Humanities desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

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.

July 3

Secession vs Declaring independence

Is there any substantive difference in the terms "seceded" and "declared independence?" --Golbez (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be interesting to see if there's a correlation between independence and success. But to answer your question, take a look at the language used in wikisource:Category:Declarations of Independence. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 05:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, "seceded" is rather negatively charged, unlike "declared independence" which implies some sort of legitimacy. Also, "declared independence" implies some previous aspiration and struggle for independence. The CSA, for instance, seceded from the US, not "declared independence"~, while the US declared independence from the British Empire, not seceded from it (like many other modern countries akin to Croatia or East Timor). Brandmeister^talk 08:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is that secession is only possible if the entity seceding is an integral part of a larger entity. For example, Western Australia could (and almost did in 1933) secede from Australia. It can't declare independence from Australia because it is not dependent on her; that's because it is an integral part of her. The pips of an orange cannot declare independence from the orange, but they can secede. OTOH, a colony can declare independence from the mother country, because it is by definition dependent on her; but it cannot secede, because it is not an integral part of her. Not for all purposes, anyway. Puerto Rico is a territory of the USA; its people are treated like other Americans for some purposes, but not all purposes. It can declare independence. The people of Texas, otoh, are Americans for all purposes, by right, and they can secede. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But on the other hand, Texas didn't secede from Mexico - it declared independence from it. And some CSA secession declarations actually specify they were declarations of independence. I would agree that you can't secede from a colonizing power, but that doesn't mean you can't declare independence from a nation you're part of. --Golbez (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the Texas portion of Mexico seceded. But that situation is complicated. Texas continued to be at war with Mexico and within itself, until the Mexican War put an end to most of the hostilities some ten years after Texas' declaration of independence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Secede" etymologically and as a matter of legal history means to "withdraw" from a union of some sort. Technically it is only possible to secede if you are a smaller entity within the larger entity, so it makes sense to talk about a state seceding from a federation, but it wouldn't make sense for some disparate bits of territory to "secede" from the country. A "declaration of independence" doesn't have this layer of meaning and so can probably be used whether or not the thing doing the declaration is an entity in itself. So Western Australia could be described as "seceding", and it could plausibly have a "declaration of independence" too, whereas if the city of Coober Pedy became an independent country it probably would not be described as "seceding". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing chunks of city

Searching "Vancouver, WA" got me this map[1], which contains a missing chunk highlighted by the green circle. If that chunk isn't part of the city, does it mean it belong to a higher entity i.e. the county, state or the federal government? Or is this simply a mapping error? Crudiv1 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a normal effect of municipal annexation. The city's original boundaries were farther to the southeast (around downtown), and they gradually annexed territory farther northwest, but for whatever reason they decided not to annex the chunk highlighted by the green circle. This spot is part of the county, but because Vancouver isn't an independent city, the city is part of the county as well; this chunk is merely unincorporated. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the map on page 3 of this PDF shows that the area surrouding the "missing chunk" was annexed sometime from 1991 to 2000 inclusive. But the document is mainly about possible new annexations and does not talk about the details of past annexations. If you look at aerial views of the city, e.g. by clicking "Earth" in Google Maps, you'll see that the "missing chunk" seems to correspond to some sort of industrial facility with a loop of railroad tracks around it, but it's hard to tell what it is and it's certainly not obvious what distinguishes it from the surrounding land that was annexed. --69.159.60.163 (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page 8 of the PDF lists the site as "Alcoa", for what it's worth. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That PDF seems to contradict other information: a map from 2009 shows the site as part of Vancouver and a 2009 document on the Port of Vancouver USA website says it was annexed via Ordinance no. M-3914. It was "purposefully left out" when the surrounding area was annexed in 1994.[2] Peter James (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such things aren't uncommon. See the map of Los Angeles's boundaries for a much crazier map. As a So Cal resident I can tell you that a lot of people who live here don't understand very well where exactly they live. It's common to just say "I'm from LA" if you're from anywhere in the Greater Los Angeles Area. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Columbus, the Ohio state capital, in File:Map of Franklin County, Ohio highlighting Columbus.svg — the city extends into two other counties, and it's adjacent or almost adjacent to another three. Since Ohio has townships, the unincorporated parts of Columbus-area townships have rather bizarre boundaries; consider the map of Franklin Township (the boundaries are of 2000) for an extreme example, and Clinton Township (two blobs with tiny islands elsewhere) or Truro Township (a few islands in the northeast, but the southwestern island is where virtually everyone lives) for other examples. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me think of German duchies. I often wonder what traces exist of their former boundaries! —Tamfang (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is more like enclaves and exclaves, and you can see a great example here of enclaves within enclaves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Nassau#/media/File:Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-en.svg Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who created List of enclaves and exclaves —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator of the proto-General Assembly of the Church of Scotland

Not having access to the 1908 edition of the Church of Scotland Yearbook (I'm not finding it with Google), and not knowing where else to look, I come here. List of Moderators of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, with its early centuries based heavily on the 1908 edition, claims that both John Row and Patrick Adamson were moderators of the April 1567 meeting of the Assembly. Obviously you can't have two people in the chair at the same time (it's the presiding officer of the meeting, the equivalent of the Speaker), so the situation is rather confusing. Did one replace the other partway through, or was there conflict over which one was lawfully the moderator (like the Old Court – New Court controversy centuries later in a different context), or is there simply a mistake here? Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proceedings of the meeting are available online, here, and indicate that Row was the moderator in April 1576. Warofdreams talk 15:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Adamson; thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find a romance book

My wife reads romances. In 2011 she read a book after she downloaded it in Kindle. We have a joint Amazon account and since then I've downloaded many books on it too. Now she cannot find it presuming somehow the book has been deleted. She does not remember the author's name or the title, only some characters and the plot. This is what she recalls:

I remember in the book I'm looking for, 3 mayor characters: a nobleman/scientist Edmond/Edmund/Edward (?), his 17 year old niece (Jane?), a very strong character; David, an 18 year old boy who works in the stables (both he and the niece are horse-crazy), handsome and much too refined for a stable boy (his origins unknown). Edward is teaching them both. By the end of the book, by sheer accident, it was discovered that David's relatives are "noble" people leaving nearby.

My wife says the book was well written in excellent English and she wants to find and reread it.

I wonder if anybody could name the author or the title? Thanks, ---AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly A London Season by Joan Wolf? Tevildo (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tevildo: Thank you, but she said, no. She says she has most of Joan Wolf's books and knows them well. Besides it is a rural setting, not London's. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Less possibly, The Runaway Duke by Julie Anne Long? The names are wrong and the reviews aren't that good, but the heroine's father is interested in science. This thread on Amazon has some more suggestions for books with the same basic theme. Tevildo (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tevildo: Thank you, but she said it is not correct again. She said the duke or whatever the nobleman's title never ran away but as you probably understand, any suggestion is very much appreciated. She is also very certain about the names. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AboutFace 22, it may be easiest for you to track this down yourself. If you go to Amazon.com and select Your Orders, then Digital Orders placed in 2011, you should see the purchase of the book. John M Baker (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Baker: it is a great idea and I will definitely try it. I've done it before but not for the books, so now it is the time to use it again. Thank you. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the average height of a Medieval cathedral?

Does it matter much if you count the tallest one a city ever had or just what exists now? Cause some got damaged/destroyed by wind, fire, World War II etc. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What parts do you want to measure? Because some have towers and spires...we have List of highest church naves, which measures the top of the interior ceiling, and therefore ignores whatever else there may be outside. There is also List of tallest church buildings in the world. We'd have to go through the list and find all the medieval ones, but remember also that not all the parts of the church would necessarily have been there in the Middle Ages, since they often took centuries to complete. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Total height. You're right about taking that list with a grain of salt. It says my city's cathedral is 1878 but the article says the spires were added 1888. Should I change the list? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the Victorians slapped spires on hundreds of medieval churches. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And lots more fell down or met with other accidents, like the 149 metre spire of Old St Paul's Cathedral, which caught fire and collapsed in 1561. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

France too - see Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. Notre Dame had a medieval spire at one point, but Viollet le Duc gave it an even bigger one, because why not. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly confounding factor: There are several medieval churches that are now cathedrals (eg Southwark, St Albans) which were not cathedrals in the Middle Ages. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity [[User:Sagittarian Milky Way, I Googled the dates that you mentioned and came up with St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan). If this is the cathedral that you were referring to, it was already on the list, but an editor had given it a height of 339 feet (103 m) instead of the 330 feet in our article. I found St. Patrick’s Cathedral history & restoration facts which says "Height to the top of the Spires: 329 feet, 6 inches" (100.4 m). I have used this reference to amend both articles. Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One question which may need local knowledge: the source above says "The spires were finished in 1888 and were the tallest in New York City from 1880-1890 and the second tallest in the United States". Our list of tallest churches only has Riverside Church (1930) as taller than St Patrick's in the USA, so which church was St Patrick's second to in 1888 and which church overtook it in NYC in 1890? Google isn't helping I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that it means the tallest building in New York city until 1890, when the New York World Building was completed, and the second tallest building in the United States after the old Chicago Board of Trade Building until then. Warofdreams talk 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now added to the article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansplodge, the taller building was apparently not the Chicago Board of Trade Building (too short) but the Illinois State Capitol. It's 361 feet tall to the spire

, built 1868-1888 (I think). I can't find anything else taller before 1890 besides the Washington Monument (555 feet) and a chimney. Both aren't buildings and might reasonably be considered to be spireless. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so the "second tallest in the United States" can't refer to structures, but St. Patrick's seems to be now the second tallest church in the US after the Riverside Church. Can anybody find a ref for that? Alansplodge (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Mercedita

Can anybody find any information about this painting of the USS Mercedita (1861)? Like who created it and when was it created?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking the Naval History and Heritage Command, which is credited (as the Naval Historical Center) as the source of the picture? Rojomoke (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]