Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 13

Translations of the Roman missal

Is there a sort of list of languages that the Roman missal has been officially translated to? It seems like Liturgiam authenticam (no. 15) says only some languages should be chosen for that. 88.68.4.26 (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say that only it may only be translated into certain languages. Rather, it says that translations from the Latin to the vernacular must be, as close to possible, a formal equivalence; that is to say words are translated word-for-word, and not as idiom. It doesn't proscribe or prescribe any specific languages; hypothetically any language could be so used; just that the translation should be as close to word-for-word as possible. --Jayron32 01:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but no. 15 says "[i]t will be the responsibility of the Conference of Bishops to determine which of the prevailing languages are to be introduced into full or partial liturgical use in its territory. [...]" So is there a list of languages introduced into use? --88.68.4.26 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe mystery

Hello everyone. A real-life friend of mine has a copy of Edgar Allan Poe's Tales of Mystery and Imagination published by John C. Winston. However, there's no date of publication listed, and both my friend and I can't find any listing of the specific edition online (including Worldcat.org). Any thoughts? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The name of the publisher is one parameter. Also look for the printing ("Third printing", for example), and the city in which it was published (although the publisher probably only published that work in one city). These would likely be enough for a good used book detective to track it down. You can try internet searches, but that info might not be online. If the publisher still exists (after merging with others, perhaps), you might contact them to track it down. And if no records can be found, they could always resort to approximate dating based on the type of binding, paper, ink, typeface, etc., along with signs of aging like yellowing of the pages. Any antique bookseller might give you an estimate of the decade pretty quickly. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I'll pass this on. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It may not make any difference, but he spelt his middle name Allan. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that was a silly typo of mine here. I've changed it above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's not the only typo. It's &, not "and". (This can really screw with WorldCat entries) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be Tales of Mystery & Imagination, not the debut album by the Alan Parsons Project linked above. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC) (I have since redirected the link, in case later readers are wondering why my previous statement appears to be misleading. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC))

• Exactly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Gee, I never noticed that. I should check my links when I post something. Thanks to you both! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Though not the specific book you're inquiring about, here and here are two Poe-related volumes that were published by John C. Winston. It would appear that the publisher was located in Philadelphia in the 1880s and in Chicago in the 1920s, if that's any help. It was absorbed by Henry Holt & Co. in 1960. Deor (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The man with the flying horse

Does anyone know of a Saint Barnon who had a flying horse? I checked Google and all I got was this and Saint Baron. Given that he had a flying horse I think that rather than a Christian type saint he may be from some other mythology. For a bit of background see Talk:Sedna (mythology)#Sedna as a Gwynned, daughter od Dahut from YS citie,. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Both Bellerophon and Perseus are associated with flying horses from Greek Mythology. Perhaps there's some religious syncretism going on here? --Jayron32 02:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That section you linked to on talk:Sedna (mythology) looks like complete garbage to me. It mixes Celtic mythology with references to China, Denmark, Burma and India. Rojomoke (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You forgot Russia and Poland. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph mentioning the "flying horse" in that talk-page post seems to contain a somewhat confused version of the downfall of the city of Ys. In the usual versions, it is King Gradlon who drops Dahut from his horse Morvac'h at the command of Saint Winwaloe (Guénolé). Morvac'h is not a flying horse but one that is able to magically travel upon or through the sea. Deor (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks then, it appears that they have mixed a buch of mythologies together and none of it has any real application to Sedna. I was curious if there was some Welsh myth similar to her or one of the other Inuit figures. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

About World War I

Following is a line from my history textbook:

"The war led to the snapping of economic links between some of the world's largest economic powers which were now fighting each other to pay for them."

I don't understand the last part: to pay for them. The rest of the sentence makes sense but what does this mean? To pay for what? --Yashowardhani (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't really make a lot of sense does it? You can read the whole thing at The Making of a Global World (it took a while for the whole page to load on my rather elderly PC). Alansplodge (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it may be referring to the paragraph before it about the production of war-related goods. Either way, it is still a weird sentence.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say to pay for the loss of productivity or benefits that the economic links provided.165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This explanation makes the most sense. However, it's a badly written sentence.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Obituary

Can anybody find an obituary or news article describing the deaths or funerals of King Kamehameha IV or Kamehameha V?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

For the funeral of Kamehameha IV, see Lyttelton Times, Rōrahi XXI, Putanga 1239, 21 Haratua 1864, Page 5 (scroll down past halfway). Alansplodge (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

For Kamehameha V, there's a very brief description in House Documents, Otherwise Publ as Executive Documents 13th Congress, 2d Session 49th Congress 1st Session, page 506 (scroll to bottom of page). For a brief report on the death, scroll up to page 489. The google books search hinted at a "Masonic funeral", but I was not able to view any of those results. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Something about the Masonic funeral is at Alexander Cartwright: The Life Behind the Baseball Legend, by Monica Nucciarone (p.94) (if Google Books is willing to show it to you - it worked for me). Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And the running order of the funeral procession is at Hawaiian National Bibliography, Vol 3: 1851-1880 edited by David W. Forbes (p.534). Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally, an account of his Lying-in-State at New York Tribune - January 15, 1873 (at the foot of the second column). Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about this. Thank you for your hard work. I was also able to find a lot of things in the Library of Congress.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference between a marine biologist and an oceanographer?

And someone who studies one of the things, can then study a master or post-graduate title on the other career? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IchbinKiribatisch (talk • contribs) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oceanography is a "subsection" of geography - biology is only peripherally involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Please see our articles on oceanographer and marine biologist.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What help does "This is an encyclopedia" give?203.112.82.2 (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. Both sciences are related, but Roger's point clearly presents the major distinction between them. Based on my experience in academic advising, perhaps something along the lines of majoring in oceanography and a minor in biology (or marine biology, to be more precise) would work. Matters also depend on the graduate program to which you apply (each is different, with specific preferences), the researchers involved, and (obviously) what you plan to contribute to the field. Hope this helps. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Medieval christian iconography, hand gesture

Why is it that in medieval christian iconography there would be a man who holds a hand up, forefinger and middle finger tilted upwards while the ring finger, little finger, and thumb touch? Sneazy (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I found the answer to my own question here. Sneazy (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

See also Schwurhand. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Depiction of Jesus article has (in the first image) this hand sign (sort-of).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not Catholic so I may be completely off base, but doesn't the pope (and probably other priests?) use the same hand position when making the sign of the cross? This is just what I see on tv. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's the hand gesture used during a Benediction. Our article says; "...the hand is held so that the fingers form the initials IC XC (the abbreviation for "Jesus Christ" in Greek), and he traces the Sign of the Cross in the air with his hand." I'm not sure that I follow that entirely, but it's confirmed by Icons And Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, by Alfredo Tradigo (p.244). Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

See also de:Segensgestus. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• So priests be flashin' gang signs? μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah. Just like the Masons. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm entirely comfortable with the analogy, but it's not an original thought; see Why does Jesus be always throwing up gang signs? and Welcome to The Jesus Gang. Alansplodge (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

First Congress district maps

I've sought but failed to find a map showing the boundaries for all of the congressional districts for the 1st United States Congress. I've not even found anything showing the districts for each state, which wouldn't be as convenient but would still work. United States House of Representatives elections, 1789 says that some states, like Pennsylvania, were at-large, but some had districts like today. 2001:18E8:2:1020:15D3:F8CD:785:A6C8 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My question is "can you show me such a map?" 2001:18E8:2:1020:15D3:F8CD:785:A6C8 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

See if you can find in a handy library: Kenneth C. Martis (author and editor), Ruth Anderson Rowles (cartographer and assistant editor), "The historical atlas of United States congressional districts 1789-1983". New York: Free Press, c1982. ISBN 0029201500. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

[Same person, different location] Thank you! It sounds useful, but I've never heard of it before. It's in my university library catalogue, so I'll easily be able to find it. 23.25.5.57 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

DOMA, the flip side

I was reading Windsor's brief to SCOTUS (Marriage cases) concerning DOMA. It raised a curious legal tangent that I cannot figure out.

Ordinarily when the constitutionality of a law is challenged, the plaintiff is a person who is bound by a law they perceive as incorrect and oppressive, and they wish to challenge its validity. if they fail they remain bound, if they succeed they can claim compensation or remedies and can act more freely in future. It's also usually a point of law that if a matter is legal, then the law isn't retrospective. But when a law is deemed unconstitutional, it is effectively "unwound", to an extent, its fundamental validity is affected.

So the brief raises a curious twist on this point. DOMA prohibits the recognition of certain matters in any Federal law - specifically in this case, any same-sex marriage. Where Federal laws exist that a person's "spouse" may not perform certain actions, those laws are not binding on the "spouse" under DOMA. Effectively for such people, the law acts not as a prohibiting law, but a protective one - it carves out a niche where certain actions that would categorically be illegal, are not illegal if undertaken by members of a certain class of persons.

(The brief gives as an example of such a law, that "House Rules require a Member to prohibit 'lobbying contact' between the Member’s 'spouse' and the Member’s staff".)

So what happens if a law, having the effect of protecting from legal challenge certain actions of a class of persons and placing their actions within the law (a protective rather than prohibitive law in its operation), is subsequently deemed after some years to have been unconstitutional? Does that mean that all persons who were previously protected are deemed to have thereby acted illegally? Is the Judicial and Law Enforcement sector of government or any private person suddenly in the position of a plaintiff who would have entered legal action but was unlawfully prevented from doing so, and now the law accepts they have standing and right?

What's the legal consequences of a protective law being deemed unconstitutional? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

While Wikipedia cannot give legal advice, I would imagine the concept of ex post facto would be applied in such situations. Even though the situation is not strictly passage of an ex post facto law, the general principle is that you shouldn't be punished for something that wasn't illegal when you did it, though there are a lot of exceptions for things which are deemed "regulatory" or "compensatory" rather than "punishment". It'd probably depend highly on what the consequences of the removal of protection are. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• What you seem to be describing is the Congress saying federal laws would confer no jurisdiction in such matters. The legislature is allowed to delimit the jurisdiction of Federal courts according to the constitution. See the poorly named article jurisdiction stripping. Presumably this would come up if the resident of one state sued a resident of another state for deprival of affection, (although I am speculating violently there). In any case, laws do not only forbid things. They regulate and establish administrative law and regulate civil claims. Calling what you do above "protective" law wouldn't mean gay spouses could get away with actual crimes like murder (which are almost entirely a matter of state law). Indeed, it's hard to imagine what, other than intrastate divorce and estate cases, would be affected by DOMA. The only 'protecting' there would be a rich partner could move to a state without gay marriage recognition, and thus not be suable for alimony in the new state or in federal court. That sort of thing is not limited to gay marriage. μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

June 14

Three-legged stool trick

In Transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong, the PRC repeatedly accused Britain of "making a three-legged stool" or playing the three-legged stool trick. What exactly is the three-legged stool trick? --50.125.164.39 (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The negotiations were supposed to be between the British and Chinese governments. First the Governor, and then the Legislative Council, wanted to be part of the talks to speak for Hong Kong's citizens. The Chinese saw this as a British attempt to unfairly sway the proceedings. Rojomoke (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Hereditary peerages

Do we have somewhere a list of hereditary peers created by Elizabeth II? I know of Snowdon, but I think there are at least 5 more, according to our article Hereditary peers. Does Duke of York, Duke of Cambridge and Earl of Wessex count, given that they were already royals? --Lgriot (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they most certainly count. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if there's a list but hereditary peerages were regularly created up until 1965 when the government switched to life peerages only. The only peerages created since then are:

Viscount Whitelaw 1983 - conferred on a man with no sons so de facto a life peerage

Viscount Tonypandy 1983 - ditto

Earl of Stockton & Viscount Macmillan of Ovenden - conferred on the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan who would have had an Earldom twenty years earlier if he'd wished

Duke of York, Earl of Inverness & Baron Killyleagh 1986 - Royal Dukedom

Earl of Wessex & Viscount Severn 1999 - Royal Earldom for a junior prince

Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn & Baron Carrickfergus 2011 - Royal Dukedom

The lesser titles are all inherited the same way as the Dukedoms & Earldoms. Up until 1999 Royals with peerages did sit in the Lords and some did exercise this although in modern times I think it tended to be the Queen's cousins rather than sons and they usually restricted themselves to subjects related to their charities and technical expertise.

All the peerages created for Royals can in theory be inherited for as long as the male line lives, long after the holder has any Prince/HRH title or living direct memory of such an ancestor. York has no sons and Cambridge is second heir apparant to the throne so that's unlikely to happen, but if the Earl of Wessex's son spawns a dynasty then that title could go on for centuries. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The 4 non-royal peerages created since 1964 are listed at Peerage of the United Kingdom. You had them all except Lord Margadale, Timrollpickering. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Margadale was a 1965 creation which is more usually the cutoff date than 1964 as there were a few leftovers from the dissolution & resignation honours. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enuf. As for the list of all peerages created by Elizabeth II, it can be derived fairly easily by looking at:

• List of earls#Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom from 1952 onwards
• List of viscounts in the peerages of Britain and Ireland#Viscounts of the United Kingdom from 1952 onwards
• List of hereditary baronies in the Peerage of the United Kingdom#Elizabeth II (1952–present)
• Note. The last new marquessate was created in 1926, and the last new non-royal dukedom was created in 1874. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. So I count 94 Barons, 22 Viscounts (there were 4 viscount creations in 1952, I count them all as QEII creation, but actually I am not sure if any were created by her father in Jan), 7 Earls and 2 Dukes. That is a total of 125 titles, but there are several peers that have more then one title, so I would have to do more work to figure out the actually # of hereditary peers. I must not be too far from 115 or 120, though. --Lgriot (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Not counting the non-peerage but hereditary titles like Baronet Thatcher, of course. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Very good point, Rmhermen, so baronets are not peers, but how do we know which barons are peers, and which are not? Are they all peers? --Lgriot (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

forget it, baronet ansswer that question. --Lgriot (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

All barons are peers, but life peers, who are all barons, are not hereditary. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 15

When were birth records/certificates introduced in Romania?

Asking some locals I found that identity documents were made mandatory in Romania during the German occupation of 1916. But were birth records kept with any regularity before, say around 1900? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I was able to find out that at least in one case (that of Petre Țuțea) there were birth certificates being issued in Romania in 1902. But how widespread was the practice? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

According to [1] they were introduced around 1806-1812 during the Russian occupation, and they followed the Russian model of keeping them with church records, but the practice was not very uniform. I still wasn't able to find out when the state took over. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

According to a 2008 paper by Romanian National Archives, an effort by the state to centralize the records happened around 1926-1932 but in some cases as late as 1948-1952 (pp. 55-56), although they mention that a good number of the early records were lost in this process, sometimes literally by the truckload. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

And finally, according to [2], p. 240, the "Communal Law" (Legea comunală) of 31 March 1864 the records became the responsibility of the mayor in each dwelling, who was allowed to delegate it to one of his helpers. The source doesn't say how fast the law was put into practice though. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Arab parties participating in coalition gov't Israel

When was the last time that an Israeli coalition gov't that included Arab parties like Balad, Ra'am-Ta'al and Hadash?--Donmust90 (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Category:Cabinets of Israel should get you started on your research. --Jayron32 03:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The simple answer is: Never. No Arab party has ever been invited to join an Israeli cabinet. The Arab parties (including Hadash, which had Jewish members as well) are political pariah in Israel. Opinion polls often clump these parties together in one column (as "Arab parties"), since they don't count for government-formations anyways. --Soman (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The separate Arab political parties tended to be Moscow-subservient Communist through the 1970s, and Arab nationalist afterwards, but there have been Arab MKs in the Knesset voting for the government on a number of occasions (as I'm sure you must be very well aware), and Arabs in the Israeli cabinet off and on since 1971... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's quite different to say that there has been Arab individuals as cabinet ministers than to say that Arab parties have been represented in cabinets. You know as well as I that it would be politically unthinkable for any mainstream Israeli politician to consider even discussing including Balad and Hadash in a cabinet. The fact that there have been handpicked individuals promoted (usually Druze, more seldom Christians and Muslims) doesn't really change the fact that the Arab minority is systematically sidelined from achieving proportional political influence in the State of Israel (count how many Arab ministers there have been, and check if it coincides with their demographic size, of around 20%...). It's a bit like the issue of the Jewish parliamentarians in Syria and Iran.

There was an experience in the first elections to the Knesset with Arab lists promoted by Labour and Mapam, but these lists had a very different dynamic than the current Arab parties in Israel. --Soman (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

dystopian fiction trilogy

In china ,nowadays,some people call ,We (1921) by Yevgeny Zamyatin,Brave New World (1931) by Aldous Huxley ,Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) by George Orwell,dystopian fiction trilogy.I don't kowm the etymology of dystopian fiction trilogy,that is, who create this word firstly?Maybe just a chinese anonymous researcher create it originally? Please give me a answer and thank you very very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.244.12.60 (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

See Dystopia, Dystopian fiction, and trilogy. The three books you mention aren't a real trilogy - they're by different authors and there's no connection between their plots or subject matter, other than them all being dystopian novels - and "Brave New World" isn't really _dystopian_, in comparison with (say) The Machine Stops (1909) or Farenheit 451 (1951). Tevildo (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Trifecta" would probably be the better English word. It generally refers to three major accomplishments in a field, so if you're into dystopian fiction, reading these three major books could be seen as an accomplishment. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the English-speaking world doesn't refer to these as a trilogy. In fact, while many scholars would count Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four in a modern Western canon, We is relatively obscure, at least in the United States. It's very unusual for an American to graduate high school without reading at least one of the former two, but We is definitely not a regular in school curricula (quite possibly because it's still not unusual for Americans to regard all things Russian with suspicion). It does sound like this categorization may have been thought of by a Chinese researcher, though I have to say, as a representation of well-regarded dystopian literature, he or she has at least made good selections. --BDD (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I first learned of We and was motivated to read it when I saw it mentioned along with Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World, together described as "the three great dystopian novels." I no longer recall if I ran across that phrase in a newspaper book review or in the introduction to some other novel, but whichever the source, it was in the United States. We is certainly the most obscure of the three (at least in the Americas), and I seldom meet people who have read it. -- 189.119.244.51 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC) And thanks to Tevildo, I will now track down and read The Machine Stops.

"The Machine Stops" is out of copyright in some parts of the world, and is one of my long-time favorites; it kind of predicts the Internet in an interesting way for something that was first published in 1909... AnonMoos (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The American South

• What is it like to live in the South? How does the climate affect people with Seasonal Affective Disorder? Is global warming a deep concern in the Southern coastal states?
• Is the South still the "Bible Belt" of the United States? How do Southerners react typically to the term?
• Does the South still have "Southern hospitality"? How is this hospitality different from the hospitality of other regions? What makes it so special? Is this really a stereotype, or does it really exist today? How do Southerners react typically to the term? Is the "Southern belle" part of the "Southern hospitality" concept? Do they still exist, or are they part of a bygone era - the 19th century? Sneazy (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This question seems to be asking for opinions, except maybe for the SAD or the effect of global warming, which are more appropriate for the Sci. RD. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that the questions about SAD and global warming belong in the science reference desk. Those are more or less social issues/concerns. Science deals with science-y stuff like how global warming works or how SAD develops or is diagnosed. Sneazy (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

For an accurate depiction of the current day South, nothing beats watching True Blood. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I corrected your link. How is True Blood related to the South? I think I sense sarcasm. Sneazy (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Once you have watched a few episodes, if you have any questions we can entertain them. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that SAD is likely to be more of a problem where the winter days are very short, in more northerly latitudes. "Light therapy has been shown to be effective in up to 85 per cent of diagnosed cases."[3] In New Orleans, the shortest period of winter daylight is 10 hr 13 mins [4] and the longest in summer is 14 hrs 04 mins [5], so not a great deal of variation. In Anchorage, Alaska, the shortest day is 5 hr 27 mins. [6] Alansplodge (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

On the bright side, Anchorage folks are having their longest day today. 19 and a half hours of sun, cheerfully starting at 4:20. Looking good so far! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's like living in the North but hotter and twangier. And the barbecue is much better. --Jayron32 02:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

/tvɔnʒi'e/? μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected, even this month's Season 6 premier of True Blood mentions Southern Hospitality. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Albert Pierce Taylor

Can someone help me find the written source where this blog entry is taken from? It says it's by A. P. Taylor, Honolulu, Hawaii Territory, Sunday, June 12, 1910; it can either be a chapter of a book or a newspaper article. Albert Pierce Taylor wrote Under Hawaiian Skies.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this is too obvious, bt have you tried contacting Charles ano, who uploaded the article to the blog? There's a link to his details at the bottom. Rojomoke (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That never works (emailing people) for me and I don't think he'll remember something from two years ago. A few of the sentences can be found in Under Hawaiian Skies but a majority of can't be found there making me think it was another article/chapter of another book written by Taylor maybe even an article in the Honolulu Advertiser from 1910. Anyone else?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Anybody?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Official US response to Soyuz 11

Presumably, the White House issued a suitably-worded message of condolence and support following the Soyuz 11 accident. Is the text of this message available anywhere? I'd be interested to see how Nixon or his advisers struck the balance between human sympathy and the prosecution of the Cold War. Tevildo (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You can actually hear Nixon and Kissinger expressing their condolences to Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin on a recording from the Nixon tapes (scroll down and it's the second MP3 file down, reference 006-040). It's quite heartfelt, personal and sincere. They mention that an official message will also be sent, but this is the President's personal reaction. - Karenjc 22:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nixon said

"The American people join in expressing to you and the Soviet people our deepest sympathy on the tragic deaths of the three Soviet cosmonauts. The whole world followed the exploits of these courageous explorers of the unknown and shares the anguish of their tragedy. But the achievements of cosmonauts Dobrovolsky, Volkov and Patsayev remain. It will, I am sure, prove to have contributed greatly to the further achievements of the Soviet program for the exploration of space and thus to the widening of man's horizons." [7]

which seems to me to have no evident tang (sic) of the cold war. He also sent Thomas P. Stafford to the funeral as his official representative, where he was a pallbearer for Georgy Dobrovolsky's urn (Stafford had been in Belgrade at the time of the accident, so he was the easiest person to send). A few years earlier, when Vladimir Komarov died in 1967, NASA had wanted to send Al Shepard and Frank Borman, but the Soviets declined to allow that. (ref: Salyut - The First Space Station: Triumph and Tragedy, Grujica S. Ivanovich) -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information, particularly the tape, which I agree does give an insight into Nixon's personal reaction. Not many modern politicians would admit on the record to still being in bed at 0730. The current NASA link on our article seems to be broken, and I think Finlay's link is the appropriate substitution. Tevildo (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that at the time of the Soyuz 11 accident, early preparations (technical and political) for what was to become the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project were already underway. Nixon and Brezhnev both felt that space was a venue where real progress on cooperation could be made, so Nixon had an existing engagement with the subject. And I can't but wonder if it's a coincidence that, when four years later Alexei Leonov (another of Dobrovolsky's pallbearers) opened the hatch of Soyuz 19, the astronaut NASA had chosen to greet him was Stafford. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What was the most used tech on medieval era?

Lets imagine someone was to make a steampunk but using medieval era and the steam equivalent of the era. What this tech would be?201.78.181.119 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Watermills? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Frances and Joseph Gies wrote a book called Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages -- that title summarizes the most important technological achievements. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Mill-punk would be a good one, especially as watermills/windmills weren't just used for grinding grain, but also for pumping water (e.g. the Netherlands), as well as for cutting wood (why do you think we call them "sawmills"?), and for working iron (e.g. trip hammers). The industrial revolution started in the watermill-powered textile factories of England, but didn't really take off until you got a power source that wasn't tied to being right on a river. Another option if you want to go back a bit further would be Ox-punk. Donkey mills were the alternative to water/windmills, and transportation in large part was with ox or horse drawn carts or barges. I've read that the improvements in yoke technology (specifically the horse collar and the heavy plough) were essential for the population growth in the middle ages. You also had other animals like turnspit dogs providing power in the household. - We also have an article Medieval technology if you'd like additional inspiration. -- 71.35.105.42 (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Without question, waterpower was used, creatively and efficiently, but it can't be described as the "most used" technology of the medieval era. The most used would have been either a rather low-octane horsepower or the very mundane power of elbow grease. --Dweller (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

For a real "steampunk" feel I can't resist quoting this medieval poem, called A Complaint Against the Blacksmith:

 Swart smutted smiths, smattered with smoke,
 Drive me to death with din of their dints;
 Such noise on nights ne heard men never.
 What with knaven cry and clattering of knocks!
 The crooked caitiffs cryen after coal! coal!
 And bloweth their bellows till their brain bursteth.
 Huf! puf! says the one; haf! paf! says the other;
 They spitten and they sprawlen and they spellen many spells.
 They gnawen and gnashen and they groan all together,
 And holden them hot with their hard hammers.
 Of a bull-hide be their barm-fells;
 Their shanks be shackled for the fiery flinders;
 Heavy hammers they have that are hard to be handled,
 Stark strokes they striken on a steely stock,
 Lus! bus! las! das! snore they by the row,
 Such doleful a dream that the devil it to-drive!
 The master loungeth a little and catcheth a less,
 Twineth them twain and toucheth a treble,
 Tik! tak! hic! hac!, tiket! taket! tyk! tyk!
 Lus! bus! las! das!... Christ give them sorrow!
 May no man for brenn waters on night have his rest?

Looie496 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

For anybody else curious as to where this poem is from, it is apparently anonymous, and to be found in no 262 of the Arundel Manuscripts in the British Museum, according to footnote 16 of this paper. Thanks for introducing it to me, Looie. --ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I like it too. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that Steampunk, as a genre, is derivative of the informational and societal interest of Cyberpunk as a science fiction genre, the easiest way forward is to identify an informational and societal science fiction work dealing with the middle ages. Aha! Umberto Eco's In the Name of the Rose. Enjoy your Monkpunk. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Another book that's worth your attention is Jean Gimpel's The Medieval Machine (listed among the references in the medieval-technology article that 71.35.105.42 referred you to). Deor (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The OP might find the works of K. J. Parker to be of some interest, in particular his The Engineer trilogy. Although nominally fantasy and set in a world not, and with no connection to, our own, this convincingly depicts the use of technology in a quasi-mediaeval setting. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 16

Does anybody know the date of the 2014 British Titanic Society Convention?

If you know it, I'd do whatever you want, I need to know it at all costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.191.57 (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't find it on the British Titanic Society website ([8]), which makes me wonder whether they have decided a date yet. I suggest you contact them directly: [9]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Was every other man in Tudor England named Thomas?

My wife and I have been watching The Tudors, and it seems like there are more characters named Thomas than not. There's Thomas More, Thomas Wolsey, Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Wyatt, Thomas Seymour, and many more. I know the popularity of names ebbs and flows, but this seems unusual. --BDD (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with the name "Thomas"? Thomas is a biblical name, the name of an apostle. I think that would tell you the significance of the name. Sneazy (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think BDD is suggesting that there's anything wrong with the name, just that it seems awfully common in Tudor England. Not surprisingly, we have an article called Thomas (name), which tells us that "The name becomes more common during the High Middle Ages..." Not sure how helpful that is. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't Tudor times be part of the Renaissance England? Or is Renaissance England really the latter part of the Tudor dynasty (the reign of Queen Elizabeth)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneazy (talk • contribs) 03:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to one or the other of those, but unfortunately the History section of our article stops at 1270. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the OP's question is, but it's worth noting that Thomas was an extremely common name in late medieval and early modern England. (The beginning of the reign of the Tudor dynasty in 1485 tends to be considered the definitive end of the Middle Ages in England, so the reign of Henry VIII is the early modern period). This research on name frequency from funerary brasses [10] suggests that Thomas was the second most common name after John in the period from the 12th to the 16th Century. 14% (on these figures) of the male population went by the name Thomas. It seems likely (OR on my part!) that there's a connection between the popularity of the name Thomas in England - where it appears to be much more widespread than in other parts of Europe - and the popularity of the cult of Thomas Becket. Valiantis (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As a family historian, I would add that the current trend for variety in first names is a pretty recent thing. Up to the early twentieth century there were a relatively small number of first names in circulation, and Thomas was one of those. This was probably because names were mostly passed down in families - the eldest son would usually get his father's name, the eldest daughter her mother's, then grandparents', uncles' and aunts' names for further children. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas was the most popular UK baby's name in 1994, [11] and is currently No 6 in the chart. [12]. I think Valiantis is right and Saint Thomas a Becket [13] is the key to the Tudor question, although why it's popular now I'm not so sure. There was only one Thomas in my London secondary school of nearly a thousand boys in the 1970s, and his parents were Czech. Alansplodge (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

On a side note. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of the Thomases listed by the OP seem to have met their respective ends either by a hot stake or a cold chop. Apparently that was no deterrent against the continued popularity of the name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Although Thomas Audley did alright for himself. It was tough at the top. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks all, those were some good answers to what was a fairly snarky question, Valiantis especially. I had wondered if there was a Becket connection involved. --BDD (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion causes me to yearn to enter a Tudor pub and call for Thomas, only for all but a few to turn about! Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Liliuokalani

Who is this man standing next to Queen Liliuokalani in this picture?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Prince who died after a prostitute threw acid in his face

According to this and several other Wikipedias, Prince Leopold Clement Philipp August Maria of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Kohary (son of Princess Louise of Belgium and Prince Philipp of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) died after a prostitute threw acid in his face. However, I have not been able to find any reliable source that confirms that. In fact, I have not found been able to find any reliable source that says anything about him. Sure, blogs and forums offer a great amount of detail, but that's not helpful if it cannot be verified. Is anyone able to find out more? Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This forum cites a report in The Washington Post, May 28, 1916, which those with a subscription can find here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The post contained the alleged prostitute's name, which is all it took to find more. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gender bending in Irish folk songs

Something I've noticed about love songs in Irish folk music. Songs that are addressed to a female lover, like "My Lagan Love", "She Moved Through the Fair" and "Down by the Salley Gardens" are most often sung by women, and "Danny Boy", addressed to a male lover, is most often sung by men (there are exceptions in both cases, but that seems to be the trend). What's going on with that? --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Danny Boy" is about a father addressing his son who is leaving for war.[14] Not sure about the others; perhaps the female artistes just liked the tunes. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As a pedantic aside, I'm not sure that "Danny Boy" really qualifies as Irish Folk music. The tune (generally known as The Londonderry Air) is authentically Irish but was written by a harpist for a late 18th-century Bardic competition, while the words were written by an English lyricist in 1910, making it (in my judgement) more of a popular song version of a semi-classical work. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest - and this is just my opinion - I believe many Irish folk songs (including the ones above) were originally written by men, and not women. Women had children to look after, while the men were out at sea. The modern versions are very often sung by women (such as with Clannad), purely because they are folk songs. They didn't write them themselves. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A good tune trumps so-called gender every time. But that gives me an idea. I think I'll write a piano sonata and specify that it may only ever be performed by male pianists. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A bit like this? Not exactly a sonata, but.... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

In the old days, when the general public was not so "gay-aware", same-sex performances of songs were not uncommon, i.e. nobody thought it strange, because it was just a song, not a political statement. I'm reminded of a song sung by men from time to time, "I'm Just Wild About Harry", written and occasionally sung by that well-known Irishman, Eubie Blake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Another Titanic question, sorry if it bothers

I'm fan of the Titanic and I would like to know this: why if women and children were the first to board the boats, there were male crew members in every boat. Were crew members more important than regular males (passengers)? and my second question only if anybody knows is where did Frederick Fleet, the one who spotted the iceberg, served during World War II. More than thanks to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.181.110 (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone in the boat needs to know what to do. That's the job of the crew, most of whom would be male. Even today, when one takes a cruise of whatever duration is whatever waters, there is a lifeboat drill within an hour or so of the first sailing. There, the passengers are divided among lifeboat stations, shown to the crew responsible for that station and taught how to put on their lifejackets, along with receiving instructions on the meanings of various ship's horn messages. The crew's job is to keep track of the people boarding, to get passengers into the lifeboat safely and then to pilot and police the lifeboats in accordance with the nature of the evacuation. Bielle (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I'm certain that it was so that there would be somebody on each boat that knew how to handle it. If the sea had been rougher, keeping the boat heading into the waves would have prevented a capsize. The crew member would also understand the importance of getting clear of the sinking ship and know how to get survivors out of the water without tipping everybody else in. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

TITANIC SURVIVOR FOUND HANGED - Southampton Echo: Monday 11th January 1965 "Despite his experience, Mr. Fleet spent another 24 years at sea (until 1936?)... Mr. Fleet left the sea in the depression years of the mid-thirties. He was afterwards with Harland & Wolff, the ship repairers, and was a shore master-at-arms for the Union-Castle Line. For a time he was a part-time street seller for the "Echo" with a pitch in Pound Tree-road." Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Evangelism and missionary work, Catholic and Orthodox

Often, when I see evangelism and missionary work, they are typically very Protestant (Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelicals) in style. How would a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian evangelise? Sneazy (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I answered part of my question here. Orthodox sounds very similar to Reformed theology; "God" bringing in people to the church. Sneazy (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Roman Catholics send out missionaries to foreign countries. What they do exactly with the missionaries remains a mystery. Maybe they promise indigenous peoples that they could get cheap heathcare or education in exchange for religious conversion. Seeing the need, indigenous peoples convert to Christianity, specifically Roman Catholicism. Sneazy (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Without in any way being a Catholic apologist, I think you'll find that bribing people to convert is not the Catholic way and never has been. If you think that's what goes on as a general and widespread practice, then this question is not resolved at all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add the resolved tag; Medeis did. I checked. Sneazy (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You said you answered your own question. Do you still have one? μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I answered part of my question. The later statement is a falsifiable opinion/speculation, inspired by reading the Approaches to evangelism article. Sneazy (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, a typical approach for Catholic missionaries is to open a school and/or a medical facility in a community they seek to evangelize. This will attract persons who want to use the services offered, some of whom eventually become converts. A more modern approach involves providing different types of social services (such as social clubs, labor unions etc). The approach was less subtle in past times, however. What catholic missionaries typically do not do is go door-to-door trying to engage non-believers directly. --Xuxl (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Do television evangelising campaigns count as direct engagement? Because, it's been used here. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Christian missionaries by denomination.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

days of the week

1. how far back has humanity preserved the current days of the week - in the sense that since it's not astronomical in any way, it is quite conceivable that as you count back days of the week and solar days, at some point humanity was off by one

2. what keeps the worldwide days of the week in complete synchronicity? has there ever been a glitch or inconsistency where isolated communities had a different day of the week? It's easy to imagine on a shipwreck (e.g. here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thursday_October_Christian_I) but on the level of cities, coutnries, continents - everyone has always been perfectly in synch?

Is the only power to have kept this the regular rhythm of a religious week (with a day off) and days-of-the-week being tracked? So that the reason that it is never 'off' is that the whole community would have had to be asleep for an indeterminate number of hours between 24-72 and just have no idea what actual day it is?

I find this level of perfect time-keeping in every single community, however isolated, to be quite remarkable. How far back does it go? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, before the Gregorian calendar, there was the Julian calendar. Sneazy (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That change did not of itself interrupt the sequence of days of the week, just the numbering of the dates. In the 4 countries that adopted the Gregorian calendar immediately, Thursday 4 October 1582 (Julian) was followed immediately by Friday 15 October 1582 (Gregorian). And when the remaining countries switched over at various times, they also kept the sequence. Managing the relationship between the two calendars has been challenging enough for historians. But it would have created utter chaos if the day called Wednesday 19 June 2013 in Britain was called Thursday 19 June 2013 in Germany and Friday 19 June 2013 in Russia and Saturday 19 June 2013 in the USA.

However, there were some local adjustments that needed to be made, which involved repeating days of the week in some places. For example, "In Alaska, the change took place when Friday, 6 October 1867 was followed again by Friday, 18 October 1867 after the US purchase of Alaska from Russia, which was still on the Julian calendar. Instead of 12 days, only 11 were skipped, and the day of the week was repeated on successive days, because the International Date Line (although not known by that name in 1867) was shifted from Alaska's eastern to western boundary along with the change to the Gregorian calendar". And I'm sure something similar happened in the Phillipines as well. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) However, neither the Gregorian or the Julian calendars were concerned with the days of the week, just the lengths of months and years. According to the article Seven-day_week, we can verify from ancient calendars that the weekly cycle has remained unbroken since at least 311 AD. - Lindert (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Re 1: The system of a seven day week was in place by the time that the Book of Genesis was written. Some simple thinking about it would also suggest that the text is telling us that the system was believed to be an ancient one at that point in time, but just how long ago it was written is the subject of massive and heated argument; take your pick from anything from c.2500 to c.3500 years ago and anything in between, then add whatever figure you like for the perception of 'ancientness'. See the not very well-written article, Dating_the_Bible. There's also the article Mosaic authorship, which carefully avoids presenting any traditional dating in its extensive section on traditional dating. --Dweller (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

But considering how little communication there was in ancient times, isn't it quite strange not only that it was "unbroken" since 311 AD but unbroken everywhere in every community, no matter how isolated or small or large? There were no cases of a few hundred people losing track of the days as they migrated and established a new community, at any time between 311 AD and modern times, where these people established a meaningful large community and became truly out of synch? This seems so bizarre for me. After all, there are several different calendars in use during that time, including, Hebrew, Chinese, Gregorian, Julian, etc. What makes the day of the week something that everyone agrees on? Why wasn't there ever a conflict, so that one group of people thought it was Sunday every time another group of people thought it was still Wednesday? This would seem to me quite likely and plausible as people were isolated worldwide... 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable hypothesis, and there are probably cases where such confusion has occurred. On the other hand, remember that our culture where most of our remembering is done for us, is very recent; historically, people relied far more on oral traditions and consequently had a stronger internal sense of the sequence of things. We have the "luxury" of sometimes feeling that one day is much like the next and the next and next, and they all blur together in our memories and become as one. But in the past, people took note of the rising and setting of the sun, the weather, celestial omens and the like, and they were generally far more ritualised than we are today. Individuals might sometimes forget details like which day it is; communities do not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Germanic weekday names are calques on the Latin. The older system among the Romans was a numeric one using the ides as a day before or after which something occurred. The Semites kept a lunar calendar with weeks and fortnights as quarter and half-cycles. I remember reading there were festivals held quarter-monthly, but a afraid my source for that is memory based on perhaps Anne Rice. Babylon, Rome and Constantinople have been constantly civilized long enough that there is no conflict between the Eastern, Western, and Jewish calendars. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Jewish calendar, on which the seven day system is based, did suffer disruption during periods of persecution. The famous example is that the count of the yovel was lost. Nonetheless, the count of shmita was not. If you can remember where you are in a seven year cycle when people are trying to decorate their swords with the guts of your infants, you can probably remember where you are in a seven day cycle, particularly if your ritual observances demand that you do. --Dweller (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't quite what you're asking about, but before the 19th century ships traveling around the world, or even around part of the world, frequently fell a day out of sync with local reckoning. If I understand right ships tended to keep their records and logs day-by-day even if they fell into conflict with local reckoning. And returning home after a circumnavigation would find their logs off by a day. Without a standardized International Date Line there was no way to say exactly where and when they fell out of sync. An example of this is the records of the Vancouver Expedition of 1791-95, which circumnavigated the world from England in an easterly direction. By the time they got to the Pacific Northwest, after crossing the Pacific, their reckoning was a day off from the "local" Spanish ships and bases, as well as the merchant vessels that had sailed the other direction. Despite Vancouver's careful exploring in cooperation with the Spanish in the region, and lengthy diplomacy and negotiation with Spanish authorities, the expedition kept its records day-by-day, despite being a day off from their Spanish counterparts. Even today when you read the expedition's logs, journal entries, etc, you have to subtract a day from what they say. From what I understand, this kind of "one day off" thing was common in those days, whenever circumnavigations were done. Pfly (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is no "standardized International Date Line" (there is an agreed nautical one, but that's different). Our article International date line says "No international organization, nor any treaty between nations, has fixed the IDL drawn by cartographers". The date line marked on maps is in principle determined experimentally by asking nations near the 180th meridian which side of choose they are on. One consequence of this is that it gets changed from time to time by unilateral decision of a country: most recently Kiribati in 1995. Another is that a cartographer could draw it as wiggly as they liked, as long as it passed the right side of each nation, and nobody could say they were wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. And actually the most recent might be Samoa, which our page says "changed back" to west of the IDL in 2011, in the process causing havoc among Seventh-day Adventists in Samoa--which might result in a schism. Pfly (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just adding a reference to a very good site to consult with calendar questions: http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/week.php#interrupt - Nunh-huh 06:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Our Lady of Peace Cathedral, Honolulu, 1843.jpg

Can anybody with better eyes and ability to read 19th century cursive help me make out the text in this image above the three buildings next to the "Catholic Church" and the title in the center?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Title: View of Capt. Charles Brewers house. Oahu. First house: Mr. Potys ? Second house: Mr. Ladds ? Third house: Doct Travis ? Rmhermen (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 17

Is it possible to travel to Oceania via ship (not cruisers) just to arrive and stay in that country?

I need to travel to Kiribati, a country in Oceania and I'd like to know if I can travel via ship. I am panicked by airplanes and I'm treating it with my therapist but haven't yet overcome it, so she asked me to find out other ways to get to Kiribati. Any help appreciated. LoweIan (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Cargo Ship Travel page on "flightless travel" might be useful. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible? it seems so. You can apparently book a passage on a supply ship from Fiji or Tuvalu [15] - either of which should be easier to get to by sea, though obviously it depends where you are coming from. Don't expect it to be cheap. Or quick. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that it's something that would help you, but I've been looking into sea travel as I hate flying, too. RMS Queen Mary 2 appears to be the only Ocean liner left in the world. I'm curious why that happened. There are millions of people with Fear of flying. The must be a huge market for ships that would just bring people like me to the place they want to be as fast as possible, without having to fly, without having to find a cargo ship that happens to sail in the right direction. Joepnl (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Because the percentage of people who are not minded to fly multiplied by the percentage of people who consider taking ships a thing they want to do worked out for bad economics for the shipping companies. Today's cruise ships, and I've been on a few, are not intended as transportation. Yes, they go places, but few people take them to get from Point A to Point B, there are faster and cheaper means. Once transatlantic airplane travel became something relatively cheap and routine, the liners started to die.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with the statement that cruise ships are not intended for transportation, but there are some exceptions. The trans Atlantic crossings, for example, are sometimes taken by people who can afford the time and the money not to have to fly. First class on an airline would be faster and probably cheaper, but there are those who really do have problems flying. I know people who do this annually. Bielle (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Tranquilizers are cheaper? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Cunard Southampton/New York, certainly. Most cruise ships, even on transatlantic runs, make at least a couple of stops. Azores, Madiera, Bermuda are common. I took a transatlantic from Rome to Fort Lauderdale last year, it puttered around the Med for a week before getting going.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

See this travel agent. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir 'Chips'?

Henry Channon was knighted in 1957 but married Lady Honor Guinness in 1933. Between 1933 and 1957 would it have been incorrect to have called him Sir Henry Channon? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be incorrect. From Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom: "The honorific prefix of "(The) Lady" is used for the daughters of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls. The courtesy title is added before the person's name, as in the example The Lady Diana Spencer. The title persists after the death of the holder's father but it is not inherited by her children. The husband of the holder is not entitled to a courtesy title. The holder is addressed as "Lady Diana"."

Note that Lady Honor and Henry were divorced in 1945. [16] Alansplodge (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, just what I was looking for. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the use of knighthoods as courtesy titles seems to have died out in the late middle ages, so no-one is entitled to be 'Sir' anything by virtue of who they're related to. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I was with you until the comma. Baronets are titled "Sir", and they gain their titles by inheritance. True, they are not knights, but the second half of your answer was too broad. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant that a baronet is a substantive title-holder; a baronet's heir has no special title, and nor does the husband of a baronetess. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Check. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sophia Cracroft and Lady Franklin

When did Sophia Cracroft and Lady Franklin arrive in Hawaii in 1861 and how long did they stay?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 18

Intrinsic value

Is there a clear definition of what "intrinsic" means in the terms "intrinsically good" and "intrinsically bad"? The only statement I can think of that I agree with is Kant's "good will", which I take to be adherence to moral law. --Melab±1 ☎ 00:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It means "inwardly", i.e. "by nature".[17] Your typical tree, for example, is intrinsically wood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just think of it as the opposite of "extrinsically", meaning through some external force. Beyond that it's a matter of what you're talking about: for example, in one context you could say that money has intrinsic value, whereas stock has value only because you can sell it for money. But on the other hand, in a different context you can say a bag of flour has intrinsic value, because you can bake with it, whereas dollar bills have no intrinsic value (i.e. as wood kindling, writing paper, packing material, insulation, etc). So you have to figure out what the person means. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For there to be such things as "intrinsically good or bad", one must believe, at least in part, in moral absolutism. That is, "whatever is right is always right and whatever is wrong is always wrong". By contrast, those who believe purely in moral relativism would argue that different things are right or wrong in different contexts. Most people would agree, however, in a moral model in-between those two. For example, randomly killing people is "intrinsically wrong" and dealing honestly with customers is "intrinsically good", while the type of clothing people wear isn't intrinsically good or bad, but depends on the society, context, etc. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Vitruvian pose

My coach gives us homework every night and tonight she told us to define the word VITRUVIAN POSE. I looked everywhere to find it and I can't! Someone please define it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.231.82 (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

See Vitruvian Man. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

what's to stop creation of a second Israel

what's to prevent someone creating a second Israel in some less contentious part of the world but with exactly the same philosophy. It would offer all of the benefits except some of the infrastructure, the literal sacred history (though replicas could be made), or direct foreign aid / military aid since a lot of that seems to be due to geography?

The reason this might be done is that Israel proper spends a lot of money and time on security, this really takes resources away. I believe in Jewish people and others who would benefit from the law and progress of a Jewish state. What's to stop someone creating another one?

There is enormous progress and R&D, education in Israel. This is overshadowed by the security issues - to the point that there are academic boycotts against Israel! A second Israel could give some academics freedom to publish within such a system as well. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The options are very limited. See Terra nullius#Current terrae nullius. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Other options might include repopulating Moisés Ville or the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? These might fit the OP's suggestion of a "secure" location; see my next (= outdented) remark. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The present state of Israel is not merely a Jewish homeland but the expression of Zionism. The OP's proposed "second Israel...with exactly the same philosophy" doesn't account for the exclusive identity of the Land of Israel as the site of the Jewish homeland. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is relevant information at Jewish homeland and Proposals for a Jewish state. - Karenjc 07:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

1. For your answers regarding territory - couldn't a territory be bought or acquired? 2. couldn't second israel also have the same zionist philosophy and call itself the site of the Jewish homeland, on historically false grounds? Mormonism is, historically, far more 'false' in its identification. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism#Relation_to_mainstream_Christianity - the first sentence says mormons consider themselves Christians. hoewver, they added a book to the bible. So, obviously a big leap of faith was required - however, after making htis, they established a thriving community in Utah. Should an appropriate territory be acquried, couldn't 'second Israel' do the same thing, while holding the same beliefs about its territory (though this is absurd, as it would just be some random territory) as Israel? If this aspect of the religion is important to someone, obviously second israelis would be derided for their belief. However, if someone doesn't care, then who cares that it's obviously as false as the golden plates?

Could you go into other issues that there would be with this? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there's plenty of people believing in a bunch of fiction. The problem is, in order for it to work, one needs to get people to believe it. If you tell any Jew today that Jerusalem is actually located on a remote island in Micronesia, he'll laugh in your face. In order for a falsehood to gain great acceptance, there needs to be a great deal of ignorance first. In Joseph's Smith's day, very little was known of the prehistory of the Americas, and in the midst of much speculation, it was quite easy to come up with a story that somewhat filled the void of knowledge. It's a completely different story with Israel, there's just no possibility of credibly denying its history. - Lindert (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In answer to the academic aspect of the question: there's already a technologically advanced nation with a numerically (though not proportionally) large Jewish population who are able to conduct research and scholarship free from (most) boycotts: the United States. As Deborahjay rightly points out, the perceived need for Israel to exist in its present political shape is directly linked to its specific location. Without the Land of Israel for the State of Israel to be located in, Zionism makes no sense. Note that as the location of Jerusalem is also important for Christians and Muslims, you'd have more than half the world against you if you tried your wacky 'falsification' plan. You appear to be treating the entire thing as a 'toy problem' rather than the lived experiences of millions of people. No matter how deep my own misgivings about the Israeli state and especially its current politics, I'm not about to deny that it's home to so many people, and that their lives and experiences are bound up with the land in complex personal, religious, political and social ways. You cannot even begin to address the issues that the State of Israel raises unless you acknowledge the reality of those people and their experiences and needs. (The same argument, mutatis mutandis, applies to the other nations and peoples of the Middle East too, which is what makes it so intractable.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific on the first point you made, there are more people who identify as Jewish in the U.S. than in Israel itself. And to reinforce all of the other points: the facile solution is no solution at all, and shows a great ignorance of the history and culture involved. There is no means of "erasing" the cultural memory of the Jewish people and of the importance of the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem from their cultural history anymore than doing the same for Mecca from the cultural legacy of Muslims. It is patently ridiculous. Whether Zionism itself is enough to justify the existence of the State of Israel is perhaps a matter of political debate; but this is not the place for political debate. Zionism is certainly enough to explain the existence of the State of Israel, which should be enough for the OP. Learn about Zionism and about the history of Judaism, and one can easily understand why Israel is where it is. Any attempts to argue for or against its existence, however, are definitely NOT what this desk is about. --Jayron32 11:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You may be interesting in reading on Jewish Territorialism. There is an exhibit at YIVO right now on the topic.[18]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 15:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for a religious debate, but as a sidenote and a reminder, this is a reference desk (and the Humanities one at that!). As such, your use of the word "false" to categorize a religion (or ancient metal plates as the source of the Book of Mormon) is somewhat bad form. We Mormons consider ourselves Christian because we strive to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not because we strive to some certain level of doctrinal similarity to Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Protestantism. You may exclude Mormons from Christianity based on a certain definition of Christianity; but this definition is yours (and your religions'), not ours (and not Christ's. His definition is found in John 13:35).

You might consider our acceptance and use of extrabiblical scripture as proof of falsehood, but as some of the Bible's books were not written until decades after Christ's death, and the many books of the Bible were not grouped into one volume until the fourth century, we would assert that although we love and revere the Bible; that there is nothing *in* the Bible that precludes the existence of other holy scripture (in spite of how you might read Revelation 22:18-19). Again, I don't care to debate, but I felt that a response should be written. Best-- Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 16:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nahl's Portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii

In 1856 or 1857 (authenticating the date would be helpful too), Charles Christian Nahl created a portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii on horseback that was exhibited in San Francisco. When and what was this exhibit? I see one source that said it was exhibited in the Mechanics' Institute Fair in 1857 but this New York Times article said that the painting was still being exhibited when Kamehameha V (a prince at the time) visited in 1860. How long was this exhibition? Also can anybody find out what happened to the original; source just said that it was lost with no info on who last owned it/saw it or what may have happened to it or other exhibition items like it after the event (maybe they were donated, destroyed, auction, etc). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Gojong

Why did Gojong of the Korean Empire succeed to the Korean throne instead of his father Heungseon Daewongun and what were the circumstances surrounding his accession after Cheoljong of Joseon's death? Did they had to search for him?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

hamid karzai departure from afhganistan

i am an afghan complete allegiance to SIR HAMID KARZAI and i read america leaves and somme comments speaking of Karzai abandoning the country with america. is that true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karzaf (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)