Humanities desk
< August 17	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 19 >

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 18

Everyday

Did Buddy Holly and the Crickets ever performed Everyday (Buddy Holly song) in public (I don't think any film survived but what about unfilmed performances)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.114.141 (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWZizDBTMO4 196.213.35.146 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial computer programmer/scientist/hacker

Still alive, and most possibly American. Relatively well known, but legacy rather infamous for uncommon Republican views. I believe he was involved in free software or Linux. Has a rather lengthy Wikipedia page. Thanks. Matt714 (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a scientist or Republican, but hacker and open source advocate Eric S. Raymond is well known as a Libertarian and gun rights activist. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I for one stopped counting him as libertarian when he (among others) forgot the whole "individual responsibility" thing after 9/11. —Tamfang (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Thanks. Matt714 (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ports

Can an engineer working at an airport, port or station, easily transfer into operations management? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.239.102 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should contact someone already working in operations management or someone at a school which teaches operations management and ask them directly. Generally, asking questions directly of people who are likely to know the answer gets better results than asking random strangers. --Jayron 32 12:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one such school with contact info in the right sidebar. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Woodhull

Did Abraham Woodhull have any brothers? If so what were there name(s) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.187.37.37 (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently two, Richard (1741-1774) and Stephen (b. 1732): see third reference in article, Abraham Woodhull, citing p. 6 (continuing to p. 7 for this generation of Woodhulls) in Americans of Royal Descent: A Collection of Genealogies of American Families Whose Lineage is Traced to the Legitimate Issue of Kings-- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another ref: https://spycurious.wordpress.com/tag/abraham-woodhull/ (Search for "siblings" on the page) 196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that my source does not show Stephen but has Adam. Guess I need to scratch some more) 196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Smith was not married when Stephen was born. http://www.longislandsurnames.com/getperson.php?personID=I0518&tree=Woodhull Perhaps... nah - no speculating.196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more sources you might try (out of time, sorry):

1. On archive.org, full text of Woodhull Genealogy: The Woodhull family in England and America by Mary Gould Woodhull (H. T. Coats & Co., Philadelphia, 1904), page 69 lists 5 children, including 3 males: Abraham, Adam, Richard - book cited at longislandsurnames.com (this is full page view of previous IP poster's helpful 'search for "siblings"' link at spycurious)

2. Double check with a message at woodhullgenealogy.com -- Paulscrawl (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen may be another branch - layout of Americans of Royal Descent: A Collection of Genealogies of American Families Whose Lineage is Traced to the Legitimate Issue of Kings needs another pair of eyes. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sawn in two

Do we have an article on the concept of sawing-in-two as a method of torturous execution? I checked sawing a woman in half, hoping that it would have a link to the "serious" concept, but to my surprise, the linked Hemicorporectomy article is about a drastic medical procedure. Nothing in the biography of Isaiah, who's said to have been sawn in two, and I can't think of anyone else said to have been thus executed. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death by sawing seems to cover a lot. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now linked from Isaiah and from Sawing a woman in half. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the Tiger Balm Gardens in Singapore used to feature a set of statuary portraying people being gruesomely tortured (I presume in Buddhist Hell). I recall (from 50 years ago as an 8-y-o) that being sawn in half was one of the activities represented. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Et voila!. Still pulling in the crowds apparently. Alansplodge (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Septuagint abbreviation

According to the article Septuagint, ${\mathfrak {G}}$ is "commonly used as an abbreviation" [for this translation, apparently]. It cites the article Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia as an example, but I don't see that there. If that is indeed correct, where does the abbreviation come from? What do the other letters ${\mathfrak {A,B,C,D,E,F,...}}$ denote; do we have a list? — Sebastian 20:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Septuagint manuscripts, "G" is not an abbreviation of the Septuagint, but a specific manuscript of the Septuagint, the Codex Colberto-Sarravianus. Other known manuscripts of the Septuagint are given letters or numbers, roughly correlated to the age of the manuscript. Alternately, This source says "G" is replacing "LXX" as the abbreviation for the Septuagint, as the "70 Translators" notion is doubted as being scrupulously truthful, and says that the "G" stands for "Greek", the language of the translation. This source indicates that one classifier of manuscripts, Wever, uses "G" for the source that others call "B", though I don't know which sources or manuscripts those are. Several sources also indicate that the usage LXX/OG (for Septuagint-Old Greek) is used to distinguish non-Pentateuch books of the Septuagint in Greek, which are believed to come from other sources than the Septuagint Pentateuch, which is believed to come from perhaps a single source, at least that's what I read from Here which notes the Pentateuch is referenced as "LXX-G". This source notes the use of "G" without commentary, as a parenthetical aside, but continues to use the traditional "LXX" throughout. This source notes both the use of "G" and "OG" as "Greek" and "Old Greek" as well. Putting it altogether, it seems that, where "G" is used to represent the Septuagint, the preponderance of the evidence seems to show that it usually simply means "Greek"; though it may also refer to a specific manuscript or codex of the Septuagint, depending on the context. --Jayron 32 21:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I'd also asked the editor who added the mention diff if they can remember what it meant, but perhaps that's not necessary now. Amazing references! 184.147.128.46 (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, amazing references, and a great summary! None of them contains the Fraktur letter, though. Jayron32's first reference about the specific manuscript seems a coincidence; they just used all letters of the alphabet until they ran out.

I wanted to alert the user, but noticed you already alerted them, thanks! — Sebastian 21:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]