Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< July 7 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 9 >
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.


July 8

[edit]

1960s organization known as the Silver Dollar Group

[edit]

Does anyone know about the Silver Dollar Group's history and how it affected the civil rights movement? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A violent wing of the Klu Klux Klan thought to be responsible for multiple unsolved racial killings. The identifying marker was a silver dollar minted in the year of the individual’s birth. Google is your friend! [1], [2], [3]. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be mentioned in the article of White Knights of the KKK Klansman James Ford Seale that he was a member of the Silver Dollar Group, which was founded by Red Glover? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a published reliable source states this, and indicates that it is relevant, it might seem reasonable to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source does. Why isn't there an article about the Silver Dollar Group, Red Glover, or the case of the assassination of civil rights activist Wharlest Jackson? This Klan organization was responsible for notorious crimes that alarmed the American people, leading to desegregation. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't there an article? The usual answer is because nobody has written it yet. WP is a work in progress. You're welcome to write the article yourself, if you'd like and if you have enough reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject. Dismas|(talk) 04:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspar de Carvajal's account of the Amazon

[edit]

Where can I find an online English translation of Gaspar de Carvajal's Relación? I've found many Spanish documents, but I unfortunately don't know Spanish. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there probably aren't any English translations that have fallen out of copyright. Looie496 (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I had just visited Carnegie-Mellon University for a few days. I found there are seldom any visible surveillance cams though there are notices like "This area may be monitored by closed-circuit camera". I wonder:

Do you need to get any grant before you set a cam?

Is it legal to set up covert surveillance cams? -- Agiongpg (talk · contribs) 14:20, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

It most likely varies from state to state, and likely also within each state. Best suggestion would be to seek qualified legal advice in the area you are planning to set up a camera. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carnegie Mellon is a private university, and the laws about private institutions might be considerably different from those about public institutions. I'm thinking back to when the Chicago Cubs installed security cameras at Wrigley Field, ca. 1970. I don't recall anything being said about them needing permission. I would also argue (with no legal knowledge, just opinion) that if there's a sign warning you, then it's not really "covert". It's like when you call a help desk and a message says "this conversation may be recorded". Or it may not. But at least you know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to vary greatly by jurisdiction but you can read expectation of privacy and look into the Chuck Berry settlement. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pennsylvania law generally prohibits recording someone unawares; there are probably some exceptions, but if I understand rightly, it's illegal in most situations, at least when done by people other than government officials and employees. CMU's signs presumably meet or surpass the legal requirements, which don't require consent. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a link for that Nyttend? There are plenty of rules against recording people on the phone without consent, but very few rules that prohibit recording on your own property or in public. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to the "we don't give legal advice" rule the reference desks used to have? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We still enforce it, but it doesn't apply to this specific situation unless Agionpg is actually editing on behalf of CMU. Can't bring up a source right now, Medeis; this is something I learned a few years ago while living in Pennsylvania. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I googled [Carnegie Mellon University security cameras] this link,[4] was interesting, as it came up well before 9/1/11, and talks about plans to use security cameras with no hint of any legal restrictions. Here[5] is a more recent item. I recommend the OP google the subject, and maybe also google something about security camera laws for Pennsylvania, and see what turns up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear legal advice question, and some of the responses here are prime examples of why we have this rule in the first place. Shadowjams (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between asking about a law and requesting legal advice. The OP isn't asking us what he can do legally or how to proceed on a lawsuit, or whether we think someone has committed a crime. We are not advising anyone what to do or not do or giving any legal opinion about a specific alleged tort/crime. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure it's clearly a legal-advice question. But it's clear no one here knows for sure. The OP should contact a local attorney and find out the answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diapers

[edit]

I have a question the usage of diapers. I am aware that this is an odd topic but I hope I can find an answer. My question is: Are diaper age people (usually age 0-3) aware when they have soiled/wet their diapers? Can their own nasal capacities detect that their diaper is full? --I Need Answers Please. (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are aware. No doubt their sense of smell contributes to their awareness, but I think the experience of a dirty diaper is more of a tactile experience of a wet mass against the skin. I think even infants have an instinctive aversion to their own waste and will cry for their diaper to be changed. Marco polo (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure they can feel a wet diaper. Modern disposable diapers are designed to drive urine from the skin. Read Diaper#Disposable here about the details. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually a company here in NZ actually advertises a nappy for toilet training where the urine is supposed to stay for a while so they know when they we the nappy/should have gone to the toilet. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further in the article Osman links to there is information about cloth diapers, which tend not to wick moisture away from a baby's skin as much as disposables do (at least the ones I'm familiar with), so the baby does very much sense that s/he is wet, and make that fact well known to all within hearing range fairly quickly (as in more or less immediately). I believe one argument for cloth diapers over disposables is this fact, since it helps keep babies from being conditioned to sit in their own waste, but I can't find an authoritative source at the moment. I'm not the expert around the homestead as far as that goes; I just change them in stereotypically clumsy fashion when the situation warrants. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu speaking and Kannada speaking Muslims?

[edit]

Are there Telugu and Kannada-speaking Muslims in India like Malayalam and Tamil-speaking Muslims in India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.246 (talk • contribs)

Yes. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you returning to anonymous IP status, instead of using your "Donmust90" account? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because he must? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political Philosophy and Semantic Metaethics

[edit]

Ethics is very wide subject matter, and there are so may ways to discuss it as it encompasses a number of fields like psychology, political philosophy, and cultural studies. But the most interesting topics in ethics are metaethics and prescriptive ethics. Metaethics is heavily focused on semantics, proving whether ethical terms are truth apt or not. Base on my readings, political philosophy tends to discuss ethics in a normative fashion. There is little or no significant connection between semantic metaethics and political philosophy. I mean political philosophy does not care much about the semantic nature and the truth aptness of ethical terms. They are more concerned on the utility and the pragmatic effects of their moral prescriptions. Given that, what are the general comments of some political philosophers, preferably the modern ones, about their lack of interest in semantic metaethics? And, are there any moral or political philosophers who criticize the semantic treatment of metaethics and ethics as a whole? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs)

Please always sign and date your posts by adding 4 tildes (~) at the end. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 18:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template is {{unsigned|Joshua Atienza}} μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm asking the OP to sign and date his own posts, rather than have others do the work of tracking down his name and adding it to his posts. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to make sure that trolls are named for future reference when they don't follow the rules. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Cell

[edit]
We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was wondering what the psycological effects would be if:

  • I was locked in this prison cell for 20 years straight , without being let out.
  • I was not allowed TV, books or anything else.

What would be the mental health consequences? --Ańotede (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking for speculation. We're not supposed to do that here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite that, at least one reliable source has collected some expert views, statistics, anecdotes and speculation about the topic; [6]. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Solitary_confinement#Effects has some links. It is devastating, even at a much shorter length. The BBC link above implies that answering your question is not speculation, but something that happens and has been analyzing. Some people spend longer than one decade in California prisons under solitary confinement. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the question can be answered. "I" means "someone." There is plenty of literature about the effects of solitary confinement. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the OP wants to ask that question, he's an experienced enough wikipedia user to do so. See the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced enough? He has asking one question and done no edit. It's obvious he meant someone and not him concretely. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We shouldn't punish them for not knowing the exact way to ask a question so it won't get boxed up. StuRat (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Cell (Osman's version)

[edit]

A friend of mine was wondering what the psychological effects are when:

  • someone is locked in a prison cell for 20 years straight, without being let out.
  • this someone was not allowed TV, books or anything else.

What would be the mental health consequences? Are there sources about it?

OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might help to specify whether the person were in contact with guards and/or anyone else walking past in the hallway; I'd guess that someone with no human contact would end up substantially differently from how he'd end up if he chatted with the guards every few hours. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the cells either side (or nearby) are occupied, the people in them would be easily able to make themselves heard, and this would be a form of human contact. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least one reliable source has collected some expert views, statistics, anecdotes and speculation about the topic; [7]. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Solitary_confinement#Effects has some links. It is devastating, even at a much shorter length. The BBC link above implies that answering your question is not speculation, but something that happens and has been analyzing. Some people spend longer than one decade in California prisons under solitary confinement. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is tragic. We have seen Osman unhat invalid trolling before, with the edit summary saying he merely wishes to annoy another editor with his actions. Now he not only posts his own troll proxies, he answers himself. This violates the ref desk guidelines, {WP:POINTY]] and invites all sorts of sanctions for disruptive editting, vandalism, and so forth. These two threads are at the point of deletion per WP:DENY. μηδείς (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was addressed on the talk page, which was obviously seen as irrelevant. This thread sets up the precedent that we can pretend to ask a question, then write a nice long essay answering ourselves. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natan Sharansky writes about this. IIRC, he was in solitary for a considerable period. He'd been a chess prodigy as a child and he passed the time playing chess against himself in his head. --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a valid question that we should try to answer. And I don't see anything particularly wrong with the previous question. Anyway - some references I got off google:
StewieCartman (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you take the original question literally, it's unanswerable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But why would take it literally? It's not as if he has got a 20 years solitary confinement conviction and were asking about how to deal with it? OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He said "I" rather than "some average individual". Maybe I missed where he clarified that point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't clarified. Had he said "if you spend 20 years in prison ..." Would that mean "you" BB? Nope. It would mean someone. He was not expecting to get a tailored answer regarding himself, but just a general answer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At what age did you discover that you were a mind-reader? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The man on the Clapham omnibus would read it the way Osman read it. This fascinating digression probably belongs on the talk page, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous births in the Commonwealth Realms succession

[edit]

The discussion up above, "Question about Male Primogeniture and The Act of Settlement 1701", made me wonder — how do the Commonwealth Realms address the matter of posthumous births, and how has it been addressed in the past for England/the UK? Neither Succession to the Crown Act 2013 nor Succession to the British throne mentions it, and while a couple of English kings appear in the list at posthumous birth, both of them obtained the crown by overthrowing their predecessors, rather than by inheriting it from their fathers. What I'm reading in the posthumous birth article is largely aimed at normal inheritance and at crowns that are actually significant (i.e. not figurehead constitutional monarchs), and I don't imagine the pattern of Shapur II being repeated if Prince Charles, Prince William, and Queen Elizabeth were all to die tomorrow. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is "it hasn't been addressed because it never happened", and the British system doesn't tend to rely on legislating in advance for unusual issues. I suspect that were it to happen now, we would have a regency with a vacant crown until the birth and then a regency for that child until the age of succession.
In the context of a modern constitutional monarchies, the likely analogy for how it would work is Alfonso XIII of Spain in the late nineteenth century; Queen Maria Cristina was three months pregnant when Alfonso XII died, and became regent until the child was born. At this point, she became a regent on behalf of Alfonso XII; had he been born a girl, she would have become a regent for her elder daughter Mercedes. Mercedes was explicitly not named Queen until the birth. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another example I can think of from another European country was Jean I of France. Not only was his succession posthumous (that is, his father died before he was born), but he himself was so sickly he only lived (and thus was king) for only 5 days. His death was followed by the succession of two of his father's brothers, and within a little more than a decade the direct Capetians died out, precipitating the Hundred Years War. --Jayron32 18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In cases of both John I of France and Alphonse XIII of Spain, the throne was left vacant until the kings were born. What little precedence there is indicates that the same would not be done in Commonwealth realms because vacancy is apparently avoided at all costs. When Victoria succeeded William IV of the United Kingdom, she was proclaimed sovereign but "Saving the Rights of any Issue of His late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be born of His late Majesty's Consort". Essentially, that meant that Victoria's reign would have come to an end had her aunt given birth to her dead uncle's child, and as soon as that child was born. Of course, it was not considered likely that such a child would be born, but I still believe that, if such a situation were to take place in the next few days, there would be a Henry IX for a short while, and that his reign would end upon the birth of his niece or nephew. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Victoria succeeded, though, there was essentially no chance of this happening - Adelaide was 45 and had not been pregnant for thirteen years - so they could safely fudge the issue! I think the regency aspect may come into it as well; a situation where there is an adult heir like this may well be handled differently from the Spanish case where a regent would have been appointed in either case, and so the practical difference was slight. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The Crown passes immediately from the former heir of the body of Sophia of Hanover to the new one. Unborn people are incapable of succeeding. They cannot be heir of the body. Henry IX would, in that case, be Sophia's heir of the body until the birth of his nephew or niece. Surtsicna (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surtiscna, I'm not following that. I can't see how it could possibly arise in the current circumstances, unless not one but three people die, today. William is not yet the heir, let alone his unborn child. The Queen is still on the throne, and Prince Charles is still the heir. Should William die today, Prince Harry would immediately move up a notch in the line of succession from 3rd to 2nd, and then drop back when the baby's born later this week. But that is no way the same as aaying we've suddenly got a King Henry IX. For that to happen, not only William has to die, but the Queen and Charles as well. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to a situation in which "Prince Charles, Prince William, and Queen Elizabeth were all to die tomorrow", which is what the OP wanted to know about. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my apologies. Seems we were on the same wavelength. I should re-read the question occasionally. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the unlikelihood of a dead king's wife being pregnant, do official ask the widowed queen if she is with child in that circumstance? I know in Hawaii after the death of Kamehameha IV the politicians asked Queen Emma if she was pregnant prior to allowing his brother Lot to succeed. It would be awkward if the widowed queen found out she was pregnant three months into the new monarchs reign.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it would not just be a case of asking her, but of actually testing for pregnancy unless she'd become medically unbearable through hysterectomy or advanced age. The future of the monarchy should not depend on the late king's widow saying "Not as far as I'm aware". -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean "unbearable" or "impregnable"? Alansplodge (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*wink* -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_July_8&oldid=1136444058"