Humanities desk
< August 18	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 20 >

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 19

Kawanankoa

It seems that whenever a foreign royal visit Hawaii (during the territorial period and afterward), a member of the Kawanankoa family is always present with them. Ex: during the visits of Edward, Prince of Wales, Prince and Princess Takamado of Japan, and recently the Dalai Lama. Are these meetings official (involving the state or municipal government) or private affairs planned by the family themselves?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking a pardon

Can a presidential or gubernatorial pardon in the United States be revoked? For example, when a new president or governor comes into office? --89.13.87.210 (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See for example Isaac Toussie.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That goes against the second part of the OP's question though. In Toussie's case, the pardon was more of a recall than a revocation since the pardon hardly left Bush's office before he took it back. Dismas|^(talk) 09:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) According to this, yes. Dismas|^(talk) 09:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Toussie, you're right, I just read that the article goes on to say "The action by Mr. Bush to revoke the pardon is considered unprecedented, and it is unclear that the president has the power to withdraw a pardon.[13] However, the Justice Department has stated that the pardon was never official, having never been delivered to the person who requested it."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some places this comes up in fiction, for example Nina Myers. I assume there must be some dignified legal proceeding, though I remember having the notion that the president might say the pardon for the terrorist is irrevocable, then issue pardons for the police who kidnap her into custody, the warden who chains her to the floor of Attica Prison, the fortunate prisoners who once an hour, day and night, are encouraged to rape her on the slimy concrete prison floor, and the judge who tears up her civil lawsuit and instead declares her, her nieces, fifth cousins, and lawyer liable for a billion dollars each... anyway, I suppose there would be some limit to it, but I'm not actually sure what. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, there is no power to revoke a federal pardon once it is officially granted. This was a deliberate decision by the founding fathers. The United States was weak, and faced internal rebellions from aggrieved groups (e.g. the Whiskey Rebellion). The president needed to have the power to offer an absolute and irrevocable guarantee to members of such groups that in return for laying down their arms, they would face no punishment, as a means of avoiding prolonged civil strife. The founding fathers held the view that if pardons could in theory be subsequently revoked (either by the same president or his successors), such individuals would not feel safe in accepting such a guarantee.

As to state-level pardons, I'm not sure. It would depend on the state in question's constitution and laws, and its' courts' interpretation on the relevant clauses, and may vary from state to state. I'd assume it would need to be difficult to revoke such pardons, or they would be considered relatively worthless. There may however be scope to declare a pardon void if the courts find that it was not granted in accordance with the relevant law. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

convert to Zoroastrianism

Hello guys, this is a very common question about Zoroastrianism, but since the only website I trust, is Wikipedia, please let me ask this question here. Is it possible to convert to Zoroastrianism? Some says that it is not possible and Zoroastrianism is only for those people that already born as a Zoroastrian. Is this right? Thanks. Bkouhi (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on who you ask. What I'm finding (source, source), in general, most Zoroastrians are opposed to conversion, with only a minority believing that the opposition to conversion was rooted in a historical promise to not proselytize (in exchange for protection) than actual religious doctrine. Still, since Zoroastrianism at least as much a practiced religion as a dogmatic one, refusal to accept converts does amount to dogma. Iranian Zoroastrians who did not go through India but left Iran seem to be more likely to accept converts than Parsis who spent time in India. Still, some Zoroastrians (source) make the argument that conversion is pointless if you're already observing a good religion (be it Christianity, Hinduism). This may be a modern phenomena, though (source). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can do the same things a good Zoroastrian does for the same reasons. Even if it doesn't make them part of the group, they should still see a wide and sturdy bridge when they die. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Hampton Census Area

Why is Wade Hampton Census Area, Alaska named for Wade Hampton III, who never had anything to do with this remote chunk of Yukon Delta? Hampton's article claims that "In 1913, Judge John Randolph Tucker named the Wade Hampton Census Area in Alaska to commemorate his father-in-law", but this is clearly impossible: List of boroughs and census areas in Alaska notes that there were no such things as census areas in Alaska until 1970, and even if that uncited statement is untrue, the concept of Alaska boroughs (and thus of non-borough areas such as Wade Hampton) originated in the Constitution of Alaska, promulgated in 1956 and presumably long after Judge Tucker's death. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the 1920 Alaska Territory census (on ancestry.com, a pay site - sorry) which shows "Recorder's Districts" (treated liked "townships" in ancestry's index) called Wade Hampton, in both the Second and Fourth Judicial Districts (treated like "counties" in ancestry's index). By 1940 (the last detailed census available to the public) they were using the terms "Recording District" and "Judicial Division". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's available on Google Books - search for "Fourteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1920". -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This indicates changes in terminology over the years. Maybe the author(s) of the Wikipedia articles tried to retrofit the terminology. The website I linked shows the terms Boroughs and Census Areas (2000, 1990, 1980); Census Divisions (1970); Election Districts (1960); Judicial Districts (1950 back to 1910); and Census Districts (1900, 1890, 1880). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So putting all the pieces together... while the term "Census Area" is a more recent creation, the name "Wade Hampton" has been associated with the region in the census records since at least 1920. In that context, the statement that Judge Tucker introduced the name "Wade Hampton" (in honor of his father in law) seems likely... what needs to be clarified is that it probably was originally called the "Wade Hampton District" (or something similar)... and each time the census used a different term, the name "Wade Hampton" was tacked on. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked 1910 on ancestry.com, and that year there was no Wade Hampton district in any of the four judicial districts. So 1913 is plausible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ngm

Why is the scope of national geographic magazine so large? It seems to cover everything from all branches of science, technology and geography to world culture, heritage, history, arts and humanities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.149.21 (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic Magazine started out in 1888 with a classic "geographic" focus, as this was understood at the time, i.e reports of scientific travels to various exotic locations. It is still largely its stock in trade, in a modernized form, although the science part is very much of the "popular" variety and the exotic locales have become relatively less exotic in this day of jet travel. But geography as a science has also evolved since the 19th century, with "human geography" becoming a huge field with a lot of overlap with sociology and anthropology, but also history (how humans lived in a certain location in centuries past), or technology (NG's treatment of the subject is quite different from say Popular Mechanics and tends to focus on the human aspects of how the technology is used), etc. The readership has also evolved from hard-core geographers at the outset, to a general public interested in learning about the world, mainly through picture essays; the content reflects what readers are interested in. --Xuxl (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The broad coverage by NG is part of what makes it such a great publication. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Bugs. Whenever I have a stint in hospital, I usually get a copy of it to read while I am there. There is hardly an article in it that I will not read. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]