Humanities desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 15

Not sure if I'm the Biological Father.

We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am a 25 year old man, living in texas with no children. In january 2014. I impregnanted a woman, She told me I was the biological father. She has been married since may of 2013, she separated in december 2013 but has not yet filed for divroce. She has recently started filing the paperwork and got a notary between her and her husband, saying that she is NOT pregnant(When they both know that she is pregnant because I Told the husband that she was.) In texas, If you are getting a divorce you have to clarify that you are not pregnant, because if you are married and have a child, the husband is legally the father. Now, since she is willing to lie to the court, she is willing to lie to anyone. On march 12, 2014 she broke up with me saying that it is not my child and that I need to leave her alone because she is getting back with her husband because he loves her. Im not sure if they are still getting the divorce, or if they are actually staying married. I need to know if there is anything I need to do ( such as get a attorney) regarding Paternity of the child. Because I do not want any Surprises in the Future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.239.7 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely see an attorney. We cannot offer any advice apart from that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Countries by Their First Constitution

Is there any place where I can find a list of when many/most/all countries (including those which don't exist anymore, such as the Ottoman Empire) adopted their first constitution? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of national constitutions would give you a starting point. It gives you a link to all current constitutions, most of those articles have links to earlier constitutions where they existed. For example, United States Constitution contains information of and links to Articles of Confederation, which was the first U.S. constitution. --Jayron32 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this link. Futurist110 (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. An important point here is that the term is somewhat ambiguous. Every state has a constitution (a basic set of rules according to which it operates), but not every state has a written document called "The Constitution". And even worse, for those that have a document, it almost invariably documents only part of the underlying constitution. An extreme example is the UK, which has very little in the way of a written constitution, but still wrangled together a working democracy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your definition of constitution. The Constitution of San Marino dates from 1600; the British Magna Carta dates from 1215, but it's either irrelevant, repealed or replaced with more modern sources. If you count indigenous Americans, the Great Law of Peace dates from -1150. The present Swiss constitution is 1999, keeps the same general setup as 1874 and 1848 constitutions.--89.242.206.103 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wade in the Water

► Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL : : : : 71.20.250.51 (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This question seems more important for this reference desk rather than for entertainment. I'm having trouble finding sources to help build the Negro spiritual song article, Wade in the Water. I know there's a lot of sources on this song but I can't find them. I also left a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Songs#Wade in the Water asking for help. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jones, Arthur C. (2005). Wade in the water : the wisdom of the spirituals (3rd ed.). Boulder, Colo.: Leave a Little Room. pp. 54, 112. ISBN 0976237709.
"Music : Wade in the Water". Pathways to Freedom: Maryland & the Underground Railroad | Secrets: Signs and Symbols. Maryland Public Television. 2014.
Tobin, Jacqueline L. (2011). Hidden in plain view the secret story of quilts and the underground railroad. New York, N.Y.: Anchor Books. p. 126. ISBN 0307790568. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

When I wrote "Run, Nigger, Run", I used American Negro Folk-Songs by Newman Ivey White (1928) and On the Trail of Negro Folk-songs by Dorothy Scarborough and Ola Lee Gulledge (1925), but Google is not showing any results in either. I'll see what I can find. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to access the Jones source for the last few days, so I don't know what it says. But, thanks. I find it a bit strange that such a famous song does not seem to have readily available sources. I mean, this is considered the quintessential Negro spiritual song, so it should be easier to research. Why is this so difficult? Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may have to take piecemeal. This search has a couple which may be useful... but only a couple sentences at a time. Themes, allusions (Moses and the Red Sea, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was helpful. A good search string, too. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks useful. Allmusic has a review of a recording (also worth mentioning that it is often the title of works about spirituals/recordings of spirituals). This may be useful. I'm not finding much, however, as a lot of the so-called "RS" are actually lesson plans for university courses. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this contain anything useful? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. 26 programs! I guess that's useful as a starting place. Thanks. See you in a few years! :) Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jones (2005); did you try links to page 54 and page 112? — There's probably more, but that was just a quick scan. —:71.20.250.51 (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access either of those pages. It says I've reached my viewing limit. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... whatever you do, do not use an IP proxy or borrow somebody else's computer, that would be unethical, and nobody here at Wikipedia would suggest such a thing. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loud and clear, dude. :) Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relevant - [1]? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen of the refdesk. I'm an American. Australian sports frightens and confuses me. Sometimes when I fly to Australia on Qantas, I wonder, am I inside some sort of giant bird? Am I gonna be digested? I don't know, because I'm an American, and that's the way I think! Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone. I've lived here all my life and it frightens and confuses me too. Also, don't worry about Qantas. The way things are going it's likely to cease to be majority Australian-owned before too long. Or have any Aussie ownership at all, maybe. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In just a few minutes I am going to make you very rich. Just watch this short video.

I keep getting e-mails from different financial gurus telling me the above message, and stupidly, I often begin to watch the video. Invariably the short video lasts forever and I turn it off before learning the secret. Does anyone EVER make it to the end? 94.174.140.161 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a scam. You have to buy something from them, pay for some service, or give them money in some way (even if it's just advertisements loading on the side of the screen or malware sneaking into your system); and you're given useless advice that you're either already doing (whether you know it or not, such as "don't spend every penny you earn"), or doesn't really work (essentially boiling down to "wish harder"). Occasionally, the pay-for videos may include something like actual business tips that could be useful, but success is not typical and is entirely dependent on your local markets and existing capital.

TL;DR: always a scam, don't even bother with them. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After you send in the $20 for the secret to getting rich quick, they send you a note saying "Scam suckers into each sending you $20 for the secret to getting rich quick." :-) StuRat (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

That one was probably old when I heard Jackie Vernon use it in the 1960s. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's envelope stuffing. Started in the Great Depression, and only cost $2. You'd have been a fool not to grab that deal. People don't like envelopes anymore, but they still love the idea of working from home. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate all the above responses and thank you all very much. But the ones I was really referring to in my badly composed question were those that seem to give advice on financial investments and stocks and shares etc, coming as they do from seemingly knowlegeable sources who quote Warren Buffet and others' achievements and successes. And they all refer to as yet little known emerging markets and political events that will change the world as we know it. And if you do follow current events their predictions all sound highly plausible. But surely, if their advance knowledge is so good, why share it for a few dollars now with others and instead keep it to themselves. And if they are more interested in selling their book or video or pamphlet or whatever, why bore the pants off people who simply give up before the short (sic) video comes to its climax? 94.174.140.161 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea there is that after people have invested that much time to watch the whole video, they won't want to give up, so will be more willing to "take the next step" (pay money) than if they have no time invested. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Same deal with infomercials. But unlike ShamWow and OxiClean, you don't need to order to see results. The secret of this scam is the same as the dusty old envelopes. You pay them for financial advice, they advise you to ask others to pay you for financial advice. You could save yourself a few (hundred) bucks by just copying the video and changing the address to yours. But it might be illegal. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary Miniseries on the Law

Can anyone recommend a documentary miniseries on the law, along the lines of Howard Goodall's documentaries on music, with episodes on things like evidence, common law, mechanics of a trial, object, civil vs criminal law, inquests, etc? I did find International Law (TV series) which seems perfect in format, although it is not the subject I want--I am interested mostly in law at the local trial level. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Judy. Judge Alex. 140.254.227.78 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Judy is a "documentary miniseries"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Robinson's Crime and Punishment? A historical overview (and British), maybe a bit low-brow, but BBC-style, not Discovery. On a related note, that article includes plagiarism. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure no such series has ever been produced. --Viennese Waltz 12:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Type of wars in Africa, Latin America, Europe

Have historians analyzed the, from my point of view, higher frequency of civil war in Latin America and Africa, opposed to Europe, where people seem to prefer attacking their neighbor. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked for sources from historians; but, in part, your premise relies on a definition of "civil war" based on rival factions within boundaries of "states" which, in large part were imposed externally by colonial powers, international conferences, etc. If you were to consider boundaries as being between (or among) indigenous groups, then often this can be seen as "attacking their neighbors". —71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Europe had plenty of civil wars a few centuries ago. I think WW1 and WW2 just finally gave them enough incentive to do whatever it takes to stop the constant wars.

And the European colonial powers also frequently pitted ethnic groups against each other, putting one in charge and subjugating others, which led to inevitable resentment and instability when they left. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Georgia, Chechnya (Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

Also The Anarchy, War of the Roses, English Civil War, Jacobite risings, The Troubles, Rising of the North - and that's only some of the conflicts in what today is the (possibly temporarily) United Kingdom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the Peasant's Revolt, the An Gof Rebellion, the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Prayer Book Rebellion, the Scottish Civil War, the Monmouth Rebellion and lots of fighting in Ireland. We've been quite good at fighting each other really. Alansplodge (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The English have had plenty of both types, but the English civil wars wouldn't still change the balance between civil and non-civil wars in Europe. There are plenty of examples when England went to war with other nations, (among many others).

I wonder if what happened in Yugoslavia counts as civil war. They were a conglomerate of different nations, that started fighting, split, and kept fighting. They have always perceived each other as ethnically different.

And what does Chechnya, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon have to do with this issue? Do you think they are in Europe, in Latin America or in Africa? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that there are two independent remarks, one about (some) British civil wars, and the other by User:Medeis, who forgot to sign? I've added the template now. It's not clear whom you try to address with "you". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had not noticed that before I have answered the question. Indeed, Medeis' remarks seem out of sync with the discussion, however, yours are relevant, although I am not sure they contradict my assertion that Europeans are more prone to attack other ethnic groups instead of fighting internally. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point was the wars/conflicts/revolutions I listed were all quite recent even compared to WWII, and outside the implied third-world area. (The Troubles is a good addition to that, perhaps the best counterexample to an anglo vs the rest of them approach.) I think maybe we tend to see the Third World through Woody Allen's eyes. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I "implied [a] third-world area." OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to interpret "Latin America and Africa, opposed to Europe" other than a 1st v 3rd world comparison. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. I am concerned with my point, which is that even since the fall of the Berlin Wall, revolutions, conflicts, civil wars, and ethnic insurgencies, in, and on the border of Europe have not been rare. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A big chunk of Europe is far away of being part of the 1st world, and, on the other hand, historically, some Latin American countries had a non negligible economical weight. I still believe your point is beside the point. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice my counterexamples were indented in response to Stu's comment. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I think you underestimate the amount of civil strive in Europe - I listed only a subset of the UK ones to avoid flooding the page. For the 20th century, also consider the Spanish Civil War, the ETA struggle, the Greek Civil War. But above you write about "attack[ing] other ethnic groups". Europe had had a few hundred years to sort itself into Nation states, most of which are build around a single ethnicity. In the former colonial areas, many of the newly formed states are multi-ethnic. Thus, many inter-ethnic conflicts can still be formally civil wars. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good answers above. However, I would like to add a more direct answer. Yes, historians have indeed analyzed the type of wars in Africa and South America, and they were a bit different from those in Europe. One answer given in a history book I read many moons ago (nor refs, sorry) regarding Africa was that the borders of Africa were largely drawn with a large ruler in Berlin, and their purpose was to divide Africa among the European colonial powers. These straight lines are still visible on maps today and they cut right across ethnic-tribal boundaries. One effect of this was that, after these countries cast of the yokes of the colonial powers and one tribe got government power and the military power with it, all other tribes were often ignored, repressed or persecuted, leading to civil unrest and war. Tribes in Africa were not dissolved like they were by the Catholic Church in the 1200s , and tribes, instead of artificially drawn borders were still the primary focal point of loyalty. South Africa is a bit different. The roots of civil war were still linked to the fact that they were newly freed nations. Here the tribal problem was less, since natives had been largely replaced by immigrants. The dividing line here was more often between rich families and the poor. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]