Humanities desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

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 6

Siaosi U. Tukuʻaho

Siaosi U. Tukuʻaho was a Tongan prime minster and father of Viliami Tungī Mailefihi. His Tongan article calls him "Siaosi U. Tukuʻaho's". What did the U stand for in Siaosi U. Tukuʻaho's name? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Senate Election

Why is there a US senatorial election in Kentucky this year, this being at odds with the even-year norm? --Halcatalyst (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The election itself is next year. They've just started campaigning already. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly believe that. Aren't they going to have a vote soon? --Halcatalyst (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The primary election is May 20. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays there seems to be constant campaigning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Massachusetts. Next year's senate election will be our fourth in five years. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe they're campaigning so hard when the primary is nine months away. The Democrat is on the hustings too. I never heard of this happening in the states, as opposed to the presidential campaigns. --Halcatalyst (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been getting worse over the last decade. Hell, political pundits are already speculating who the new Republican and Democrat Presidential candidates will be, and that election isn't until 2016. With the ability for groups to anonymously advertise on behalf of / against candidates, it has become an arms race of political ads. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And TV ratings. Fox News Channel has become the unofficial propaganda arm of the Republican Party, and that helps keep the pot stirred. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Owned by Murdoch. Yankee, go home! :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

sarns

Does anyone know sarns as British paths, which are mentioned in Robert McFarlane's "The Old Ways"? Besides, one more question about the book: Is there any difference between holloways and shutes? The author says in another book "The Wild Places" that they are different names in different places referring to the same paths. But I can't figure out just why the author juxtaposes them in the second chapter of "The Old Ways". Your explanation would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.153 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarn seems to be a Welsh word for causeway or road, per Sarn Badrig and Sarn Helen. For holloways (hollow ways) see Sunken lane. Googling seems to show that Shute or Shute's Lane can be a name given to old sunken lanes (examples here and here). MacFarlane repeats his assertion here that shutes, bostels and grundles are all synonyms for holloways in different regions. - Ka renjc 07:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samoa was there ever a monarchy

Was Samoa ever a monarchy? Wikipedia's article claims it was until Malietoa Tanumafili II's death but the system of chiefs doesn't seem to resemble a monarchy considering how multiple chiefs live at the same time. You got sources calling Malietoa Tanumafili II a monarch and other calling him head of state (not mentioning any connection to monarchy) or just paramount chief. It seem really confusing. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all monarchies require one head of state to die before the next takes over. In particular, the article on Samoa says it was a Constitutional monarchy, which is one form of Monarchy that can have a fixed term for the head of state. RudolfRed (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to be the case and I read that part already and the BBC news article that cites that. From the article and base on my interpretation, it seems two paramount chiefs were chosen/elected as joint heads of state for life (can they be considered monarchs or non-monarchs) when Samoa gain independence from New Zealand and Malietoa Tanumafili II survived his co-head of state, and after he died the system became elective with only one head of state serving a fix term. To me this is really confusing because many sources call Malietoa Tanumafili II a monarch and not a monarch. How do the Samoan interpret the system between 1962 to 2007?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::To see the Samoan take, you could look at what Samoan newspapers said. These are the results of a search of the Samoa Observer. Looks like they called him both "Head of State" and "His Highness". 184.147.136.32 (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal definitions of harassment in Australia

I'm looking for a rough legal definition of what constitutes "harassment" and/or "stalking" in Australia. Naturally I am not asking for legal advice as to whether any particular behaviour is harassment or stalking, merely a link to a reliable source the might provide a definition of the term in a legal context. Ideally the definition will cover circumstances other than just "workplace", "sexual" or "racial" harassment. 124.148.86.40 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are eight jurisdictions in Australia that make their own laws. Which state/territory?
Sleigh (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Western Australia. 124.148.86.40 (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Criminal Code of WWestern Australia is available as a downloadable pdf here; once you download it you can do a search for harassment or stalking - at a quick glance, I can see both terms are used. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Interestingly, the only reference to harassment appears to be "racial harassment" (Chapter XI — Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred). Are there any Commonwealth laws that might define harassment other than racial, sexual or workplace?

Chapter XXXIIIB — Stalking does include definitions of "intimidate" and "pursue", which are sufficiently close to (what I was looking for as) "harassment" for my purposes. 124.148.86.40 (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! According to Criminal law of Australia, there are two federal criminal pieces of legislation. The Criminal Code Act 1995 is here and the Crimes Act 1914 here. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the Commonwealth Acts appear to define harassment either. Not to worry, I've got enough to go on now. Thanks 124.148.86.40 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sleigh, make that 9 jurisdictions (6 states, 2 self-governing internal territories, and the federal government). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK oath and pledge of citizenship

Here's something I've been wondering: Say you apply for British citizenship, and thus have to take the oath to the monarch and pledge to the country. Would it then be illegal to join the Republic campaign or voting "Yes" in the Scottish Independence referendum, seeing as those actions are basically the diametrical opposite of bearing allegiance to the monarch and loyalty to the UK?--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 12:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing an oath of allegiance to her majesty is a point of contention to some. See [1] and [2] for two examples. Gabbe (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom). However, in answer to the question "would it be illegal to either campaign for a republic or to campaign for Scottish Independence?" then you would have to identify a law that is broken if you do either of those things. There is no such law. (Compare perjury where you swear an oath to tell the truth in court, but then do not. The illegality lies in the fact that lying in court breaches the Perjury Act 1911 which states (paraphrasing) that if you lie while under oath in court you have committed a crime. The lying is the actus reus rather than the oath breaking). Valiantis (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a new issue in Scotland. Under the later Stuarts, the violent dispute between Covenanters and the Crown included their refusal to take oaths of allegiance/loyalty, while a related oath of allegiance produced the Burgher/Anti-Burgher split in the Associate Presbyterian Church in the 1740s. Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's no different from a civil/public servant who personally violently disagrees with the policies of the government in power. As long as he chooses to remain employed by that civil service, he has a duty to serve the government of the day to the best of his ability and put his own political positions to one side. But come election day, he has his democratic chance to vote them out. If a monarchy is abolished through a free and fair democratic process, that is an excellent demonstration of how a democracy is supposed to work. We had a referendum in Australia in 1999 on whether or not to become a republic. It didn't succeed, but before the vote the Queen of Australia said that this was entirely a matter for us Aussies, and whatever decision we made would be fine by her. The people who voted for change were not displaying any sort of lack of allegiance to the Queen; they simply wanted a system they believed was more appropriate for us. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love the title you used for the Monarch. So often, people forget that her "Queen of the UK" title is not really relevant for many people. --Lgriot (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The UK has about 46% of the combined population of the 16 Commonwealth Realms, so a CR citizen chosen at random has a better than even chance of being from some country other than the UK. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The oath or affirmation taken by new subjects of Her Majesty states "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law" [3] (the same wording, incidentally, as the oath or affirmation taken by Members of Parliament). Someone who makes this pledge is not contradicting it if they honestly believe that Her Majesty's successors ought to be elected Presidents. The words 'according to law' are also significant: the law can be changed. It's also worth noting that the present plan proposed for Scottish independence involves Her Majesty remaining Queen of Scots. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original or early/mid 20th century Brazilian capital building/presidential office

Hi all, ok did the obligatory Google and even checked out the Portugese wikipedia for this though I don't know Portugese. What was the pre 1960 capital or legislative building for Brazil? What was the pre 1960 presidential residence? I know Rio was the capital until 1960 however I can't seem to find any information or images on those structures. Thanks in advance!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 15:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the buildings you are looking for: The legislative building was the pt:Palácio Tiradentes. The executive building was the pt:Palácio do Catete. Marco polo (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marco polo, this answers it!

Resolved

^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Google Images, it appears they both still exist, or at least there are recent photos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will check, thanks Bugs!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is English the official language of the U.S.A?

I am not American, but from what I understand, a majority of immigrants to the U.S over the years were from German descent. So why is English the official language when independence was declared? --KuchenZimjah (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not - see List of official languages by state - the USA does not have an official language. Here's a previous discussion on the German question. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English is not the official language, rather the de facto language. Also, when the United States was first formed Germans were not the largest ethnic group in the country. Tombo7791 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear to me that they are now, or ever have been. "German" tends to be the ethnic derivation most reported on the census, but that's because a lot of people put "American", and I suspect that most of the "Americans" have a large percentage of English ancestry (though very few will have 100%). --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no point in the history of the United States when German speakers were more than a fairly small minority of the country's residents. Except for New York, the colonies that became the United States were founded by English speakers. A large majority of immigrants to all of the colonies (except maybe Pennsylvania) were English speakers. Even in Pennsylvania, the initial settlers were almost all English speakers, and, in most parts of the colony, German immigrants' children or grandchildren adopted English because that was the language of the majority. At the time of independence, an overwhelming percentage of residents were English speakers. This initial (English speaking) population multiplied rapidly through the 19th century. Each generation of German-speaking immigrants formed a minority in an English-speaking society. Almost invariably, the immigrants' children learned fluent English as children or young adults and in turn raised their children in English-speaking households. There was never a critical mass of German speakers to challenge English as the dominant language in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed New Sweden and Louisiana, Florida, Texas, New Mexico, California. Rmhermen (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of which were part of the original 13 colonies / states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. New Sweden covered parts of Delaware, NJ, NY, & PA. There some jolly little Europeans wars that spilled over into the colonies in the late 1600s & the Dutch said, I'll take Sweden, ja, ja. And the English said, um, no, & sent those Dutchmen flying as well. Well, the government, anyway. The settlers just couldn't pack up & go home. They had stuff. Can't cram acres onto a ship. ScarletRibbons (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was "colonies that became the United States", not the 13 colonies. Rmhermen (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 13 (British) colonies became the United States. The territories you named joined the United States. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the official language, as per that episode of QI! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The precursor of the United States was the Thirteen Colonies, which were British colonies. Their population was mainly composed of British settlers and black slaves, with a much smaller German population: "By 1776 about 85% of the white population was of English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh descent, with 9% of German origin and 4% Dutch." --50.47.84.246 (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wards of Zimbabwe

Hi. I'm trying to complete the redlinks on this page, but I can't find even the basic info to verify if these places actually exist! I've looked on several Zimbabwean government websites, but there's little info about (it's almost as if it's run by a dictatorship...). Can anyone help in just sourcing the existance of these wards? I'm happy to start turning the redlinks blue once I have the base info. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange. I'm only finding numbered wards, not named ones. I'll leave the places I looked at in case it helps - at least the next searcher can avoid duplication. Citypopulation.de (numbered wards in Bulawayo and Harare), 2012 Census (via the UN) (numbers only), and Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (numbers only). There is also the official Zimbabwe Statistics office, but I couldn't even get that page to open. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Yes, I can't get that last page to open either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to improve the Wards of Zimbabwe article rather than try to create hundreds of stubs which will very probably be deemed non-notable and proposed for deletion. For example, what significance do 'wards' have in that country? Are they just electoral districts used for sub-national elections (in which case they are certainly non notable)? Does each one have an assembly of some sort or a mayor/prefect? Do the boundaries change frequently and who fixes them? Is there a minimum/maximum population for a ward? All properly sourced of course. Sussexonian (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All populated places are notable. Let me know how your AfD for Matshetshe goes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]