Humanities desk
< November 8	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 9

Bourgogne

Confronting two maps here on Wikipedia showing Burgundian possessions, I realized that there are a few differences (for example in Picardie, Nevers, Rethel, county and duchy of Burgundy). I'm sure both are accurate, they are probably simply referring to two different dates. That's not a problem. What I would like to know is if the second one ("La France en 1477") shows Burgundian territories while Charles the Bold was still alive or instead it depicts how his possessions looked after he was dead. I have no idea if there were territorial changes after his reign. Can you help me? The maps are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_Haus_Burgund_4_EN.png & https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_France_1477-fr.svg 79.13.167.156 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colin McEvedy says that France tried to seize his lands after his death and defeat at the battle of Nancy, and did take geographic Burgundy (near modern Switzerland), but Mary of Burgundy saved most of the Netherlands by marrying a Hapsburg. AnonMoos (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Election Day in the USA - Why does the statute use such odd language to set the date?

The Federal Government (USA) sets Election Day as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November". Why would they use such convoluted and unnatural language? Why not use a more direct date, such as "the first Tuesday in November" ... or "the second Tuesday in November"? Is there any rationale behind this? The only thing I can deduce is that "they" didn't want it to land on the first of the month. Why would that be important? Or is there some other reason behind this? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the legal terminology way of specifying the range of calendar dates of an event that always falls on the same day of the week. According to the UK Easter Act 1928, Easter would occur on the "Sunday following the second Saturday in April"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first day of the month might have been avoided because of the little financial flurry (receiving monthly wages, paying monthly rents etc) traditionally associated with the end of one month and the beginning of the next (to some degree still today). AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This explains it well. It has nothing to do with avoiding the first of the month, but rather it was done to harmonize with an earlier law that required the election to be held no sooner than 34 days away from the meeting of the electoral college, which at the time met on the first Wednesday in December. In years where the first Tuesday is November 1, this causes the election day to fall outside the 34-day mandate, so ONLY in years where Tuesday is November 1, election day is on November 8. In all other years, it's the first Tuesday. The "First Tuesday after the First Monday" language makes that happen. Notably, this is now an anachronistic schedule, as the law requiring the 34 days was repealed when the Electoral College meeting was moved to January; as of 1936 the Electoral College no longer even meets as a whole body anymore; but the law setting the date for federal elections has never been changed, so that's the way it goes. It's always on whatever Tuesday falls between November 2-8 inclusive. --Jayron 32 12:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral College in the U.S. never met as a whole body. Rather, the electors of each state held separate meetings, one for each state, going back to the first presidential election under the Constitution. In the original Constitution, Article II, Section 1, clause 3 begins, "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons ...." This clause was substantially rewritten by the 12th Amendment (ratified in 1804), but it still begins, "The Electors shall meet in their respective states ...." Furthermore, the electoral college meetings are not in January; rather, "The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct." [1] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They did so meet in January from 1887-1936. According to this "In 1887 the date of the Electoral College meeting was moved to the second Monday in January, in years following a presidential election; this wiped out the “within 34-days” issue. In 1936 another date change for the Electoral College occurred, and it’s the one we now abide by: The Electors now meet in their respective states to cast their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December." As seen Here, (PL 49-90) states that the meeting date was set as the second Monday in January. The date was moved back to December when the start of the Presidential term was moved back to January from March in 1936. I was incorrect about them meeting together, but the dates I cited were accurate. --Jayron 32 18:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Day on 11/1 also contributed to why. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected link, for the All Saints' Day reference: [2]. Thanks, all! Very helpful! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible for the URL to change just by scrolling down without leaving the webpage? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. When I clicked that link that you posted ... this is what I got: [3]. The page is entitled How Does the Electoral College Work?. That page had no mention of All Saints' Day, whatsoever. However, on that page, on the left-hand side, at the top, it says: "Popular on Britannica - 1. Why Are U.S. Elections Held on Tuesdays?" When I clicked on that, it brought me to this page: [4]. That page is entitled Why Are U.S. Elections Held on Tuesdays?. And on that page, they mention All Saints' Day, in the fourth paragraph down. But, I have no idea of how the computer / internet / web does all the "behind-the-scenes" operations. Thanks again! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is done using Java Script. When a user scrolls down a page and page shows a different content (news/story) compared to content on top of page, this technique is used to change the URL in browser address bar. With this, when user selects option to share the content with friend, the URL corresponding to the content being viewed is shared so that friend will directly see the relevant content (instead of having to scroll down many times over to get to right content; and friend may actually give up if relevant content is not visible upfront). manya (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

"Ranked choice voting" in Nevada?

What does the Change in the election Law of Nevada mean? Ranked Choice in Primaries or in States election? Sorry, I'm not American, but I want to know. 2A02:908:424:9D60:0:0:0:F38B (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most in the U.S. probably have little idea about it, since it only exists in a few jurisdictions. We have a disambig. page Ranked-choice voting... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the possible results? 2A02:908:424:9D60:0:0:0:F38B (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your question? --Jayron 32 13:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 different articles. Which one? 2A02:908:424:9D60:0:0:0:F38B (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the United States has predominantly single-winner districts (each member of the House of Representatives is elected separately, for instance), I would guess that instant-runoff voting would be the one you would need to read. If there are any multi-winner elections in Nevada (school boards are a common example in the US), those would be under single transferable vote rules. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primaries would be contested between all candidates instead of separate primaries for each party. The top five finishers in the primary (regardless of party affiliation) would advance to the general election. In the general election, voters would rank the candidates in order of preference. At least, that's what the NY Times is saying: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-nevada-question-3-establish-open-primaries-and-ranked-choice-voting.html --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is the same system currently in use in Alaska. See 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska which explains it a bit. --Jayron 32 19:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different perspective on Language and Ethnic Identity

In my neck of the woods (Spain) language is almost equal to ethnic identity. Being from the country/region/province implies speaking like all other people who grew up there. Although some people might concentrate more on their regional identity (Catalonia, Galicia, Basque Country for example) than on a national Spanish identity, the rule of language being the heaviest weight on identity still holds true, since mostly also speak their regional language.

Somehow things seem to be more convoluted in other places and times. Ukrainian president, for example, grew up speaking Russian. Being Christian seems to have been a bigger chunk of how Europeans defined themselves. And in Africa things get even murkier.

Is there an area that of sociology, history (or whatever), that studies how these factors (language, race, religion, citizenship...) build an identity, how we divide between us and them, an how their weight varies? 178.156.103.198 (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism studies. Xuxl (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ethnic studies, or more broadly Sociology. --Jayron 32 14:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the disciplines, isn't there concrete work analysing comparatively how ethnic identities define themselves? 178.156.103.198 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Imagined Communites" by Benedict Anderson (ISBN 1-84467-086-4) is a classic book, and not too technical for a non-specialist to understand (though sometimes he uses abstruse delicate metaphors such as "pilgrimage" and hammers them home with relentless repetition until they seem to lose all meaning...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term for the formation of an ethnic group is ethnogenesis, and would include all of the cultural markers that a group identifies with, including (but not limited to), race, language, music, geography, shared mythos, religion, etc. etc. The Wikipedia article on the subject is not great, but it does cite some sources, which maybe will lead you interesting places. In addition, using the word itself may help you in outside research. --Jayron 32 18:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...more broadly Sociology. I'd say anthropology rather than sociology, as long as someone didn't ask me to explain why they are two different subjects. As for how ethnic identities define themselves, the answer has to be 'it depends'. Not least because it is very often fluid and contextual. One generally doesn't have a 'an identity' in the abstract, but rather a whole series of ideas about oneself and one's kin, to be used as and when appropriate. Sometimes these coincide with relatively well-defined external concepts, like 'nationality', but very often they don't. And one needs to be very wary of taking externally-defined 'ethnicities' as the real thing. There are parts of the world where the external 'imaginings' of colonial powers have had serious negative consequences, long after the guys in the pith helmets have gone home. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is very important to note that ethnicity is fuzzy and fluid and always changing. Any one ethnicity can only really be understood in context; as to when and where it existed. Any one defining characteristic of an ethnicity is present in most definitions of most ethnicities, but none are present in all. As noted, language is often tied to most ethnicities, but not always; there are ethnic groups that speak multiple languages within the same ethnic group, for example, though rare it does happen. Because definitions are so fuzzy, academics working in these areas often use the generic phrase "people group" to avoid getting involved in the fuzzy boundaries behind what is an ethnicity, a culture, a nationality, or a citizen; these definitions don't always play together well. --Jayron 32 19:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal de Rohan

During the French Revolution and Napoleonic Period, was he remained loyal to the absolute monarchy and Catholic religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.245.233.18 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article you linked, it states "he refused to take the oath to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and went to Ettenheim, in the German part of his diocese. In exile, he spent what wealth remained to him in providing for the poor clergy of his diocese who had been obliged to leave France. On 29 November 1801, he resigned his nominal office as Bishop of Strasbourg and went back to Ettenheim, where he died on 17 February 1803." It seems he was at odds with the revolution, and did not support it or its leaders. It is unclear what his opinion of Louis XVI was specifically, but broadly he does not seem to have been in support of Republicanism. Historically, he would have been refered to as an "Émigré", which while it nominally just means "emigrant" in French, has the additional connotation of one who is a political refugee; in the case of the French Revolution, it pretty much always refers to the enemies of the Revolution who were forced to leave the country for political reasons. French emigration (1789–1815) covers some of the context. It should also be noted, tangientially, that a relatively small number of clergy formally supported the revolution; mostly they were clergy who came up from France's lower classes, Abbé Sieyès is perhaps the most famous of these. As a prince-bishop, the Cardinal de Rohan was distinctly from the nobility, his family had essentially passed the title of the Prince-Bishopric of Strasbourg from uncle to nephew for centuries. There's little reason to suspect he had any love for the revolution, and every reason to believe he was in full support of the Ancien Régime. --Jayron 32 18:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but maybe can you search some other information only to be sure? Thank you.

I thought I did pretty good finding what I could, given that I'm just some random dude doing this for fun. You can't please some people... --Jayron 32 19:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we're here to help but not to do your work for you as the guidelines explain.

That said, have a look at Cult of Reason and Anti-clericalism#Revolution for some good reasons why French priests weren't terribly keen on the Revolution. Both articles also have references that you can read. Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

Resolved

I apologize if this has been brought up before. Regarding Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999), I'm trying to upload images of all available works related to Marie Bracquemond to Commons. I've finished uploading maybe 80-90% of the works available in museums. The problem is that in the case of this artist, the majority of her nineteenth century works are in private collections. There is, however, one photographer on Flickr who somehow managed to either get access to these exclusive paintings (it's possible because they are a pro, but I'm naturally very skeptical). The photographer then uploaded a large number of them to their Flickr account as copyrighted, with their name and copyright in the Exif. They are not original works or photos, just standard shots of the paintings from somewhere, possibly from private collections, and possibly just from books and catalogs. The images on the site aren't that great, so I wonder if the photographer just took shots of the paintings out of an exhibition catalog or widely published book, which includes most (but not all) of these photos. My guess is that they did just that in some or all of the cases and added their copyright to the Exif. Regardless of how or why, am I allowed to upload these photos of old paintings from Flickr to Commons based on the findings of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which ruled that "exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality"? My understanding is that even though these paintings are in private collections, they are still considered to be in the public domain just like those in museums, and I am allowed to upload photographs of them taken by others, with or without a copyright. Any clarification of these confusing issues would be helpful. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask on Commons instead of here. We can't give legal advice, but Commons has established procedures for these situations that rely on Corel and that I believe have been worked out with actual lawyers and the WMF. So I would just do whatever they say is expected. 2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It’s just that I’ve had a bad experience asking questions on that site before and I was hoping to avoid it. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Try WP:MCQ. Folks familiar with copyright answer questions there and are generally friendly. They may know the answer to your question. RudolfRed (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]