Humanities desk
< January 9	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 11 >

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 10

Who built Cuba's Granma boat?

Does anyone know where the Cuban Granma boat was built? who built her? and what kind of engines she had? the wikipedia article has very little information on the Granma before Castro bought her. Granma_(yacht), Does anyone still have the design drawings? Are any classic, wooden boat builders interested in making working copies? Does Granma have any sister ships? Do classic or historic boat enthusiasts have any interest like they do with Dunkirk little ships? https://www.facebook.com/Granma-English-230559647101175/... . Which operating boat most resembles the granma?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.69.242 (talk)

This is a tough one to find. No site I can find on the internet mentions the construction of this yacht, even if I look in Spanish. Even the museum where it is kept doesn't have any information on it prior to the yacht's purchase. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (not sure if the same) one is removing religions out of historical people's tool box (and one famous person)

And I really don't get it as that is a fact of their lives and unlike celebrities their don't have a "personal life" section to put their religion/hobbies/relationships.

People that had it removed.

1: Ghandi

2: Nefertiti (well more changed to "ancient egyptian religion" I thought it was because she was still personally religious, but when I looked up websites their all said she was apart of her husband's religious revolution, changing it also consorts with the page saying she helped him without mentioning that she was still polytheist?)

3: Akhenaten (he literally started the entire thing, I do not get why it was removed. Though unlike the others the page still mentions his religion.)

4: The entire Frank family (However Annie and her father when I looked up said there where more spiritual.)

5: Not a historical figure.-Malala Yousafzai--Qazwink (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. As far as I can tell, none of these have been changed at least over the last couple of years - Malala for instance has never had her religion in her infobox. You can add the information yourself, or discuss it on the talk pages of the articles. Smurrayinchester 08:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an issue for the refdesk anyways? Perhaps the OP can be directed to the more appropriate location to address this concern? Eliyohub (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After some discussion, it was agreed last year - see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126 #RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes - to remove the religion parameter from biographical infoboxes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's this Ghandi person? —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is marriage regulated by the government?

From what I read, I think marriage works by requiring the would-be couple to apply for a marriage license. Then, the person who performs the ceremony signs the marriage license, and a witness must be present to make sure that the marriage has occurred. But why does the government have to get involved? If so-and-so's marriage is taboo because it's incestuous, can't that be regulated by the religious authorities instead of the political authorities? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tax and death laws. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage is regulated by both governmental authorities and religious authorities. There is significant overlap but it depends on various things. The church is not necessarily interested in tax laws. Those are civil matters. On the flip side, the church might not recognize a divorce, but it might be recognized in civil court. Then there's the matter of issues like same-sex marriage, which some church ministers have been willing to do for a long time, but which has only been recently addressed in the civil arena. Likewise polygamous marriages, which remain illegal. Why are they illegal? Because the public wants them to be illegal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We assign concrete legal consequences to marriage and divorce, so some sort of regulation is necessary. For example, married couples can own property in forms that single persons cannot; the taxation of married couples is different; and a divorce typically requires a division of the couple's property. Historically, this regulation was performed by the Church (what we would call today the Catholic Church, but that's misleading, since there was only one church in most places). Today, however, there are multiple churches and non-church religious organizations, not all of which are up to the task of regulating marriage and divorce, and in many countries people believe in the separation of church and state, so in those places assigning such weighty legal responsibilities to a church is thought to be inappropriate. John M Baker (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even in ancient times, marriage was associated with significant consequences for inheritance, and thus there have been compelling reasons for government to recognize, if not regulate, marriage, for as long as civilization has existed. See also Marriage#History of marriage. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in many countries many (in some countries: most) people are not affiliated with any religious organisation. Religious authorities cannot handle marriage of unaffiliated people. See Marriage in Israel for some consequences if marriage is left to religious authorities: Many couples (different religions, unrecognised religions, no religion at all) have to go abroad to get married, which has led to a quite interesting business in Cyprus. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, many western jurisdictions, but my no means all, have watered down the unique legal status of marriage significantly, extending many rights and protections once exclusively enjoyed by married couples to de-facto ones. For example, my jurisdiction explicitly allows a member of a de-facto couple to claim Spousal privilege, and have Tax calculated in the same way as married couples. In my country, Australia, this was caused by an odd situation: The Government was not willing to introduce same-sex marriage, but wanted to give same-sex couples the same rights in other respects as opposite-sex ones. So many laws were changed to include the notion of "domestic partnership" (including same-sex partnerships) as enjoying much the same legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, without calling them "marriage". Of course, this has led to some legal cases over the exact parameters of what constitutes a "domestic partnership". Things inevitably get more complex with the lack of explicit commitment to the relationship which a marriage ceremony provides. But my point is, the unique legal standing of marriage was largely dismantled. And I'm certain we are not alone. Eliyohub (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another for what it's worth: the state may create a formal, regulated, non-marriage option. France set up its civil solidarity pact known as PACS in the late 1990s, also in order to give same-sex couples rights without the political drama of granting them marriage. In fact, the vast majority of those choosing this option - our article says 94% - are opposite-sex couples, or perhaps I should say "pairs", as a romantic or sexual relationship cannot be assumed. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syracusia

Hi! Do we know why the ship Syracusia only sailed once? You would think that if the ancient Egyptian military had the largest ship in the world in it's arsenal they would use it to their advantage. Also, are there any specific records of the ship's maiden voyage? Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it was designed by Archimedes. That's the "Eureka" guy, right? Maybe it was built and sailed just to prove it could work, kind of like with the "Spruce Goose". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For however much help it is, on Quora, Armand D'Angour, a Classics Tutor at Oxford University says "We don't know. The idea that it sailed only once is a speculation based on the evidence that 1) it was evidently a prestige gift for Ptolemy 2) the port of Alexandria was the only one big enough for it and 3) we hear nothing of other voyages. My guess is that it was berthed in Alexandria and served as a visitor attraction for VIPS, until it was eventually cannibalised and broken up for use in other construction projects." Then on Reddit, someone wrote "The ship did successfully reach its destination of Alexandria (though it was not called Alexandria at the time). The ship was beached by the shore, a dock built around it and it was used as a building on the river. After that point, it is never mentioned in historical text again. Most historians agree that it probably was broken down eventually because it got too old but we do not know." Just a few theory's, and not from the most reliable source's, but I hope it helps Eddie891 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Hi! It's funny that you bring up Armand D'Angour. The reason that I asked this question was because I watched a video at TED-Ed and that video was created by Armand D'Angour. Since the Quora question was answered by the same person who created the content for the video, I think it's probably reliable. Thanks for your help! Regards, Jith12 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you notice about these ancient behemoths (from both Greek and Chinese shipwrights) is that they are obnoxiously large. More recent attempts at building such huge wooden vessels tend not to go very well. List of longest wooden ships is littered with accounts of such vessels that simply didn't handle the seas that well. Pliny describes one of these ancient ships as "barely able to move". I think there are a number of reasonable hypotheses why they wouldn't use it: A) It was not particularly seaworthy; B) It was so slow and immobile it was no use in a naval battle; C) it was so expensive to operate and maintain it made more sense to put those resources to several smaller ships. You can read through the accounts of huge ancient vessels on the page I linked. It seems more likely these were mostly built just for show, and that some were built for very particular purchases, such as Egyptian obelisk transports. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I did not see the second part of your question. I believe Deipnosophistae describes the ship, and may talk about the maiden voyage. It is funny that you talk about the Syracusia as well, because I live in a suburb of Syracuse, New York. Hope this helps, Eddie891 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs, Eddie891, and Someguy1221: Wow! Thank you for all of your help! I really appreciate it. Thanks again, Jith12 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times History

Hi! I am researching the history of The New York Times, and recently, on [[1]] article, it states that "In 1893 the Times’s editor-in-chief Charles Ransom Miller, bought control of the paper from Jones’s heirs with $1 million raised from Wall Street interests," which I can not verify anywhere. Can anyone confirm this information, and for that matter tell me who the "Wall Street interests" were?Eddie891 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest source I can find is this one from 1922, but it doesn't go into much detail. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same text appears in International Directory of Company Histories: Volume 61 (p. 240). Miller's entry in the Encyclopedia of biography of New York 1925 (pp. 241-243) is silent on the matter. I also found New York Times Company Records. Adolph S. Ochs Papers 1853-2006 which was of no help, but does have biographical details of Miller's successor and may be of interest to you. Alansplodge (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steamship Asia

This may be searching for a needle in a haystack but can the course/stops of the steamship Asia from Alexandria, Egypt (June 24, 1881) to Naples (at 11 a.m on June 30, 1881) to Naples, Italy be tracked in ship records or ports the vessel stopped at along the way. There is evidence an account by William Nevins Armstrong who was part of the entourage of King Kalākaua's world tour that it stopped at Sicily before landing in Naples and I'm trying to date the period it was in Sicily.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where in Sicily? Eddie891 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong says Catalonia but I think he meant Catania and Aragonese (meaning the Kings of Sicily of Aragonese origin). Here is the exact passage from Armstrong:

The voyage toward Naples was over a glassy sea. Late one day the island of Sicily loomed up on our left, but as the night came on a comet appeared in the cloudless sky; at first a large star with a dim white trail which became denser as the darkness deepened until it had the shape of a half-closed fan. It pointed toward the earth, with its tail flung back to the zenith. Under it, in the clear sky, the outlines of .<Etna were faintly drawn. We anchored in the port of Catalonia, and in the early morning visited the vaults of the old Aragonese kings, the chapel and tomb of St. Agatha, the Roman baths, and the monastery of the Benedictines. The lava-flows of Etna were quite similar in form to those of the Hawaiian group. We were told a legend of an eruption which had its counterpart in our own kingdom. It was said by the believers of the Roman Church that when the molten lava of ^Etna reached the monastery, the monks, in a suppliant procession, holding before them the veil of St. Agatha, offered up prayers, and the flow was stayed within fifteen feet of the building. While we were on this tour a stream of lava over half a mile in width from the vast Hawaiian volcano, Mauna Loa, reached the outskirts of a settlement about thirty miles from its outbreak. Christian prayers besought the Almighty to arrest it, but they did not avail. Thereupon an old native Princess of the royal line, with some superstitious natives, placed themselves in front of the molten mass and made the ancient orthodox offering of a white pig to the goddess of the volcano. The flow stopped, — conclusive evidence to the superstitious natives of the power of their own gods, and the contempt of the goddess Pele for the prayers of the white people. It was a simple reasoning from an apparent cause to an apparent effect. In the upward slope of the land, the belts of verdure at different altitudes, the cones on its flanks, and the cloud-capped summit, the contour of ^Etna resembled that of the vast extinct volcano of Halea-ka-la ("house of the sun") upon the island of Maui, one of the Hawaiian group. But the Hawaiian crater, with a depth of two thousand feet and a diameter of nine miles, surpassed ^tna, and, indeed, every other volcano of the earth, in grandeur. Before we reached Naples...

I am sorry, but after looking for a while, I could not find any records online. It may be possible, but I couldn't do it. Do you know who operated the ship (ex. Cunard) That may help. Eddie891 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]