Humanities desk
< June 12	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 14 >

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.

June 13

Where did the United States take their missles after pulling them out of Turkey?

I had originally figured they were relegated back to our country, but a comment on a video on Youtube.com claimed that they moved the missiles to Romania. Youtube is a dubious source for information, but the commenter seemed to know what he was talking about; hence, my referring of this question to you:

Did the United States, following the Cuban Missile Crisis, move their missiles in Turkey to Romania? If not, where did those missiles go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.89.101 (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the US moved the missiles to, but it certainly wasn't Romania, which was very much enemy territory at the time. Algebraist 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pot Pie, the removal of Jupiters from Italy and Turkey began 1 April and was comepleted by the 23rd. Initial plans were to recycle the missiles for use in other programs, but NASA and the USAF were not interested in the hardware. The missile bodies were destroyed on site, warheads, guidance packages, and launching equipment worth $14 million were returned to the U.S. Nash, P. (1997). The Other Missiles of October: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the Jupiters, 1957-1963. pp. 164-5. OCLC 44961322.—eric 02:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harkavy edition of Holy Scriptures

Hello, I read that Alexander Harkavy translated an English version of the Tanakh, but it seems that it is no longer published. I was wondering whe it was first published and when it was last published? Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Also, does the Hebrew publishing company who published this translation still exist - and is this still under copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four-part response:

1) It seems that Alexander Harkavy created a version of the Tanakh by editing another version. This page says "He could not undertake to translate anew the whole of the Tanach (because even 25 years later the Jewish Publishing Society was forced to engage a whole assembly of learned specialists to compose a new English version of the Tanach for Jews, based on the King James version). But there was a need at that time for a kosher Tanach in English. Harkavy, by removing the rejects from the modern “Revised Version”, obtained an acceptable kosher translation for Jews."

2) Confirmation that Hebrew Publishing Company published Harkavy's Tanakh found here, with a publishing date of 1916.

3) A search for "Hebrew Publishing Company New York" returns two hits for the company with slightly different addresses P.O. Box, Street address but both with the same phone number (518-392-3322).

4) Our article says that Harkavy died in 1939. That means his works are still copyrighted. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ilinka Crvenkovska

Labyrinth#Modern_takes_on_Greek_labyrinth mentions a play about Theseus and the Minotaur by (Macedonian) author Ilinka Crvenkovska. We would like to flesh this out a bit with a reference or two (including, say, the title of the play), but Google leads to essentially no information except echoes copied from WP. Anybody here an expert on modern Macedonian literature? Elphion (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reign Dates

Does any body know the exact date and month when Kingdom of Denmark handed over the Count of Oldenburg to Russia in exchange for the land of Holstein-Gottorp and also the exact date and month when Frederick Augustus I of Oldenburg became count (also in 1773). Also when he became duke. So thats three dates, thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the last point, amny sources say he became Duke in 1777, which actually contradicts the Rulers of Oldenburg page (1774) and one other site (1775). On one of the other points, here might be helpful, which says this: Duke Paul of Holstein-Gottorp bequeathed his state to Holstein-Segeburg. Denmark then united Holstein-Segebuwrg and Holstein-Gottorp as the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein and granted Oldenburg to Paul. and dates it to 1773.7.1. . Surely he became Count when it was handed over (or am I missing something?) since he was the first Count under the new control, we're only taking exchanging ruling families? Sorry I can't be of more help, but every account on the web uses different accounts, names, etc. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I can gather from these two sources [1][2]. Use with a lot of caution since I basically can't read German; hopefully it can serve as a point of departure:

The patent of Paul's transfer of the title of count, effective 30 July 1773, was announced in Oldenburg 14 December 1773, and the official transfer occurred on the same date. Imperial confirmation occurred 17 December 1774 [sic]. Elevation of the countship to a duchy by imperial diploma 29 December 1774. Official enfeoffment (Belehnung) by Emperor 22 March 1777. Patent issued by Emperor 1 July 1777. Official announcement in Oldenburg on 18 July 1777.--Cam (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the transfer of Holstein to Denmark, see this page: Catherine, acting for her son Paul, agreed to the exchange in a provisional treaty 22 April 1767 (New Style). It was agreed this arrangement would not be valid until Paul came of age and granted his adhesion to it. He gave his adhesion officially in a treaty of 1 June 1773 (N.S.). --Cam (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rose of Lima as the patron saint of India

Why is Rose of Lima the patron saint of India ? She seems to have nothing to do with Philippines either but I suppose there could be some Spanish connection. Tintin 10:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read The Life of Saint Rose of Lima, images of her were sent to India and prominently featured in several healing miracles there. I'm not sure, but I believe those factored into her canonization. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sun never sets...

"The sun never sets on the British Empire". Is this quote still true given File:Location of the BOTs.png? I suspect that it is but don't know how to verify it.-- SGBailey (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(((BTW, What section should "Geography" questions like this be put in? It isn't clear from WP:RD, so I chose Hum rather than Misc.))) -- SGBailey (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a very real sense, it ceased to be true when the British Empire ceased to be. The British overseas territories are territories of the United Kingdom, not part of the British Empire any more. This is not just a semantic point. It's probably true that "the sun never sets on the Commonwealth of Nations", but that doesn't have the same ring, and it's not the same thing as the old British Empire, although there's quite some overlap. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From that map, I would say it was valid, only in the sense that there is always going to be somewhere in the 'Empire' which has the sun shining on it (of course, as you know, this is what the quote means). But I would agree with Jack, that the Empire is not called an Empire now, it's called British Overseas Territories, and doesn't sound quite as grandiose, and nor does 'the sun never sets on the British Overseas Territories'. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not just a semantic point? Algebraist 12:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the British Overseas Territories are not the British Empire? Because there is no British Empire? Because all the subsidiary ideas which the phrase was meant to conjure up are not true, and do not apply? 80.41.126.158 (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the British Overseas Territories don't operate anything like the old Empire. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the original sentence is by Carlos V (En mis dominios jamás se pone el sol)... --pma (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with anything, but when I was a kid I was told this quote referred to the France under Louis XIV, and that was the reason that people called him "The Sun King". Turns out he was just really vain (and, you know, he was king for 72 years, which it has to be said is a pretty decent term. Respect, dude). 83.250.236.75 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to whoever told you that version of the origin of the expression, but I very strongly suspect it's ex post factum armchair-philosopher folk-etymological rubbish. Have a look at this. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that now, but talking about the Divine Right of Kings is a lot less fun story to tell to a nine-year-old. BTW, that's a spectacular wig he's wearing. That cat was stylish. 83.250.236.75 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the philosophy, and assuming that the British Overseas Territories can be considered the last remnants of the Empire, then it's still pretty certain that there is always some part of thoses territories in daylight. You don't have to be large to achieve this, just very geographically diverse, and that certainly still applies. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strange question regarding US Presidential succession...

I was just watching a few episodes of the West Wing on DVD. It was the episodes at the end of season four and season five, when Zoey Bartlet was kidnapped and the President invoked the 25th amendment and temporarily transferred power to the (Republican) Speaker of the House (his Vice President having recently resigned). When this happens, it is pointed out that the Speaker has to resign from Congress because of separation of powers issues (you can't work for two branches of government at the same time). But this brings up a question: if he resigns as Speaker of the House first, he's no longer in the line of succession, he's just a private citizen again. So how can he assume the office? And since he can't assume office while being the Speaker at the same time, why is he in the line of succession at all?

I suppose that should this situation ever arose, people would just ignore that little wrinkle, but it brings up a larger issue. The President is part of the executive branch, the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate (the next person in line) are both part of the legislative branch. It seems to me that if you adhered to a strict principle of separation of powers, they shouldn't be anywhere near the presidential line of succession. It's probably just me, but isn't that really strange? 83.250.236.75 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite similar to this question from a couple of weeks ago. The 25th Amendment does not itself cover the situation where the president is incapacitated and there is no vice president. That situation falls under the Presidential Succession Act. The answer to 83's first question is that the act says: "the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President."

See the earlier thread for other relevant points. --Anonymous, 21:18 UTC, June 13, 2009.

Ahh, thank you, didn't realize that it had been asked before. It's comforting to know that the people who wrote the law specifically included that little bit (it reminds me of quote from another episode of the series, when the President is shot and no one is quite sure who's in charge while he's under general anaesthesia, and Toby sarcastically says "Good, because this is an area of federal law where you'd want as much ambiguity as possible"). Still, it kinda bothers me that there are people from the legislative branch in the line of succession, but I guess that those people are the highest elected representatives of the United States aside from the President and the Vice President, so it does make some sort of sense, separation of powers be damned. 83.250.236.75 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(And yes, in case anyone wondered, I have been on kind-of a West Wing marathon the last week) 83.250.236.75 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]