Humanities desk
< June 29	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	July 1 >

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 30

What happened to the US?

These things are totally forgotten, just like erased from history, very strange.

--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are both very much part of the US government:

1) Mergers of large companies are regularly reviewed, and often rejected, when they will lead to a lack of competition, or, in the case of media companies, a lack of independent voices.

2) The Social Security Administration is perhaps the most lasting effect of the New Deal. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also still very much part of history. Erased things don't have Wikipedia articles, let alone well-sourced ones. Do you mean erased from history class? If so, I don't know much about that (even if they're taught or not), but, in general, there aren't enough hours in the school day for most important events. Even American history is very long. Can't teach every kid every thing. Even Wikipedia can only try. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the FDIC! Neutrality^talk 04:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the uncovering of the 2015 FIFA corruption case was the result of the application US antitrust law. Alansplodge (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And United States v. Microsoft Corp. was not so long ago either. It received a ton of media coverage. --Xuxl (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the more recent United States v. Apple Inc. which didn't perhaps receive quite so much, but still a fair amount. As Sturat has said, antitrust law also comes in to play with most major mergers. Even if it doesn't stop the merger or result in additional conditions, it's the reason (in particular the Clayton Act 1914 I think) why such mergers need approval. (Note also, the lack of rejection or additional conditions isn't an indication the law isn't doing anything, the companies themselves will consider such issues before proposing a merger so may not propose a merger unlikely to be successful or may have already agreed to do something to satisfy government concerns.) Of course in the modern world it usually isn't just US anti-trust law that comes in to play.

In the case of the New Deal, it's difficult to watch much Fox News, or read other US conservative news without seeing some discussion of how the New Deal destroyed America/prolonged the great depression and how Obama is doing the same thing in some way.

So as with many others, I don't understand the OPs question. I don't live in the US and was well aware of these probably since my mid teens. (Well at least US antitrust although that was difficult to ignore as this was the time of the MS case.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One date "they" don't tell you about is June 18, 1958. The day Homer J Simpson died. Note, students, the J stands for nothing. Even a Findagrave site search on Google for "homer j simpson" doesn't find him. But he was real, once. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

In other news, US Air Force Major General Chester E. McCarty (this guy) took three jackrabbits, two horned toads and an armadillo to Portland, Oregon. He returned to Waco, Texas with a porcupine and a beaver. Elsewhere, a bridge fell. How many fifth-graders know that? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You mean, present or past fifth-graders? By the way, the zoo swap happened the day before the article is dated, that would be June the 17th. That would be a reason to desesperate, while in fact there are plenty of them if not just targeting the same Google research date. --Askedonty (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In real time, a day before. But when reviewing history, perception is reality. Nobody knows the news till it's fit to print. Many things were in the zeitgeist that week, but in my eye, flying armadillos deserve the recognition as much as any southbound pachyderm. I'll bet no birth notice in any paper mentioned "Jello Biafra" was born. But he was real, later. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Haggard, a constant value following birth notices, whom we don't know what the tale would be if he'd decided exploring alternative realities, was born on the 18th, not the 17th: now him real right from the start, and at the same time, we are now reading the news only a long time after they have been pushed (or after he's been shot by a hitch-hicker, imagine that.) --Askedonty (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this guy released an album and song called "The Bridge" 42 years after the other bridge released, tried to scrape some nutjob meaning from the lyrics, and wouldn't you know it? I knew the Internet would forget history, but to see lyrics disappear is more troubling than missing LOLcats. Guess I'll just have to chalk another one up to the Mothman instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could find the song on Youtube and I think '42' means only the guy was 42. If you're doing Christian simplicity music, the Bridge it's a bit one of the doctorates. Now you can still reason he chose the style deliberately. --Askedonty (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

same as happened to old-school Leftism in general. Got replaced by social justice warriordom and market fundamentalism. Also, stuff (at least electronics) actually getting cheaper (or becoming more advanced for the same price) thanks to China (which helps dull people's suspicion of cartel activity) Asmrulz (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. These topics are covered in standard U.S. history texts used in U.S. schools today. Check any major text and you will find them. Marco polo (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Story checks out. At least for the New Deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

I'm pretending to be in Australia, where Christmas comes in early summer :-) Do we have any coverage of "Joseph dearest, Joseph mine"? I'm not finding much under that title, "Song of the crib", or "Josef, Lieber Josef Mein", but as with any obscure work translated from another language, I don't want to assume that these are the only names under which it might appear. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas is always on December 25th, regardless of the hemisphere, right? I found this on Google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't on 25 December in Russia or in Ethiopia. All together now, "Do they know it's Christmas time at all?". Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, in some Eastern European sects Christmas is in January, but that has nothing to do with which side of the equator you are on. The side of the equator inverts the seasons, but not when Christmas is. Therefore they have Christmas in summer south of the equator. That might seem strange to us in the Northern Hemisphere, but keep in mind that Bethlehem is close enough to the equator that it wouldn't be likely to have snow any time of the year, anyway, and that we really don't know when Jesus was actually born. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely unheard of [1]. Mikenorton (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some eastern churches, such as Russian Orthodox, still go by the Julian calendar rather than the Gregorian. So they still celebrate Christmas on December 25th, Julian, although it's into January, per the standard calendar. The civil calendar was changed to sync with the west, after the "October" (actually November) revolution which put Lenin in power. Lenin and his pals did a lot of bad things, but at least they made the civil calendar run on time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually Christmas in July or alternatively Mid Winter Christmas (which isn't necessarily in July). That said, while I can't comment on the situation in Australia, I don't think it really gets much attention here in NZ except among various places looking for a way to make money (generally places associated with snow, and eateries). Actually I think Matariki probably gets more attention in recent times. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the translator credited on the page you linked Percy Dearmer. He published three hymnbooks in his lifetime (1906, 1926 and 1928); two have online versions but I can't find this hymn in either of them. However if you can get the third; Oxford Book of Carols, it seems most likely.

(Nevertheless, I found at least one mention of this song title before any of those books were published: [2] (1898).)

Anyway, most useful information I found was in the German wikipedia article on the original hymn. [3] It says the tune goes back to a Latin one that we have an English article on Resonet in laudibus, which says the words have been credited, but far from definitively, to Johannes Galliculus (couple of references in that article). On the other hand, the German article says the words were likely by Monk of Salzburg.

The German article also says the song is attested in five medieval manuscripts, and links to one of them dated c. 1420 [4]. Another reference (Ludwig Erk, Franz Magnus Böhme (Hrsg.): Deutscher Liederhort. Band 3. Leipzig 1894, S. 643 f.) dates it to c. 1400 and there's an unreferenced claim that puts it in the mid-12th century as part of a Christmas play (no English article, but see [5]). 184.147.138.101 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Horus article where is the section about Horemakhet and how does it related to the Great_Sphinx_of_Giza

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venustar84 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sphinx one says "hor-em-akhet" means "Horus of the Horizon", and was another name for the kitty. The Horus article doesn't mention it, or if it does, it hides as well from me as you. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Horemakhet was a form of Horus who represented the sun. He was one of several Egyptian sun gods, the best-known of which is Ra, who is very similar to Horemakhet, though not so much to other forms of Horus. There are no Egyptian texts that refer to the sphinx from around the time it was built, but in the New Kingdom, a thousand years later, it was called Horemakhet. Lions were symbols of the sun in ancient Egypt, and the sphinx is assumed to represent the king who built it (probably Khafre or perhaps Khufu) taking the form of a sun god like Ra or Horemakhet. The New Kingdom name for the sphinx therefore loosely fits with the meaning that its sculptors probably meant to convey. Here is an article with more details about the sphinx's meaning. A. Parrot (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of the form "Why is XXX not in Wikipedia/this Wikipedia article?" (and the passive-aggressive variant "Where is XXX in this Wikipedia article?") almost always have one or both of the following answers:

Because nobody has written it yet: if you have reliable published sources, why don't you go ahead and put it in?
Because there aren't enough reliable published sources for it, so it can't be written. --ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also possible that someone wrote and sourced it well, then someone else deleted it for any of many reasons (not just good ones). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]