From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< May 24	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 26 >

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.

Contents 1 May 25 1.1 Maronite Christians 1.2 Date pronunciation 1.3 Shigechiyo 1.4 W 1.5 If Barr were to carry the state of Georgia.. 1.6 AFTER AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 1.7 playing musical instruments without looking 1.8 knowing the law 1.9 Fed backed real estate scam? 1.10 Establishment of a British nationality 1.11 Escape to Palestine 1.12 Watergate's meaning 1.13 let fools contend

[edit] May 25

[edit] Maronite Christians

Is Lebanon the Arab nation that has Maronite population? and are French and English names the ones that Arab Christians in Bilad al-Sham keep because of their former colonizers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See our article Maronite Church. Under the heading 'Population', it even deals with your question about given names. Xn4 10:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date pronunciation

Now, we say something like 'its the first of June, 2008'. How did people say the date when Queen Elizabeth Tudor I reigned England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.225.139 (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In the time of Queen Elizabeth I, it wasn't very often necessary to speak a date, so people were a little more formal and would usually have said "...the first day of June". If someone needed to identify a year, it might not have been done with the year AD, so we see "...in the year of our Lord 1560" or else some other form, such as one with the regnal year. There's some evidence that years AD were spoken in full - "one thousand, five hundred and sixty". This old-fashioned approach survives in some legal and other formal documents. When George W. Bush proclaimed a National Day of Prayer in 2006, his proclamation ends "In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth." Xn4 10:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth I seems to have been smack bang in the middle of the calendar reform (Pope Gregory XIII). Since there also was religious to and fro, the Gregorian calendar might not have been in use everywhere. You'd have to check not only how someone would say the date, but what date they'd say. --Lisa4edit (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As it says in the Gregorian calendar article, that calendar didn't replace the Julian one in Britain until 1752. --Anonymous, 08:59 UTC, May 26, 2008.

[edit] Shigechiyo

Are there any Shigechiyos other than Shigechiyo Izumi? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 07:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Any at all? Almost certainly. But any other well-known ones? - none that are well-known in the West, afaik. There are probably other Shigechiyos who are notable in Japan but unknown in the West. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A search of the Japanese Wikipedia only turns up two others, one a fictional character and the other a band member (which could easily be a pseudonym). Neither has an article of their own. Searching on 栄千代, the only other spelling of "Shigechiyo" listed in ENAMDICT, only turns up an entry in a long list of siblings of a feudal lord. None of the three articles has a counterpart in any other Wikipedia. It's surprising because Shigechiyo sounds like an "ordinary" Japanese given name. Its components shige- and -chiyo both appear in a lot of other names. -- BenRG (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This Asiaweek article discusses an interior designer called Suzuki Shigechiyo - not especially famous, but they do exist. I'm not certain whether that's in Western (First name, Surname) or Eastern (Surname, First name) order, though. Laïka 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] W

Are there any real people named Wario or Waluigi? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 07:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one [1]--Lisa4edit (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If Barr were to carry the state of Georgia..

Given the completely hypothetical situation that Bob Barr or any other third party candidate carry all of Georgia's/any other state's electoral votes and leave the two main party candidates under the threshold of 270, what happens in that case, it gets thrown into the House just like if it were a 269-269 tie?

AlmostCrimes (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. (from the twelfth amendment) Algebraist 09:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But the weird thing is that each state delegation in the House gets one vote, rather than a simple vote of all members of the House. It's quite possible that a Democratic-controlled House could vote for the GOP candidate over a Democratic candidate who wins the popular vote. That no one has replaced these arcane rules with something more sensible is another dangerous manifestation of our Founding Father hero-worship. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Soapbox much?Edison (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Barr does not have to get the electoral votes from any state to sway the outcome of the election. If Barr on the Libertarian Party ticket gets 3 to 7 % of the votes(per present polls, before he has even campaigned), and if those votes predominantly draw people who would otherwise have voted Republican, it could make the difference in states which are traditionally close such as Ohio and Florida. An ill-layed out "butterfly ballot" made a difference for Bush in Florida in 2000. Edison (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If Barr's people carry Georgia, and they happen to hold the margin of national victory, they would certainly know about that situation long before the electoral college actually casts its ballots. There would be a very strong incentive for them to make a deal with one of the major party candidates, perhaps the one that would fare more poorly in a House vote.--Pharos (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If electors were pledged to Barr, but via a deal cast their votes for, say, McCain or Obama, they would be cosidered "faithless electors" and would possibly be subject to getting the cold shoulder from members of their own party. In some state they might be subject to legal consequences, But their votes would likely be counted and decisive.There have been at least 17 such faithless electors whose presidential votes still counted. Edison (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFTER AMERICAN CIVIL WAR

After the end of the US Civil War,what was the most widespread crime/illegality? It was not about slaves, KKK, organized crime, gambling,drinkink,theft, lynching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleop (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a trick question, Kleop? In any event, crime and 'illegality' aren't the same thing - see civil law. May we know, are you asking about crime or not? Xn4 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if we knew, the answer could only show the "most reported crime". The notation of the 1870 census said that some states reported every little offense, while others reported very selectively. The time period "after the American Civil War" is also called "reconstruction era. This question seems to have made the rounds on most Q&A boards. Where did you get it from? Is this from some trivia game or out of someone's history book? I'd go with Xn4 it's probably some trick. --Lisa4edit (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the correct answer sodomy? Aecis^Brievenbus 11:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] playing musical instruments without looking

[note: I transferred this from the language desk, where I'd placed it by mistake. Apologies if it still shows up there somehow, because I have now removed it.]

Hi, when either playing or learning a musical instrument, is it better to look at the instrument, or to play "blindfold" (ie. by not looking)? Are there different schools of thought on this, or is it not really discussed by musicians? 203.221.126.247 (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if you're reading music, it's a lot easier to follow your part if you're looking at the music rather than at the instrument. And in any case, it's a sign of skill with the instrument that you don't need to look at it. Depends on the instrument, of course; a trumpet player generally knows where his three fingers are without looking, while an organist probably needs to be watching his instrument a lot. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see organists playing the hell out of the pedalboard with their feet without ever taking their eyes off the music. They do glance when changing the stops on the organ. Skilled keyboard musicians generally do not seem to need to see their hands, except perhaps when they are moving an octave or two. Clarinettists, flute players and sax players, trombonists and valve brass players do not generally look at their fingers while playing. Proprioception rather than vision seems to be the key. That may be part of why it takes time to learn to play these instruments well. Edison (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Will organists usually look when switching manuals? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There are pros and cons to each. If you are learning a piece you might have to keep an eye on the sheet music. As I see it there are two general ways to memorize a piece and no longer need to look at the sheet music. One is muscle memory -- if you play it over and over enough times you will start to find your fingers going to the right places on their own. Then you can stop looking at the music and look at your fingers if you want. There are downsides to relying on muscle memory though -- not least of which is that muscle memory can get derailed in a relatively unrecoverable way. Another approach is to spent some time analyzing the music and getting to know its harmonic, melodic, rhythmic, etc, patterns, and practicing memorizing those patterns. This has the benefit of allowing better recovery when you lose your place or concentration, because you understand the reasons behind the unfolding changes, not just the muscle memory. Of course the two approaches can work together, with muscle memory and rational understanding reinforcing one another. It can take a lot of effort to memorize music and no longer need to even have the sheet music in front of you, but I for one think it is far better to play without the sheet music, and with a rational understanding of why the notes follow one after another, supplemented by muscle memory, than it is to be distracted from the music making by the need to glance at the music now and then. None of this is to say you need to look at your fingers. A memorized piece can be played while staring at the ceiling if you want. Pfly (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

An organist may be playing a different organ from the one he usually plays, and motor memory or proprioception would lead him to bang his hands against framework where the keyboard isn't if he did not look at where to place the hands. The spacing of keys may also differ on different keyboards, and the arrangement of stops will differ greatly between instruments. As for memorization, that is totally impractical when severl differrent hymns must be played each week, as well as new preludes, postludes, offertories, and perhaps choral accompaniments. I doubt that anyone in a chorch is disturbed by the organist using music. Even so they may practice for hours if something complexis to be played. They may have it "semi-memorized" but still use music and have someone standing by them to turn the page when they give a little nod of the head. Memorizing the music would work and might be expected for a concert or recital. Edison (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As a non-native speaker, I confess to be somewhat puzzled:

user:Edison reports of virtuosi playing their organ with their feet...

user:jpgordon suggest to look at the staff and to ignore the instrument...

user:Pfly says, and I quote, "if you play it over and over enough times you will start to find your fingers going to the right places on their own"...

user:Edison, again, states "an organist may be playing a different organ from the one he usually plays"...

And what about: "it's a sign of skill with the instrument that you don't need to look at it" or "muscle memory can get derailed in a relatively unrecoverable way" or even "a memorized piece can be played while staring at the ceiling if you want"?

Should this all not be on the Entertainment Desk, or, preferably, below the said item of referential furniture? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The entertainment desk deals with music so it could be moved there. I do not routinely monitor the Entertainment Desk. Try moving question there and see what answers are added. A side note: are you unaware that there is a row of pedals near the floor on a pipe organ called the pedalboard or Pedal keyboard that are played exclusively with the feet? You might find Pipe organ informative. Edison (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] knowing the law

While the courts may hold that "...ignorance of the law is no excuse..." all branches of government have failed to publish the law in the form of a truth or decision table or polychotomous key, yet this is mandatory for anyone wanting to comply fully with the law. So what is the favorite excuse in current use not to publish the law in a manner that puts everyone on the same page with the judge (assuming of course that judges are not likewise ignorant of the law)? 71.100.169.132 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The law is not published in such a form because it would become redundant almost immediately. If you want to read the law, your local library should have copies of statutes. Lawyers and judges use specialized databases, which are complex, to say the least. Before you undertake any risky activity, you should read up on the law, which to be honest is not that hard. --NeoNerd 19:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several meanings for the word redundancy. If you are referring to a race condition where several cases are resolved at the same time, that might add a condition or a state to the law then a race condition is not applicable because the new conditions or condition states are not automatically incorporated into the law immediately but only after a panel of judges reaches a majority conclusion so that a race condition does not exist. If you are referring the word redundant in its more common sense of repetition such as redundant laws then you know nothing of logic or how truth and decision tables or polychotomous keys work. In fact such classification would naturally be online since it is dynamic. All the more reason why persons can not be expected to uphold the law without the law being classified according to the conditions upon which it is based. As for the reason it is not already online I suspect that is because, the law is a trade secret and the public process a business owned and operated by the legal profession. 71.100.169.132 (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal theory has a rich history to it. It came long before decision tables and polychotomous keys. It does not change its form or its methods just based on the whim of someone who does not implement it. It is designed to give wiggle room and negotiation. It is designed to be used by human beings in a certain cultural context. If you don't understand that, you will never understand how the law works. If you attempt to force your own way of reasoning upon the world, rather than understand the way the world works under its own accord, you will never understand the world. Just a tip. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Construction has a rich history that predates law. The Pyramids were built with human labor. We still use human labor to build buildings but we also incorporate machines to do the heavy lifting and to make the work easier for us. Only elitists would deprive the lay person of the benefit of the application of such tools. 71.100.169.132 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, 98. That basically sums up my point of view. I would also ask you to be polite, 71 and adhere to civility guidelines. I suspect that your question was more of an attempt to bait people rather than to actually ask something. You are also incorrect in stating that a panel of judges is needed to change the law. One judge can do that, as soon as they make a decision. Obiter comments can change the law. --NeoNerd 14:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Where I come from case law is published like statutes are published. While one judge may decide to incorporate a new condition or a new state of a condition into his decision about the case the decision to publish that new condition or new state of an existing condition is not determined by that one judge alone but by a panel of judges.

As for baiting rather than asking something... after clicking on "Help" in the sidebar and "Humanities" in the body of links, start a new topic by clicking on "ask a new question by clicking here." At the top of the edit box you will see the title "Editing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (comment)" and not "Editing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (question)".

However, I've finally come to realize that the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities is not manned by the contributors of Wikipedia articles but rather by pre-freshman volunteers who lack answers to such questions and are not qualified to respond to them anyway. 71.100.169.132 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're dissatisfied with the sensible answers to your inane questions, please don't feel obligated to stay. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. Its why we have developed many more resources than the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities desk, for honest students to use. 71.100.169.132 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

See the essay "What is a troll?" Edison (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fed backed real estate scam?

Currently the Fed is buying up the Mortgage businesses as they all are falling thus you have a consolidation of land (real wealth) in the hands of the Central Banks. They are exchanging their worthless currency backed by nothing for real American assets at bargain basement prices. Is the Fed helping us or stealing us? GoingOnTracks (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the Fed isn't buying anything, they are lending money against (possibly very risky) collateral. I can understand your point of view though, the Fed is not supposed to be a pawnbroker for irresponsible bankers. Unfortunately the alternative is even worse. If they would let those banks fail, every business in America would have a hard time getting loans and finding investors, which would certainly result in a major recession. Maybe the best option would be to simply nationalize banks that can't survive without a government bail out - but that would go completely against official "free market" ideology. DAVID ŠENEK 16:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, but if this lending is risky, wouldn't that means that in many many cases the property will end at the hands of the Fed?

The Fed is not supposed to be "a pawnbroker for irresponsible bankers", but it is helping irresponsible bankers survive. So in a few years will these "irresponsible bankers" make a mess again? GoingOnTracks (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why many people have called for better regulation of the mortgage business. DAVID ŠENEK 08:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Establishment of a British nationality

When was a British nationality established? Was it directly after the Union of 1707? Or rather in 1801? --217.227.126.161 (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it ever was. Many people here still consider themselves English or Scotish or Welsh, rather than British. And a nationality can't just appear suddenly, it has to develop. The British nation was created in 1707 though.HS7 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

HS7, I think you are using a different definition of nationality from the questioner (See the Nationality article for more on the difference.) As to the question I don't think the answer is clear. As our article on British nationality law notes: "Until 1914 British nationality law was largely uncodified." Rmhermen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Escape to Palestine

hey i just want to know about the girl that escaped from the usa to palestine to see someone i think his name is (abed alla) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.24.122 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us a bit more information? i.e when did it happen; was it in the news; have you any more details on the story? Fribbler (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the anon is thinking of Katherine Lester, who ran away at 16 from Michigan to the West Bank to be with a guy she met on the Internet. Our article on her was deleted. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, looks like it, alright. Now we have the name, the anon can work on the 509,000 ghits I got :-) ; might even be a decent article to be made.... Fribbler (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watergate's meaning

Why was watergate so devastating for nixon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.197.23 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it showed that he'd directly and willfully lied to the nation, had attempted to cover up the break-in and of course, had broken into his rival's HQ.--NeoNerd 19:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

According to our article on the Watergate scandal, the investigation triggered by the Watergate burglaries "revealed the immense scope of crimes and abuses, which included campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, murder, illegal wiretapping on a massive scale, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted these operations". Gandalf61 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone verify that statement? - except for that line, none of the articles Richard Nixon, Watergate scandal or White House horrors mention any murder. Who was murdered? Rmhermen (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No one was murdered. Don't trust everything you read on Wikipedia. ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nixon's supporters derided the Watergate caper as a "two bit burglary in which nothing whatsoever was taken." If the arrestees had copped a plea of burglary (perhaps claiming they just wanted to steal office equipment) or even if some low level planners had taken responsibility, Nixon could probably have finished his term in office. It was the coverup that did him in. The "smoking gun" which cost him the support of Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives was proof he had conspired to cover up involvement of his administration in the burglary. Edison (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] let fools contend

Which poem by Alexander Pope contains the three words "let fools contend"? ----Seans Potato Business 20:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the quote is actually: "For Forms of Government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best." Source. Can't find anything to say where he wrote that, though. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Essay on Man" : "For Forms of Government, let Fools contest; Whate’er is best Administered is best." --Wetman (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)