Humanities desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

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.

November 10

Carpet plan - Occupation of Germany

Reading the article on the internal German frontier after the Second World War, I noticed this map of the Allied Occupation Zones. In the legend of the map is a symbol for "area covered by the Carpet plan" - roughly Bavaria, Baden, Hesse, the Saarland, Wurttemburg, Nassau and the southern part of the Rhine Province. Please, what was the Carpet plan? DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googling gave this - apparently it was a plan to "unroll" US occupation across part of Germany. (As to why it only covers part of Germany, I would guess from the map that it covers the region the USA was originally allocated; Germany was originally divided in 3 between UK, US, and USSR, but the UK and US decided to give some of their area to France to administer - see Allied-occupied Germany).

There's a summary here (which is the book the map came from...). "The carpet made its appearance ... on 13 September 1944", which probably explains the boundary line - as of September 1944, the dividing line between British/Canadian and American forces was just north of Aachen, approximately mid-way between Cologne and Dusseldorf (map), and this boundary is simply that dividing line extended more or less due west. Shimgray | talk | 18:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, that's a fascinating book. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a different date for the original USA Thanksgiving

a date for the American Thanksgiving other that the 4th thursday of Nov. due to a foreign war.

This other date matched with the Canadian Thanksgiving date prior to the above war; Canadians were not involved in this war. Maybe the Spanish -American War. I can't find any info. to support this. I have told others that the Canadian Thanksgiving, celebrated on Columbus Day, was the original US T. Day, prior to "That War" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorsmith71 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Thanksgiving describes the history of its celebration dates. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't originate as the celebration of some fixed date, but rather from harvest festivals, which were originally celebrated in each local community when the crops were in the barn, the serious autumn-season agricultural work was winding down, and it was time to relax a little with a festive blow-out. Part of the reason why Canadian thanksgiving is before U.S. thanksgiving is that the growing season is on average shorter in Canada than in the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

west asian arab turkic people in Canada Census

My question are what is the definition of West Asian according to Canada Census?; what is the definition between west Asian and Arab in Canada census?; and which category will Kazakhs, Azeris, Uzbeks, Turkmens and Kyrgyz fall under? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.170 (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs would actually be, you know, Arabs. They are but one ethnicity among dozens in West Asia, and Arabs are also native to large swaths of North Africa. I suppose technically some Arabs are a subcategory of West Asian, so would be Israelis, and so would be Kurds, and so would be Iranians, and so would be Turks, and none of those ethnicities bears any cultural or linguistic connection to Arabs, except Islam. Of the two categories you consider, being "West Asian" and "Arabic", none of the listed ethnicities fit in either category. I would describe most of them as "Central Asian", though I am not entirely sure how the Canadian census would handle it. --Jayron32 05:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics Canada lists it as "West Asian (e.g., Iranian, Afghan, etc.)" (at least for the 2006 census). "Arab" is a separate category. It doesn't elaborate any further than that, so the definition is left to those who choose that category and want to give more details about their origin. For 2006, people who chose "West Asian" identified themselves further as Afghan, Armenian, Assyrian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, Iranian, Israeli, Kurd, Pashtun, Tatar, and Turk. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incident in the film 21-87

In the film 21-87, viewable here, there is a quick sequence of shots from about 3:06 to 3:15 where a man's speech is interrupted by someone at the edge of the stage. The man is pulled onto the stage and beaten by the speaker's cohorts. The speaker and those sharing the stage with him are dressed in military/police-type outfits. Does anyone know when and where this incident took place? (Warning: The film contains possibly disturbing images.)--Cam (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beothics of Newfoundland

I have an extremely old book entitled YOUNG ENGLAND ILLUSTRATED MAGAZINE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE and in this book (which is falling apart it is so old) There is an article entitled "The aborigines of Newfoundland which speaks about the customs and life of the Beothic tribe part of which says "About the same time but then too late, proclamations of the beothics were issued by the British Government. The earliest official notice of the aborigines is in the form of a proclamation bearing the date 1760. This proclamation seems to have been repeated on the accession of each new Governor" etc. The article speaks of the Beothics method of catching deer, their origin and their customs. I was wondering how I would get this to you. and whether it would be wiser to type it out or send the article to you- it has no author on the article. that is if you are interested, I dont mind photocopying and sending these pages to you. carmel callaghan (email address removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.91.142 (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on the Beothuk people. You are welcome to add verifiable information there.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly it would be better suited for our sister project Wikisource. They would gladly accept a typed in version of the magazine. Or you could upload a scan of it to Wikimedia Commons.--Saddhiyama (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the publication you have is the one referred to in our article Young England magazine, it probably isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia. It would be good for Wikisource, though, as said above. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help in locating poster

I need help with finding a WWII poster to purchase. It's described as a sailor is carrying his gear and flashing the 'Victory' sign while smiling. The text reads "If You Can't Go Across..Come Across! Buy War Bonds". Where's a good place to start? I don't want to spend a lot of money though.24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found an online version here, from this page (left column, about 3 quarters down). They give no source, but a contact address. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried checking the latter source you referred me to. But when I checked the items for sale, the poster wasn't advertised.24.90.204.234 (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi dancing photo circulating the web

There's a photograph circulating on the Facebook website allegedly of Gandhi cutting a caper with a European lady. I wonder if the photograph has really Gandhi. The muscular hands and fluffy clothing makes me suspect its genuineness. I uploaded the image here for people who care to look at it. --117.253.199.248 (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ran it through Tineye and got no results, which makes me suspicious as well. If it were genuine it would surely be a famous photo and would have appeared on countless websites by now. --Viennese Waltz 09:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Gandhi was educated as a barrister in England. Our article says "Although Gandhi experimented with adopting "English" customs—taking dancing lessons for example" so it's quite possible that this photo relates to this time in his life. When the rest of the world became aware of him, he was quite an old man.--TammyMoet (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He left England when he was 22 – the person in this picture is much older than that – and he didn't wear the dhoti in England. --Viennese Waltz 10:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he did revisit Europe in 1931. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EDIT CONFLICT)You're forgetting that he visited France and England in September 1931, for the Second Round Table Conference. When in London, he slept on the floor of a terraced house in the East End. He was invited to tea at the Palace, and when asked about his unorthodox dress for the occasion, he replied that "His Majesty was wearing more than enough clothes for both of us". He visited Darwen in Lancashire to talk to the textile workers who had been laid-off by his boycott in India. He also met Charlie Chaplin while he was here, so it's quite possible that he was invited to a formal social gathering too. You can see lots of newsreel of his time in England on YouTube, together with some toe-curling condescending commentary. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but my main point still stands. What makes this photo undoubtedly a fake is that it does not appear anywhere else on the web. A Google image search for "gandhi dancing" returns lots of hits, but none of this photo. If it were real, it would have circulated widely by now. --Viennese Waltz 12:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried that too. The itinery of his tour shows a number of receptions which are possible rather than likely. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP again. My suspicion was primarily based on the fairly muscular hands, which Gandhi could never have had, with his routine fasting and frequent hunger strikes. --117.253.190.190 (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, OP, remember that Gandhi made a political point of spinning every day (see here and photo here). That would make for muscular hands, I'd think. (I have no views on the photo, having had no view of it.) BrainyBabe (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an impersonator. I found the photo with its original caption by uploading the larger version to Google Images. The caption is too small to be completely legible, but my best attempt at transcription is "MAHATMA STEPS OUT of character as Gandhi is impersonated by xxxx Wxxxxx, an imaginative commercial artist at a lavish xxxxxx hall in Sydney, Australia. A dead ringer for the leader of India, Wxxxxx cuts a xxxx rug as he jitterbugs with a lovely xxxx girl named Vxxx xxxxx."--Cam (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was great Cam and thank you very much. It's now a virile thing among the Indian Facebook users. With your transcription I can read 'impersonated by' clearly in the caption. Is it possible to find out which blog page had that image?--117.253.190.190 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing what goes virile nowadays. Textorus (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original blog post is here.--Cam (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi u can check the image and more details at : [1]

Geographic western half of the Bronx not considered nor treated as part of the original NYC anymore?

Just in case and if I may, let me be clear, honest, and up front to you before I begin. Thankfully for me, this WILL BE my last question in the series of questions I’ve asked related to NYC’s municipal descriptions and make-up, and in addition, this will be my last question related to anything about or that includes NYC, so I too can breath a sigh of relief. After this, I have and will have no more of these kinds of questions, so I can say good riddance to them. For the record just in case, I’m not obsessed with this subject matter nor do I have any desire to be so. One of my interests, by the way, is big city / municipal politics and history in general. By the way, I apologize to you in advance if this question ends up being too long for anyone.

Now, let me give you some historical background to my question. As many of you know, New York City originally covered Manhattan only, but not everyone knows that it was until 1874. The area known as West Bronx was annexed to New York City in that year. The annexed area was known as the Northern Annex. In 1895, all the areas east of the Bronx River were annexed to New York City. An 1895 map of New York City shows how New York City looked like on a map at that time here. The rest of the Bronx that we know today was annexed in 1898 and the Bronx became a borough of New York City in 1898, but the Bronx was part of New York County until 1914. The Bronx then became Bronx County. Between 1874 and 1914, Manhattan’s street grid was extended to the western half of the Bronx although not perfectly partly because of the hilly topography. Many people in the area of the Bronx that were annexed to New York City before 1898 listed their address as City after their street address, so the western portion of the Bronx was seen as an integral part of New York City.

However, the New York City history of the western half of the Bronx has been reflected there less today in customs, practices, and in addresses than it was in the past. For example, some New Yorkers might refer to Manhattan in general as the original city by calling it “the city,” but the western part of the Bronx today is not included, but in the past it was as mentioned. Also for example, if I were to write to someone in Manhattan, I would write “New York, NY” in the address in part because Manhattan is considered to be the original NYC. If I were to write to someone in Riverdale, where an aunt of mine is moving to, or in any part of the western half of the Bronx, I would only write “Bronx, NY" as it is done in the eastern half of the Bronx that was annexed in 1898. Prior to "Bronx, NY" being separated from "New York, NY," the official and approved way was to write "New York, NY" for mail going to the Riverdale neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods in the Bronx, especially those that were part of “the Northern Annex.” You can find old letters that have been delievered to these places that say “New York, NY” before the zip code system was instituted in the 1960s.

On the other hand, NYC histories of the other boroughs have still been reflected unlike in the Bronx. Back to the address example, one would still write Brooklyn, NY in the postal address since Brooklyn was originally a city, and one would still write one of Queens’ neighborhoods in the postal address (“Flushing, NY;” “Long Island City, NY”; “Astoria, NY”; etc.) because they were separate towns before 1898.

So, why isn't the western part of the Bronx today not considered nor treated as part of the original and historical New York City anymore? Why isn’t that part of history been reflected in the western Bronx today? Thanks for your answers in advance. Willminator (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of thoughts: 1) Postal addresses don't always reflect people's mental maps. I doubt that a person from, say, New Jersey traveling to what is now Riverdale in 1890 would say that he was "going to the city". I think, in New Yorkers' mental maps, "the city" has equated with Manhattan for a long time, and before about 1900 mainly to lower Manhattan. 2) Counties do not count for much within the City of New York. 3) While the postal address of the western Bronx before 1898 might have been "New York, NY" for a couple of decades, the borough structure established in 1898 fairly quickly came to dominate New Yorkers' mental geography. It superseded what had passed in the western Bronx. The historical accident that that part of the Bronx had been part of the City of New York for a couple decades before the borough structure was created just didn't matter any more. Marco polo (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good thoughts Mr. Polo. Willminator (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the creation of Bronx County in 1914 may have something to do with the separation caused by the rivers. When the rest of The Bronx was incorporated into NYC they may have kept it all as just a part of New York County, but the separation probably made it easier to make another county and let the rivers be the demarcation line. 71.98.163.89 (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing summary judgement

No, not a legal advice request: I'm asking about Bridgeman v. Corel. Our summary judgment article says that a party may appeal a judge's decision to grant summary judgement. Is this true in cases where both parties move for summary judgement; i.e., could Bridgeman have appealed after having asked for the summary judgement? Nyttend backup (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our appeal article is a little convoluted. An appeal asks a higher court to overturn a lower court's alleged error in determination of law (as opposed to determinations of fact, which are usually untouchable). The appellate court can only examine errors that are properly before it, only those errors which determined the outcome of the case, and only if the case was unfavorable for the appellant. For instance, let's say two people were in a contract together. The defendant punched the plaintiff and said, "I'm breaching the contract." The Plaintiff sued the defendant for the tort of battery and breach of contract under the statutory maximum of a $300,000 claim in civil suits. The court grants summary judgment for the defendant on the breach of contract claim, but permits the case to go to trial on the battery claim. A jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff for $300,000. The defendant may appeal the judgment, but the plaintiff may not. The plaintiff won a favorable outcome and any error alleged concerning the granting of summary judgment to the defendant on the breach of contract claim would not have impacted the outcome of the case because the plaintiff received the maximum under the statutory cap on damages. The defendant, however, has suffered a monetary loss on account of the damages he had to pay. Naturally, he could not appeal the summary judgment ruling that resulted in his favor, but some other error concerning the battery claim.

The procedural posture is a little different in your example from what you may understand. The Defendant moved for Summary Judgment, and the Plaintiff moved for reconsideration and reargument. This gives the trial judge a second opportunity to consider alleged errors before it goes up on appeal. This is a less costly and quicker alternative should the moving party win as appeals can take years to resolve. The Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and reargument was granted. This resulted in a favorable determination for the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff's motion was, "I want you to look at the case a second time" which is exactly what the court did. The Plaintiff won the motion, but lost the argument. The 2nd Judgment was a Summary Judgment for the Defendant. The first Summary Judgment no longer had any effect, the second Summary Judgment superseded it. The first judgment applied UK law, which may have been error. The second judgment applied US law, not UK law, although it stated in dicta that the result would have been the same. Had Bridgeman appealed, it could not have alleged that it was error for the court to apply UK law because the court applied US law on reconsideration. The first judgment was no longer in effect although it yielded the same outcome. Gx872op (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly understanding your question. Are you asking whether or not they may appeal the decision to the appellate court (using appeal in its specific legal sense) or are you also including whether they may ask the judge to reconsider the judgment (which is technically called a motion to alter a judgment FRCP 59(e))? If it's the former it depends whether or not the summary judgment is a final order. If so it may be appealed. If it's the second question, then any ~~the losing~~ party may ask the judge to alter the order, which I think is what happened in the case you cited. Shadowjams (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant: could Bridgeman (or Corel, but that would seem rather absurd) have appealed the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals? Nyttend backup (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not especially familiar with the rules that determine a final judgment, but I think (again, far from sure) that the summary judgment is a final judgment and thus appeal-able. Gx talks about that some above. Shadowjams (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bridgeman could have appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.Gx872op (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]