Humanities desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 8

Unicameralism in the U.S.A.

This section on unicamerlism speaks only of the present and not of the past. Currently only the state of Nebraska has a unicameral legislature. Which states and territories in the U.S.A. had unicameral legislatures in the past, and when and how and why did that change? (The only one I'm fairly sure of is Vermont, which switched to a bicameral legislature in the late 19th century, I think.) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a single definitive reference, but you can work your way through Template:United States legislatures. Not every page there explains the history of the state legislatures, but most do. Only some explicitly state whether the original legislature was unicameral or bicameral, but for the rest you can guess based on the description. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before it became a state, the Virginia House of Burgesses was unicameral. I'm pretty sure many other colonial legislatures were as well. Even the Continental Congress, the U.S.'s first legislature, was unicameral. The tendency to adopt bicameral legislatures in the U.S. came about mostly through the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Connecticut Plan. --Jayron 32 15:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowardice

The Wikipedia article on cowardice contains the following statement: Many military codes of justice proscribe cowardice in combat as a crime punishable by death (note the phrase "shot at dawn"). What does the parenthetical mean exactly? And how is that related to the rest of the sentence? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be explained more explicitly in that article, or left out entirely. In the old British Military Code, the explicit punishment for a finding of cowardice at courts-martial was "shot at dawn" [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OK, so I (now) get that. But what is the significance of the shooting having to take place at dawn? How/why is the "dawn" timing significant? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pour encourager les autres. See Firing squad and Danny Deever - "This procedure strengthened discipline in the unit, by a process of deterrence, and helped inure inexperienced soldiers to the sight of death." Tevildo (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I reviewed all of those links. How were they pertinent to my question? I must have missed something? Please explain. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People are generally better suited for declarative memory in the morning. If you see your peer shot at dawn, you have the afternoon to think about it. Not sure if that's the reason, but it's a reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a good night's rest, the firing squad might have better aim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the main reasons seem to be (1) it's daylight; and (2) all the troops would have assembled first thing in the morning, hence they would all have to joy of witnessing the consequences of desertion. That could work for any form of execution.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walking the plank is probably more terrifying at night, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably "at dawn" means dawn of the day after sentence is passed, i.e. that sentence was routinely carried out promptly, so people knew there'd be no getting away with it. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Deever was hanged, not shot at dawn, and not for cowardice, but because "'e shot a comrade sleepin'". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shootin' someone before they wake may not be cowardly in the desertin' sense, but still somethin' a yellow-bellied sapsucker would do. Even cheaper than honeypottin' like a literal yellow-bellied sapsucker, I reckon. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Execution at dawn causes symbolic meaning and real meaning to overlap. We associate the night with death and the day with life. Execution is the cessation of life but for execution to have its maximum significance it should happen when life (day) is beginning. The hopefulness of day is shattered by the punishment of military execution, bringing home the message that the military wants to convey to the recruits. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another guess, but in wartime, the most common time for an enemy attack was at first light; thus troops in a combat zone would be subject to a "stand-to" before dawn when everyone would get ready to go into action, just in case. Once everybody was in their places, there wasn't much to do, so I imagine that it would be a good time for an execution without disrupting the rest of the day's proceedings. More information about the "stand-to" is here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation reminds me of Abraham Lincoln's aversion to executing soldiers for cowardice. He consistently bent over backwards to find any plausible reason for clemency. In my mind, he comes off far better than some contemporary American politicians, who pride themselves on approving every execution that passed over their desks. Here's brief coverage in a Lincoln biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The average politician, alas, is nowhere near Lincoln's neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

Thanks. OK, all of that makes some degree of sense. But aren't desertion and cowardice two very different matters? (Or, maybe not?) It seems to me that desertion is an affirmative and voluntary action of leaving/deserting the rest of the coworkers (troops). Wouldn't cowardice be more of an involuntary thing? It's not really under a person's control, correct? "Cowardice" is "being afraid" or "being scared". That seems involuntary to me. It's just an emotion that happens to happen to the individual. A person doesn't have control over that. Now, acting upon that cowardice is, of course, a different thing. Can anyone clarify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The military may not be able to make that distinction in many cases. Perhaps the military is deliberately turning a blind eye to the possibility of involuntary desertion, or the military may be refusing to address the distinction in written code, leaving instead the final interpretation of any written code to the individuals involved. The answer is "I don't know". Someone knowledgeable of this area of military law might know. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone gets scared. Cowardice is doing the wrong thing while scared, and courage is doing the right thing. Neither is a synonym for fear. What's wrong and right depends who's judging, of course. But to a commander, a disobeying soldier is definitely wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What military? If you mean the US one, I don't ~~think~~ know if they consider simple "being afraid" or "being scared" as edit: legal problems. For example [3] [4] mentions several offences including "is guilty of cowardly conduct", "shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend", "runs away" and "causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces". All of these and the others mentioned seem to relate to conduct, whether or not it's truly voluntary (which is a complicated thing e.g. [5] and note, this will apply whatever the charge in the right circumstances). These sources BTW suggest the charge of "misbehaviour before the enemy" is a very rare charge in recent times (last conviction as of 2003 was in 1968), possibly partially because most offences will also come under some other area of military law such as desertion or failing to follow orders [6] [7]. Note that from what I can tell from these sources and others like [8], at least in modern US military law "cowardly conduct" is the only offence that mentions coward*. It's commonly called a cowardice charge but doesn't actually mention cowardice. Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A black Royal Canadian Air Force vet recently started whistleblowing about systemic racism and discouraging minorities to sign up, and was officially declared a Coward by his own parents. They have a good reason, luckily. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Seriously and generically, though, during the Battle of Hong Kong, the British forces were cowards, if you ask the Canadians and the Canadian forces were cowards, if you ask the British. Lots of courageous and cowardly people shot over several dawns till Christmas morn, any way anyone slices it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in many ways there's a difference between experiencing a feeling and acting on it. The interpretation of what is voluntary and involuntary in this context has changed over the years. Battle fatigue, or rather some effects of it, was often seen as cowardice up to and including WWI. Sjö (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's on the other end of the General Adaptation Syndrome line. Fear/stress first, then a cowardly/courageous resistance and then the exhaustion/fatigue. There's no fight or flight response to the final stage, because tired people suck at both and our primal brains know that. But yes, there was less certainty (on this and many aspects of war psychology) a century ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very hard time understanding this topic. When someone is forced into a military at gunpoint, threatened with death for trying to leave or trying to protect himself from harm, how could he possibly view anyone as the enemy other than those doing this to him? And if he could find it in his moral repertoire to kill anyone among his fellow-slaves on the far end of the battlefield, why would he spare this wrath from his commanding officers, whether in some immediate and heroic jihad or served cold after finally escaping the theater of battle with his life, and wanting his dignity back? Without understanding this, the notion of it being cowardly to refuse to fight in one circumstance instead of another ... is incomprehensible. Wnt (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you're still too human and recognize others. Like this (alive) "coward". Even if they never see a warzone, like most recruits, basic training is a must to understand obedience. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: I'd like to agree, but I can't. First, the shooting of cowards dates back to an era without any carefully built up psychological strategy, and indeed, often without much training of any kind. And while it would no doubt be blessed to fail to understand dehumanization and hatred, I'm not that saint. Indeed, when I think of how I'd feel if a military commander shot any friend or comrade of mine at dawn, I start pondering on the tolerability of "collateral damage" for a good cause. After all, one might muse (though it is a Molochian misinspiration!) if the commander returned to his home one day after the war's end to find his children horribly mutilated and burned before being ever so gradually taken out of this world, they might live on for decades as what the military might call a salutary example, reminding all those who see them why shooting cowards is a bad idea. So I mean, I can indeed think of evil, but I can't understand this evil. Why would you kill people you have no reason to fight and spare those you hate? Wnt (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money. A sense of belonging. Relative (to killing your commander while surrounded by his men) ease. Hopefully you never have to find out how you personally make your cognitive dissonance machine work, but there's always an excuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indicature

I cannot find what this word means, as a legal term, anywhere. I find plenty examples of it being used, e.g., "Court of Indicature"; "Indicature Act", but, oddly, nothing definitive of meaning. Amazingly, there's not one use of this word in any WP article. Wiktionary has only the Latin and derivation, but again, not the modern (quaint?) English legal meaning.

The reason I ask is that I'm working on the article Richard Ottley (judge) (1782–1845), and a source said he was 'Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indicature of Ceylon'. I think this term is probably obsolete, but even an on-line dictionary (thelawdictionary.org) that includes Black's Law Dictionary has zip.

Anyone ever heard of this word? Know what it means?

Any help would be much appreciated. Hamamelis (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a negative result, it's not in the full OED. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not a typo or error in transcription for judicature? DuncanHill (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm getting lot of hits for "indicature", but every time I go into the site, I find it's actually "judicature". For example, the first hit in this search shows as The court formed by the English judicature act of 1873, as modified by the indicature act of 1875, the appellate jurisdiction act of 1876, and the indicators acts of ..., but when I click on the link, the word indicature is not there, but judicature is.

I strongly suspect there's no such word as "indicature", at least not one with the legal meaning you assume exists. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Andy, Duncan, and Jack, your reasoning is sound, and your conclusion inst. Er,... I mean just! I'll inform the website I reffed for the article of what is apparently a pretty common OCR reading error. Hamamelis (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that many links for "indicature" are actually for "judicature", there are also many links that are for "indicature" therefore I don't think one can conclude that the word does not have some history of usage. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A simple explanation is that what we're seeing in those few cases is the typesetter's misreading of the (handwritten) manuscript.

Regarding the specific link that Bus posted, note that it gives the date as Anno RR# Guilielmi Tertii &c. Nono where # represents an illegible superscript. Presumably "RR#" means Regis, so this says "In the 9th (nono) year of (the reign of) King William III of England etc."—or in plain English, 1698 or 1699. And the location of this "Superiour Court of Indicature" is given as Boston in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. If you now check this history of the Massachusetts courts, you will see that the "Superior Court of Judicature" was established there in 1692 and continued under that name for many years afterwards. Conclusion: the other source is wrong. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Google books' results above, I tend to believe it could mean 'indication', or be an typographic error and be 'judicature'.--Scicurious (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it may have once had an approximate meaning of "indication". In a source such as this I find that "indicature" may make more sense than "judicature".

"Now, in this disease, if regard be had to the humours, and the indication occasioning them, it should seem at first view that the curative indicature should principally tend 1. to evacuate humours already generated, and 2. to strengthen the concoction, or digestive powers, so as to prevent the accumulation of other humours…"

Perhaps there is (or was) a legitimate use for "indicature" in some instances. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in any dictionary except as the vocative masculine singular of the Latin word indicātūrus, so if it was so used as an English word, it didn't catch on sufficiently to be recorded. If you can find three good cites conveying clear meaning, then we can add it to Wiktionary. Dbfirs 20:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan and India war on September 6, 1965

Hello Everyone, My name is Rizwan Ahmed and I'm Pakistani, I'm searching for some information regarding Pakistan and India war on September 6, 1965, I want to know what exactly happened? who attacked first, Pakistan or India? and who fought well who was benefited from this war? and what was the end of this thing?. I saw a few videos on Pakistani current affair TV channels and we (Pakistan) are claiming that we entered into India and occupied one of their nearest city to Pakistani boarder, is that true? if yes then why we gave back the occupied city to India back??? Within — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.181.191.76 (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rizwan, we have a general article on Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts, and a specific article on Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965. The "aftermath" section talks about the perceptions on each side after that conflict. The "ceasefire" section discusses the terms of ending the conflict, but that only lasted until the Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971.

The article on the 1965 war is long and detailed, and you should read the whole thing and check some of the references if you really want to understand more about this complicated history. I only skimmed the article, but this quote I thought might sum up some of the situation:

“

The war was heading for a stalemate, with both nations holding territory of the other. The Indian army suffered 3,000 battlefield deaths, while Pakistan suffered 3,800. The Indian army was in possession of 758.9 miles² (1,920 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (550 km²) of Indian territory.

”

Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one for those who help out at the language desk. One of the worst sayings I've come across is "There's never been a war between countries that play cricket". Who is responsible for that and when was it coined? As I recall India and Pakistan were always fighting over Kashmir and the independence of East Bengal was secured by carpet bombing of the occupying Pakistani army by the Indian Air Force. The uprising was easy to coordinate since at the time the Pakistani military presence consisted of a single helicopter. 109.159.90.194 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.196.11 (talk) [reply]

Part of a turbine, I believe, but what's it called?

No response to this for a week at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy, so I'm bringing it here. - Jmabel | Talk 17:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know a specific name for the piece of equipment shown here? Part of a turbine for hydroelectricity, I believe, but what's it called? - Jmabel | Talk 17:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a rotor, the round moving inner part of a turbine. The other part of a turbine is called the stator. Not sure of the specifics, but this is either from a dynamo (DC-generator) or an alternator (AC-generator). --Jayron 32 17:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it back to front Jayron32. :-) First notice the lower blades, just above the cylindrical bearings at the very bottom. They are the 'distributor' blades. They direct water into the rotor. Circling around the top, are the leaver mechanisms to angle those blades. It is the top part of a stator from a cross-flow type of turbine, that the water enter into (around the annulus in middle part of the of the contrivance). However, I can't remember the proper name for it. Think its something like Inlet Manifold or something like that.--Aspro (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, it is referred to as the Wicket Gate. Hydro Turbine and Hydro Turbine Governor Terminology.--Aspro (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 19:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]