Humanities desk
< June 4	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 6 >

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

June 5

Amadou Toumani Touré's wife

Since Jose Santos' wife is born in 1963 (which is 21 years apart) and Armando Guebuza wife is born in 1954 (9 years apart), then what year range would Amadou Toumani Touré's wife be. When he went to 2008 Beijing Olympics, Amadou Toumani Touré's wife looks young so is it most rational to suppose Amadou Toumani Touré's wife should be born in the 1960s?--69.229.240.187 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to make any additions or changes to Wikipedia articles, speculation about such facts is a bad idea. Find a source outside of Wikipedia before adding information. Guessing at someone age from a picture is not a reliable means of reporting facts in an encyclopedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Touré Lobbo Traoré's official biography does not give her birthdate, only mentioning that she started school in 1962. You might ask at the French Wikipedia Reference Desk as probably many sources of information about Mali are in French. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Access during Siege of Boston

March 30th, 1774:
The Boston Port Act closes the Port of Boston
April 20th, 1775:
The Siege of Boston begins, blocking land access to the city but leaving the British in control of the Port. Thus, the Royal Navy can sail in supplies.

Question #1 — When exactly did the closed Port reopen (albeit under the Royal Navy’s rule)?
Question #2 — Could a Loyalist have caught a ship back to England during the Siege, or was the Port only used to bring in supplies from Nova Scotia?
Questions #3 — How much did it cost a civilian to sail between England & the Colonies? Was the price different for men & women?

71.174.23.126 (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Helice[reply]

I've stumped Wikipedia. Whoa. 71.174.23.126 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Helice[reply]

I'm probably the person who's done the most recent work on Siege of Boston. To partly answer some of your questions:

I believe the port was never "open" during the siege -- it was only reopened after the British evacuation.
Ships were allowed in and out of the port during the siege (and probably also between the closing of the port and the start of the war), but usually only if they were doing business with the British -- not all supplies, including military ones, came on military vessels. See Battle of Machias for an instance of this sort of economic activity that, umm, ran into some problems. It was probably possible for Loyalists to leave the city through these civilian transports (and maybe even on military ones). Note also that the British did not actually stop trade through other nearby ports (like Salem and Gloucester), although they did try to do so (see for example Battle of Gloucester (1775)).
I have no idea what transport and travel costs were then, but I imagine the war drove prices up. This is not something the sources I looked at dealt with. You'd need sources that deal with colonial economics (or possibly diaries of people known to travel that would also have documented their costs).

Hope this helps. Magic♪piano 23:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) 71.174.23.126 (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Helice[reply]

China's new censorship tool?

Youtube

What on earth are they thinking? Wouldn't it be more effective to arrest the reporter, confiscate their equipment or beat the heck out of them? The reporter may say something after they are released but at least they wouldn't get this stupid footage. 121.72.205.147 (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better a stupid footage about China than a bloody one. Trust me, the Chinese government knows exactly what they are doing. They will lose more than they will gain if they beat ppl up publicly.

Beating the reporter, confiscating the equipment, and destroying the tapes would certainly be more effective in stopping that particular report. But these days governments have to be somewhat more subtle (AKA political correct) and that means largely using non-violent means and resorting to violence only when truly necessary. If the Chinese police officers beat the *hit out of a reporter on Tienanmen square another reporter (or simple tourist) just might film the beating from afar. Same goes for confiscating the equipment (or do you believe that reporter crews meekly surrender their equipment when demanded to do so by the police?).

And then the *hit will really hit the fan and everybody else gets what they truly want.

The beaten reporter can give lots of interviews describing how he became a willing martyr for the freedom of press. The international press will have their scoop and show the same images (in which the reporter is beaten) again, again, and again ad nauseam (it's mostly about the ratings I fear and many of us like to see a good beating - that's why Wrestling is so popular). Afterwards political analysts will blabber away how the Chinese government is so very evil and oppresses all political rights of the Chinese ppl. Other governments will take the high moral ground and make powerful statements describing "how they are so very concerned about this issue and condemn the unnecessary violence in the most powerful terms" (i.e.: they will do absolutely nothing but at least for a couple of days no damned reporter will ask them any embarrassing questions about corruption or incompetence).

Afterwards somebody might do an interview with the Dalai Lama and that holy man will express his opinion on the question of Tibet.

In the end the storm will pass and most of us will just buy our cheap products "made in China" (there are also a couple of them labelled "made in China, assembled in the USA" with a big American flag) exactly as before. Except the food (Chinese food = Toxic, do not feed to children).

If you were the Chinese government you just might be interested in avoiding all of the above. That's why you would give orders to harass the reporters only through non-violent means.

Don't get me wrong, I personally like to live in a country where the freedom of press is more or less respected. I can somewhat appreciate the reasoning and efforts of the Chinese government: "develop the economic might of China, hold the grasp upon power, crush all opposition for the sake of internal peace and security " but I truly wouldn't like to live in China (way too polluted). Faced with a choice of a country with too much freedom of press and a country with too little freedom of press I will choose the first always. But I'm somewhat of a cynic/realist. When certain countries invade other countries only to "liberate them and give them democracy" at gunpoint costing the lives of thousands and the person in charge is re-elected it becomes somewhat unreal when I watch commentators describing the Chinese government as an evil dictatorship. They aren't exactly nice by any standards but then everything is a bit relative these days, don't you agree? Especially when the American Congress and the President don't seem interested in closing down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

IMVHO what happened and still happens in that facility is even worse than the shootings and deaths of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and you know why? Because all of us have already a very low opinion of the Chinese government and don't expect much of it (certainly not a shining example for our kids), while the previous and the current governments of the United States of America were elected through fair elections in a democratic system. The former administration managed to give orders to torture hundreds of ppl and were largely obeyed in a country living under the rule of law with a system of checks and balances. They tortured hundreds of ppl (guilty or not) in our name, in the name of our liberty and our security with the knowledge and tacit approval of many governments of the western world. Shame upon them and shame upon us. We are supposed to be better than that. Flamarande (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the general tone of your political opinion, so I'm going to tell you off for having one at all: WP:SOAPBOX 213.122.1.200 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, so if you had agreed with my tone and opinion you wouldn't complain at all and play the pathetic "rules card"? Flamarande (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, someone with a different view would have told you to get off your soapbox. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) :Being in the way is annoying but doesn't hurt anybody or create any international problems. The Chinese government prefers not to be thuggish with Westerners, it's not good for their image or their economy. The Chinese government does not see themselves as some sort of Stalinist state, even if by American standards their positions on freedom of information and representative democracy look closer to that than not. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American standards don't seem to be very high these days. I mean president Obama isn't exactly keen in showing and releasing the remainder of photographs of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Flamarande (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right. Should have left the torture to the authority of the countries where the Gitmo prisoners came from so that we had clean hands. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there are a number of considerations involved in releasing such things—domestic and international. (I'd prefer them to be releases, but I can see the logic of not releasing them.) My point, however, was that it is common for Americans to project Cold War/World War II ideas onto the modern Chinese government, and that this projection somewhat limits the ability of Americans to actually make sense of their policies, as evidenced above. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidenced where? The Chinese government is simply interested in keeping the lid down on protests and vigorously censors any mention of the "Tiananmen square incident". Their main concerns are "develop the economic might of China, hold the grasp upon power, crush all opposition for the sake of internal peace and security". The press is simply interested in looking for a story about the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Nothing more, nothing less. Flamarande (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidenced in the assumptions made by the initial poster that they would find it more convenient or effective to beat up the journalists. Calm down and ease up, man. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was expecting someone here to disclose that the video is a spoof and just for laughs. Is this for real? The Chinese government is okay with making a fool of itself on camera? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No this is real. CNN link But why the umbrellas? It didn't stop the report being filmed and distributed to the world. All it did was to make China look stupid. F (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it didn't make China look violent. Image the political backlash if they had beaten the reporter. It is way better for China to look "stupid" and harmless than violent and dangerous. No one will care about some umbrellas, or talk and remember it for long, but lots of ppl would remember a good beating on TV and talk about it for years (as we do with the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989). Flamarande (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Holiday

What is the oldest event which is celebrated as a holiday? I imagine there are many which predate Christmas. Also what is the oldest "ennial" (quadrennial, millennial, etc.) event that has been celebrated? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many ancient societies celebrated the summer and winter solstices. If they got the day off for their holidays, I don't know. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosh Hashanah is regarded as marking the anniversary of (the end of) creation. Creation happened quite a long time ago. Even longer ago if you don't believe in it. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going for oldest continuous holiday, I am wondering if the Jewish Passover might win. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip the Arab celebrated the 1000th anniversary of the founding of Rome... AnonMoos (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they get a day off, but they still celebrate that in Rome. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Locrians supposedly promised to send two girls a year to Troy for a thousand years after the Trojan war, but the tradition wasn't kept up that long (and it's extremely doubtful whether they would have been able to know when the thousand years were up in any case). AnonMoos (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Foundation Day has only been celebrated in Japan since the 19th century officially, but at least according to the article, it was celebrated long before that unofficially. (But I doubt it is as old as 660 BC, of course.) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if the (disputed) date of creation was September 25, 3760 BC and “Rosh Hashanah commemorates the creation of man whereas five days earlier, on 25 of Elul, marks the first day of creation.[2]”” according to the Rosh Hashanah article, then did anyone celebrate the 5000th aniversery of creation on Sep. 25, 1241 AD (add 1 since there's no year 0)or the 5000th Rosh Hashanah on the 30th? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the infoboxes on our year articles, the transition from the year 4999 to the year 5000 was in 1239. Not sure whether there was any celebration, but one thing to keep in mind is that most people in Europe at the time (other than monks writing chronicles and certain other educated elite types) did not very commonly encounter such dates in their day-to-day lives... AnonMoos (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm not sure if these info boxes are right, but then again I can't seem to determine whether the Hebrew calender considers 3760 BC to be year 1 or year 0. But logically it makes sense that 3760 BC + 3760 years would be 1 AD since there was no year zero. Which means another 1240 years would be 1241 AD. Maybe I'm making some error, but I'm not clear where. Also does anyone know how to determine what day of the week September 25, 3760 BC was? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, according to Etos Kosmou dating, 1491 A.D. saw the beginning of the Byzantine year 7000. As with the Dionysian year 1000 A.D. and the year 1239 A.D., I doubt that the mass of ordinary people very commonly encountered such dates in the course of their day-to-day lives... AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my original question though, I'm really more curious as to what was the largest "ennial" (quadrennial, millennial, etc.)event. So for example we all celebrated the bimillenium in 2000 (or 2001 if you're picky). America had its bicentenial in 1976. So what I want to know is what the oldest "ennial" event that's been celebrated (eg a 3000, 4000, 5000 year old event) by people. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a celebration requires public knowledge of a common calendar system. The oldest calendar that the public used (that I know of) is the Hindu calendar. It is acceptable to assume that the people found semi-special events in the Hindu calendar as a reason to party - "Hey, there are three fours in that number! Let's get drunk!" -- kainaw ™ 18:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many many variations on Hindu calendars, and there isn't one unified era (chronological start point). There's a theoretical Kali Yuga era (3101/3102 B.C.) and the Shaka era (78 A.D.) but it's doubtful how truly widespread either was until relatively recent times. In many civilizations, the majority of ordinary people (who were not astronomers or religious scholars or international-scale merchants) were much more likely to date things by the regnal years of the local monarch than by grand theoretical chronological eras. British laws were dated by regnal years (e.g "33 Hen 8 c. 1" or "2 & 3 Wm. IV, c. 45") until 1962... AnonMoos (talk)

There's a letter to a Jewish community in Egypt reminding them to keep Passover that dates to 419 BCE. This might make Passover the holiday whose celebrating is confirmed the farthest back in history. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Asia, the Duanwu Festival (a public holiday in China and some other East Asian countries) commemorates the death of Qu Yuan in 278 BC. The Hanshi Festival commerorates the death of Jie Zitui in the 636 BC - the date is one day before the Qingming Festival, into which it has in modern times been conflated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of 1804?

Can anyone confirm the massacre on the white on Haiti by Jean-Jacques Dessalines in 1804? I have heard that he gave order to massacre the remaining white people on Haiti after the final victory over the French. I am intrested in the Haitian revolution, but this seem to have been forgotten here on wiki, if it did happen, so I would be most grateful id anyone can confirm it, or give me a useful link. Thanks!--85.226.42.9 (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are links on the net of course, like these [[1]] and [[2]], but its always hard to know what is correct.--85.226.42.9 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance did the version on French Wikipedia help? I do notice it is a shorter article. Tempshill (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's, that does mention it, but only in a few lines. What I am looking for is a detalied description of the event. It does not seem to be as talked about as the other events of the revolution. I can find no mention of it at all on English wiki, not even in the Dessalines article. Perhaps it should have its own article, or at least section, here on wiki? --85.226.42.9 (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empress and Queen of Haiti

Can anyone tell me anything about the empress of Faustin I of Haiti and the queen of Henry I of Haiti? Their full names and dates, and if they did anything significant? Perhaps a usefull link? I would be grateful. Thanks in advance! --Aciram (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.famousamericans.net/faustineliesoulouque/ (the link is blacklisted) says Faustin's wife was "Adelina, a woman of questionable character, whom he had married in December, 1849, against the advice of his lieutenants" Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And see this for a bio of the wife of Henri Christophe. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A shame that there is so little info about the dates though. --Aciram (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cdl

I have a dui in 1986 and dui in 1987 can I get a cdl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.131.150 (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do "dui" and "cdl" mean? Nyttend (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think driving under the influence and commercial driver's license.- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call the local DMV (that's "department of motor vehicles") office near where you live. They will tell you the answer to your question. Since the DMV issues the licences, they would likely know best what the qualifications are for getting one. as an aside, I am shocked by the number of people who ask questions where the answer is easiest gotten by contacting the people who actually do the work. Some days its like one out of every three questions is like this. Sigh. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the state; there are federal minimum regulations too, but they're surprisingly lax. A brief check of a few state DMV sites suggests that they will, but obviously it depends on a recent clean record. You should talk to the DMV in your state. 87.115.17.103 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be shocked if any state would hold 22-year-old convictions against you. Your IP address suggests that you are in North Carolina. Their page only says you need to have a "clear driving record", which just means you're not currently under any sanction (revoked/suspended license, etc.). The federal page says you need to not have had any sanctions or convictions in the past two years. --Sean 20:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which aria

[embarrassing whistling had been here]94.27.217.14 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be Non più andrai from The Marriage of Figaro. Featured in this scene from the film Amadeus. --Cam (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's the one. I've removed the whistling out of a modicum of self respect, I hope nobody minds. :) 94.27.217.14 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan kavacham

I am trying to get Narayan kavacham in sanskrit ( in sanskrit alphabets/ text) and its meaning in hindi and english and also entite srimad bhagwatam in sanskrit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.73.20.250 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Bhagavata Purana; at the bottom of the page there are external links to the complete work in Sanskrit and English – not sure about Hindi, but at least that's a start. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's Cairo speech

[I am generally an Obama supporter]. In the speech, Obama said "resistance [to occupation] through violence and killing is wrong". Does this mean he condemns the French resistance of the Nazi occupation (FFF)? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure he mentioned the killing of innocent civilians. I'm pretty sure French forces didn't do that. Wrad (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While It is my opinion that any discussion of what Obama might have thought of events before he was born is at best, idle speculation, the quote should not be taken out of context. Here follows the whole of the paragraph:

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered. // BL \\ (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Again, I'm pretty sure the French resistance didn't target children or old women. Wrad (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that in some cases, they did actions or used weapons which killed children and old women as collateral damage. Why assume they were more pure than the armies and air forces of the allies? Ask the folks of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden if old women and children were killed. "Bomber" Harris of the UK bomber command was a high tech terrorist, conducting terror bombings of civilian areas to try to break the will of the Germans. Edison (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's also a pragmatic argument in there; that blacks in the US didn't win freedom by violence, but by other means. By implication, that even though the Allies fire-bombed Dresden and dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, it was not that violence against civilians that won the war for them. (Now, I do not know if that is correct, but it seems a plausible claim to make) Jørgen (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jorgen your argument is wrong, and the "plausible claim" is mistaken. Blacks gained their freedom through the American Civil War and not through peaceful means. Their full rights were acknowledged only much later African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954). Flamarande (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Civil War was run primarily by the White North against the White South for a variety of reasons. I think my argument stands. But I do not see the need to debate that further here. Jørgen (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the implied difference is that there was as war on during the French resistance. If the allies had lost WWII and France had remained permanently under Nazi control, it's not clear that continuing the resistance on its own would have achieved anything other than pointless bloodshed.

Or perhaps he didn't think it through that far. Who knows.

If you're honestly interested in learning what Obama meant, you might be able to get some sort of explanation from his staff by actually emailing the Whitehouse. APL (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is clearly an invitation to WP:SOAPBOX. There's no way to answer it without getting into a debate about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, which is not the point of the Reference Desk. I suggest that it be ignored. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]