Humanities desk
< January 13	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 15 >

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.

January 14

William Henry Harrison

What the most notable/well-written/well-researched historical biography of William Henry Harrison?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry Harrison#Further reading may be a place to start your research. --Jayron 32 02:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two women raising children

There was a phenomenon in the early United States (1900–1930 I think), and I really want to know what it was called. Basically, it was two women raising a child, with no men involved. I don’t remember if the biological mother was involved, but I think that she was. The practice declined, possibly because it was associated with homosexuals. Is there a name for this? Does anybody remember this? --Romanophile (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide more context? In times when there are shortages of males, such as WW1 and WW2, I could see women and/or any other people left on the homefront banding together for various reasons (sharing rent, company, etc.) In the instance you're describing, how were the two women related? Friends? By blood? Lovers? A hundred years ago, having extended family in one house would not be unusual at all, so a maiden aunt helping raise her sister's kids would be straightforward. Matt Deres (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The modern, western concept of the nuclear family is really a product of a specific time and place, I'm not sure in times and places outside of the "Western-European-American-Modern" sense, I'm not entirely certain that other familial organizations bore specific comment or naming in contrast to the nuclear family, other than just "how it works here and now". --Jayron 32 03:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt Deres: I think that they were merely friends, which would explain people’s unjustified concern—unjustified because they weren’t lovers. I’d honestly be very surprised if anybody ever thought that female relatives could have amorous relations with each other. --Romanophile (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't help with the main question, but prepare to be surprised: incest-based slash fiction is a very real thing (google at your own risk), so people definitely think about that sort of thing. I'm personally of the opinion that just about anything sexual that we can conceive of has been attempted by someone... SemanticMantis (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis: it’s only available now because we’ve matured (somewhat) as a society. A century ago, nobody would have ever entertained the concept. Many people were unaware the female sexuality existed at all. See Alfred_Kinsey#The_Kinsey_Reports. --Romanophile (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Romanophile: Of course this continues off topic, but I have a hard time believing that incestuous female-female sexual conduct was impossible to conceive of prior to the 20th century. Now, maybe some early 20th century Americans would have found it impossible to entertain the concept. But history is long and cultures vary. E.g. Lesbos gives us our word Lesbian, via Sapphos and Sapphic love and of course what some of us would now consider incest was just good breeding for Cleopatra, whose family tree is given as an example of pedigree collapse. I suppose you probably know all this, but I thought I'd share my reasoning and refs in case anyone else is interested :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is no mention of raising children, the article Boston marriage might be of interest here. --LarryMac | Talk 15:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before children had drugs and TV, they were more ofted minded by a governess and/or nanny. Sort of more a British thing, but America used to be sort of more British. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A wet nurse isn't as sexual as it sounds. Also much rarer today. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are non-US examples where women have banded together to raise children without husbands. In some cases they set out to have babies outside of marriage. A well-known example is a village in Vietnam, written up in the New York Times here: "A Tiny Village Where Women Chose to Be Single Mothers" (Julie Cohn, 14 February 2013). The NYT calls the phenomenon xin con. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State of the Union address 1823: Who was Colonel Lee?

I'm engaged on a project of reading all the State of the Union addresses by US presidents. I wonder who James Monroe referred to as "Colonel Lee" in the December 1823 address."Under the appropriation of $5,000 for exploring the Western waters for the location of a site for a Western armory, a commission was constituted, consisting of Colonel McRee, Colonel Lee, and Captain Talcott, who have been engaged in exploring the country.ĭĭ" It is too late for Harry "Light Horse" Lee from the Revolutionary War (already dead), and too early for Robert E. Lee (not yet at West Point). Edison (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Roswell Lee, father of Henry W. Lee and superintendent of the Springfield Armory. There isn't a great deal of biographical information about him available on-line: this might be a potential starting point, and this site, although not a reliable source by any means, has a copy of his obituary. Tevildo (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an 1825 report to Congress giving the names of the commissioners as Colonels William McRee and Roswell Lee, and Major George Talcott. Roswell Lee does not have his own Wikipedia article, but his son does, and he's mentioned in three other articles. George Talcott also does not have his own article, but his brother does; note that Talcott was apparently a captain in Monroe's speech of 1823, a major in 1825, a colonel in 1842–51, and eventually a general. (All this assumes I am not confusing any cases of two men with the same name.) --76.69.45.64 (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Edison (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libana - Moorish poet

In 1979, the feminist artist Judy Chicago created an artwork about female artists through history, one of whom was the poet Libana (d. 975) who lived in Islamic Spain. She discusses this in her book. Today, user Thmazing wrote a small article on her based on this.

I can honestly find no evidence that Ms. Chicago didn't just make her up. No translations of her poetry online, no articles on her. No citation in Ms. Chicago's book. Searching reveals a few medieval people and places with that name or variants on it, and a feminist dance group, but no information about Libana herself. Am I going mad? I don't read Arabic or Spanish so it's very possible I just don't know where to look, but I'm getting worried about this. Blythwood (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to go so have listed the article for a deletion discussion. Please feel free to close if I've made a mistake on this. Blythwood (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not mention of her in this arabwomen article, instead a name associated with that same date is Aisca bin Ahmet. Chances are that this is all about oral tradition, and very probably her/their poetry would also have been oral. More like the same name, probable more viable oral tradition too, but the field is in mathematics: Labana of Cordoba. --Askedonty (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Aisha (poet) says that it's the same person. Quite likely is that Libana was the Latin/European version of the name. Arab names did get a bit garbled in medieval Europe, cf Ibn Sina/Avicenna. Or perhaps Libana is a reference to an association with Libya? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source refers to two distinct medieval poets of Cordoba named Aisha and Labana respectively. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. WP:WHAAOE. See, under an alternate spelling, article Lubna of Cordoba. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: Aisha referred to by Susan Bassnet (your source) is supposedly twelfth century ? --Askedonty (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Aisha is not Labana/Lubna; there are both medieval Cordoban female poets, two centuries apart. (I wish I could find I reliable source equating Lubna with Labana; all the information is identical, but no non-self-published source makes the connection.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even still. Aisha could even be Lubna, in the case that Lubna was not Labana. See this elaborated article. --Askedonty (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does a lawsuit acquire its name when there are multiple plaintiffs? How is the lead plaintiff selected?

I was doing some reading on this case from the U.S. Supreme Court: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. There were ten plaintiffs and the case was named "Friedrichs" after one (of the ten) plaintiffs. In other words, the individual named Friedrichs was/is the "lead plaintiff" in the case. My question is: when you have multiple plaintiffs (or defendants, I guess, for that matter), how and why is the name of the actual court case decided? In other words, how and why do they select the lead plaintiff? I am assuming that this process is done by the plaintiff's lawyer (not the defense lawyer and not the Court itself). So, is it merely a perfunctory and administrative task? Is there some legal strategy involved? My thoughts are that (1) they just pick the plaintiff with the first name, alphabetically. But that seems not to be the case. Or (2) that they pick the plaintiff that has the "strongest case". But that also seems odd; all of the plaintiffs pretty much have the "same" case (in strength). Whatever differences that distinguish one plaintiff from the next would be very negligible, I'd think. (3) My third thought is that they ask the numerous plaintiffs "who do you want named as the lead", and all of the plaintiffs sort of decide among themselves, based on personal preferences, etc. (e.g., who "wants" his name in the news; who does not want his name in the news; etc.). But that also doesn't make much sense. So I am not satisfied with any of my three theories. Does anyone know? I am guessing there is some legal strategy and maneuvering involved, and it's not just a perfunctory administrative selection. Who knows? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be any of the above, and the reasons vary from case to case. Sometimes the plaintiffs' lawyer has strategic reasons for listing the plaintiffs in a particular order. (I'm a practicing attorney and I've had to make these decisions myself on occasion.) Other times it's just alphabetical or arbitrary, as you suggest.

(I assume your question is dealing with multiple plaintiffs within the same case. There's another type of situation that arises in which multiple similar or related cases are filed individually but then are consolidated. In that situation, the order will usually be the order in which the cases were docketed, i.e. the plaintiff in the earliest case to have filed will wind up being listed first.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I am speaking of multiple plaintiffs within the same case (as in Friedrichs). So what might be some strategic reasons to place one name first or second or third or whatever? At the end of the day, a plaintiff is a plaintiff and they are all treated equally (I assume). (In other words, if I am also a plaintiff, I will not "gain" or "lose" any rights, based on the order in which my name appears. Right?) So, what might be some reasons to strategically place one person as the lead named-plaintiff and another person not? Perhaps they are not "legal" reasons, but maybe "PR" reasons? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's the plaintiff with the greatest interest in the case, or who organized the bringing of the case. Sometimes it's the most sympathetic plaintiff. Sometimes there's a reason to list an individual plaintiff ahead of a corporate one, or vice versa. Sometimes it's who hired the lawyer first. There can be any kind of reasons. And you are right that the order of the names does not affect the parties' legal rights in any fashion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Help identifying an English-language children's book

Hi all, I've been wondering about a children's book that I'd read several years ago, and I'd like to ask if anyone could help me identify it. Here are the details that I can remember:

I found the book at a library (not sure if it was a public or school library) in either Winnipeg, Manitoba or Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, after 1996 but no later than 2004.
I don't remember if the book is part of a series.
The book is written in English and in third person.
The book takes place at an elementary school during winter.
The first few chapters of the book follow a student at the school named Ian, starting off as if he were going to be the main character of the entire book.
Gradually, though, the book shifts focus from Ian to other students at the school, but never onto any other single student. Eventually, it starts describing rivalries between 3 (or so) different groups of students.
Each group of students decides to build a snow fort outside. The book describes one fort as being particularly reminiscent of a medieval-style castle, and another fort as being more like a luxurious mansion.
Eventually, a snowball fight begins. However, one of the participants throws a chunk of ice instead of snow; the book even describes it as an "iceball".
The iceball happens to hit Ian, a non-participant, in the face. By this point in the book, Ian has been hardly mentioned or completely unmentioned for the past while.

Thank you kindly. Henjeng55155 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it (I think). Googling for "'Ian gets hit' snowball school book" gives me this hit: [1] - it seems to match most of your search criteria. Based on the linked review, the book is Snow War (Kids in Ms. Colman's Class) by Ann Matthews Martin, ISBN 978-0590692014. GermanJoe (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our author link: Ann M. Martin. -- ToE 16:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dual citizens in the US

Is a US politician with dual citizenship allowed (by US law) to vote in a foreign election? Can he donate to a foreign political campaign? Can he run for office in a foreign country? --Bowlhover (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a US citizen is not prevented by US law from simultaneously holding citizenship of another country, I can hardly imagine that US law would intervene in the rights and responsibilities of that foreign citizenship. Otherwise, it would be a somewhat qualified or conditional acceptance of dual citizenship, and that would seriously breach the sovereignty of that foreign country. They would never stand for it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The US presumably has no right to stop a French citizen from voting in a French election (even if they are also a US citizen). It presumably does have the right to stop such a person from holding political office in the US (even if they are also US citizens). Whether it actually does so, I don't know - I'm just pointing out that the former doesn't necessarily prevent the latter.Iapetus (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. has traditionally been very distrustful of dual citizenship, but this began to change with a Supreme Court decision in the 1960s. Still, taking a foreign office at a policy level might cause one problems, as it would mean that the question of one's U.S. citizenship status would be decided without the administrative premise that the person intended to retain his U.S. citizenship. (BTW, if you renounce U.S. citizenship for the purposes of tax relief, you continue to be taxed for 10 years.... ) - Nunh-huh 21:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Citizenship in the United States#Dual citizenship: The Supreme Court case of Afroyim v. Rusk declared that a U.S. citizen did not lose his citizenship by voting in an election in a foreign country, or by acquiring foreign citizenship, if they did not intend to lose U.S. citizenship. U.S. citizens who have dual citizenship do not lose their United States citizenship unless they renounce it officially.[21] Loraof (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack of Oz is correct. As a French citizen you have all the rights any French citizen has, including the right to vote. Now if it is allowed by U.S. law to be French and American at the same time (and it is indeed allowed), it means that it is allowed by U.S. law, to vote in France. Some countries (example Congo) don't allow dual citizenship. If as a Congolese you choose to become an American or a French citizen, by Congolese law you lose your Congolese citizenship. As a Congolese you cannot be "also something else". Akseli9 (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A question about the Apostles' Creed

I have a question about the Apostles' Creed. One line says that Jesus "descended into hell", referring to the Harrowing of Hell. So, my understanding is that all people (both the bad and the good) from all time (since the beginning of the world) had to "wait in hell" until Jesus came to redeem them, after XXX number of years. Is that understanding correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the story of the Harrowing of Hell is based on the belief that the rightous were excluded from Heaven until Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for their salvation. Where these souls were waiting has been described in various ways: hell, the Bosom of Abraham, Sheol, the limbo of the fathers, etc. and not all people have imagined that the righteous and evil were mingled together. -Nunh-huh 19:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Being named a saint

Is it (or was it) possible that a person who lived before Jesus existed (before the year 1 A.D., I guess) could be named a saint? Or does that not even make sense, by definition? I am referring to the Roman Catholic Church. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The prophet Daniel, the three Holy Children (The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children), etc. have their own feast in the Catholic calendar (here but not in WP (?)). I don't know if that strictly speaking that makes them saints. Contact Basemetal here 19:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic churchs of the Eastern Rite have given feast days to various Old Testament figures (Joshua, Moses, Daniel, the Maccabee brothers) but the Western Rite calendar doesn't have them on their own days. Old testament figures are included in the "Roman Martyrology" and the Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church] says (#61): "The patriarchs, prophets, and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church’s liturgical traditions"- Nunh-huh 21:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of Old Testament figures who are considered saints by the Roman Catholic Church. These really old saints became saints by acclamation rather than the more laborious process of canonization used today. - Nunh-huh 19:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "acclamation", exactly? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody agrees, "that guy's a saint". Tales get told, shrines get raised, devotees offer dulia. People in the church record them as saints and no one objects. People give their names to their children as baptismal names, think of their namesakes as "their" saint, the saint's day gets put on local church calendars, then on those of larger churches and ultimately they are considered saints by the whole church. Think of all the medieval kings and queens who wound up saints, often for precious little reason. It wasn't until quite recently that canonization became rigorous. The process resulted in some really fascinating anomalies: St. Wilgefortis, the bearded lady saint, and saints that we hae no reason to believe existed in the flesh, such as Mr. Christopher. - Nunh-huh 21:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_early_Christian_saints has no entries with death dates before ~100 AD. List_of_saints has a few earlier. Then again List_of_Catholic_saints includes a few archangels, as well as some earlier entries. But I don't see anything on WP listing any full saint who died before Jesus was born. I suppose it depends on whether you think a pope has to canonize a person for them to be a "real" saint in the eyes of Roman Catholicism. Category:Lists_of_saints may be useful to OP. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Chronological list of Old Testament Saints - Nunh-huh 21:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed that, thanks. Still, I have to wonder why none of them are in List of Catholic Saints? It seems to me that WP or the RC church must be drawing some distinction. Could it be that List of Catholic Saints is meant to contain saints who were Catholic as well as being recognized by the RC church? SemanticMantis (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say what criteria were being used. Saints that appear on the liturgical calendar vs. all saints? Any saint list is going to be incomplete. - Nunh-huh 21:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who died before Jesus started His ministry in c. AD 30 was, by definition, not a Christian, so denominations don't come into it. Jesus Himself was not a Christian. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added {{unsourced}} to Chronological list of Old Testament Saints. Adam a saint? Poppycock! —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guess this all boils down to "what is the definition of the word saint". Those officially canonized by the Pope versus the "acclamation" sort. (As an editor above mentioned.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except you asked about Catholic doctrine, which is more or less defined by the catechism, and specifically states that there are Old Testament saints. You can adopt a different definition of "saint" than the one the church itself uses, but making distinctions that the church doesn't is a way of defining your doctrine, not theirs! - Nunh-huh 22:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I am confused. I am indeed talking about the Roman Catholic Church. I thought you said that, according to Catholic doctrine, there are two types of saints. No? Those officially canonized by the Pope versus the "acclamation" sort. They don't exactly "categorize" them as such. But that is how they came to be saints. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church has two different definitions for "saint": those officially canonized by the Pope versus the "acclamation" sort. Or, better stated, the Roman Catholic Church has two different avenues or routes to being named a saint. Yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They are all saints, no matter how they got there. The two processes do not result in different types of saints. - Nunh-huh 01:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the Harrowing of Hell. Catholics consider truly holy people who died before the propagation of the gospels saints, including "savages" and Aristotle. 23:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

All saints listed as 1st century died before AD 100 and Peter has a date before AD 100.
Sleigh (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that in Catholicism, the basic consept of a "saint" is simply anyone in Heaven. Canonization etc doesn't make someone a saint, it just officially recognises that they are a saint (at least in the eyes of the Catholic Church). If the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs, etc, are in Heaven, then they are saints. The Church came up with the process of canonization so the church could regulate things, and have an official list of people in heaven, rather than let anyone declare that anyone and their dog was a saint. Iapetus (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You state "The Church came up with the process of canonization so the church could ... have an official list of people in heaven ..." in your reply above. Are you sure that's accurate? There have been billions upon billions of people on earth; I assume quite a few of them are in Heaven. The Church's canon list has -- what -- maybe 500 or 1,000 saints on it. That list is clearly lacking, if indeed the Church's purpose is to have a list of people in heaven. I assume there are other reasons -- other more important ones -- as the underlying reason for the canonization process. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved