Humanities desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28

Capitals and Largest Cities of American States

In most American states, the capital and the largest city are not the same city. Why?

117.120.18.136 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, "Montpelier was selected because of its central location, and due to support from local residents who provided land and money." Other less reliable sources I've read say that it also had to do with the commerce from the Winooski River in addition to the natural resources of the area. Dismas|^(talk) 05:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The inland waterways of the United States used to matter so much more before trains, cars and planes came about. As did other resources that couldn't be shipped on those new lanes. Without those restrictions, new cities can grow pretty much anywhere. But they don't have the same historical significance or established systems, so they don't get to be the city. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just an American thing, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a handful of countries compared to about 200 in the world. This is evidence supporting the view that American states are unusual in this respect. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canada does the same in five of its thirteen state-like things. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to our article on the topic, 33 of the 50 state capitals are in fact the largest city by population in their state, and a number of others are largest in their state by area, so your "most" qualifier is in fact incorrect. But as to a general answer of how a city might become a capital despite not being the single largest population center (or for that matter, the largest center of commerce and industry), I don't think you are going to find any one simple and universal explanation; each case is likely to be a complex story of historical accident combining many different social, political, commercial, industrial, and geographical factors. It's worth noting also that this is not a particularly American trend, especially in the modern context; globally, many centers of governance (be they national or state/provincial/regional) are found outside the most populous city. Another question you might ask to gain perspective on these matters is "why would the capital be the largest city?" There's no particularly strong advantage to it, other than proximity to major non-governmental economic institutions, and politically speaking such proximity is likely to be viewed as a mixed bag. Historically speaking, there would of course have been advantage in establishing a location for assembly that was geographically convenient to a large number of representatives, and sometimes these same advantages were those that allowed a given city to develop into the largest in a state, but even then its worth noting that relative regional populations change over time, and some of those capitals which are now relatively small compared to a state's most populous city would have themselves been much larger relative population cetners and transit hubs at the time they were established than in present day. Again, in terms of relative figures. Lastly, its worth noting also that regardless of where the official capital is, in many cases (especially in the case of particularly populous states) major governmental institutions might be located across multiple cities, with judicial and even legislative bodies located outside the capital. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look carefully at our list of state capitals, 17 are the largest cities in their state, and 33 are not, so the questioner's premise is correct. There are three main reasons why some states' capitals are not their largest cities: 1) In a few cases, the city that is now the capital was the largest settlement at the time when it was chosen as capital but has since been outgrown by another city. (Examples: St. Paul, Minnesota, Helena, Montana, and Santa Fe, New Mexico) 2) In most cases, a city was chosen as capital for its central location. In some of these cases, the capital's location is near the geographic center of the state; in others, it was near the state's center of population at the time it was chosen. (Examples: Montgomery, Alabama, Sacramento, California, Hartford, Connecticut, Dover, Delaware, Tallahassee, Florida, Springfield, Illinois, Topeka, Kansas, Frankfort, Kentucky, Augusta, Maine, Lansing, Michigan, Jefferson City, Missouri, Lincoln, Nebraska, Concord, New Hampshire, Trenton, New Jersey, Raleigh, North Carolina, Bismarck, North Dakota, Salem, Oregon, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Pierre, South Dakota, Nashville, Tennessee, Austin, Texas, Montpelier, Vermont, Richmond, Virginia, Olympia, Washington, and Madison, Wisconsin) 3) In a couple of cases, a city was chosen as capital precisely because it was not the largest city. In these cases, the capital was chosen to remove the state government from undue influence from commercial interests in the largest city. (Examples: Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Albany, New York, though centrality was also a consideration there) In the remaining few cases, the choice was made for idiosyncratic historical reasons. Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on point 3 a bit, that was also a concern at the federal level, where they didn't want New York City to be the capital, out of fear that NYC and the state of New York would then have too much influence on the government. Instead they created the neutral District of Columbia, not in any state, so no state would have undue influence, and midway between the North and South, so neither would have the upper hand. StuRat (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Later, it became considerably easier to drive to the capital from Virginia than California. California was more of a destination then, so it didn't matter so much. As far as I know, nobody has seriously considered moving headquarters to the geographic center of the United States or the median or mean center of United States population, but that seems fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be a major hassle. In addition to the logistics of moving a major capital, there would be the politics of what to do with DC (make it a state or annex it to Maryland or Virginia ?), and whether the new location would be part of a state or again become an independent district. This would be hard enough to tackle with a functional government, but the current situation of polarization and total deadlock makes it quite impossible. StuRat (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, DC was chosen to be darned close to the geographic center of the Original thirteen colonies. --Jayron 32 23:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's really not much to move. The old buildings would stay, and thousands of new construction jobs would be created. According to every political ad (and even regular ads) I've seen in the last 30 years, America loves construction workers. Sure, it's a bit of a hassle to uproot a family and move halfway across the country for a job, but they'd be safer there if someone (I won't mention any names) decided to invade. Another thing the last 13 years of ads have made clear, they must remain vigilant.

The old land wouldn't become part of any state. It, Maryland and Virginia would merge into New Fairfax County. This megacounty would also serve as the national treasury. Can't keep the money hoarded up in the center. This would eliminate a lot of red tape, so the central government wouldn't need to be as big, so fewer families would have to move to the heartland, so carbon emissions would be reduced. For the last seven years or so, that's been in the ads, too.

It's a win-win-win situation. If you guys had voted for an emperor instead, it'd be done already. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is history. What was a thriving seat of commerce and governance might well be overtaken by other locations with better natural environments. From sea transport to gold back to sea transport and on to oil, films and defense industries . . . i.e., Monterey, Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women and menstruation

Why can't human females (women and girls) just re-absorb the menstrual blood? Why do they bleed? What did women use before sanitary napkins like pads and tampons were invented? Did women have to schedule social events around their menstrual periods? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just blood that women lose, it is the mucosal material from the inner lining of the uterus. (See Menstruation.) When this lining becomes detached, its blood supply leaks into the uterus. Reabsorption of this material would be dangerous because it would also allow any infectious organisms that happened to be in the uterus to be absorbed into the bloodstream. The best outcome in evolutionary terms was to discharge this material to reduce the risk of infection. Marco polo (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They used rags, i.e. scraps of cloth. Hence the term "on the rag". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled Menstruation. It also has further articles on subjects related to menstruation that you can reach by clicking further blue links. You can answer literally every one of your questions by reading that article, or articles easily accessible from them. --Jayron 32 18:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Ohio State troll yet again, who I doubt very much is interested in an actual answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio has a state troll? Like it has a state insect and a state fruit? Cool! DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Note my usage of upper and lower case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in why only a minority of mammalian species have evolved a menstrual cycle see this paragraph. Article Menstruation can also be a starting point for answering some of your other questions. Contact Basemetal here 18:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US police skirts

When exactly police skirts for the U.S. female officers on duty were phased out? Is there any federal prohibition against them? My search yielded meagre results, only that police skirts in the US were worn until the 1970s, at least. Would be interested in sources on other countries in this regard as well. Brandmeister^talk 12:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I think meter maids may have continued to wear them far longer, as presumably they won't be running down criminals while trying to keep their skirt from blowing up. StuRat (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forced consent by means of imprisonment; any precedent in law for rights breach?

I am aware of and have been following, a recent case from Florida involving a divorced couple who entered into a pre-birth agreement regarding the circumcision of their son. In accordance with previous requests for the child not to be named on social media, I will refer to him as C.

C's mother has been involved in a lengthy legal process to have the agreement annulled. The child is well aware of what is to happen and has clearly stated that he does not want this. Approximately 2 months ago, C and his mother sought refuge in a domestic violence shelter following an order for the mother's arrest, on the grounds she refused to sign a consent form for the operation to proceed.

Subsequently she was arrested and jailed, the order being that she would remain jailed until she signed the consent. Now this is where my question arises:

How is it possible to hold someone against their will in order to force them to do something? Refusal to consent is not a criminal act - so essentially she was jailed for attempting to protect his rights. I am aware that the USA are not signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, but surely children must have some legal rights. Also, do the USA have the Guardian ad litem system in use? If so, why was the child not appointed one at the commencement of the case? I presume there would be no charge since the child could not pay, so it would be appointed from the State, right?

A lot of questions, but any discussion and answers welcomed.

What does the Fish say? | Woof! 14:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to various sources like [1], she was jailed for contempt of court, for refusing to sign the consent form (and other things). As far as I know, in a number of jurisdictions including parts of the US (and our article does mention this), you can be incarcirated for continued contempt of court even if it isn't criminal contempt of court. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also according to [2], a guardian ad litem wasn't appointed in this case. It doesn't say why. I'm not sure what your question about guardians ad litem in the US in general is, since you didn't explain what parts of our article you linked to, which seems to deal more or less only with the situation in the US, you need clarification about. Nil Einne (talk)

(edit conflict) It's hard to answer such a question definitively because it's difficult to know if your characterization of the events accurately represents all viewpoints. However, as the original statement said that the mother had entered into a contract, and subsequently chose to violate the terms of that contract, the general concept is breach of contract. Beyond that vagary however, I'm not sure much can be said that would not be dependent on our emotional response to your story, rather than points of law. --Jayron 32 14:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding past the vagueness of my generalization is that the contract was that the C be circumcised in a "timely manner". 4.5 years is far from timely; could the father also be taken for breach of contract for failing to comply with the terms it laid out? What does the Fish say? | Woof! 14:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4.5 years seems wrong since sources say the father has been trying to have the circumcision done since December 2013 when the child was 3 but has been prevented by the mother [3]. Also since the contract seems to be between the mother and father, that would be dependent on the mother taking such action, and would likely depend on other factors like whether the contract specifies who is required to have the circumcision done and if not, whether the father would be considered responsible if he didn't do anything, but also didn't stop the mother from doing anything and would also depend significantly on what the contract actually says. (Or to put it a different way, if all you know about the contract is very vague generalisations, I think even even most expensive lawyers will tell you in a nice way "HTW should I know what you can and can't happen?" Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current legal process started in December 2013, but the articles all say the contract was agreed to before the child was born, and that the mother first reneged on the contract shortly after birth. In the U.S., most non-religious circumcision happens in the first few days after birth, during the postpartum recovery period. --Jayron 32 23:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not saying that 3 years may or may not be a long time. Simply that it makes little sense to say the father took 4 1/2 years because the evidence suggests the father has been trying to have the circumcision done since the child was 3 (or another source said 2), but was unable to since the mother refused.

I'm not particularly sure the mother reneging on the contract in unrelated matters shortly after birth is particularly relevant to the discussion about the fathers alleged failing to properly honour the circumcision clause. Note that although some sources mention a "years long" legal battle and the mother changing her mind on the circumcision, most sources which I've read which clearly specify the times state the father only really tried to have the circumcision done after the child was 3, or perhaps 2 and it was the fathers responsibility. If the earlier source wasn't enough see also [4] and [5].

Given the highly politicised nature of this case, it's difficult to be sure, but I'm not seeing anything clearly saying the father was really pushing much for the circumcision before 2013. Mind you I'm not completely sure the circumcision part was even part of the agreement or when it was signed. Some sources seem to imply it was only signed in 2012 [6] [7].

Actually I just found [8] (also quoted in [9]) which says both things i.e. the agreement may have only been signed later but then nothing much was done about it. Actually this source also makes me wonder whether we're even sure it was really the fathers idea initially, or possibly something they both wanted. Of course the same RS in a different article [10] says the agreement was signed before birth (and the parents seperated before birth) as do a number of other sources.

It would be tempting to believe the later sources may have corrected earlier misconceptions but I wouldn't be so sure. Ultimately, perhaps the best conclusion we can make is that we have no idea when the agreement was signed (possibly looking for actual court documents will help), or whether the circumcision clause was part of the initial agreement. We have no real idea why the circumcision clause was even added. The only thing which doesn't seem to have been clearly contradicted is that the father doesn't really seem to have been pushing much for the circumcision initially. Whether this was partially because the mother was resisting (although it sounds like she only really started to resist some time after she signed) and he couldn't be bothered fighting, we can't say for sure but it was about 3 when he really started to push for it. I think we ultimately get back to my initial statement, you can perhaps include a time frame of up to 3 years (the precise period of which we don't seem to know) which you could argue is or is not a timely manner (presuming that was really part of the contract), but 4 1/2 years seems unresonable to blame on the father.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The case seems dubious. Religious contracts as such are not legally enforceable. Did the mother receive consideration in exchange for her promise? Then she might be obliged to pay it back, but not to maim her son.) Apparently the mother has sole custody? If so, she decides on the child's religious upbringing. I also cannot see a judge ordering a 4 year old who opposes the act himself to have a non-medical circumcision simply because of the non-custodial parent's wishes. And any doctor performing this would have qualms regarding informed consent and a huge future lawsuit for intentional harm. μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are your referring to a different case? Whatever people may think about the case, most sources I've seen suggest this the desire for circumcision has nothing to do with religion. Actually the father seems to have gone out of his way to say it has nothing to do with religion while the mother is the one who has brought it up. [11] [12] Most also seem to agree that the parents now share custody (violation of the custody agreement is one of the reasons she was initially arrested). Or did, I believe the father currently has temporary sole custody due to all the legal issues that have happened [13] [14] with the mother possibly forbidden from seeing the child for two weeks before and after the surgery. As I mentioned above, the highly politicised nature of this case makes getting at the facts difficult but the only thing I saw about the mother ever having sole legal custody from something close to an RS was one which claimed she did for the first 3 months [15]. I'm not completely sure whether to trust that source because it's an op-ed. That source also seems to imply the contract was only signed in 2012 which contradicts some sources, but as mentioned above agrees with some. Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How could I have read the case when the OP went out of his way to keep the details out of his question? If indeed this is for prophylaxis, I would be surprised if the judge wouldn't let the boy decide when he comes of age. But again that's wild speculation based on a lack of sources and details. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiowa Tribe Article

I initially searched for the Kiowa article because of the American Helicopter that has the same name. The name of the helicopter is what led me to search for information about the tribe. While the article was very informative, I was surprised to not see any information about the Helicopter that got its name ( i assume) from the tribe. Is there a reason that this information is not included? Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.133.200.240 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bell OH-58 Kiowa is the article on the copter. Contact Basemetal here 14:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous items are named after countries, people, groups etc. There's no particular reason to mention them unless there is something special about the connection between the two. There's car called the Picasso, but it's not mentioned in the article on the painter. If you think the helicopter should have been mentioned because that's what you wanted to learn about, fair enough, but that's the function of the disambiguation link at the top of the page: Kiowa (disambiguation). Paul B (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of United States military helicopters are named after native american tribes. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Everyone Relax—The Army’s Native American Helicopter Names Are Not Racist by Major Crispin Burke quotes Bob Mitchell, the director of the "Aviation Museum" (presumably the United States Army Aviation Museum) who says that General Hamilton Howze thought that US military helicopters ought to have aggressive sounding names; the Bell H-13 Sioux being the first with a tribal name and the Eurocopter UH-72 Lakota being the latest. One exception was the Bell AH-1G HueyCobra which caused an outcry from Native American groups, causing the tradition to be resumed. Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting and entertaining link from Alan. Thanks. The article mentions a de facto restriction to "Warrior Tribes". So there will never be a copter named after a "Non-Warrior Tribe". Were those guys never offended?

Can't please everyone. Also 'Sioux' (used for the Bell H-13 Sioux) was apparently originally a not-so-nice way to refer to the Dakota and Lakota people borrowed by the French from Ottawa. But far from going "I'll Sioux you!" (or even "we have reservations") they themselves use it. Hooray for the Sioux. There's hope for common sense. Contact Basemetal here 19:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, at the top of the Kiowa article is a note (called a "hatnote") which says: "For other uses, see Kiowa (disambiguation)" which has a link to the helicopter article. Alansplodge (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Sorry, Paul, I didn't see that you had already pointed that out. If anybody can think of a good article in which to include the US Army helicopter naming convention, I'd be pleased to hear it. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copycatting

Greetings!

Does anybody know, where in the Qur’an (or in any other heavenly book such as Tohra, Injil, Zabur) or hadith or in any other books (Hinduism/Buddhism and so on) states that you can’t copy its information for selling purposes? Personal benefit or something? You’ll go straight to Hell if you do, and so on. I heard Dr. Zakir Naik speaking about it in one of his conference, I missed the first bit which was stated before I turned on the television. I heard starting from, “It state(s)…” -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a concept that wouldn't occur to someone in a culture that predates the concept of copyright. As such, it wouldn't be relevant to most of the world's scriptures, since most of them originated long before copyright, and others (e.g. the Book of Mormon and associated LDS scriptures) claim to have originated long before copyright. The only new-enough texts that come to mind are the Urantia Book and the various Scientology texts; both have seen copyright lawsuits, although Scientology's gotten a lot more because its texts are still under copyright and because the parent organisation tends to be rather feisty, while the Urantia Foundation is rather obscure and doesn't appear to do very much. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the first sentence was meant as a joke, cause I have laughed. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are various Bible translations that are under copyright, but that is a secular rather than religious prohibition on copying. There were also various religious traditions in the pre-copyright era, such as parts of Kaballah, that were supposed to be kept secret except to advanced practitioners, though I think most of it eventually got out and not much happened as a result. Maybe that's closer to what you had in mind. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all close. I understand about copyrighting, the laws and so on, I don't trust any websites but WP. The problem is about going to 'Hell' by copying information of Godly texts that were available in the pre-copyright era. Dr. Zakir Naik stated that you can't copy information off the heavenly books or something. The satellite connection was bad so I didn't hear the bits properly. I only caught the "It states...books...words...heavenly...selling...personal benefits..." Isn't there anything in the heavenly books that states that 'you can't copy its context for personal benefits?

Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hellllllllllloooooooooooooooo,

help help help, please please please!?!

I don't like Hell...

Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you're thinking of the Book of Revelation, chapter 22, verses 18–19?

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

This does not seem to be a warning against copying, but against copying incorrectly. (As these are two of the last three verses in the entire Christian Bible, it has also been interpreted as an admonishment not to add or remove anything from the Bible as a whole, though to me that seems an unlikely thing for John of Patmos to be talking about, given that I don't believe there was such a thing as a canonical collection of books at the time.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any the Abrahamic hierarchy books, and other religions if possible. Thank you

At least I know what the 'Bible' says. I can make a formal decision whether to copy and rewrite or not, after finding out all of it. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining it Trovatore, I would've caught the wrong end of the stick if not. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else? Any scary kind of line(s) such as And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.??? For example, from Quran, tohra and so on? -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know where they have it in writing, but I know the rules are (at least) approximately the same. It may be not so straightforward as you seem to be willing to think however.
As Trovatore told you above, it is not a warning against copying.
The prophecy defines itself as entire, complete, and adequate, so this is why one must not add or remove to it. Add or remove to it is meant, in any fashion: thought, tale, transmission. Somewhere else it must be declared that not believing is evil; in the present case, it seems to depend on having heard the prophecy. One who has heard it shall not change anything to it otherwise it will fail for him.
But I've heard once (nightly, on the short wave radio) the same warning which you mentioned above: "one who would copy the Holy Bible would be condemned to Damnation". I'm happy if the prophecy stays restricted to that sentence where I'm concerned, so for everything else I've not heard I'm free.
I suggest that you should not copy the Holy Scripture because it is improbable that you would not change anything in it, at least in thought, by forgetting, or by misunderstanding. 77.204.156.49 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]