Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.



How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
 
Choose a topic:
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


November 10[edit]

Prince Valdemar of Denmark[edit]

Prince Valdemar of Denmark was offered to be the monarch of a couple of new found states. The information was removed a while ago. It originally listed Norway and Bulgaria. This search list Albania and Bulgaria. This search mentions Norway but only says that Nicholas II of Russia and Kaiser Wilhelm II would prefer Valdemar on the throne not that he was offered it. Looking for sources that gives more details than these passing mentions with the date and circumstances of each throne offer. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Bulgaria is November 10th, 1886. Searching for "Valdemar/Waldemar 1886 sobranye/sobranie" will give you lots of references. The most detail account i saw was in "FOREIGN". The Nation. Vol. 43. 18 November 1886. pp. 404–5.. Albania 1913 looks more difficult.—eric 14:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
For circumstances of each offer and Bulgaria maybe Hulme-Beaman, A. G. (1895). M. Stambuloff. London. pp. 107–115..—eric 15:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wied, Prince of Albania[edit]

Were there any expectations for Wied, Prince of Albania and his descendants to one day convert to Islam (the majority religion of Albania) had they stayed on the throne of Albania? KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The best English source I could find, Islamist Extremism in Kosovo and the Countries of the Region by Kolë Krasniqi (pp. 14-16) makes no mention.
BTW, the title of our article is a bit odd; by that convention, our own monarch would be Windsor, Queen of the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The move was made by someone eight months ago. I’m not sure of the historical usage myself. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
(EC) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) suggests the bit after the comma is potentially correct but the first part is probably not, it should be Vidi I or something else. User:Kj1595 moved the page, so maybe they can explain more (as I don't really understand their rationale). Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Did Adolf Hitler personally kill anyone?[edit]

Let me start by saying that I consider that Adolf Hitler was one of the most evil men that ever lived. (With that out of the way...) Is there anyone that Adolf Hitler personally killed. The closest that I can find is that as part of the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler ordered SS men to take Edmund Heines and his lover outside to be shot. I'm also excluding the Suicides (including his own) in the Fuhrer Bunker...Naraht (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There's Geli Raubal -- the exact circumstances of her death are a little murky, but there's not much doubt that, at a minimum, he drove her to suicide... AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
If Hitler had personally killed someone, or even if we had serious suspicion, it would be quite notorious. now, we can elaborate:
Hitler did not kill anyone, as far as we know, before WWI.
The way Hitler served during WWI precludes his killing anyone then (Nothing strange here, as The average soldier in the front -- and Hitler was in HQ -- killed nobody. Most of the killing was by artillery gunners, machine gunners, snipers, and storm-troopers).
No trace of him killing anyone before Beer Hall Putsch. This one is really significant: during the event, he did point a gun, but did not fire it, rather, he turned to the crowd, made a speech and got their support. This was in 1923, and never again did he need to himself use a weapon (other than his eloquence). He had started having the dirty work done by someone else. Gem fr (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Himself, as far as is known... but Naraht excluded that already. Sorry. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Enver Hoxha supposedly shot someone during a party or government meeting. The person had the temerity to disagree with Hoxha about something, Hoxha pulled out a revolver and killed the guy, then put the gun away and continued running the meeting as if nothing had happened. Someone told me that in school so it must be true (i.e. I haven't checked it). 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Mehmet Shehu was the man in question, although the shooting remains a plausible rumour: "In 1981 it was announced that he [Shehu] had suffered a nervous breakdown and committed suicide. The official story did not stand up and there were whispers in Tirana that Shehu had been shot and killed at a meeting of the politburo, perhaps by Hoxha himself" [1] The same article says that Shehu is said to have strangled Koçi Xoxe the interior minister, in 1948, although our article goes with a judicial hanging. Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

November 12[edit]

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force[edit]

The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is related to the Imperial Japanese Navy, but JMSDF has thus far intentionally avoided using any names previously used by IJN vessels. For example, though JDS_Kongō_(DDG-173) and Japanese battleship Kongō have similar sounding names, their names are different when written in Japanese.

Many historians and commentators have speculated on the exact reason for this move (atonement, war guilt, etc), but by the end of the day it's just speculation and not official. Has any official from the JMSDF or the Japanese government ever commented on the reason for this naming scheme? Mũeller (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be difficult to find, as the Japanese tend to ignore the war entirely. When they do refer to it, it's in an oblique reference like "the unfortunate incident". SinisterLefty (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Mũeller -- If it wanted to be sensitive, then it shouldn't have kept the old rayed flag (File:Naval_Ensign_of_Japan.svg), since that's something which probably a far higher number of people outside Japan (who aren't naval history buffs) would respond to negatively... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Don't they often name after IJN ships, but written in hiragana rather than kanji? Sample List of active Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships.—eric 14:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. My question is basically: "why use hiragana ship names rather than the old kanji ship names?"
The obvious answer that everyone suspects is: "to avoid pissing off other Asian countries that Japan previously invaded". But I want to see whether the Japanese government ever made official comments on the issue. Mũeller (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Admitting such a thing would seem so un-Japanese. Even during the war, they didn't say "We are going to invade your country, kill or enslave your people, and steal all your stuff". They claimed they were helping to create the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". SinisterLefty (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WHAAOE, in particular on Japanese ship-naming conventions. Our article claims that "Prior to the end of World War II Japanese ship names were rendered in kanji; after the end of the war this tradition was abandoned in favor of hiragana to separate the perception of the Maritime Self-Defense Forces from the old navy", but it does not provide an explicit reference for that fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
There may be something in The Japan Self-Defense Forces Law: Translation, History, and Analysis, but I'll let you peruse it at your leisure. Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Note also that the various ships called Kongō are named after Mount Kongō which is not a particularly belligerent name. Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the change was less "to avoid pissing off other Asian countries" and more internal, an outcome of the debate withing Japan itself post-war. Tho not dealing specifically with the Jieitai, you might be interested in chapter 4 of Gottlieb, N. (2016). Kanji politics: Language policy and Japanese script..—eric 22:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

prevailing party[edit]

Joe sues BobCorp and there are protracted legal maneuvers and discovery, ending up with an out-of-court settlement where BobCorp pays Joe a negotiated sum. Is Joe now the "prevailing party" under US legal doctrine? Does one say in vernacular that Joe won the suit, given that it never went to trial? In the types of cases I'm thinking of, BobCorp is a huge company, the discovery produced juicy evidence, and the settlement amount is multi megabucks. I.e. it's not a nuisance payout but a settlement that a sane litigant would only enter if (on balance of probabilities) they expected to lose the case and decided not to roll the dice on the likely damage award. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on "prevailing party" and the wiktionary entry suggests that it is only determined by a trial outcome, but I think I've heard it differently.

Usual disclaimer: not seeking legal advice. Watching two idiots argue on reddit about a news event raised this question. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The standard formulation in the popular press for such occurrences is that the matter is settled out of court. Many of these are civil law equivalences of the criminal plea of nolo contendere or the Alford plea, in the sense that BobCorp expressly admits no wrongdoing, but agrees to pay Joe. --Jayron32 19:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


November 13[edit]

Assyrian, Babylonian and Hittite methods of warfare and torture[edit]

I am interested into the warfare and torture methods of the ancient Middle Eastern military powers such as the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians and Hittites etc. basically “biblical military forces” if you will so. Is there literature about this subject? PDF documents or anything of the like? I have taken a look at the different wiki sites. While they do mention some of these methods, they do not go into details and while they refer to reliefs, they don’t actually show them (which is understandable, as many of them are rather gruesome).

Thank you for your answers!--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:18C8:AAB0:523A:9250 (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Assyrians were notorious for using raw naked military force to sustain their empire, without much attempt to hide the iron fist in any kind of velvet glove, so there was fairly universal rejoicing at the fall of Nineveh. I don't know anything about torture specifically, but as it says in the article, "The Assyrians had, by the accounts of their own records, been brutal rulers even by the standards of the time"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
War chariots were commonly used by those civilizations. Naval warfare was minimal. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare: p.81, Toward a Reconstruction of the Assyrian Tactical System.
The Campaigns of Sargon II, King of Assyria, 721–705 B.C., by Sarah C. Melville.
Alansplodge (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

securities acts of 1933 and 1934[edit]

SEC press release about a federal jury verdict finding these two Ukrainian guys violated section 27B stroke 6 or whatever of the securities acts of 1933 and 1934. It doesn't say anywhere whether it was a civil or criminal trial! It doesn't say what if anything they want to do to these guys now that they have been found liable! Although (I noticed it just now) the word "liable" rather than "guilty" suggests it was a civil trial. Is it intentional obfuscation? Does it reflect the absence of a long arm of the law reaching all the way to Ukraine? People often complain about the SEC settling cases instead of taking financial miscreants all the way to trial. Do they do these inconsequential(?) cases to keep up appearances while ignoring the big and serious domestic ones? Is this case actually something for them to crow about? I'm confused... 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Securities Act of 1933 (section 17 last updated in 2010) provides for enforcement by civil lawsuit in federal court. This is typical with enforcement by regulatory bodies (as opposed to law enforcement bodies). Rather than put you on criminal trial, the government is literally suing you. If it winds up that the defendants have no assets in the United States and refuse to pay, trying to extract that money from beyond US borders would be an entire process on top of this. In terms of consequentialness, I don't know, you'd have to decide yourself. SEC completes around 100 cases of securities fraud a year (out of 500ish cases total), and from my reading of the most recent annual report, the average SEC case involves $6 million in ill-gotten gains. So this one is significantly larger than average, but there are one or more cases of some kind every year in which the defendants are accused of swindling hundreds of millions. If I were to interpret things, I would say that SEC press releases seem to be largely exhaustive, in the interest in informing the public about a huge fraction of its activities. You'll note that URL is meaningful - this is the 236th press release they've put out this year. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Aha, I think you're saying the SEC is not an LE agency so it doesn't prosecute people. Ok, makes sense. But there are criminal securities frauds too (Madoff, Enron, etc.) so I guess those get referred to the DOJ? Are there stats for those too? Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Btw I had the impression that those Ukrainian guys mostly tricked a bunch of high frequency trading bots. I'd probably want to give them medals for that, but that's why I'm not in this business ;). 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Criminal investigations of financial crimes are usually handled (at a federal level) by the FBI in their "White-collar crime" unit, see here for a description of that particular function of the FBI. It's important to note that the SEC usually charges and takes to trial corporations in civil court; despite corporate personhood corporations are not usually defendants in a criminal case; a corporation cannot be put in jail and is only capable of paying financial penalties anyways; and the standards of proof in a civil case make it easier to extract financial penalties using the civil court system anyways. Individual actual people (those with brains and heartbeats and the like) can be punished with criminal penalties, so it is much more likely for them to be charged criminally. This document notes two things about that 1) That there is no inherent legal reason why a corporation cannot be charged criminally and 2) that in reality, they often are not, for some of the reasons I note, as well as many other reasons. --Jayron32 12:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@John M Baker: this is the stuff that falls squarely into your area of expertise. I'd love to hear your insights on this question. (For those who don't know, John is a securities lawyer). Eliyohub (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission can only bring civil enforcement actions, which can either be brought as civil actions in federal court or as administrative proceedings before the SEC itself. This was a civil action in a federal court - specifically, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which hears cases in Manhattan, the Bronx, and a few other New York counties. Following a full trial, a jury has found for the SEC on every count, which means that the defendants were found to have committed both market manipulation and fraud. The jury verdict did not address remedies. The judge has ordered the SEC to file any motion for remedies by December 20, with briefing to be concluded by February 7, so we don't know yet exactly what penalties will be exacted. The defendants seem to have submitted to U.S. jurisdiction, although it remains to be seen how easily the SEC will collect whatever cash penalty may be assessed.
Although the SEC does settle most of its cases, it still litigates quite a few of them. This was a fairly typical case to be fully litigated. There are various reasons why big American companies, especially financial institutions, tend to settle rather than litigate, including the companies' distaste for being put out of business. The SEC is very powerful, notwithstanding its lack of criminal enforcement authority. SEC enforcement actions tend to be more transparent than those of other federal agencies, and the issuance of a press release is, as Someguy1221 noted, far from unusual.
Criminal cases are brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, which usually coordinates with the SEC. In such cases, typically both criminal and civil cases are brought. I don't think the DoJ breaks securities criminal cases out separately from other criminal cases, but maybe there is some statistic I just haven't seen. The majority of SEC enforcement actions do not have associated criminal cases, even though theoretically securities law violations can be prosecuted as crimes. This may be because it is harder to prove a criminal case than a civil case; because a criminal case is thought to be inappropriate (e.g., when the securities law violation was only negligent); or because the relevant U.S. Attorney's office has different priorities. John M Baker (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

November 15[edit]

Electoral college[edit]

The President of United States gets elected by the popular vote and as well as electoral college. How about the governors of each state? Do they get electoral college or that is only for the Presidential election? Donmust90 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Donmust90: The president is only elected by the electoral college. Governors are elected by popular vote. RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
See United States Electoral College. The US Pres and Vice Pres are the only offices in the US that are elected by the EC. MarnetteD|Talk 02:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Mississippi has an electoral vote system for governor.—eric 02:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
That's fascinating! Apparently, to win the governorship outright, you need an (absolute) majority of both the popular and electoral vote. If no one gets both, then the House of Representatives decides (much as it does at the Federal level, except that in the Federal case the vote is state-by-state in the House).
In the 1999 Mississippi gubernatorial election, neither Ronnie Musgrove nor Michael Parker got either majority (Musgrove got more votes than Parker, but not a majority, and they split the electoral vote evenly). The House chose Musgrove on party lines. --Trovatore (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
In Vermont, a candidate for governor must receive a majority of the popular vote (i.e., more than 50%). If not, then the state legislature elects the governor. The last time this happened was in 2014. --118.160.98.98 (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Warhol[edit]

Andy Warhol wore wigs, Google says "Andy always wore those silver wigs, but he never admitted it were wigs. One of his hairdressers has told me lately that he had his wigs regularly cut, like it were real hair. When the wig was trimmed, he put on another next month as if his hair had grown" Why? Was he bald? What did his own hair look like and did he colour his eyebrows? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to ask new questions, how about you go back to the science desk and address issues raised about your Canary Islands question? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Inca Pots and Jars[edit]

Please see the link here... https://americanindian.si.edu/inkaroad/inkauniverse/inkaroadexpansion/road-integration.html Please would someone provide further information on the pottery at the bottom of the page. While suitable for storing water and other liquids, it seems to me that the spike (for want of a better term) would make it very awkward to put the vessel down. Most cups and jars today have a flat base to allow the jar to stand with stability. What was the purpose of the shape shown? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to ask new questions, how about you go back to the science desk and address issues raised about your Canary Islands question? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
This site[2] states the pointed base made for easier pouring. We don't have an article for Arybalo, but we have Greek Aryballos, i don't know if the names are related.—eric 12:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Eric. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)