Humanities desk
< June 24	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 25

Harvard referencing the Mahele Book

I don't know if it is appropriate to ask this or if this is the right place to ask it. But I want to reference the Mahele Book with Harvard Referencing like other books on Kekauōnohi#Bibliography, but I really don't know anything about the book beyond the title and the year it was created 1848. It is not a normal book, more like a primary source similar to the Domesday Book. I am not going to use it for any original research just going to use it mainly for citing the spelling of the names of historical Hawaiian chiefs and chiefess used in their lifetime. Would it be appropriate if I ask if someone can help me find the other information such as author/editor and publisher and location? I want to cite it using Template:Cite book. Thanks in advance if you can help.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know enough Hawaiian to read the "title page" of the manuscript? I know none, but "Honolulu" and "Januari 1848" appear there, which I assume correspond to the place and date of its writing. I don't know the significance of the names Kamehameha III, Na Lii, and Na Konohiki on the page (authors?). Is "Buke Kakau Paa" the title?

In general, one includes in a citation whatever information is available and omits what is not. In this case, you are working with a PDF scan of a MS, published on the Web, so I'd recommend using {{Cite web}} and giving "State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting and General Services" as the publisher, along with whatever other information you can determine. Deor (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox of a Democracy dissolving itself into dictatorship

I recall reading an article on wikipedia on the political paradox of whether a parliamentary democracy can legally dissolve itself a dictatorship, while still following the formal norms of the democratic constitutional amendment process. I can't seem to find anything else about it. Is there a name for this paradox and any discussion about it?--Gary123 (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at Third_Reich#Nazi_seizure_of_power with the caveat that it seems to have been written by rabid leftists; so be careful to distinguish the facts an the POV. William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is porbably a lot more reliable as far as neutrality. μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no "rabid leftist" slant in that section, but rather a pretty good summary of what I've read about Hitler's rise to power in many sources, and I don't think that Shirer's work contradicts what is said here, though it was many years ago that I read it. Can you be more specific, μηδείς? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs)

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no paradox in a nation voting to change it's type of government. Democracy in Africa is always fun, like the Algerian Civil War where the democractically elected government slaughtered 100,000 supporters of the opposition party which was projected to win with the excuse that the opposition would not hold elections again. I think it was in a Senegal election that the candidate for re-election promised gifts and vengeance based on support by province. 99.225.38.233 (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CRAZY IDEA: maybe you question parliamentary democracy, like the OP asked. Or you know, don't. Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one example of what you could call the paradox of freedom. For many freedoms, following it could involve actions which contradict tit - for example if you believe in the freedom of religion then does that mean that people are free to follow religions which suppress other religions? If you believe in freedom of speech should people be allowed to shout down someone who expresses a view they disagree with? If you believe in free market should people be able to put others out of business by dumping at below cost? There are many examples, and often you end up saying "we believe in freedom of XXX, except...". In the case of democracy I think the US constitution is a very good example of an "except ...". -- Q Chris (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no paradox.... it's effectively a pluralist dictatorship of bizarre parliament districts in the UK. The little actual minority freedom the UK still enjoys is based on a social code that has very little relevance for most young voters. There are plenty of dumbtrocracies that have ruined themselves. The UK and Wikipedia in condescending order are probably next on the list. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean in the UK a little more clearly, without neologisms like 'dumbtrocracies' and 'condescending order', please? In particular - what's so weird about UK parliamentary constituencies? We're not the country where rampant gerrymandering is normal and encouraged. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Shadowjams is talking about the fact that in the UK, you can't usually vote for people or things at national level, outside of exceedingly rare referenda. You're always voting for a person to represent your local area and that person votes on your behalf for and against policies and for the appointment of their party leader, who may therefore become Prime Minister if the MP's party is in or gains power. Many countries directly elect their Presidents and/or Prime Ministers. That the political system in the UK struggles to attract young voters is undeniable, but Shadowjam's linkages of causation and predictions for the future are all POV/OR/non comprehensible. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IP: The Algerian FLN government pre-1991 was certainly not "democratically elected" (Algeria having been a one-party state until then), and neither was the military which seized government in 1991 to lead the anti-Islamist civil war. De facto, it prevented a "feared" abolishion of democracy by preventing introduction of democracy in the first place.

The NSDAP rise to power is probably the prime example of democracy abolishing itself. As far as I'm aware, Hitler didn't even have to break the constitution for establishing his dictatorship, his predecessors having done that for him (introducing semi-constitutional Enabling Acts in emergency situations, and unconstitutional Gleichschaltung via the Preussenschlag). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check tyrant. The relationship is of ancient origin. Wnt (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'd hate to do is to devolve into the No True Scotsman problem, but it must be remembered that a democracy is more than holding elections. Democracies are arguably more about access to the political process, and a society which willfully denies access to said political process to future members of said society is no democracy. Lots of dictatorships hold regular elections, even "free" elections without direct coercion, and may not be considered democratic if the hallmarks of democracy (including basic recognition of human rights, freedom of conscience, speech, and the press, impartial education, etc.) are not present, and where natural and inalienable rights are not recognized. Certainly, elections are a necessary, but not sufficient, criteria for a society to be declared truly democratic, and any society which denies basic human rights as the birthright of all humans could not be considered democratic, no matter what they vote for. --Jayron32 02:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purchasing a bill or bill of exchange

What is meant by purchasing a bill or specifically a demand bill and how the banker gains by purchasing a bill and how other parties gain from the process. 09:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.248.128 (talk)

Purchasing a bill of exchange means buying it, nothing more. That can be profitable because they can often be bought for less than face value. The reason for the reduced price might involve (a) a time delay until the bill of exchange can be redeemed, and (b) doubts about the ability or willingness of the person who issued the bill to redeem it at full value. Looie496 (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time after the Buddhist crisis in South Vietnam

After having suffered a lot under the Catholic president of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, did the Buddhists retaliate against Catholics after the end of Diem? That period seems to be obliterated here. 112.198.82.12 (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The country passed back-and-forth for several years under a series of military juntas, none of whom controlled the country for more than a few months at a time, and each trying to keep the country together by trying to prevent sectarian war between the Catholics and the Buddhists, while simultaneously always trying to distance themselves from the Diem regime. It became increasingly hard to prove that one was really "anti-Diem" while simultaneously trying to placate Catholics (though several of the leaders tried) and the Buddhist Uprising of 1966 was the last push of the Buddhist political element to seize control. It failed, and the leader in power at the time, Nguyễn Cao Kỳ, was no less unfriendly towards the Buddhists than Diem was. Elections were eventually held in 1967, but they were heavily "controlled" by the military junta, and Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, another Catholic, won the election and was the country's leader until the fall of Saigon. --Jayron32 01:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About holdouts and vulture funds

I usually write articles about the politics of Argentina, and there has been a recent situation with some organizations that I'm not sure how to call. Some sources call them "holdouts", and others call them "vulture funds", as if they were exchangeable terms. I even saw some sources talking about "the holdouts that Argentina calls 'Vulture Funds'", or something like that; but the term clearly predates the current Argentine crisis.

Before going on writing about all that, I need some clarification on both terms. Are vulture funds a special type of holdouts, who do something that other holdouts do not? Is "Vulture fund" a derogatory term to talk about holdouts in general? Is it an accepted term with negative connotations, that the recipients try to avoid (as "terrorists" usually prefer to be called "freedom fighters")? Are they synonyms? Cambalachero (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen it, look at Argentine debt restructuring#Holdout problem, which references our articles on vulture funds and the holdout problem. The basic answer is that a "vulture fund" is a fund that buys low-quality debt. In many cases a vulture fund tries to make a profit by "holding out", which means refusing to accept a settlement that is agreed to by the majority of debt-holders. Looie496 (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This question could be answered with a Venn diagram. Vulture funds and holdouts are overlapping sets of investors. Some, but not all, holdouts are also vulture funds. Some, but not all, vulture funds are also holdouts. Argentina gets propaganda value from equating the two. Marco polo (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be specific then. NML Capital is the organization that has just won the case against Argentina (others would be benefited by the jurisprudence, but that will come later). Should NML Capital be referred as a holdout or as a vulture fund? Cambalachero (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NML Capital is a vulture fund. In the case of Argentina, it is also a holdout. Marco polo (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to remember that "vulture fund" is a general term. NML Capital was a vulture fund before it even invested in Argentine debt, and it presumably will continue to be a vulture fund after it no longer holds Argentine debt. "Holdout" is specific to the transaction. It refers to any investor that is holding out (refusing to agree) rather than consenting to a restructuring. NML Capital will no longer be a holdout if Argentina proposes a new restructuring that NML Capital finds acceptable, or if Argentina is able to complete the restructuring and issue replacement bonds without NML Capital's consent, or if Argentina just gives up and pays the bonds off in accordance with their terms. John M Baker (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photocopy of dollar bills

This happened to me many years ago (perhaps 15-20 years ago or so); it has always puzzled me since then; so I am asking about it today. I was doing some type of school project; I don't remember any of the details, but I needed to make "pictures" or "copies" of a dollar bill. I went to a Kinko's-type of store. I asked them to make me the photocopies. The guy at the desk said "That's illegal; we can't do that." It puzzled me at the time, but I did not pursue the issue. Was he correct in his statement, that it is illegal to make a photocopy of dollar bills (in the USA)? I guess I can see that one is not allowed to make counterfeit money (with the intention of passing it off as real money). So, yes, counterfeiting money is illegal. But would it be illegal to make a photocopy of money for purposes other than counterfeiting? If I remember correctly, this was a one-sided type of poster or such. So the "dollar" would only have a front side, and not a back side (i.e., no chance of passing it off as counterfeit). As a side note, this was years ago, before Photoshop and even before today's fancy color printers and such. In hindsight, I am wondering if the store clerk was factually correct? Or just being overly cautious? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any reproduction—even a one-sided, black-and-white, or photographic one—of U.S. currency has to differ sufficiently in size from an actual bill. The relevant rules can be seen under "Reproduction of Currency" (bottom of the page) here. Deor (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. So it would be illegal to take a photo of, say, my best friend holding up a dollar? Or how about videos, films, etc., when a film character holds money in his hand? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the photo would have the dollar bill much smaller than a real one. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but can't any photo be enlarged, blown up, etc.? Especially nowadays with all the software, photo shopping, etc. It wouldn't take a lot to take a regular photo and enlarge it so that the dollar appears "real-life" sized. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would lose all the detail needed to make a good forgery if you did that. If course, at some time in the future, when cameras capture 1 trillion pixels in each frame, and have the optics to make those pixels actually useful, that might then be possible. StuRat (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is common belief that real money can not be used on film but U.S. Code actually provides for such uses: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the following are permitted: . . . (3) The making or importation of motion-picture films . . . for projection upon a screen or for use in telecasting of postage and revenue stamps and other obligations and securities of the United States, and postage and revenue stamps, notes, bonds, and other obligations or securities of any foreign government, bank, or corporation." (18 USC 504 -- Printing and Filming of United States and Foreign Obligations & Securities)

In fact it is probably safer to use real money, because the creation of prop money is subject to very specific rules covered in The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992: (31 CFR 411). 31 CFR § 411.1(a) reads, when creating prop money, ". . . authority is hereby given for the printing . . .or making . . .of the necessary plates or items for such printing or publishing, of color illustrations of U.S. currency provided that: (1) The illustration be of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension (of actual U.S. currency), of each part of any matter so illustrated; (2) The illustration be one-sided; and (3) All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof shall be destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use in accordance with this section."--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for why, consider that a bill that wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny may very well pass if in the middle of a stack of bills, when only the corner is viewed (to check the denomination), and only one side of it. StuRat (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty years ago it was a common story that vending machines would accept photocopied dollar bills - even, some said, one-sided copies. Since it was assumed (probably wrongly) that a large number of different vending machine manufacturers exist, it was viewed as impossible to disprove these stories. Wnt (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangent, another thing that has puzzled me for years. In one episode of Danger Man, our hero finds a handful of US currency of various denominations. There's just one single ($1 bill), which does not resemble the notes with which I'm acquainted, while the rest looks genuine enough. Afterthought: That's not because all the higher denominations were redesigned thirty-odd years later. I'm not too young to remember what they looked like in 196x. —Tamfang (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, something built into some printers even prevents printing money. You would receive a warning on your sheet. There is a video on Youtube about this, but it's in German. --2.245.205.220 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing unique to Germany about that, many bank notes including modern US ones include the EURion constellation which prevents many? colour photocopiers from working with them (although not sure if they generally print a warning sheet or not). In addition, as the article mentions, the general idea isn't something unique to photocopiers since commercial programs like Photoshop may also detect and refuse to work with banknotes in some cases (but perhaps not based on the EURion constellation). Note also pretty much all large scale commercial photocopiers probably have some sort of Printer steganography so it's likely any thing printed which did violate any laws relating to counterfeiting or whatever could be tracked down to the store that made it. I don't know how serious the government agencies generally are with these sort of things but it's possible they will at least 'talk to' any store which did stuff that violated the law if they became aware of it, even if it's clear no one had a specific intention to misuse the photocopied currency. In other words, there's plenty of reasons for the store to not go near that sort of stuff with a barge pole no matter the precise legalities (and I suspect the low level staff who are often making these decisions are not lawyers who have read the law/s in their entirety and know the case history to tell them how these laws are interpreted plus I suspect the case law may be limited anyway). Edit: And just noticed that per this [1], some photocopiers may even be semidisabled when trying rather than just refusing to work with the note or printing a warning. Others will at least log it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a very hard time believing this based on a forum post. If it were true then it would be gloriously useful. For example, if you have an anti-logging group you need merely find a way to print out whatever sets this off (EURion constellation?) (either smuggle in a printer from some free country, or... well, is there such a thing allowed as an open source printer? Or as a last resort, do it in two printings to the same sheet of paper, I doubt even the NSA reads the blank paper in your printer before you use it) - then mail some well-chosen kind of official-looking form to every logging company in the country, and cackle with glee as they start photocopying it for their records). I bet that an inspired person who can hack a way that consumers end up printing out the pattern and sending it in could do a billion dollars worth of damage. If the government ever did this they'd be screwed too, because probably the militia types would go straight for the IRS.

If it were true I suppose Wikileaks cables would be next... Wnt (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it --- the EURion constellation seems like it could be useful all by itself. Picture this: you sign some legal document that might be trouble later (like some of the more ridiculous leases on an apartment you might run into) with a bureaucratic organization, and inconspicuously rubber-stamp the constellation near your signature. A clerk photocopies it and dutifully stores a copy for their records with your signature blanked out. Later on... it may be hard for them to enforce. I think a stamp like that could be a seriously cute knick-knack. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Osage reservation

Why was the Osage reservation the only reservation that continued to exist in Oklahoma after 1906? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant Wikipedia articles: Osage Nation, Former Indian reservations in Oklahoma, Oklahoma Enabling Act, History of Oklahoma#Oklahoma and Indian Teritories, Oklahoma Organic Act, Dawes Commission, Dawes Act, Curtis Act of 1898, etc. The various Acts and Commissions called for an an end to tribal governments by 1906, ended reservation status and broke up the tribal lands into individual allotments. Unassigned land was open for settlement. The Osage were the only tribe to buy all of their "allotments" and therefore own their land, creating a de facto reservation.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 18:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double round "Hoover" collar

During what years was the double-round collar, AKA Herbert Hoover collar, popular in the US? 173.95.181.46 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article collar lists Double Round, but gives no info. This site [2] that sells them claims they were popular 1870-1940, and were especially associated with gentlemen of the Edwardian era. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there's actually an article about the "Herbert Hoover collar" in the Washington Letter column of 28 January 1929 San Jose News. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In "The High Window" written by Raymond Chandler in 1942 an unflattering description of an elderly coin dealer in a shabby office with loose ethical standards notes he wore a "dark gray suit with high lapels and too many buttons down the front" and "a Hoover collar which no decent laundry would allow on the premises." So presumably considered old fashioned by 1942. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markxus25 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]