 by Takeshi Kido, Professor of European History at the University of Tokyo: "The Study of Medieval History of Europe in Japan" ---Sluzzelin talk 20:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This is often considered one of the issues of Orientalism. A British scholar can freely present themselves as an expert on the Ottoman Empire, but a Turkey based writer will never be considered a serious scholar of the American Revolution. - SimonP (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

O really? --Jayron32 15:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I guess Simon didn't follow my link above before he came up with his example :) Anyway, while we can come up with many examples of non-westerners studying western history, that doesn't mean the OP's claim is totally untrue either, at least as a tendency, if not a rule. I don't think it's unreasonable to think there are more academic historians of Egypt living in Britain than vice versa, and the history of the past century or so probably has something to do with that. I think the idea of Orientalism is very pertinent here, but this is now far enough from my field that I can't search well for good refs that might further support Simon's claims. I think language barrier is not an issue for modern academics, no matter their ethnicity. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think the language barrier is a big issue for modern academics. If an American scholar publishes research on Japanese history in English, Japanese academics who speak English, which is many of them, will still be able to read it. However, if a Japanese scholar publishes research on American history in Japanese, relatively few American academics will be able to read it, so the research, which might be just as good as what an American would do, will not come to the attention of the American academy. Perhaps more to the point for present purposes, it certainly will not come to the attention of general readers in the United States. And the disparity is more pronounced for Turkish or Senegalese. John M Baker (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Although unrelated to national background and not related to academic acceptance and from source who's biases are well known, there is that rather infamous exchange between scholar Reza Aslan#Fox News interview controversy who is an Iranian-American Muslim and the host of Fox News after he wrote a book on Jesus [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Ignoring the fact Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam, which IIRC wasn't mentioned in the exchange (or at least was ignored by the host), it's hard to imagine a similar exchange by a host in anything akin to mainstream media in the West if a white Christian had just written a book about Muhammad. If the question of why did you as a Christian write a book on Muhammad did come up (particularly from Fox News), the context of the question would likely be fairly different. (Although to be fair, I think such a person may find related objections from a big chunk of the Muslim world if the book said anything they didn't like.) At least this opinion piece published by the same source makes more substanial criticism [18]. If you bring national origin in to it, I can't help thinking if the exact same book had been written by someone who was an Iranian Muslim, no one would have heard of it in the US, if the author even found a publisher. Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

November 12

The snowman, the myth, the legend

According to the intro to Yeti, the scientific community generally regards the abominal snowman (and presumably his gutsy cousin, the abdominal snowman, as well) as a legend. The intro to legend says A legend...is a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude. Not being a human, how is the abominable snowman a legend? I understand that he's not a myth, because mythology explains origins and backstories, and abominable snowmen don't appear to be part of those. But how is he a legend, rather than being a non-legendary character in the folklore of the region? I just don't understand the terminology (and the divisions between the classifications) well enough to understand why he's a legend, rather than being something else. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the word origin[19] which requires it to be about humans. A legend is a story about most anything that allegedly happened but cannot be proven. And note the various terms in the Yeti article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood, but the text I referenced is quite clear, and it comes from one of the most prestigious folkloristics programs in the USA; I don't see how it could be inaccurate, unless there's a scholarly dispute over the meaning. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The text you quoted seems to be an unsourced sentence in our article, are you saying it's a direct quote from some place? If so, it should probably be more clearly attributed. Anyway, it doesn't say "...is a narrative of solely human actions". Most Yeti stories I'm familiar with have a humans doing actions in there somewhere. I agree with Bugs that the intro to legend seems a bit too narrow, or at least confusing. But this is sort of a version of the genre problem isn't it? I don't think anyone's solved that for legend vs. folklore. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think much of that definition of legend.Prestigious does not neccessarily mean right. This is the Merriam-Webster definition which the yeti fits into quite well.Full Definition of LEGEND 1 a : a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable b : a body of such stories <a place in the legend of the frontier> c : a popular myth of recent origin d : a person or thing that inspires legends e : the subject of a legend <its violence was legend even in its own time — William Broyles Jr.> Hotclaws (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I'm interested in the scholarly definition, not a dictionary definition reflecting the uses of the ignorant. Or perhaps you could explain why we prefer a dictionary to a scholar in the field who's been published by one of the best folkloristics programs in the USA? Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

See jargon and Semantic overload. Words have different meanings in different contexts. The use of the word "legend" in the context of that particular branch of learning doesn't have to mean the same thing in all English uses. For example, how a chemist uses the word "nucleus" is different from how a biologist would. The chemist isn't wrong because his definition doesn't include the use of the word "cell", nor is the biologist wrong because her definition doesn't include the word "nucleus". Just because one folklorist, even a respected one, uses the word in one way doesn't mean other uses are wrong. The use of the word "legend" to describe the Yeti is perfectly cromulent. --Jayron32 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still confused - can you clarify why you think the sentence you quoted from our article has any specific weight? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not finding any scholarly sources that say a legend must be a human. Here's a nice scholarly overview that I just skimmed "It Happened Not Too Far from Here...": A Survey of Legend Theory and Characterization [20]. It gives several different characterizations that people have used, along with many many further refs. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I just realized that ref is already in the article. Note the block quote from the scholarly article in our WP article does not specify human subject matter. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

For some material specifically about non-human humanoids, this article [21] is all about "Unkown hominids and New World Legends". SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sinking of SS Ancona, 8 November 1915

Our article, SS Ancona, has a rather superficial account of this event and some points differ from the accounts at www.wrecksite.eu. Can anybody find me a more detailed account of the sinking please? In particular, it seems unlikely that exactly 200 passengers were killed and how many of those were US citizens? Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Our article says "over 200", 9 of which were Americans (although I am skeptical that the exact number of Americans can be known when the total is unknown). StuRat (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the "over", but surely there must have been a definitive total? For US fatalities, I found nine, eleven and twenty-five on various websites, none of which looked particularly authoritative. Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alansplodge, what about newspaper accounts? I am finding quite a few at the google newspaper archive. The first I saw said there were 656 people aboard. One account from Nov 15 mentions the nine Americans and numbers those lost at 208, but accounts seems confused with news trickling in slowly as different numbers of survivors reached shore on different days. My first link will let you browse through the other articles. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

When was Wyoming Territory made?

Shouldn't be a difficult question, should it? Everyone agrees it was July 25, 1868, as per 15 Stat. 178. However, multiple sources also point out that the government wasn't organized until May 19, 1869, and that until then it was under the jurisdiction of Dakota Territory. That's fine; sometimes territories were under the control of other territories. But what piques my curiosity is the last section of the above linked act:

SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That this act, shall take effect from and after the time when the executive and judicial officers herein provided for shall have been duly appointed and qualified

Which makes me wonder... Doesn't that mean that the act itself did not take effect until May 19, 1869, when said officers were appointed and qualified? Or at least April 15, 1869, when the first governor of Wyoming Territory took his oath of office? And thus are all the sources on the internet incorrect as to when Wyoming Territory actually came into being? (or rather, was intended to come into being; obviously, things like that have a way of being forgotten in lieu of the reality on the ground) --Golbez (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there's really two parts: the creation of the territory, and the creation of the government. Two separate things, perhaps?

Note that the first section of the Act provides that the "[area that is now Wyoming] is hereby, organized into a temporary government by the name of the Territory of Wyoming"—the use of "hereby" would seem to create the government instantaneous (on July 25, 1868), but the last section of the act preempts this, making the effective date of the whole act "when the executive and judicial officers herein provided for shall have been duly appointed and qualified." So it would be the date of appointment and qualification - i.e., May 19, 1869.

I personally favor May 19, 1869. That is the day the first territorial governor adopted the seal of Wyoming (Wyo. State Library). The Encyclopedia of the Great Plains, for what it's worth, says: "Territorial government for Wyoming was organized on May 19, 1869."). Neutrality^talk 02:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That was the same feeling I had, that the first section seemed to be instantaneous, whereas the last section was for the act as a whole. However, if I go with May 19, 1869, that goes against literally every source on the Internet for this, which doesn't work. But, as you say, it appears that the territory itself was made in 1868, and I'll stick with that, with a note explaining the delayed organization. (Though, it couldn't be saying "the government is organized on July 25 1868" because the government plainly was not organized until May 19 1869...) --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Technology and unemployment

How does technology impact the rate of employment? It is clear that after a new technology gets introduced (like a harvester) people will stop buying products produced with more traditional means (which might be more expensive). This could imply that many workers are made redundant. But if we analyze the rate across the decades, is unemployment getting up and up? Or is this just an irrational fear? --Denidi (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Structural_unemployment#Causes_and_examples has some basic information, but no numbers. Perhaps you could follow links from there, leading to more information? --Jayron32 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank. Technological unemployment linked in that article is the article that answers my question. --Denidi (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

So far new technology doesn't seem to have reduced employment overall, since those who lose one job just start doing some other job. For example, people were then needed to design, construct, drive and repair harvesters. Fewer people are needed there, per acre harvested, but then farmers started harvesting more acres. Also technology created other jobs, such as in automotive design. Theoretically, though, there should be a time when technology can replace all of the work done by people, which will be a challenge to our system of capitalism. At that point you'd need to distribute the wealth generated by machines to all the people, if they are to survive. StuRat (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's more basic than that. When people no longer have enough money, they will stop buying stuff. Then adjustments will have to occur on the corporate side. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The whole concept of buying and selling things might be outdated, when a replicator can make anything you need. I suppose we would still need to buy the raw materials and energy, but that's about it. (If the same device can disassemble junk and get the raw materials from them, then even better.) StuRat (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

How would you pay for the replicator? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Have a friend replicate one for you. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

How would you pay for the materials? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

November 13

Dali's Mustache (St. Petersburg): Which artist?

Next to the Salvador Dalí Museum in St. Petersburg a sculpture of Dali's mustache can be found. I am not able to identify the artist who is at its origin. I appreciate your help! Bikkit ! (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bikkit, I can't find any mention of it on the museum website. But you could ask the curator, her email is on the right at this page.184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a helpful idea. I wrote and they have answered already! Bikkit ! (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! Glad to hear you found your answer.184.147.131.85 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Care to share the sculptor's name? Thanks! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Historical Silver Polishing method

I'm trying to determine what materials were historically used to polish silver throughout the ages. Was it just soap, water, and cloth, or did they have a polishing compound of some sort, or was there a particular chemical reaction known? Would the exact time period and location matter, between, say, ancient Egypt in its heyday compared to the European middle ages? The best I can find via google is that silver WAS polished and cleaned, but not how. Fieari (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are two (slightly contradictory, however) for Ancient Egypt. (1) This says both gold and silver were polished with Egyptian agate (though not the method). (2) This, on the other hand, says: "We cannot always assume that ancient silver was intended to have a bright, shiny surface. The deliberate production of a black surface on Classical silver objects has been the subject of some debate in recent years while in the ancient Near East some such tradition is implied by the Talmudic ruling against burning sulphur on the Sabbath to blacken silver." 184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Talmud also refers to polishing silver with a substance named Template:Hebrew ?gretikon; see Jastrow's dictionary (p. 273, no direct link possible) who identifies it as Greek (κρητική), chalk or "white earth", and note Rashi's interpretation cited there. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Some brief info and historical quotes at Conservation_and_restoration_of_silver_objects#Historic_methods_of_treating_silver. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Julian calendar in Wikipedia article

France switched calendars in 1582. So, in the article Henry III of France is the listed date for the beginning of his reign over France in Julian and the listed date for the end of his reign in Gregorian, or does Wikipedia use a different standardized date to switch calendars? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:JG.—Wavelength (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Student protest chants: history

I recently heard on the news US student protesters at theUniversity of Missouri chanting "Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go!" Similar student protester chants with various targets along with "What do we want?"" (some demand)!" "When do we want it? "Now" were common on US campuses in the 1960's in protests over civil rights, opposition to the Vietnam war, anti-nuke,and countless other issues. This led me to wonder where and when did this pair of call-and-response chants originate? They sound like they could have been used by striking workers at any point in the growth of labor unions,by suffragettes or by any protesters led by someone with an amplifier or a strong vocal apparatus, as an alternative to just milling around muttering like a western movie lynch mob, while causing the target of the protest to have to hear them as opposed to just closing the blinds and ignoring them. So are these two chants ubiquitous in the English speaking world, or only in the US, and what is the earliest recorded place and time for these two protest chants? Do they predate the Berkeley California Free Speech Movement of 1964? ~~

"What do we want !" ... "Politeness !" ... "When do we want it !" ... "Whenever it's most convenient for you !" StuRat (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Edison, earliest I can find for “hey hey ho ho” is 1956: [22]. And earliest I can find for “what do we want” is 1963: https://books.google.com/books?id=JtgvAAAAMAAJ&q="when+do+we+want+it+now", see also https://books.google.com/books?id=AC80AQAAIAAJ&q="when+do+we+want+it+now". (sorry about the links, no idea how to fix. both should end with the phrase in quotes after the final q if you want to see what I saw). All three sources suggest the chants originated in the American Civil Rights movement, though perhaps from opposite sides. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There were chants like this on the Aldermaston March in the 1960s, and I would think also in the 1950s when it started. I had a booklet of songs for one of the marches - some were popular songs e.g. by with pro-peace lyrics, for example Down by the Riverside, others were new lyrics for songs. I definitely remember the "out out out" format. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I was recently at a protest where, much to my embarrassment, "The people - united - will never be defeated" was chanted: click for its origin. (The people - united - get defeated on a regular basis.)

Although only used in a limited context, I'm rather fond of "What do we want?" "Brains!" "When do we want it?" "Brains!"--Shirt58 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If defeated, the people were ipso facto not sufficiently united. What do we want? Better memory! When do we want it? When do we want what? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I offer this with some diffidence, since I'm not finding any really good sources; but I'm pretty sure that the "Hey hey ho ho ..." form, at least, originated as a school cheer for sports teams (here is someone's memory of such a cheer being used, I think during the Great Depression) that was later adapted for protest rallies. I wouldn't be surprised if other protest chants had a similar origin, since sports cheering is one of the few forms of mass chanting familiar to folks (and especially to youth) throughout the United States. Deor (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

November 14

Scheduling Election Day in the USA

When Election Day rolled around, I read up on it a bit. And, in the USA, it's scheduled on the Tuesday right after the first Monday in November. (I think I have also seen this for other holidays and such, but none come to mind right off hand.) So, my question is: what would prompt such an odd schedule? Why not simply "the first Tuesday of the month"? What's the point here? What's the reason or rationale, if any? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:C192:5F05:ECE8:1646 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

November 1st is All Saints' Day, so perhaps they wanted to avoid doubling up (when the first Tuesday is November 1st) ? (Although apparently they didn't mind doubling up with All Souls' Day on November 2nd.) StuRat (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a website that offers plausible reasons. The standard nationwide federal election date was set in 1845 when the economy was heavily but not totally agricultural. November was a "slow month" for agriculture, after most harvests were complete, making it easier for farmers to take time off to travel to the polls. November 1 was to be avoided, both because of the Catholic All Saints Day (mentioned above), but also because businesses closed their books for the previous month that day, which was a big deal before computers. Tuesday was seen as the best day of the week because isolated rural farmers often needed a full day of travel by horse or on foot to reach the polls. Most would not travel on Sunday, the Sabbath, so Monday was the day to travel to the polls. They could vote early Tuesday and then travel home. Wednesday was out of the question, because it was the traditional market day. Later November dates increased the chances of early wintery weather. That led to the standardization of the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal general election day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. But as much as that was applicable in 1845, none of that is applicable today. Why is it still like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:C806:E841:D393:A093 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Because nobody has found a persuasive reason to change it. Or in other words, why not? --70.49.170.168 (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Election Day fell on November 8 in 1853, 1859, 1864, 1870, 1881, 1887, 1892, 1898, 1904, 1910, 1921, 1927, 1932, 1938, 1949, 1955, 1960, 1966, 1977, 1983, 1988, 1994, 2005, and 2011. The next time that Election Day will fall on November 8 will be in 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What is "E-cash"? Is there a defined meaning?

Is there a defined meaning of the term E-cash? At Talk:Electronic money#What to do about redirect "E-cash" I try to find a solution for this redirect, but I'm overall unsure. --KnightMove (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Red Cross volunteers

Generally, during humanitarian crises or major incidents and disasters, do Red Cross volunteers deal with minor injuries etc so that the more experienced full time emergency services can deal with patients in more serious conditions? Or do thud walk with both? 2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:11FD:E116:9BC:F69E (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"thud walk" = "they work" ? Do you have autocorrect run amok ? StuRat (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

For that particular organization, see Emergency management#The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The page on Field triage is also enlightening. It's likely that "volunteers" are pre-registered, vetted for qualifications, perhaps trained, and coordinated in teams before undertaking activity under the auspices of the IRC or any formal organization. Deborahjay (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality

why is homosexual depravity legal in countries that are under judeo-Masonic control? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswiktionarian (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)