Humanities desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 25 >

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.

August 24

Exhuming of Elizabeth Bonifacia of Poland

In the article it mentioned her bones had deteriorated by 1949, but her mother Jadwiga of Poland's article mention two earlier exhumations. How was the state of Elizabeth Bonifacia's remain during those earlier exhumations.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two earlier cases of opening Hedwig's (Jadwiga's) tomb were in the 17th and 19th centuries (not exhumations really: in the first case, no part of Hedwig's skeleton was removed from the tomb; in the other one – only her skull). From a cursory glance at some online articles, it seems that historical sources did not mention Elizabeth Bonifacia's remains in the context of those earlier openings. Most probably, the baby's cartilaginous skeleton had already decomposed by then. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown English royal burials

The above question has me wondering about something. There are legal proceedings ongoing about the ultimate destination of Richard III's remains, in which the judge said "The archaeological discovery of the mortal remains of a former King of England after 500 years is without precedent." How many royal bodies don't have a known resting place? This article from the BBC states that "a Saxon king" may be about to be dug up at Lincoln Castle, and Edward V's body is notoriously absent. Who else might benefit from the precedent that Richard III is about to create? Tevildo (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article from the BBC website with some comments that are helpful. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Harold II's last resting place is disputed. Although contemporary accounts suggest a hurried coastal burial, later accounts quoting eye witnesses, claim that he was interred at Waltham Abbey Church where a tomb certainly existed, but was destroyed at the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Alansplodge (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible remains of Alfred the Great may be tested soon (if it hasn't already happened). His (and his Queen's) original tomb in Winchester Cathedral was well known; they were moved to nearby Hyde Abbey which, after the Dissolution, was ruined and their exact location lost. Their bones may have been dug up and scattered in the 18th century, but when the Abbey was excavated a century or so ago, some possible bones were found and reburied in a nearby church in an unnamed and unpublicised, though not wholly secret, grave (which I guessed from extant references and visited some years ago). These were recently exhumed for potential testing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.246.168 (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between nerd and a hipster.

Help me to fuly understand what a hipster is by telling me the differences (if any) between a nerd and a hispter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.210.70 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hipsters are people who believe they are cooler than everyone else because they stay ahead of the "trends". That is, they used to be fans of all of the cool stuff "before it was cool", and now they aren't into that stuff anymore because it is cool. Hipsters deliberately and intentionally have tastes that run "against" the mainstream; that is if everyone else is doing it, they deliberately do something different; at least until everyone starts doing what they are doing. Nerds are people who are interested in intellectual pursuits primarily, and also tend to be uninterested in fashion in any sense; they also tend to be somewhat socially inept and awkward whereas hipsters are highly socially conscious. Nerds are not deliberately against the mainstream the way hipsters are, they just aren't overly concerned one way or the other. I'd say overall that it isn't hard to tell the difference between nerds and hipsters because in every conceivable way, they are essentially exactly opposite. You can read Wikipedia articles on nerds and hipsters respectively for more information. --Jayron32 14:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's nothing left to add to Jayron's response. --Immerhin (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But nerds stay away from the trends, not only that but they do stuff that never became a trend until now or problbaly will never become one. Also some nerds think they are cooler than others, assuming cool = better/good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.155.13 (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you're using "nerd" different from every single person who used it before you. You are, of course, free to invent your own language where words mean different things. But please don't expect the rest of us to catch on right away. In the meantime, the rest of us will use the words as they existed before you came along and changed all of them. --Jayron32 18:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This video has a nice explanation why many people dislike hipsters, and the differences between other subcultures thereof. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the UK have two houses of Parliament?

Why did the English Parliament split into two houses (the Commons and the Lords) in the fourteenth century under Edward III? --superioridad ^(discusión) 16:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to be a political archetype, in a way. It's the classic dislike of the overreach of the monarch. House of Commons of England explains that although "the burgesses were almost entirely powerless... the right to representation of each English county quickly became indisputable." However, "the monarch could enfranchise or disfranchise boroughs at pleasure. Any show of independence by burgesses would thus be likely to lead to the exclusion of their towns from Parliament." Also, Edward III of England brings out that "Stratford claimed that Edward had violated the laws of the land by arresting royal officers..." I would take a look at Plato's five regimes as a deductive approach. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superiority -- The English parliament developed from the English version of the old medieval "estates of the realm" which occurred in a number of European countries and regions. These were assemblies or royal councils usually organized into three parts -- one for the clergy/church, one for the nobility, and the third for prominent non-clergy non-noble city-dwellers and merchants. They weren't at all democratic by modern standards (the peasants, who were the majority of the population, weren't represented), but they provided a mechanism for rulers to consult with a range of important persons. Many of the continental European estates decayed during the 17th-century era of royal absolutism, while England went in a different direction. Against that background, the question is more why the clergy and nobility were consolidated into a single chamber... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bicameralism has the answer as to why it is an advantage. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US Supreme court majority opinions- how detailed do they have to be?

Are there any minimums on what majority opinions of US Supreme Court justices has to contain? For example, in a case which is obviously going to be split on party lines (abortion?), can the majority party simply write "'Cuz" in its opinion, knowing that it will pass regardless of their arguement? Or is there some law against that? Buggie111 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the Constitution about it, and since the High Court rules on constitutional matters anyway, they would be at liberty to strike down any such law as being a violation of the Separation of Powers. As a practical matter... when's the last time you ran across a lawyer and/or a judge who didn't love to expound at length? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The law in the US works by legal precedent. So, while in certain cases, a signed statement by a majority of justices might imaginably be sufficient, if the justices want their reasoning to have weight in future decisions they have to explain it. There are also various types of decisions, civil suits between parties, criminal appeals, challenges of laws; and such cases can be decided or remanded to the lower court. In most of these cases there will be prior decisions which have brought up specific issues which the court will be expected to address. For example, the court might remand an appeals court decision, saying that lower decision hadn't taken into account the Supreme Court's decision in some prior precedent-setting case, and might order the lower court to redeliberate based on that decision. There would be little point in a decision which said "A majority remands this case to the appeals court. Signed A, B, C, D, E". Of course the court could be arbitrary and not provide reasoning. At that point one would hope the responsible parties would be impeached. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "party lines" and "majority party", Buggie. Political parties take positions on issues, but I thought Supreme Court justices were supposed to be above all that and make their decisions based on legal principles and precedents. Or am I being very naive here? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, in my less-than-stellar education and news watching, I've seen some justices go out and chant the GOP/Democratic line.

If you want to simplify my hypothetical situation, let's say there are 8 pro-life and 1 pro-choice justice arguing over the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. Buggie111 (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what do you mean by these "pro" positions? Obviously they have their private political opinions about all sorts of things, but don't they leave their private politics at the door the moment they step into the court room? If not, are you saying the US Supreme Court is an international joke? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, they tend to support different doctrines of "Judicial interpretation": Originalism (Republicans) and Living Constitution (Democrats)... Thus they can probably say that they do ignore their political opinions, while still voting in accordance with them... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's often rather political and judges are usually appointed based on political expectations of them. See for example Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States#Judicial leanings, Ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices. Presidents largely nominate judges based on an expectation that they share the political views of the President and will vote accordingly. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an answer to the OP, no, there's no minimum, in fact a surprising number of orders issue from the Supreme Court without any opinion at all. Opinions are the exception. Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Shadowjams, but aren't you mostly talking about refusals to hear cases and other clerical issues? μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking mostly about per curiam orders, cert denials, and the occasional short opinion. That's a good point you raise though; I've never watched the SCOTUS docket closely enough to see the bulk of the non-substantial opinions. Shadowjams (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US Supreme Court is supreme, so nobody can tell the supreme judges what to do. Supposing they did uphold a conviction with the words 'just because we want to' there isn't much the appellant can do about it. Options would be congressionally overturn it, persuade the judges to change their minds in a few years, impeach the judges or a constitutional amendment. That has only ever happened four times in the USA.

In real life, that is quite simply never going to happen for a case heard and argued. Judges don't make stupid decisions, politicians do - for example, the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska (funded by Congress then signed by the President) or Illinois' infamous attempt in approx 1850 at setting the value of Pi by law (fortunately, a maths professor was in town and talked enough state Senators round to common sense overnight). The American Bar Association rates supreme judicial nominations on how well qualified they are. (Almost) without exception they make it to 'very well qualified' or excellent. By ironic contrast there are no constitutional qualifications. President and Congress can put anyone they wish on the Supreme Court. For another matter lawyers know they get paid by how much they say and write. The justice industry quite simply has no incentive to keep it concise. If they do, that's less business. --92.25.229.123 (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1854 Maps

Can anyone tell me who made these maps Hawaiian Islands,2 Georgian and Society Islands) located in this book? There are some addresses and names. Are they the map makers or printers?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name on the maps is Snyder Black & Sturn, 897 Fulton St. N.Y. about whom I can find precisely nothing. My guess is that they are the engravers. Alansplodge (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]