Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 15

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.

August 15

Is this Mongkut or Chulalongkorn?

. I have a photo I took of this same structure at Bang Pa-In Royal Palace, and inside it is a sculpture of a man in military uniform. Is the sculpture inside Rama IV or Rama V? 01:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.193.83 (talk)

This page[1] says "Phra Thinang Aisawan Thiphya-Art is a Thai-style pavilion with four porches and a spired roof built by King Chulalongkorn in the middle of an outer pond in 1876... This pavilion now houses a bronze statue of King Chulalongkorn in the uniform of a Field Marshal which was placed by his son King Vajiravudh (Rama VI). Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisionism

Hey, It's me again. Monday is the last debate in our debate club before school starts. The director decided to give us a really controversial one to provoke thought or some other stuff he said. Short version: The debate is whether we should revise things like religious texts and other documents if there is a good chance that they might cause or be interpreted to encourage violence and unrest (probably intended as an aside to certain interpretations of jihad in the Qu'ran), and I'm in the pro-revisionism camp. An argument that I plainly can forsee against me is that if religious texts can be modified then any art should be. How can I counter this, preferably without asserting that the Mona Lisa or Shakespeare's Hamlet should be vandalized/bowdlerized to remove chauvinistic depictions of women/violence or however they're going ot say it? 76.228.198.120 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd go the other route (in for a penny, in for a pound) and say that art itself should be revised if it produces unpleasant social results. that argument was successfully used, at any rate, to produce mounds of truly horrific "Worker's Art" in the Soviet Union and a few other socialist systems (plus some very good stuff, such as the work of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo). it's debate, man: go for the jugular. --Ludwigs2 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't one try to draw a firm distinction between religious texts and general works of art? People don't read Hamlet and say, "Oh, that's interesting, I guess I'll go kill my uncle now." It's not a prescription for how to live one's life — or, if it is (and there are such works of art), the penalties are usually pretty minor compared to the religious texts. To me the "art" question is a non-starter — we don't use art the same way we do religion. Even at its most political, art is pretty ineffectual at getting people to do anything. (Insert the cries of a thousand performance artists here, who desperately feel their art is "political" and important and influential.)

A tougher argument would be for political tracts and things that actually do try to incite violence, and have in the past. If you're going to bowdlerize the Qu'ran — a holy text over 1,000 years old and believed by millions of people around the world to be fairly close to the word of God — then what's to stop you from censoring everything that looks even remotely like revolutionary fervor. We might as well re-write the Declaration of Independence while we are at it. Certainly the works of the Founding Fathers — "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants," is pretty explosive stuff! I mean, the tough part of your argument is not art, it's that once you start censoring sacred, historical things, where do you stop? (Is anybody honestly proposing this? It seems to me like a totally silly thing to have to try and argue for, because nobody sensible would agree to it for a minute. But I might not be very sensible, myself.) --Mr.98 (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs2: I'd argue that this is pure utilitarianism; you're simply arguing we should always strive for the maximum social good, which is hard to argue against. You might also be able to sound very reasonable, if you're allowed to argue this, by conditioning the censorship on results. Do a large scale double-blind (somehow) scientific test of what happens when you bowdlerize text X or Y or Z, and if the censored text X correlates with the sample of people reading it to commit 20% fewer murders, then those arguing against the censorship sound like amoral, bloodthirsty crazies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A form of this has happened in the UK. Our national anthem mentions the crushing of the Jacobite Rebellion, in a verse which is seldom if ever sung nowadays. One might wish to ask why the French still sing about the blood of their enemies running on the floor in their national anthem... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, almost all anthems follow a pretty predictable pattern: "we love our country, it is the most beautiful in the world, we will die for it in the name of God/the sovereign, we will kill everybody who might even consider invading." Laibach did an interesting album based on this. Incidentally, the German anthem was amended after WWII to abridge some of the Vaterland that was in the old version spread too broadly for comfort.

To the OP: you could always argue that it had been done before. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. The full old German anthem was inherited by the Federal Republic, but only the third verse ("Unity and justice and freedom...") was ever played on official occasions. Only after reunification did this situation change and the third verse alone did, by presidential decree, become the national anthem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A form of this has happened in the UK. Our national anthem mentions the crushing of the Jacobite Rebellion, in a verse which is seldom if ever sung nowadays. One might wish to ask why the French still sing about the blood of their enemies running on the floor in their national anthem... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

AIUI that vesrse was only ever used in 1745, but nationalistic Scots seem to know all the words. Some people like to make-up their own forms of discrimination. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

:::What? How did that get there twice? I do apologise! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The blood is running on the floor of the French national anthem? :) The seldom (or actually never) heard third verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" contains a charming line about how the blood of the fleeing British "has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth caveating that by saying that the majority of people can't remember beyond the first three lines of the national anthem. It's not some vast authoritarian conspiracy.

ALR (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

American or British? Or both? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian anthem has a weird line about "Ice tendon guards for thee". Something about hockey, I suppose. PhGustaf (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Says he with a straight face. How droll.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, it's kind of like the line in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance where we pay homage to some guy named Richard Stans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Discworld novels, it's recognised that nobody can remember the second verse of an anthem anyway, so the second verse of the Ankh-Morpork National Anthem "We Can Rule You Wholesale" officially mostly consists of "hner"s - as performed here. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The truth is that you can't revise a historical work. A book such as the King James Bible is what it is. You can create a new Bible of your own; you can argue, perhaps with much justification, that your translation is better, or that your interpretation is clearer, or that your ethics are better justified by the entire body of Apocrypha only some of which were used to produce the original; or simply that your ethics are inspired by a clearer understanding of Jesus' true intent. You may be right. But if you say that's the original King James Bible, it would be a lie. If you try to force people to exchange their Bibles for yours, it is censorship.

Thus the energy of the opponents' argument should be helped on toward its logical conclusion: that people should use the historical texts and other sources to create new grand documents of their own, which some day may be respected themselves as timeless classics. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop signs

If a person goes through a stop sign on a city street, he can be stopped by the police. And he can be charged with a crime (or an infraction or a violation). Now, what about those stop signs that are placed on private property? For example, if there is a very large store (let’s say, a Wal-Mart or a Stop and Shop or whatever), they often have huge parking lots. And these huge parking lots often have stop signs placed here and there. However, the parking lot is strictly private property, and not a public city street. So, does the Wal-Mart parking lot type of stop sign have the same legal effect as a city street stop sign? If you drive through one, can the police stop you and charge you with a crime or infraction or violation? I would think not, but I am curious. Are the Wal-Mart parking lot type of stop signs of any legal effect at all? Or do we stop at them, essentially, only voluntarily, and not as a legal mandate? This question refers to the USA, by the way. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

The exact rules of the road vary state-by-state, but as I recall, any unmarked stopping point (your driveway, for example) is an implied yield-right-of-way, or maybe even an implied stop sign. Many stores will have those "fake" stop signs, as a reminder. So the cop could theoretically ticket you for failing to yield right-of-way; especially if, by so doing, you get into a collision with someone who has the right-of-way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I googled ["rules of the road" "right of way"] and the first thing that came up was this,[2] from the state of New York, which seems typical of other rules of the road for other states I've lived in. Look about 2/3 of the way down the page. When approaching an unmarked intersection, or from a driveway, you are supposed to stop and yield to both traffic and pedestrians. In your own driveway, you're pretty much in control, but in a public parking area they need to post those stop signs in order to make it clear who has the right of way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in the public parking lot (Wal-Mart) "fake" stop sign scenario ... is it the same type of crime/infraction/violation as going through a "real" (city street) stop sign? And what would give the private party (owner of the Wal-Mart parking lot) the "right" to determine where he "feels" he can place his stop signs? If I were the owner, I can just place these "fake" stop signs willy-nilly, wherever I feel like it? And they have the legal effect of "determining" who has the right of way? That doesn't seem to add up? I am confused. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

With the disclaimer that the Ref Desk cannot offer Legal Advice. I concur with what Bugs has said here.
• If you are parking in a privately owned parking lot, as a 'guest', it may be that you are obliged (morally or perhaps even legally) to follow the rules of the owner. If the land owner has Stop signs, then it would be advisable to heed them for your safety and that of other 'guests' (That perhaps even being a condition of you usage of the parking lot-if you read the fine print on the signs). If you have an accident,and dispute it, then go to a 'civil' court say to sue another driver, (as it was not on a public road) it will not look good for your case if you ignored any sign (even an 'advisory sign' possibly without 'legal' power of Police enforcement.
• In NSW, Australia, as per Bugs above, a pedestrian legally has right of way, cars are supposed to always give way to a pedetrian. For example, when a vehicle crosses a footpath/sidewalk, thay are supposed to stop, or at least give way to pedestrians, but this is often ignored.
• If you want a 'legal' answer to your query you should enquire of a police offcir or your local Roads Department.
• No legal Advice given here, just food for thought! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of "fake" I should have said "non-standard", as they often seem to be made-to-order by the store. And as far as enforcement goes, if you violate one going onto a public thoroughfare, yes, you could be ticketed. But as far as stop signs placed strictly to regular traffic within the mall parking lot, that's a good question. I'll see if I can find anything about that. However, I suspect that shopping mall parking lots, being "public accomodations", are subject to traffic laws and regulations to some degree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"what would give the private party the "right"" - rather, you may ask, who sets the obligations of the private landowner or tenant to maintain safety on their premises? East of Borschov 12:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["parking lots" "right of way"] and a bunch of opinions popped up, many of them no more informed than mine. However, this one from The Straight Dope bulletin board might be of interest.[3] It points out various things, of which at least two are important here: (1) The laws vary state-by-state; and (2) Some shopping centers have agreements with the local police that effectively turn the mall lot into public roads. In short, don't make any assumptions, and call your local authorities to find out for sure about your particular community and stores. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the short answer is that it depends on where you are talking about. In Ohio, yes, running a stop sign on private property is ticket-able. (Ref. Ohio Revised Code, 4511.432 (C), covers some residential dwellings, I forget the code for businesses.) In New York, it's only valid with written permission from an authority. (Ref. New York Vehicle & Traffic Law: Article 39 - § 1640-a.) Some local laws may override these, as well. ^Avic_ennasis @ 03:54, 5 Elul 5770 / 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess the following question is also a part of what I am "getting at". Can the landowner just put up stop signs, arbitrarily and willy-nilly, where ever he "feels like" doing so? Or does some authority (the town, a local ordinance, some building permit requirements, etc.) dictate to the owner where he can/cannot put the signs? If his privately owned stop signs have some legal effect, I can't imagine that he can place them willy-nilly where ever he pleases. There must be some oversight, no? Otherwise, as a landowner, I can place a stop sign in the most "odd" places ... and my guests will incur legal liability for my idiosyncrasies? Thanks! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

In British Columbia, in any place where the public can be reasonably expected to drive, whether public or private property, the Highways act and therefore the rules of the road apply. This doesn't mean the driveway to your house, but it doesn mean parking lots in shopping centres. I suspect (don't know for sure but it seems likely) that this means that, yes, the property owner could put up stop signs all willy-nilly. That said, they themselves would be forced to obey them, so it would be very inconvenient. Aaronite (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

prenatal influence

Am looking for info on the school of thought that was around at least as far back as the mid-1800's and used the vocabulary 'prenatal influence' when promoting the theory that a mother's thoughts and spoken words to her fetus could influence who the fetus would become. Dixie Willson (sister of Meredith Willson who created 'The Music Man') claimed that her parents were believers in this theory and that they had read a book titled 'Prenatal Influence' before their children were conceived. Dixie claimed that her parents decided that she would be a writer (which she did become)and that Meredith would be a musician. Am trying to learn more about this theory and it's influence on parents in the 1800's and early 1900's (Frank Lloyd Wright's mother is also reported to have been a believer of this theory <http://books.google.com/books?id=S7ZB90XmTdcC&pg=PA59&dq=frank+lloyd+wright+prenatal+influence&hl=en&ei=d0ZnTN2HOJPqnQflgJ3BBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false> and is reported to have decided before Frank Lloyd Wright's birth that he would be an architect)Jacollison (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There exist numerous indications that what fetuses experience in the womb influences their life after birth, although the actual theory of it makes few claims as grandiose as the 'Baby Einstein' pedlars, etc. I personally know little about the history of the theory, but I can help you with recent research into the cognitive science of 'prenatal influences', as you term them. Is this helpful? The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

However, there was a whole earlier pre-scientific theory of "impressions", that something striking or upsetting which a pregnant woman saw could affect her baby, especially the physical appearance (perhaps in the form of a birthmark shaped like what the mother saw). AnonMoos (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the two who responded so far, but I am really wanting specific information on how the 'prenatal influence' school of thought influenced parents especially in the time period of mid-to-late 1800s and early 1900's. We know that the Willson's parents and Frank Lloyd Wrights parents subscibed to the theory and produced children with the intended careers they had attempted to influence. What writings influenced these parents? Are there other famous/influential people whose parents had attempted to influence their life choices prenatally?Jacollison (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In ca. 1900, modern cognitive studies on newborns had not yet happened, and the old theory of impressions was no longer taken too seriously by most educated people (and was probably transmitted more orally than in writing in any case), so I'm not quite sure exactly what you're asking... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Here are some links on the old "impressions" superstition (the wikipedia article Maternal_impression is kind of vague in some ways): http://www.enotalone.com/article/18429.html , http://www.birthmarks.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=343 . -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

parents who try to influence the child in the womb are not going to stop trying to influence the child after it's born, and parents trying to influence a child in the womb can safely be considered to be a bit obsessive, so it would be impossible to separate out the prenatal and postnatal influences on the child. 2. examination of success cases proves absolutely nothing: statistically, there will always be success cases to point to, no matter how absurd the theory in question.

This will all be anecdotal. 1. failure rates are much more indicative of the power of a theory, but we have no information on people who failed to become what their parents wanted them to become (except that such people constitute the vast majority of the world's population). really, this is 'patent medicine' territory: There's no evidence that children can do any language processing prenatally, and while they might pick up on tonal regularities (vocal emotions, musical compositions, etc.) they just don't have the cognitive structures to do anything with it. about the best you can hope for is that they will be acclimated to certain kinds of stimuli (e.g. if you read a lot of poetry aloud while you're pregnant your child might develop an emotional acclimation to the rhythms and cadences of the spoken word, and might be less resistant to reading and hearing such later in life, which might translate to better study habits...). But things like that are going to be far more profoundly influenced by how you interact with your child during the language acquisition stage. It can't hurt, I suppose, but it's really more for the parents than the child (like buying your baby designer clothes). --Ludwigs2 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: 'parents who try to influence the child in the womb are not going to stop trying to influence the child after it's born, and parents trying to influence a child in the womb can safely be considered to be a bit obsessive, so it would be impossible to separate out the prenatal and postnatal influences on the child.'. That is a given but I am still not finding the information that i need and want. Who was promoting this school of thought? Dixie Willson reported that her parents read a book titled 'Prenatal Influence'. Who wrote this book? What other authors were promoting this theory? Do we have evidence that other parents of famous and influential people in the mid-to-late 1800s and early 1900's subscribed to this theory and were obsessive in influencing their children pre and postnatally?98.108.40.200 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

On Abraham Lincoln's biography under presidency it states...

1961 as the start of his first term in office, it should say 1861 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.66.102 (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

St James

One of the churches nearby is called St James; dated c. 14th century according to Pevsner (1970) The buildings of England: Cambridgeshire p. 462

• dedication, see {{Infobox church}}: which St James would this church be dedicated to?
• punctuation: is "St James' Church, Stretham" correct for an article title? --Senra (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this, there is no dedication save for just "St James". In that article, the church is referred to as "St James's Church". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would go with James, son of Zebedee or "St James the Great"; sometimes confusingly called "St James the Apostle". The other Apostle James, James, son of Alphaeus is nearly always referred to as "St James the Less" in the Church of England. He gets few mentions in the Gospels and has to share his feast day, 1st May, with St Philip the Apostle. I would also go with "St James's Church" as in St James's Park, although "St James' Church" seems to be almost as common on Google. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I will go with James, son of Zebedee, thank you. As far as James's, James'; Church, church goes. This is all getting too confusing. See also St George's Church, Little Thetford! I believe that "the church of St James" is correct; so is "St James' Church"; but also, so is "St James's Church". In this instance, I have since discovered the official website (as a result of St James' Church here) so I am sticking to "St James' Church" --Senra (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

how divorce will affect childern?

i want complete information that what are the effects of divorce on children —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samkhundmiri (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

the main one is that you will deprive them of a happy, long-lasting marriage of their own. "like father, like son", "the apple never falls far from the tree", etc etc. The truth is you are probably considering divorce because of money issues or other temporary hardships. Without exception every marriage faces that sooner or later. The people who don't know that you're supposed to ride that out are the ones whose parents didn't show them that. They are also the people who end up married five times. Instead of one marriage with five bumps and then a long golden period lasting for decades, they have five marriages ending at the first bump and are miserable for the rest of their lives. But, by all means, call a divorce lawyer: they will tell you, I am sure, the benefits of ditching the person you committed to. 92.230.234.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC).

Our article implications of divorce could do with some improvement, but it does refer to a couple of studies. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP makes a lot of rosy assumptions. Let me make my own: what if the marriage is falling apart because of an abusive spouse? Do you really believe that the children would prefer an abusive parent to a divorced one? What if in their minds, sticking around in an abusive marriage makes them lose all respect for the suffering parent? Worse yet, what if, following the IP's logic, it turns the children into abusive parents eventually? It could be the case, as could the IP's scenario. Truth is, I don't know, and neither does anyone else here. Divorces have their way of having different effects on different people. Quite frankly, this question cannot be answered here - we're just a bunch of random strangers on the Internet and we have no way of knowing how this particular divorce might affect the children. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The response to this suggestion is now on the OP's talk page. (since it was removed from this page by Mr. 98 1 and 2)92.230.67.12 (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is quite a stretch to assume a) that the OP is even considering divorcing their own partner (it could just as well be a homework question in from an "ethics" or "social science" class), and b) that divorce is inherited and always results in unhappy children destined to a life of unhappy and broken relationships. Consider this: perhaps a divorce from an abusive partner could be good for the children. Astronaut (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My Google search for divorce affects children reported 1,240,000 results.—Wavelength (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

World War One and the Russian Revolution

WW1 ended in 1919, the Russian Revolution was in 1917. Did the Russians keep fighting in the war during and after the revolution, or where they not involved in WW1? Thanks 92.29.114.222 (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read our article on World War I? The section named "Eastern front" answers your question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just about the first thing the Bolsheviks did after the October revolution was to sue for peace with the Germans. The revolution was on 14th November (in the Western calender) and an armistice began on 14th December[4]. See the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans had put in a lot of work to facilitate Lenin's return to Russia. The armistice on the Eastern Front freed-up an extra 50 German divisions (more than half a million soldiers) to send to France and Belgium. This allowed the Germans to launch the Kaiserschlacht offensive against Britain, France and the US in April 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why some think it was more of a German imperial sealed-train putsch than a real Bolshevik "revolution" -- an impression that was reinforced by the fact that the Soviets refused to fight Germany, but were extremely eager and avaricious to seize great chunks of territory from Poland after others had accomplished the work of defeating Germany... By the way, the WW1 armistice was in 1918, not 1919 AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Another date thing for Alansplodge: The 1917 Revolution took more than a day, but the starting day is usually quoted as 7 November NS (= 25 October OS, hence the Russian terminology "October Revolution". Even if it had happened on the last day of October OS, that still only gets to 13 November NS.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right JackofOz, my mistake. AnonMoos makes a good point; IIRC pre-1941 Soviet expansion was focussed on restoring the territory ceded at Brest-Litovsk and Versailles (ie the Baltic States, Finland and E Poland) but postwar (to be charitable) they just wanted a big buffer-zone that was under their influence. The fighting ceased on 11/11/18 but peace was not formally concluded until 28/06/19. (some war memorials in the UK are marked "1914-1919")Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

U.S. county borders

Resolved

Hello, I have a couple of questions about the borders between counties in the United States:

1. Are county borders that "look" (subjective, but bear with me) like they are based on a meridian or a parallel normally exactly aligned with that?
2. I presume that state governments were the entities deciding on borders between counties, but the article County (United States) does not say what criteria were used for that.
3. Also, the article does not say how borders are administrated. For example, the border with Canada is defined by the Treaty of Paris, but how does this work for counties? Are there official documents defining county borders and, if so, are these still in force?

As an example to partially answer 2 and 3, see page 40 of New York State's Local Government Handbook (http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/Handbook.pdf), which says "The first State Constitution in 1777...recognized the existence of 14 counties that had been established earlier by the colonial Assembly... All of New York’s other 50 counties were created by acts of the State Legislature." --Nricardo (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. 83.81.60.233 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• (Q1) In short, no. Read more in Public Land Survey System and Survey township. East of Borschov 17:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

---

During much of the 19th-century, many people considered that the ideal size of a county was such that the great majority of farmers in the county could hitch up a horse-and-cart in the morning, drive to the county seat, transact some business there at mid-day, and then arrive back at the farm in the evening, without having to spend a night away from the farm. Of course, a number of factors could prevent this from being achieved in specific cases... AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

also (historically speaking) counties were defined pragmatically as regions that could be effectively maintained as a political unit (the name derives from the leader of some such units - i.e. 'Counts'), which usually meant they had to be large enough to be agriculturally capable of sustaining their population and a smallish military force, but small enough to be patrolled effectively by that force. --Ludwigs2 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the idea that military defense sets the side of a county leads to some interesting simple math. Assume defending soldiers (low alert) are picketed 1 unit apart, and county residents each take up n square units of land, and the fraction of the population on picket at any one time is a ratio m (say 1/30 - 10% military, 3 shifts). Then a square county of side r needs 4r pickets and musters m*r^2/n soldiers, so r = 4n / m (for m = 1/30, r=120 n). Thus a county using this definition should have a constant number of civilians (here 14400) given constant parameters for military spending. Which raises the question: were counties created with approximately constant population? Which would validate the model. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

However, that's rather irrelevant to the United States, since counties/shires in England lost all real feudal autonomy long before English colonies were settled in north America... AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no: even though the feudal structure has disappeared, counties are still largely determined for the same pragmatic reasons. for instance, one of the reasons that counties in the western US are larger than counties in the eastern US is that changes in technology (railroads, telegraphs, improved firearms, and etc.) made it possible to have centralized administration for larger areas: thus, trouble with criminals, Indians, Mexicans, or the dreaded Canadians could reach county sheriffs, US Marshals, or military bases far more quickly, and they could respond more rapidly with more firepower. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In American law, the county is a subdivision of the state and is controlled by the state. There is no requirement that a state even have counties or other subdivisions, although all do and most call them counties (Louisiana has parishes and Alaska has boroughs). Normally the counties and their borders are determined by the state legislature, which can create new counties or change the borders of existing counties by enacting state laws to that effect. The county borders, in other words, are set out in the state's laws (or, in some cases, in the state's constitution). The counties and their borders are determined in response to political and administrative considerations. The considerations described by AnonMoos are no longer important, of course, but they did affect the creation of many existing counties. John M Baker (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Political geography may give you some insight. schyler (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this has already been answered well, but since it is a favorite topic of mine I will respond as well, by question number, 1-3:

1. No, I doubt there are any county boundaries that are exactly aligned to a meridian or parallel. The legislation that created any given county might have specified a meridian or parallel, but the actual boundaries were the result of surveys, which always have some degree of error--and in the olden days when most US counties were surveyed the errors were often quite substantial. Sometimes you hear about a county or state declaring that part of another county or state should belong to them because the original legislation decreed such-and-such a boundary but the actual survey was off by so-and-so number of miles. These complaints never go anywhere. What matters is the boundaries as surveyed, not as decreed. The same holds true for countries. A long section of the Canada – United States border was decreed to be the 49th parallel north. The actual boundary today is the one established by survey teams (from both countries) and the boundary monuments they emplaced. According to a blogger who researched this topic, the US-Canada border is defined by 11,501 separate boundary markers--and this for a boundary 8,891 kilometers long. The line segments supposed to be on the 49th parallel are on average about 1.8 kilometers long, and at each marker the boundary bends slightly north and southward. Furthermore, a great number of US sub-national borders were "decreed" in terms of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), not explicit meridians and parallels. The PLSS system was based on principal meridians and baselines, which were usually defined as meridians and parallels (but again, did not follow them exactly when surveyed). As the surveying moved farther from the principal merdians and baselines the errors increased, in part due to the curvature of the Earth, and in part due to the compounding of errors upon errors as surveyors marked range and township lines farther and father from the principal meridians and baselines. There's plenty of info at the PLSS page. Suffice it to say that most counties in the US, at least after the PLSS system became standardized in the early 19th century, have borders legally defined in terms of PLSS townships and ranges, not actual latitude and longitude. The boundaries of US counties, states, and the nation itself, are the result of cadastral surveys, not the boundaries as decreed in the boundary-establishing legislation. In fact, I'm skeptical that there exists any national, state, county, or city boundary in the US that is "exactly aligned" with lines of longitude and latitude. All this said, county and state boundaries are often said to follow a single precise line of latitude or longitude. Our Colorado article, for example, describes the state's borders as 37°N, 41°N, 102°03'W, and 109°03'W. But the article goes on to point out that the actual boundary today is based on surveys, and those surveys had errors resulting in boundary "kinks". The article says they are "imperceptible", but I'd argue that their perceptibility depends on scale—how close in do you care? The kinks are quite perceptible at close scale, such as the Google Maps link from the Colorado page: CO-UT boundary kink.

2. Yes and no. Many counties were created by territories not states—and territories were were essentially under federal jurisdiction. Usually the size and boundaries of counties were repeatedly adjusted, well into the statehood era, but many of the boundaries today still date to pre-state terrotirial times. For example, King County, Washington was created in 1852 by the Oregon Territory legislature. It's original delineation was larger than today, but quite a bit of its present boundaries still date to the 1852 legislation. Lots--probably most counties in the western US were created in a similar way. You can view animated maps of county formation by state at this website. I linked to the Ohio page, but there's a menu for picking other states. The maps don't tell you how the boundaries were defined/surveyed, but does show how county borders changed quite a lot in earlier times.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by "administrated". The US-Canada border was defined (in part) by the Treaty of Paris (actually it was only vaguely defined and hammer out over many years via many further treaties and agreements). But the Treaty of Paris does not "administrate" the boundary. The agency that deals with the US-Canada border, not in terms of security, customs, etc, but in terms of where the border is exactly, is the [International Boundary Commission, or IBC. I doubt anything similar exists for states and counties, at least the the majority of the US surveyed under the PLSS system. The PLSS system was federal, and generally defined boundaries in pre-state, territorial times. That said, there certainly are official documents defining county borders, but they are not exactly "in force". Borders delineations are not based on documents but on survey markers in place "in the field"--that is, physical markers in the landscape are "in force", not the text of official documents. The surveyors placed boundary monuments and issued detailed reports that defined the boundaries. Unless I'm mistaken, the NGA, part of NOAA, is charged with keeping track of survey monuments of all kinds. The NGA is probably the agency in charge of "administrating" cadastral boundaries in the US—although local issues would be handled locally, using survey marker information from the NGA. But I'm not totally certain about this, and things may be more complicated in reality. Washington state and its counties, as far as I know, do keep track of the survey markers and resulting boundary lines, but they basically use information acquired from the NGA. In any case, most county boundaries have been established for so long, and counties have largely been filled in with parcels based on the PLSS system, there is not a great need to administrate the boundaries. Foe example, I live a block from a county boundary. The boundary runs down the center of a street. Whether or not this street is located exactly where the county-creation legislation said it should is irrelevant. Everyone, including local governments, know the road is the boundary. There's no need for boundary administration. If some boundary dispute does arise, where or elsewhere, and it is important enough for someone, or some organization to spend a bunch of money on, the matter would usually be resolved by having surveyors relocate the old monuments and calculate the boundary segments between them. In other words, boundaries at the county level are not administrated by any permanent agency, but rather by courts as the need arises. The situation might be slightly different and more complex in the pre-PLSS eastern part of the US. I've noticed that some counties lines in states like Tennessee are described as "indeterminate". But in most cases it still comes down to survey monuments.

Okay, that was a long reply, but I'm a sucker for this topic. Pfly (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Long, but very helpful. This all started when I noticed on Google Earth that the northern border of Tipton County, Indiana was not exactly "horizontal". (It's off by about 5 seconds, which is a hundred yards or so.) In my naivety, I kinda assumed that, to use your example, the borders of Colorado are defined in terms of coordinates, instead of by physical markers. So, by "administrated" I meant to refer to official documents containing such coordinates. (Off-topic, but I think the borders of the territorial claims on Antarctica are defined in terms of numbers (degrees). If not, I pity the poor sods who had to survey those.) Thank you! 83.81.60.104 (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) (OP with different IP)

Hugo metaphor

I'm teaching foreign literature this semester, beginning with French literature. I need to formulate a metaphor or simile that upper-middle and upper class English-speaking students can understand for the dominance Hugo's work, most notably Les Misérables, holds over French literature. This needs to be a cultured and refined metaphor and NOT something like Victor Hugo's work dominates French literature like Li'l Wayne dominates neo-hiphop rap fusion (or something like that) or like Stephenie Meyer's work dominates the Teen vampire romance genre! I also don't want to use another literary metaphor, so not something like Shakespeare dominates English drama. I was thinking about using a classical music reference (i.e., the loudest or most noticeably part of a symphony/orchestra) but am open to other suggestions. Any ideas? 76.229.157.110 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking American students, British students, students in Australia, South Africa, Hong Kong...? Accessible metaphors are going to vary according to cultural and racial makeup. If you're looking for a metaphor that also captures the sense of his relationship to French literature, that's more restrictive. Beethoven would probably be the closest analogy (he was considered "THE" composer that everyone else was compared to). You could also pick up on someone like Adam Smith (who wasn't prolific, but whose ideas dominate modern economics) or someone like Da Vinci or Michelangelo who redefined their art form. hard to say more without knowing more, however.

There's always the famous quote "Victor Hugo, hélas!"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

From "upper-middle and upper class English-speaking students", I'd assume either American students or that there is some reason social class is relevant. Or is that why they want it to be a 'cultured and refined metaphor'? In which case, I worry. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply because comparing Victor Hugo to Madonna (entertainer) or Anne Rice would probably cause France to launch a nuclear strike on the Wikimedia servers in Florida. That wouldn't be so bad in itself, but there's a chance they'd miss and hit Barbados, and that would cut off our main supply of rum. Think of the consequences, man! --Ludwigs2 21:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles? to me, that's classical! Rojomoke (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP geo-locates to Wisconsin, US. I've heard "upper class" used to refer to seniors in high school as well as to describe a social class. So the OP's meaning isn't clear to me. I don't see why it needs to be "cultured and refined" since these are still kids, no matter what scholastic/social class they're in. They'd probably understand the Madonna or Beatles reference well and also identify with it better than Michelangelo or Da Vinci. Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the dominance of Balzac? How "dominant" is Victor Hugo anyway? As dominant as Verdi over Italian opera? And what would that mean?--Wetman (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as very strange. You speak as though Hugo's "dominance" in French literature is akin to something like that of Dante in Italian or Tolstoy in Russian, which is certainly not the case. Les Miserables, while popular, is certainly nowhere near the summit of French literature, as per an academic consensus - as George Steiner has summed the issue - "(Hugo's novels), for all their festive glory, (...) do not really lay claim to adult attention." Flaubert's Madame Bovary more or less invented the modern novel and in that sense is dominant in terms of form in both French prose and that of the world at large. I also can't imagine anyone claiming that Hugo is "more dominant" than Proust or Balzac or even Racine (moving out from the territory of prose). The Rhymesmith (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Les Misérables is to French literature and free speech is to American politics, as Bordeaux is to fine wine or Leonardo da Vinci was to just about everything else. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Les Mis is influential, yes, and near the center of the popular French canon. But I strongly dispute "dominance". (Which, perhaps, was your point, given that none of your examples are "dominant" in their areas.) The Rhymesmith (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)