Humanities desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 30 >

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.

November 29

Defending abortion without defending infanticide

According to here, Abortion debate#Fetal personhood in the second paragraph it says that one person concedes that infants do not qualify as persons according to the criteria for personhood mentioned in the first paragraph. The second paragraph says that defenders of the criteria respond that reversibly comatose patients do fit the criteria, but not infants. How could one defend the criteria in such a way without defending infanticide? I'm not asking for arguments in favour of abortion which don't use the criteria.Uncle dan is home (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given a certain definition of personhood, the difference between a patient in a reversible coma and a fetus is that the former is a once-and-possibly-future person, while the latter is merely a possibly-future person. Critics of potential-personhood-centered pro-life arguments often take the concern over potential-future-persons to the extreme and insist that one should conclude that even sperm and eggs would be protected under such criteria. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another definition is life starts at conception and potential human doesn't mean anything. Otherwise people should multiply as fast as possible till whatever the Earth can take (36 billion?) then instantly switch to replacement-level fertility cause otherwise they're preventing future lives. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the difference between an infant and fetus?Uncle dan is home (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a sharp partition, but a fuzzy transition. But just because it is a genuinely hard problem to determine where exactly the transition takes place does not mean that we cannot identify clear examples of one case of the other. A very early foetus does not meet any definition of personhood. A healthy young child certainly meets most. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the abortion debate is an issue of what social scientists call Framing. How you view the issue depends on how you "frame" the issues in context. "Should we kill innocent babies or not" is a different "frame" than "Does restricting access to abortion result in better health outcomes for society as a whole". The defense of legal abortion is not in redefining personhood to make aborting a fetus more acceptable, the defense of legal abortion centers around a more nuanced view which is that health outcomes are better in a society with access to abortion, and that reducing abortions (which is still a goal of the pro-choice crowd) is accomplished not by restricting access to abortion, but through education, access to birth control, raising the socioeconomic status of women, etc. --Jayron 32 20:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also the "infanticide argument" part of Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate. Possibly of interest is the Beginning of human personhood. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Protestant clergymen of Polynesia

Who was/were the first indigenous Protestant clergymen (i.e. Pastors or Reverends) of Polynesia? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it, but this book looks promising. --Jayron 32 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page notes that Pomare II was the first Polynesian to be baptised, which was done in 1819. That would give you a date to start looking for the first native clergymen; it would have been a considerable time after that. --Jayron 32 16:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know the answer for the Hawaiian side: James Kekela in 1849. But that still doesn't mean other pastors/ministers could have been ordained before then in other parts of Polynesia. I know the early missionaries had people they called native helpers or lay preacher but I'm not speaking about those.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moorish Revival landscaping

I am researching landscaping solutions that would complement a city's Moorish Revival architecture. This is somewhat complicated by the city's humid continental climate. Almost all examples of Moorish Revival architecture I find are from areas of either Mediterranean or subtropical climate, which means the plants are not cold-hardy. Can someone tell me where to look? Any significant examples of Moorish Revival landscaping in continental climate? Surtsicna (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the two articles you linked to find a list of buildings that qualify as that type of architecture and are located in a city that matches the coloured-in areas on this map. Examples would include Dohány Street Synagogue in Budapest, Neue Synagogue in Berlin, Vorontsov Palace in Crimea, National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, etc. If this answer failed to understand the question, please post a clarification. 184.147.120.192 (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mangareva and the Gambier Islands Annexation

I'm trying to find the exact date for the annexation of Mangareva and the Gambier Islands but it seems there are two different ones reported: 21 February 1881 when the island chiefs and Henri Isidore Chessé signed an agreement and then another date "23 February 1881" which seems to be a revision of the existing native law code. My confusion with this is why did annexation dated to the latter date instead, These are the two sources I've been using [1] and [2]. However there are more ones out there. Please someone with the knowledge of French or the patience to copy and paste French text to Google Translate, help me understand the reason for this dual dating. Some sources with the 23 February [3]. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say the same thing but disagree on the date: that the inhabitants of Gambier Islands were convened in solemn assembly and voted in favor of annexation. The problem is, as you state, that some say the assembly was convened on February 21 and others on February 23rd. There is no indication that the meeting lasted more than a day either, so that's not the source of the discrepancy. Both sources are relatively close to the events themselves, but still a few years removed, so it's hard to say which one of them is correct. --Xuxl (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source [4] confirms les habitants demanderent le 21 fevrier 1881 l'annexation a la France, and their wish was granted two days later. 81.134.89.140 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says the treaty was ratified by the President of France the following year in January 1882 not February 23, 1887.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some details which can be interesting.« An agreement [actually, a request for annexation] is concluded between the King [Bernardo, probably], the leaders of islands Mangareva (Gambier) and representative of the Government in Oceania [M. Chessé], on February 21st 1881 » [Les intérêts français dans l’océan Pacifique ; Paul Deschanel (deputy, at this time) ; 1888 ; p. 70-71].... « The annexation was pronounced on February 23rd 1881. » [Les colonies françaises, un siècle d’expansion coloniale ; M. Dubois & A. Terrier ; 1901 ; p. 1028] --Mistig (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know about usage of ancient buildings?

For example, How do we know that Colosseum was used for gladiator? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology and studying written contemporary sources.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, for instance, Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre, which mentions the works of Suetonius and Cassius Dio and Martial. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How archeology can tell us By the 2nd century BC the area was densely inhabited? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to read Post-excavation analysis, and this article from Slate. 184.147.120.192 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that we don't know is exactly how the Colosseum's awning or velarium worked, which sheltered the audience from the sun. There are a few tantalising hints by classical writers and the physical remains on the top tier, but nobody really knows for sure how the vast opening at the top of the amphitheatre could be shaded. [5] [6] Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Presidential Election

How did Hillary Clinton manage to lose all three battle ground states and 3 of the blue wall states. I can understand splitting but going 1 for seven?68.191.203.98 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The polls got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not even very wrong. National polls were wrong by about 2%, which as it happened was enough to flip many battlegrounds and a few of the less secure traditionally Democratic states. [7] It's not magic, a more popular candidate will win more states. This year the polling was off which gave many Clinton supporters a false sense of confidence, but historically pollsters often make systematic errors of a few percentage points by misjudging who is going to turn out to vote. Dragons flight (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this year the more popular candidate won less states. Clinton was more popular by 1.7%, well north of 2,000,000 more votes. She only won 20 states + DC, or 21/51. Trump, with less votes, won 31/51 states and 306/538 electoral votes. The reason for that is that a vote in California (the most populous state) is only worth 1/4th of a vote in Wyoming (the least populous state). You can dominate the electoral college by appealing to the low-population rural states, which is what Trump did, because the voters in those states "count" more towards the presidential election than do the voters in high-population, more urban states. See here for a breakdown of what a person in each state is "worth" to the electoral college process, and here for a more broad-based social analysis of how Trump won. That analysis seems to show that the difference was in Rust Belt voters who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and switched to Trump in 2016, which pushed former Great Lakes Region states, traditionally Democratic strongholds, into the Red camp. --Jayron 32 18:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, Clinton won the popular vote. In my head, I was actually thinking something along the lines of being more popular compared to expectations and thus winning more states than expected, but obviously I did not express that. Dragons flight (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she "won" the popular vote in the sense that she got more than Trump. She was well short of a majority.

In particular, her popular-vote margin over Trump was ~~less than half of~~ substantially less than the votes that went to Gary Johnson. It's not clear how those voters would have voted in a two-person race. Johnson was a Republican as governor of New Mexico, and in ordinary circumstances I would expect him to pull in more votes from Republicans than from Democrats, but on the other hand a lot of the votes Johnson got from Republicans might have been from Republicans who would never have voted for Trump ever ever ever. So it's a little hard to say. --Trovatore (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many times did she go to these states to campain, compare to Donald Trump, after the conventions? Dja1979 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the final weeks (not sure about right after the convention) she did relatively little campaigning in those states, with some outlets (maybe unreliably) reporting that there was major conflict within the Clinton organization because of that. Bill Clinton purportedly got into a big argument with Hillary's campaign management, saying they were making bad calls by staying out of those places. (Although Hillary herself didn't campaign much there, Bill made multiple appearances on her behalf). The usual narrative about the rust belt is that people there blamed its economic decline since the 1990s on NAFTA, a trade agreement signed by Bill when he was president, that was seen as exporting jobs to Mexico. Trump campaigned hard on a protectionist platform opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and that gained him considerable support in the midwestern industrial (rust belt) states. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium - Netherlands land swap

This article indicates that the final impetus for the land swap between the two countries is linked to an investigation, and the explanation includes how very difficult it was for the Belgian officials to cross the river by boat. I live in New Jersey, and if the Maas River is anything like the East River or the Hudson River, I don't understand what the big deal is. What is this major obstacle or crossing a river all about? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article links [8] which says "no proper landing zone for boats or equipment coming in by water" and "You had to jump from the boat onto the shore. You needed to be in shape for this." They are not building shore facilities for a few acres. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such transfers are actually not uncommon in order to make things easier for law enforcement, and especially when rivers change course. For example, check out this book which mentions a 1950 land swap between the US states of Kansas and Missouri for exactly this reason. Blythwood (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial evolution of the United States mentions several such changes. There's also the dozens of transfers between the U.S. and Mexico required when the Rio Grande gets straightened or floods. On the other hand, sometimes no one wants to change - for example, Carter Lake, Iowa, is on the west side of the Missouri and seems to have no desire to join Nebraska. --Golbez (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are MANY such locations in the U.S. where land swaps never occurred, not just Carter Lake, but also places like Kaskaskia, Illinois and Corona, Tennessee and the Kentucky Bend and Marble Hill, Manhattan, and many others. --Jayron 32 04:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Kentucky Bend is different; that simply stems from the definition of Kentucky being "the area above a certain line, on this side of the Mississippi". They didn't realize the Mississippi curled back across that line a couple of times. Similar to Point Roberts, Washington, though in that case they did appear to know the coastline crossed the border more than once and simply let it be. --Golbez (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 49° survey would seem to have started at Point Roberts, given that the border monuments are numbered from there. —Tamfang (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about odd borders and law enforcement problems, incidentally, reminds me of the slightly off-topic Yellowstone Murder Zone. Blythwood (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]