Humanities desk
< August 6	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 8 >

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 7

Proposed Images

I have taken two low-quality photos (the cover and the inside) of a C4M leaflet that was put through my door. I'd like to upload these images to this article. I believe that they fall within the Fair Use category since the photo itself is mine, and C4M itself distributed this political leaflet widely across the country, free of charge. The leaflet illustrates part of the 'Campaigning' discussion in the article and does not have any images included in it (other than one of the C4M logos) that could upset any individual. Could someone advise on whether they think these images would be appropriate to upload? I am keen to put them up, but do NOT want to be banned for breaking Wiki rules. Thanks! Wander Woman (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted by Jenova20 who doesn't know the answer relating to article Coalition for Marriage but would like to. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best place for questions like this is WP:MCQ. RudolfRed (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try there ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mundane and worldly

I get confused with the sentence: "Footpaths are mundane in the best sense of that word: 'worldly',open to all." I'm not sure what "that word" actually refers to,"worldly or "mundane". And is there any difference between the two synonyms? I would be much obliged by your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.251.216.209 (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that it refers to the word 'mundane'. I know of three definitions of 'mundane': ordinary/plain/boresome; the speaker must then know of another definition. It does not seem unreasonable to me, for a slightly different perspective of the word to lead to that definition. Something that is beyond ordinary is exclusive, and by extended logic, 'not open to all'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries list a second, less-common meaning - of this world, as opposed to heavenly or spiritual - which is what the writer is apparently trying to say. I question whether that is a good choice of words though. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The words "mundane" and "worldly" started out as synonyms, but their usage has come to mean "ordinary" and "wise" respectively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so good sir on the latter word. To be wise, is to remove oneself from the worldly perspective, such as to become an insightful audience to one's own life. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Wordly' is the very antonym to 'wise', to be worldly, is to follow along the common path without regard to things greater than oneself. It is often considered folly - to be shortsighted. Wisdom entails to think: why should I bear a grudge, what does it possibly profit and to whom? Worldliness entails to think, I shall bear a grudge because such is my want, or rather no thought upon the matter at all. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, if you are instead implying the other definition of worldly - 'experienced', then neither does that equate with 'wise'. One can be an experienced fool, as much as it is possible to be an experienced in wisdom. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who should I believe? You? Or the author of that quote? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both, because I am not being contrary. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense, it's a non sequitur argument. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if it was contrary, then it will always remain so, chance does not play a factor. Secondly, even if 'might' was the correct word to use, it is contradictory to then also use 'would'. Thirdly, how does the self-evident conclusion relate? I don't really care for an elucidation on the above rather meaningless statement, however, I would still like to know why you think that I am contrary. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say you were contrary? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what were you saying? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do the definitions given here help at all? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To reenact the Civil War, while I have a 1/2 Asian background...

I don't hear anything about Asian immigrants having fought the Civil War because it was a few decades before Asian immigration to the U.S. took off.

Given that I'm 1/2 Korean, 1/4 White, 1/4 Jewish, I would look less the part than most other reenactors. Races can and do matter in Civil War reenactments for the sake of historical accuracy.

Would it be that I'd best reenact a Native American civil war soldier? (Since I could theoretically look that part?) If so, is it easy to start or do I have to succeed an audition? And what extra preparation would I need as a Native American heading into battle? (Wearing a feather/headdress behind my uniform hat, etc.?) And were Native American soldiers integrated into otherwise "normal" regiments?

If they weren't integrated into usual regiments, would it be acceptable to roleplay as a "runaway" who decided to abandon the tribal life to live the life of the white folk?

I'm not sure I could pass off as a "normal" soldier with my complexion, so I'll need potential solutions. Thanks. --75.39.128.83 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were quite a few Civil War veterans of Asian ancestry. This article talks about an effort to give about 200 veterans posthumous citizenship. Hack (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Voice of America article about (apparently) those same 200. According to the article, at least five fought for the South, including the sons of Chang and Eng Bunker, the original Siamese twins. Thus, you can authentically participate on either side. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Asian Americans#19 century names a few more names. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for Native Americans, check out Thomas' Legion of Cherokee Indians and Highlanders. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Native Americans in the American Civil War. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few re-enactor groups. Have you contacted any of them about this question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you look like, but if it's not too Asian, why not put on some makeup to make yourself more white? You're not an actor, and in an reenactment with dozens (hundreds?) of people, nobody's going to pay enough attention to you to notice that your skin color is wrong. --50.47.84.246 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Buffalo Soldier is interesting, particularly given the wide range of skin colours present in indigenous Africans. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seem quite enthusiastic and I would assume that would matter more than the colour of your skin. Astronaut (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I think of opera singers like Leontyne Price, Grace Bumbry, Mattiwilda Dobbs, Jessye Norman and others, who sing in operas in roles where the skin colour of the occupant is never specified but is obviously assumed to be white (such as an 18th-century Italian Countess or the wife of a 19th-century German Field-Marshal). It doesn't faze anyone involved, including the audience.

Curiously, though, when white singers play black roles (such as in Otello or Porgy and Bess), they do make an attempt to look the part. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coloring

Does anyone have any information about the practice of coloring in maritime commerce? Any clue will help me, and make thankful. --Omidinist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "International maritime signal flags".

—Wavelength (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but it's not what I'm looking for. You see, through this practice, custom charges at ports changed. It was used regularly by the agents of East India Companies. Omidinist (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell exactly what it is you're looking for. Can you give us a better explanation? And, I'd suggest that if you're searching the web, you may do better by searching for "colouring", the UK spelling. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a (deceitful?) practice called colo(u)ring, by which mercantile ships could cause a reduction in the custom duties they paid at foreign seaports. What is this colo(u)ring? Omidinist (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic (U.S.A.) only and not the term you're looking for, but avoiding a transport toll by misrepresenting the shipment content is the topic of the traditional song, "Rock Island Line". See the lyrics to the first verse. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good hint, though. Thanks. More help, please. Omidinist (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has "to colour strangers' goods: to enter a foreign merchant's goods at the custom-house under a freeman's name, for the purpose of evading additional duties". That seems to accord with the usage in the heading of the last paragraph on this page, for example. Deor (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you very much, Deor. Omidinist (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Flag of convenience what you are looking for? Ships fly an Ensign (a flag usually flown from the stern) which sometimes referred to as flying the colours - though "colours" is usually a military term rather than a commercial term. Astronaut (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful information. Thanks. But there's no mention of coloring in the whole article. Omidinist (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False colors redirects to False flag. Sounds like the same sort of thing as in the Naval Warfare section, just in a peacetime context. Except raising your true colours before entering a commercial port would defeat the purpose. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with True Colors InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Or any of these true colors. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I guess, for neutrality's sake. I didn't want to appear too deceptively unbiased on a topic like this, and my pro-Lauper stance is generally more tolerable than my Anti-Flag stances. No offense meant to Level 42, whoever they are. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE. Level 42. Quite a substantial article, really. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Type of shredder allegedly used by Saddam Hussein

The article Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder mentions that it supposedly was a plastic shredder, but I heard some claim that it was a wood chipper. Should it be mentioned that this shredder that probably didn't exist may have been a wood chipper? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss this would be on the article talk page, but "I heard some claim" is not what we call a reliable source.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He might have Saddam mixed up with the bad guy in Fargo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Way to Go Donnnnieeee" in The Big Lebowski, oops mixing film worlds here.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can cite sources that claim it may have been a wood chipper. Here, it has been claimed to be a wood chipper. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flin Flon: one city, two provinces

I always assumed Flin Flon (which is partly in Alberta and partly in Saskatchewan) was technically two cities because it's in two Canadian provinces, but the Wikipedia article is quite clear that it is just one entity. I only want to ask if this complicates its relationships with its provincial governments - not just by doubling the paperwork but in terms of conflicting policies or grants or laws and such? Do any provincial laws or anything make life different on either side for border? Hayttom 14:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

You may be thinking of Lloydminster. Flin Flon is Manitoba/Saskatchewan, and much smaller. The Lloydminster article has much more detail on the situation. Mingmingla (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's interesting, have a look at Beebe Plain, Vermont and Beebe Plain, Quebec: "Access to homes on Canusa Street is made through the Canadian border. U.S. citizens residing there have to report to their customs if traveling south, and to the Canadian customs if traveling elsewhere in Beebe." - I don't rightly know how it works nowadays, but when I was a kid you could go down that street and all the cars had Quebec plates on one side of the street, US plates on the other side, and everyone could cross freely into the other country. After 9/11 and subsequent increase in border security, it appears to have gotten a lot more complicated, with even a building that is cut by the border and which "Canadian citizens are not allowed to access [...] without reporting to the U.S. customs first, and then to the Canadian customs when going back." Effovex (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think that's complicated, go read China Miéville's The City and the City. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so complex, but a real-world example might be Baarle-Nassau and Baarle-Hertog. Astronaut (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Flin Flon" has not (yet) been categorized in Category:Divided cities.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it has.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if con artists commit flim in Flin, then flam in Flon? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lihyan

Hello,

what was the area of the kingdom Lihyan in 325 BC?

Was it just the region around Al-Ula or did it even extent to the Red Sea?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed/Unsuccessful United States Historical Territorial Acquisition Attempts

I know that the United States of America successfully acquired many areas/territories throughout its history, but in which cases did the U.S. fail in attempting to acquire areas/territories which it (the U.S. President and/or a large part of the U.S. Congress) sought? Off of the top of my head, I can think of:

The U.S. possibly being open to acquiring a part of (British) Canada during the War of 1812 if the U.S. would end up winning this war.
The U.S. being open to acquiring the Baja California peninsula in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but ending up letting Mexico keep it.
Maybe the All Mexico movement in the 1840s (U.S. President Polk opposed acquiring all of Mexico, but many members of the U.S. Congress might have supported doing this).
The failed efforts of U.S. Presidents Polk and Pierce to acquire Cuba from Spain (such as with the Ostend Manifesto) in the late 1840s and in the early 1850s.
The U.S. wanting to acquired much more of northern Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase, but ending up only purchasing a small amount of Mexican land.
U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant's failed attempt to acquire the Dominican Republic in the early 1870s.
The possibility that many members of the U.S. Senate supported annexing Cuba in 1898 (the Teller Amendment, which prohibited the U.S. from annexing Cuba, only narrowly passed in the U.S. Senate).

Which other cases of this am I missing here?

For the record, I am only talking about areas/territories which the U.S. wanted to permanently keep. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been occasional disputes, such as Oregon boundary dispute, and the situations with Maine and Lake of the Woods in Minnesota. Do those fit your premise? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Oregon Territory could work here if at least one U.S. President and/or a large part of the U.S. Congress ever supported trying to acquire it. What is the story with the Lake of the Woods in Minnesota? As for Maine, I will need to read more about it--I know that it has a dispute with British Canada over its northern boundary until 1842 or so, but I am unsure if any U.S. President and/or a large part of the U.S. Congress ever tried to acquire more territory for Maine's northern areas. Also, I prefer that other cases which I am missing here discuss relatively large amounts of territory, not very small amounts of territory. Futurist110 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Lake of the Woods. That is but one of many weird things about the US-Canadian border, including at least one still-disputed territory. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading in The Presidents and the Prime Ministers by Lawrence Martin (ISBN 9780770107901) that the annexation of Canada in its entirety was seriously considered several times after Canada's independence in 1867. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I previously read the Wikipedia article in regards to this topic, and I don't remember it saying that any U.S. President and/or any large part of the U.S. Congress ever made a serious effort to try annexing all of Canada after 1867. Futurist110 (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The government never seriously considered it, but the army apparently had a hypothetical plan for it (War Plan Red). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Walker (filibuster) was an American adventurer who had himself made president of Nicaragua 1856-57 and who was executed in Honduras for trying to set up American colonies with the goal of annexation.
At the time of the 1994 Mexican bailout 1994 economic crisis in Mexico it was half seriously suggested we buy the states of Sonora and Baja California. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walker could work, since a large part of the U.S. Congress might have (at the very least privately) supported his conquests. As for the 1994 Mexican bailout, I will need to read more on this. Futurist110 (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish vs. English vs. UK legal system in a bankruptcy or reorg situation (major)

RBC Group - a huge, systemically important bank, is legally domiciled in Edinburgh Scotland. If that huge bank got into financial trouble, what court (Scottish, English or "UK") would hear the case and administer it (i.e be in control of the resolution). I understand that despite the unification under the UK, Scotland never gave up its own independent legal system. If an individual in Scotland goes bankrupt, I believe only a Scottish (not English) court would preside. I also understand that 80% of RBC is in fact currently owned by the UK government. However, in in times of trouble the legal location is typically controlling for where the case is heard.

RBC gets into trouble - what regulator is in charge, what court is in charge, who bails them out, and who pays? That's the basic question. Are Scottish nationals in control of that, or is it really the English who would be in control?

A few short years ago RBC was the largest bank in the world and it remains easily in the top 20.

Rick (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main financial regulator for the whole of the UK is now the PRA, a part of the Bank of England (despite the name, it has UK-wide responsibilities). The bank would never be allowed to go bankrupt; jurisdiction for more plausible proceedings would depend on the issues involved. Bailouts would come from the UK, which is sometimes controlled by English, sometimes by Scottish politicians. Henry ^Flower 23:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rick I presume you are asking about Royal Bank of Scotland not Royal Bank of Canada. From memory RBS did own RBC years ago but there is no current relationship. Sussexonian (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courts are not really as intimately involved in bank failures as they would be in a firm's or individuals bankruptcy. Banks don't go bankrupt. By their very nature, (modern) banks are public/private enterprises and fall under the administrative agencies of the state. They are reorganized, and only when the banking authorities decide. As long as the Bank of England or the Fed, and the Treasury departments and central governments behind these central banks decide to not reorganize a bank, decide to keep backing the bank with (the credible promise of) government money, the bank can keep on going. Forever - or as long as the state exists. For example, the big banks of the USA and China right now and Japan after its crisis are/were all "in financial trouble", "insolvent", "bankrupt", "zombies". Would have been shut down/ prosecuted / reorganized under earlier / nominally valid but not currently effective regulatory regimes. (An essential difference is that the big US banks are now run as control frauds for their managements' benefit, the Chinese banks as vehicles for disguised state fiscal policy, Japan perhaps somewhere in-between.)

The Banking Act 2009 seems to be the current UK legislation, and covers Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland. So the financial system seems unified in that regard. If Scotland were to become independent, who would back an insolvent bank's liabilities and to what extent might become a ticklish matter of negotiation between the two governments. United Kingdom banking law UK Financial Investments , Nationalisation of Northern Rock, 2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package, UK Asset Resolution and Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 may also help.John Z (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]