Humanities desk
< July 31	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 2 >

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.

August 1 edit

A law-related question: what's the difference between a motion and a pleading? edit

I guess you could limit the answer to U.S. federal law. I'm looking at FRCP Rule 7, which says that "A request for a court order must be made by motion." But a pleading is also a request for a court order. So, should I understand that a motion is any "request for a court order" that is not a pleading? (That is how I answered the question at pleading (United States), but that was just my guess. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 00:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A pleading is a primary document that frames the issues and legal claims asserted in a case; examples in modern U.S. federal civil practice include the Complaint and the Answer. A motion is a request for an order within the context of the case; it can be dispositive (e.g. a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment) or non-dispositive (e.g. a discovery motion, a motion to amend the pleading, or dozens of others). A pleading typically requests a judgment at the end of the case, as opposed to an order within it, although at times the concepts can be combined. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I suppose my error is to think of a pleading as a "request for a court order," in the sense contemplated by Rule 7's definition of a motion. Although a pleading does contain a request for relief, the judge will not grant that relief until either (1) a jury renders a verdict on the factual questions, or (2) a party submits a motion asking for the judge to make a finding as to a material fact or point of law. How's that sound? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 01:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear Brad's thoughts about this, but there's a distinction between orders and judgments, which your revised statement acknowledges. What interests me is the origin of that distinction: is it that orders were issued either in equity, or as writs, and their execution was the responsibility of an issuing court, while judgments had independent effect, enforceable by any court that recognized them? That's probably an inaccurate sketch of their origin, but I'd like to know where that distinction originates from historically. Shadowjams (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know much about the historical origin of the terms, but I don't think it's a law/equity distinction (historically, an action at law ended with a judgment, while a suit in equity ended with a decree). In modern parlance, a judgment is usually the final ruling of the court at the end of the suit, while an order is something decided in the interim. (The overlap comes in the context of a dispositive motion, such as a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, which can result in an order along the lines of "it is ordered that the motion to dismiss is granted; therefore, judgment is entered for the defendant"). Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest General edit

Who was the youngest commanding general in history? I guessing it would be a teenage king or something.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably depends on how you define "General". During the middle ages, the main military commander may have been a "Marshall" or a "Constable", though these may have served the same role as a modern "General" would have. From U.S. history, the youngest "I" could think of offhand was Henry Knox, who made Brigadier General at the ripe age of 27; though the Continental Army was short on men of command ability and Knox's military skills insured his rapid rise through the ranks. --Jayron32 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Continental Army, even younger than Knox was Lafayette, a general given command of a division at age 20. —Kevin Myers 13:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A medieval king that comes to mind is Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, who was 16 at the Battle of Montgisard (and he was a leper, to make it even more impressive), but he was probably not the actual commander on the field (those were the much older and more experienced Raynald of Chatillon and the master the Knights Templar). I'm sure there are younger examples though. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to define General as anyone in command of an entire army, regardless of actual historical rank, Alexander the Great was mustering and commanding armies for his father as early as 17 or 18. --Jayron32 06:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc was about 17. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it kinda depends on how fast and loose you play with a term like "General". How many troops must one command to be considered a General? What role do you have to play in their command? I mean, why wouldn't she be considered a Colonel or a Captain? --Jayron32 06:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what kind of general? George Armstrong Custer was temporarily a brigadier general when he was 23. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how could we exclude "Generals In Name Only" where some child was propped up as a figurehead while other folks ordered troop movements? It seems fair to include wartime ranks like Custer's. Edison (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] General Gregorio del Pilar b.1875 was the youngest general of the Philippine Revolutionary Army and had just turned 24 when he died. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow this edit of mine got removed: Galusha Pennypacker was made a Brigadier General at the age of 20. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Armstrong Custer was 26 when he was first made a general. This may have been a mistake. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Ken Burns Civil War Documentary I heard the most flattering description of Custer I've ever heard. McClellan was paused at a river, deliberating about how deep it was, and Custer just rode his horse into the river, the water came up the to the shoulder of the horse, then he crossed over to the other bank, and Custer said "It goes up to here general."

A man of his time, without question. Shadowjams (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said, it depends how you define general. A strong case could be made for Octavian Augustus as the youngest general who had both title and power. He was granted imperium by the senate in 43 BC, at the age of 19, and commanded his own legions (in the sense of having paid for them at least) at the battle of Mutina. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant actually leading, and I think it must be Joan of Arc at age of 17. Hmmm. I thought there may have some active generals in the middle ages around the ages of 14 or so, guess not.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion vs The Truth edit

WP:SOAPBOX

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is there a reason why people believe what their religion tells them rather than the truth? I can't think of any examples at the moment... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.30.156 (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religions deal in things that can neither be proven nor disproven. Such as, the existence of a supreme being. Such as, the afterlife. Such as, the intercession of dead people to create miracles. Such as, reincarnation. Such as, karma. Most people have some position on these matters; some take it as far as a belief that they are true, others go in the opposite direction and believe they are not true. But the thing both sides have in common is that they cannot prove their positions definitively or disprove the other side. So, my question to you is: what is "the truth", and how do you know? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, Judaism maintains that the all mighty creator and supervisor of the entire univere revealed himself publically to millions of people at Mount Sinai -- as such, any and all precepts, regulations, conditions, prohibitions, etc. that eminate from his duly chosen/appointed prophet at the time (Moses) are pre-certified; an analogy would be an American sailor taking orders from the Under Secretary of the Navy while being fully confident that such orders originated from his boss, which in turn came from his boss, all the way up to the President of the United States. It's not exactly similar, though, because the President probably doesn't know or understand military stratgey and relies upon his main general, but the point is that at revelation, the Jewish people were directed to follow Moses. And Judaism maintains that its religion is reality, so in line with Jack's comment above, it all depends upon one's definition of reality. Atheists believe is relative truth, while observant Jews (and people of other faiths, as well, most likely) believe in absolute truth. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivists believe in absolute truth! We just don't believe we know the absolute truth. Ugh, might be better off with the philosophical realism article. 81.131.53.31 (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, time to wheel out Russell's teapot, Falsifiability, Philosophic burden of proof (note: "their respective burdens of proof will often be unequal or asymmetrical"), and the phrase "agnostic conciliation" (mentioned in the teapot article). What I'm saying here is that your "things which can't be disproven" are actually unfalsifiable, and they are the believer's problem, not the skeptic's, and they are amenable to criticism (and, to be fair, not necessarily worthless). 81.131.53.31 (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the real world can be proven or disproven. Proof is an abstract mathematical concept. However, if we interpret "proof" to mean "overwhelming evidence" then plenty of religious things can be disproven. There are overwhelming amounts of geological, astronomical and biological evidence against the creation story (stories) in Genesis, for example (to the extent that most Christians conveniently ignore Genesis as being "metaphorical" since it is so obviously not true). You cannot disprove the existence of some kind of supreme being, but you can disprove the existence of the specific supreme beings described in a given religious text. --Tango (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...what their religion tells them rather than the truth..." Well, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." So evidently the OP's premise is faulty. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or Jesus and/or his translator are unreliable. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening of the question assumes that 'The Truth' is different from what any specific religion may say. The answer to the question, as stated, is that people do not believe their religion RATHER than the truth - they believe that their religion IS the truth. Whether that belief is reasonable or not is irrelevant to the question. Gurumaister (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Its presumptions that "people (who?) believe what their religion (which?) tells them rather than the truth (about what?)" are enough to label this a troll question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. So, do you want to box it up? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manifest Destiny (Sea to Shining Sea, Westward Ho!) edit

First off, I know that the Tudor colonists were interested in trying to move westwards from the City of Raleigh (Roanoke), Virginia to Drake's Bay, New Albion. Then, the Stuart Virginia Company with both branches, the Home Counties (London Company) men in the South called Virginia and Westcountrymen (Plymouth, Exeter and Bristol) in the North (called New England in place of New Albion, since the latter wasn't settled by Drake) cordoned off land for themselves on the Atlantic Seaboard, with charters granting them land across the continent to the Pacific Ocean. This was followed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which ignored the charters and then the state cessions to the Articles of Confederation government, inherited by the system of Perpetual Union. Both of these cases appear to have been responsible for much violence associated with 1776, 1812 and 1861. Obviously, a combination of these issues led to the horizontal splitting of the country into two general regions in the 1860s "Civil War". What I wish to know, is if there are Wikipedia links, or outside website links which can show or describe for me the trails from colonists in the east into their transformation as pioneers in the west. Basically, what I am interested in, is the relative majority origins of Easterners (i.e. the 13 original states) in acquired territories, first trans-Appalachian, then post-Mississippi. For instance, Kentucky is obviously Virginian (but then so are many other places, as evidenced by William Henry Harrison's family in the Old Northwest), as Tennessee is North Carolinian (but Wikipedia's state cession map says New York even claimed this far south; who knows if any New Yorkers actually moved there?). I have seen the overlapping claims from the original 13 on the state cessions maps, while the claims of the competing Confederate and Union governments (as heirs to the non-violent movements in Congress for more land and the violence of Bleeding Kansas) sought to turn the West into their own, but I'm looking for more individual, state-based roots of the people who moved westwards. That's because the movement to retain slavery did not necessarily square with southern origins, as the non-slaving foundation of the State of Jefferson (proto-Colorado) by Democrats (i.e. southerners) attests. For instance, I know that Missouri provided most of the original population of Kansas, Free-Soilers notwithstanding. I know that Arizona was populated chiefly by Texans. Lyndon B. Johnson's family moved to Texas from Alabama, as I believe also did Bill Clinton's. There is the Mormon story, from Vermont (where the Smiths and relatives settled from Massachusetts), to New York, to Ohio, to Missouri, to Utah. I understand that the Constitution of California is supposed to be a hybrid of New York and Iowa; when William Walker, of Virginia origins, born in Tennessee, took over Baja California and Sonora, he used the Louisiana Constitution and this impetus translated into the Arizona secession alongside the Texans, onto the Confederate side. Many of California's early people were in fact southerners and while I have read that Virginia provided people and place names like Berkeley, Richmond and Orange, I must assume Marylanders were there as well (along with the Yankee heritage many take as absolutely for granted, due to San Francisco's eccentricities). The fact that Los Angeles (and San Diegeo, which then comprised all of Southern California with one senate seat, contrasted by with Unionists San Francisco and San Jose in Northern California under their own senate seat) fought on behalf of Arizona and the Confederacy, makes me compare it to Marylanders fighting for Virginia as well as against the suspension of habeas corpus; one can thus see the Colorado River as the West Coast equivalent to the Potomac and the Rockies to the Appalachians. There was even a pre-Civil War movement to share California with Yankees and this is what caused the split between SoCal and NorCal today. Could it be argued that California is largely the West Coast equivalent to the land between Washington, DC and New York, of Chesapeake and Mid-Atlantic? I saw a map of the early highways in the USA which link New York with San Francisco; DC and Los Angeles appear to be at a similar alignment from East to West. Then there is the linking up of Boston with Seattle, between the TV shows Cheers and Frasier (I'm assuming this isn't putting Kelsey Grammar's character into a "fish out of water" story). Does this make sense? Oregon Country was explored by Virginians Lewis & Clark, but the first settlement was by New Yorkers working for the Astors, who then built Fort Astoria, just like there is the Waldorf-Astoria in New York. Portland, Oregon is named for Portland, Maine. Wyoming is named for Wyoming Valley in Pennsylvania. Hawaii was supposed to have been the project of those from Massachusetts. Are there others? I can't think of southerners having a presence in overseas territories of the Pacific until the Philippine War and then only as soldiers and sailors, perhaps veterans but I don't know. I know that Panama was largely southern in origin, as the logical progression of William Walker's ventures in Nicaragua would seem to indicate, despite Vanderbilt's money. Please provide all of the examples you can think of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At sites such as Ancestry.com (subscription) you can view all the census return up through 1930, wna many of the census include the place of birth of each person, allowing tracking of movement from the east coast westward. Much of your essay states as fact what appears to be original research that some later controversy was the result of some early colonial proclamation or policy, which might not be the case. Edison (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a book called The Cousins' War, which shows how the parts of England where the colonists came from influenced where they settled, and concludes that the American Civil War was just a continuation of the English Civil War. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald W. Meinig's books The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History, Volume 1: Atlantic America, 1492-1800 and The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History, Volume 2: Continental America, 1800-1867 devote quite a bit of attention to the "folkways" of westward migration--which groups from where tended to migrate which way, etc. You mention the Oregon Country. Meinig describes in some detail how the early American migrations to Oregon tended to be from the Upland South, as well as from New England. His books have a number of maps showing the main migratory routes (which were very criss-crossed). Fort Astoria, by the way, was rather a flash-in-the-pan, US-wise--the Pacific Fur Company may have been run by New Yorkers, but it was staffed in the field mostly by Canadians and French Canadians, and within a year became British. Fort Astoria has little to do with the actual American settlement of the Oregon Country. Also, New Englanders, especially from Boston, where early on the west coast as part of the maritime fur trade and, later, as sort of early venture capitalists--as opposed to the more rural-oriented Upland Southerners. As a result, in the Far West a great many cities and place names in general have a New England origin. But this does not mean New Englanders were the only folks around, nor even the dominant folks. Pfly (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic studies have confirmed the hodgepodge of western settlement described above as well. Most books which look at various regional dialects in America usually note the stark difference east of the Appalachian mountains and the general homogeneity west of the appalachians. While there are general trends (for example, unique dialects in Texas and Oklahoma) you'd be hard pressed to identify a person as being from Oregon or California or Montana or even Iowa based solely on their accent; one can readily often identify a person from different parts of individual states in the east solely by the variety of English they speak. This is usually because people from different parts of the British isles settled in very specific parts of the east, and those areas tended to maintain unique regional accents for centuries. On the other hand, as people moved westward, they tended to intermingle, and so lose their unique regional character. North American English regional phonology discusses the connection between regional dialects and settling patterns somewhat; you could follow the sources listed in that artcile to learn even more. --Jayron32 05:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern accents in the U.S. have very little to do with ancestry, however, there are very specific accents even in the U.S. The U.K.'s variety of English accents is vastly broader than the Americas, but even then a very in tune ear can identify a large variety of American accents. Shadowjams (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know, is if the Civil War lines from East to West, Atlantic to Pacific, are indicative of the general migration across the continent. This seems sensible, except that not all states with majority Southern origins decided to stand alongside South Carolina. Maryland, the lower Midwest, Kansas, Colorado and southern California were all on the verge of Confederate secession, or were at least majority Copperhead. West Virginia and New Mexico are unique to have changed hands during the war in extraordinary circumstances: WV seceded from the CSA and NM was conquered by Arizonans. It might be sensible to see that WV stood in the westward path of Pennsylvania, which would lend itself toward Unionism, but then again, it's hard to tell, since the Harrisons made themselves profitable being both Whigs and Republicans, the only truly Southern Republican family to have captured the White House, unless Nixon's Delaware origins before California can be considered Southern as well. Do Midwesterners today value their Southern origins as much as their Northeastern? Virginians were leaders of the pack in Ohio, but all I see is the plaque commemorating Yankees from Massachusetts, for the Northwest Ordinance, etc. I suppose part of my intent is to trace the Southern heritage outside the South, since the Mayflower descendents apparently get all of the press for their movements across the continent. The example of the Mormon migration west is perfectly illustrative of what I am getting at. That was of Yankee origins, as was the industrial linkage between New York and California. Consequently, I'm having a hard time finding people who know anything about America that is accepted as Southern other than what is Jerry Springer stereotypical or determinant upon slavery and Rosa Parks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out they didn't necessarily mix - southern Ohio will likely have more plaques than northern Ohio. Southern Illinois was mainly settled by Southerners while northern Illinois was settled by Northerners and they still have different accents today (Midland American English in the South and Inland Northern American English in the North). But despite the romantic myth of Copperhead-ism, Southern Illinois provide large numbers of troops to the Union. One company of Illinois Confederates is easily identifiable compared to 259,000 Union soldiers from Illinois. The later migrations north such as the automotive boom and the Great Migration brought new Southern influences. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not looking for discussions on language, but on political progressions and subcultural manifestos in the progress of cross-country expansion. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Census Bureau on ancestry, apart from race and also racial classification edit

Is it true that there will be no more maps of American ancestry compiled by the Census Bureau (wasn't there only one [2000] on record anyway?), apart from whether one is American (aka Anglo, of any race) or Hispanic (which they would claim American for themselves, of any race)? <soapboxing removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your original question — I don't know. Have you read Race and ethnicity in the United States Census? Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of removing the soap-boxing that is actually quite irrelevant to your question. The Ref Desk is not a soap box for your views on race and the census, I'm afraid. To answer your only question there that I saw, in 2010 they eliminated the "Ancestry" question on the census. I'm not sure they ever explained why in detail. The process for coming up with questions about race/ethnicity/ancestry for the Census are basically guaranteed to be controversial and, in the end, unsatisfying for just about everyone involved. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the original soapboxing portion, and I don't want to encourage that. However, note that the race categories used on the census have varied considerably over the last 200+ years. There's a lot of books that discuss that progression, and it's an unremarkable artifact of the then current culture. If you want to prove a point about something there are much better places to look than at the census. As for "maps", the now public individual census data (identifiable census data isn't released for 70 years-I think-in the U.S.) is all based on counties, and sometimes townships and more specific lineage. Censuses of that time period (and maybe today... I don't know) include "Father's birth place" and "Mother's birth place", which gives some idea of immigration patterns. Shadowjams (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question in particular is about the "Ancestry" box, which you could fill in with anything you wanted. This of course had the benefit of being flexible (unlike the race/ethnicity categories) at the detriment of being rather arbitrary (if you didn't fill in one of the same magic ancestry terms as the other people of your grouping, you might as well have just written down "Martian"). I don't know why they got rid of it. My loose guess is because the data would have been pretty hard to decipher. Anyway, the rant bit was about how "La Raza" were responsible for all things negative in the world and was praising the value of very outdated racial categories (e.g. Mongoloid, Negroid) and things of that nature. It seemed easily and appropriately snipped off.

The tricky thing about anything racial/ethnic/ancestry based on the Census is that you have a number of factors coming together. You have the sociologist/anthropologist point of view that is trying to make the answers "scientific" in some way. You have the practical political point of view that is related to how funds are divvied up. You have the social identity point of view which is related to how groups classify themselves (e.g. notable objections have been made to classifying Arab-Americans as "White", Caribbeans as "African-American", from the so-classified groups themselves). And you have the point of view of the Census statistics people who need things to be relatively conforming in terms of information in order to make any sense of it. The sum of these factors is almost certainly going to be a system that pleases no one and conforms to absolutely zero popular or scientific notions of race/ethnicity/ancestry (like the current one, which is a weird mix of place of origin, racial categories, and overlaid "ethnicity" that only applies if you are from South America). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to get an assessment of what kinds of maps of American demographics we will be seeing (compared to the plethora of examples in the 2000 Census as shown here in Wikipedia articles), now that European ancestries are omitted and Asian ethnicites are accounted for as racial categories. I was describing the changing nature of identity politics and trying to understand it. It seems that all European blood is conflated into White "American" now, whereas this was only the descendents of British colonists in the 2000 Census, while Blacks, despite having an English American heritage, are themselves still racially segregated in the 2010 Census (as are the Indians), whereas Hispanics of any race are grouped together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White was not only "descendents of British colonists in the 2000 Census". It was as it is now any self-identified "white". the official description in 2000 was "White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was White American and White Hyphenated American. Now, there is White American, not-Hispanic and White American, Hispanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting this from? The 2000 census had "White" as a single category, and there was no "hispanic/latino" category at all in the "race" section (it was an "ethnicity" that would be layered onto whatever the "race" was). link More details. The only place people used "American" was in the write-in Ancestry category (which was just evidence of how silly the question was, since it was primarily white people in Tennessee who decided that they were the true "Americans"). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your bigoted statements about Tennesseans out of this discussion, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and West Virginia, sorry. See the map on page 8 of this PDF to see what I am referring to. See here for a full discussion of the results. Anyway, it is silly that these people would say they have no ethnicity other than "American." It misunderstands the question, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Or, to be more clear, it's the reason the whole question of "ancestry" altogether was problematic. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These people are the same as Canadians, or Australians, or New Zealanders. They have a creole ethnicity, rather than an Old World one. I understand that most of their heritage is from elsewhere, but then so too was Rome's, such as from Greece or Phoenicia. It is arrogance on your part to completely discount an entire people. How cool it is to be anti-American and "overeducated" in nothing but snobbery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disregarding the question, not the people. There is a difference. Most of everyone's heritage is from everywhere, especially "La Raza," who you heaved so much vitriol towards. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no use for such equivocation. What an excuse, by the way... 68.111.15.164 (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the original question -- the ancestry query was on the census "long form" in previous censuses. The long form has been abolished, replaced by the American Community Survey. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalcoff, that it took so long for a truly educated response like yours, is not unexpected from the cesspool of Wikipedia's ivory tower set. Thank you for the diamond in the rough! 68.111.15.164 (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama edit

Outside the Wikimedia sphere, I can find little discussion of the pros and cons of any form of Freedom of panorama, not at all helped by a lack of a universal term for the issue. Given the differences internationally, I am surprised not to find much at all. Any "reliable source" no matter what viewpoint would be extremely helpful - on issues particularly concerning whether it is "fair" on sculptors, architects, or content users. I'm in the UK, but discussion from anywhere would be great. I hasten to add this is not a legal issue, I am researching it from a purely academic perspective. Thanks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links for context (for other readers), some of which do include references outside WP: Panoramafreiheit and Commons:Commons:Freedom of Panorama. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction of panorama freedom for the Atomium [2] monument in Brussels is notable. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is SABAM? --84.62.215.188 (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can neither the Dutch Wikipedia nor the French Wikipedia use images of the Atomium? --84.62.215.188 (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't images of the Atomium be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons? --84.62.215.188 (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama is not universal and differs by country-specific copyright law. In some cases, taking a picture, say of a statue outdoors, is your picture to use as you see fit. In others, if the author's copyright has not expired (that is, the artist hasn't been dead already for 70 years, typically), then you need the author's-sculptor's/heirs'/estate's agreement to assign you rights to use the image. An extreme example of the latter would be paying Bartholdi and his descendants royalties for reuse of every picture of the Statue of Liberty until 70 years after Bartholdi's death, so that would have been through 1974 or 1975. In some cases it's date of death. In others it's full years from end of year in which death occurred. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, Atomium pictures will likely enter the public domain around 2075 or so. Generally speaking, copyright conventions uphold copyright laws mutually. For example, if you translate a Swedish book and publish it in English in the U.S., the original author is holder of the copyright to your translation ("derivative work"), lock stock and barrel, if the Swedish work was first published in Sweden. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I've got enough information now. For the record, the later questions aren't from me, the OP. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 07:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian secession from America edit

OP is either trolling, or very, very confused. Either way, this is getting too personal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What sources can you tell me that describes Canada's allegiance to Britain as secession from America, instead of an American secession from Britain, which Canada became part of? Consider what I mean from the Patriot perspective; the violation by the Crown of the colonial charters which were from sea-to-sea by giving land back to "Quebec" and "Indiana" instead, with Parliament taxing the hell out of the Americans to pay for it, quartering Hessians in Americans' homes, etc. Americans won Canada from the French, but the British government gave it right back, while denying the Anglo-Saxon freedoms inherent in American customs. This translated into Canadian loyalty and American rebellion, but the fact remains that Canada was American in between being French and being what it is now. Obviously, American attempts to enforce hegemony were disasters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term you are using for various countries are ambiguous. "America" is not a country when you are talking about the history of the US and Canada. Canada and Mexico are also part of North America. Canada is not part of "Britain." See History of Canada, which will help you in clarifying the questions, and in clarifying what years you are asking about. Edison (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is somewhat confused, but in the late 1770s, the word "Canada" basically meant Quebec / eastern Ontario, and was inhabited mainly by conservative Catholic French-speakers, the majority of whom had no particular interest in joining with the predominantly English and Protestant 13 colonies in any rebellion. There was no political framework encompassing all of British North America, and Canada couldn't be said to have "seceded" from anything in particular... AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of saying it is that the thirteen colonies that became the US separated themselves from all the other colonies (Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia/Cape Breton, Newfoundland, the ones in the Caribbean). Why didn't those join? Why not Florida? The thirteen colonies did try to convince Nova Scotia to join, I believe...that one was at least historically and culturally similar to the rest of the thirteen. They also tried to capture Lower Canada during the revolution. But as AnonMoos said, "Canada" was never governed by "America", they were all separate colonies, and thirteen of them happened to rebel. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also noteworthy that there was a very large migration of people who were loyal to the crown from the thirteen colonies into Ontario and New Brunswick, so which colonies stayed under the crown was kind of sorted by self-selection. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two corrections:

Florida did not initial join in the U.S. because, at the time, its status was confused, to say the least. It was nominally a British colony (two, actually, see West Florida and East Florida; but most of the people living their thought of themselves as Spanish, the area having only very recently changed hands from Spain to England. During the Revolutionar War, the western half revert back to Spanish control, and the Treaty of Versailles returned the rest to Spain. Florida didn't become American until the Adams-Onís Treaty, which went into effect in 1821.
The colony of Newfoundland actually predates all of what would later become the United States, by several decades, as well as the rest of Canada. It was distinctly seperate from Canada until 1949.

However, given even that, the OP's initial assumption is basically wrong, Canada didn't secede from America. The thirteen colonies were functionally independent prior to the Revolutionary war, and even after it, under the Articles of Confederation acted more like 13 independant countries, and probably thought of themselves as such. The only real sentiment among what would later become Canada towards joining the U.S. was in Nova Scotia. History_of_Nova_Scotia#Politics discusses this, and also discusses why it never got much momentum in that direction. --Jayron32 03:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also of interest that Canada was guaranteed admittance to the United States, if they elected to do so, under the Articles of Confederation. They did not do so. Shadowjams (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply asking if anybody here knows of any REFERENCE which covers this pro-Whig point of view of American operations in Canada, detailing the collusion of the British government with the French and Indians, along with the imperial bureaucracy which carved themselves new colonies out of Nova Scotia and Quebec, inviting new colonists from Britain to settle there with them. By declaring loyalty to the British Government, the Canadian colonies reverted to their independence in shaking off of the hegemony imposed upon them by the English colonists, because the British government was more lenient toward the French and Indians after 1763. This is entirely entwined in the reasons for the war in the first place and continued to be important, an issue to resolve for good in 1812. The issues subsided because London thenceforth only had to suppress the French and not the rest of the former colonies, Canadian Rebellions notwithstanding. It seems justified here that Patrick Henry compared what needed to be done with George III, to Charles I having his Cromwell and Caesar his Brutus. All of the hard work in subjecting Canada to English dominion was the blood, sweat and tears of the Americans, which was sold out by cowards in Parliament (this I read from Winston Churchill's own pen!), who decided to tax Americans instead and send Hessians to enforce the power of London over them. Why any here at the Humanities reference desk is confused by this, must be because they've never taken American History, or have read about it from opposing sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" By declaring loyalty to the British Government, the Canadian colonies reverted to their independence in shaking off of the hegemony imposed upon them by the English colonists..." Huh? Did any of that actually happen? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there exists a reference for this sort of opinion, it would not have come from anyone who had studied Canadian and American history and historiography. (Honestly I'm not even sure what the question is anymore, since this second post is different from the original.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, this ought not to get simply to the point of "I'm American" and "I'm Canadian", so we'll simply be jingoistic about it. There was a real effort by English colonists in what became America, to conclude the Hundred Years War on colonial soil, against the French colonists in Canada, as well as the Manifest Destiny to reach the land claimed by Drake on the Pacific, loyal to Elizabethan English ideals. When it was over in 1763, the British Government decided to go easy on the French and Indians, while trying to enforce Stuart-level absolutism onto the English colonists. This pissed off the English colonists, apart from those with a pension from the British Government (both the governors and redcoats), who then supplied the garrison manpower in Halifax and elsewhere in the newly acquired British possessions of Canada. Nova Scotia (Arcadia) was only lightly English, which is why New Brunswick still has French language recognition. Quite possibly, there was a Continental arrogance in the Georgians which made them partial to the French and contracted the Hessians against the English, which is perhaps echoed in Prince Albert's snobbery about English dukedoms of York and Kent vs being a Duke of Saxony. That's another story though, about the motivations for tyranny over the colonists, who became increasingly Cromwellian in outlook. It may not be considered good for political capital to look into pro-English American POV about war on French Canada, but this is an academic inquiry and the issues relating to British corruption are taken on face value by most people, in relation to the 1776 conflicts. I am reviewing the connection it had with the War of 1812 and am sure that despite Canadian pride, I'm pretty sure it is real enough for Canadians to have the chip on their shoulder about America. Get my drift? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, no, I don't, but perhaps Adam does, and can explain it to the rest of us. It seems somewhat unlikely that Canadians would have a chip on their shoulders about a perspective they have never held. Bielle (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a shock. Only yesterday, it was Bush Americana and the Canadians were huffing and puffing, telling America to back off and leave them alone, citing the War of 1812 amongst other things as evidence of unbridled Yankee aggression. Here you are trying to say it is different. Why is that, because Obama is The Man now and you love him, thus America, instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange; I don't recall any Canadian claiming to "love" Obama here. Also, remember that to us in Canada, even the American Left is still Right to us. We in British Columbia have a liberal party that is right wing. Aaronite (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I'm right because I'm Canadian or you're wrong because you're American. But I think you are introducing things that don't really have anything to do with North American history. The Hundred Years' War? Did anyone ever think of it like that? That war was three to four hundred years earlier, and even in the simplest terms was never really about "French" vs. "English". This also completely overlooks the very real and very current war between France and England in the eighteenth century, of which the struggle over North America was a huge part. Why do you want to make it about the Hundred Years' War when there was a perfectly relevant war already occurring? Also, was Manifest Destiny really about reaching Drake's discoveries on the Pacific? Had Manifest Destiny even been vocalized as a concept in the eighteenth century? Slaking one's thirst in the Arctic Ocean was presumably not on the minds of the American colonists in the eighteenth century...they were worried about settling land that the Quebec Act had denied them, but all the way to the Pacific? They didn't even know what was out there yet. You are, I think, correct that the British tried to appease the French and Indians, and the American colonists were definitely angry about it, but I'm not sure where you are going after that. Of course Halifax had a British garrison...but so did Boston, and other American cities. (Nova Scotia was pretty English by then - or Scottish, really. The Acadians had mostly left/been expelled. The inland parts were still rather French, but when American Loyalists moved there, New Brunswick was created to accomodate them. NB has French-language recognition because that is a much later development by the provincial government. Ontario still has a lot of French people too, they are just less-officially recognized.) As for a "Cromwellian outlook", there was another discussion here recently (was it also by you?) about early colonists being from pro-Cromwellian families, and that the Revolution could be considered an extension of the civil war in the seventeenth century (surely this makes more sense, anyway, than a connection the Hundred Years' War). But nevertheless, after all this, it still remains that each colony was distinct. Virginia was distinct from New York, from Georgia, from Carolina, from Newfoundland, from Bermuda, from Jamaica, from Quebec. The thirteen colonies weren't even governed from one place before the revolution. They never had any control over each other, much less over the colonies that didn't join them in 1775. Of course there are reasons for that - the thirteen were more culturally and historically similar than the others. And they did think the Canadian colonies should also be free from tyranny, whether they wanted to be or not (hence the invasions during the Revolution, the War of 1812, and afterwards). But Canada was never governed by the American colonies, and what we are trying to figure out is why you think they were. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that probably wasn't necessary. We did eventually figure out the question (on my talk page). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the shorthand: Quebec Act & Intolerable Acts. I am looking for literature on this. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's London? edit

Indiana Mammoth Internal Improvement Act says that the state was unable to pay its debtors in London, but it doesn't link to London or say which one. Am I to assume the capital of the UK, or was a North American London important in banking? I have a hard time imagining the government of frontier 1830s Indiana borrowing from across the Atlantic, but at least the only London, Indiana is a tiny community near Shelbyville that almost certainly wasn't settled in the 1830s. Moreover, the citations on the article are largely to print sources; while one citation for London goes to an online book, the cited pages say nothing about London. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British investors provided a lot of capital for "internal improvements" in the 19th-century U.S. Presumably bonds were issued, and some of the bonds were bought in the U.K. It wasn't any more outlandish than investing in "developing markets" around the world today. AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London, Ontario wasn't important for banking...it is (or was) a relatively important place for the insurance industry (home of the London Life Insurance Company, but that was much later. In the 1830s it wasn't really important for anything, except for possibly stopping a hypothetical American invasion from Detroit. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was real, not hypothetical. It just wasn't official: Battle of Windsor and other battles of the Upper Canada Rebellion. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the London (England) Times show many entries where shares and bonds from the US were traded particular it appears for states to raise money. So I believe it should link to London. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link added; thanks for the advice. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the core of the question lies in the fact that most of the world does not need to specify the country of a well known city. E.g. only Americans ever say "Paris, France", the rest of the world just days "Paris" on the reasonable assumption that everyone knows that Paris is in France. This is an understandable difference as America is full of towns that take their names from other well know towns/cities across the world whereas this has not been the habit in most of the rest of the world. Gurumaister (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. When I hear "London" without any context, I often think of a city a few counties away from me, and "Marseilles" brings to mind a place whose name is pronounced "Mar-Sales". Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, so only in America are there multiple towns with the same name? Which city was meant to the 2nd century BC person when they said they were going to Alexandria? Which Caesarea was the Roman citizen talking about? Which Tripoli are the Marines going to after the Halls of Montezuma? Which Antioch would first century travelers have meant when refering to that city. The problem of multiple cities having identical names is quite old, and not unique to America. It is all about context... --Jayron32 02:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not limited to the US, although I suppose by "America" people also include Canada (I was in London the other day and could have taken a short drive to Paris, or Stratford, or a dozen other ambiguously named places). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 17 US states have a town called Berlin (2 states have >1 Berlin), 14 states have a Paris, 13 states have a Moscow, 8 states have a London and 8 states have a Madrid. Googlemeister (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a dozen or so Romes, and a like number of Hamburgs. In Germany, there are four Frankfurts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, ambiguously named towns have often acquired a qualifyer over the centuries. For instance, there a number of towns called Newcastle but they can be distinguished by their full name; Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Newcastle on Clun, Newcastle-under-Lyme or Newcastle Emlyn. Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Gurumaister's post, I think, is that in North America binomial reference is the norm, whereas elsewhere AFAIK it is the marked case. --ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UK) Coalition pledges edit

Hey all, I'm due to start work on an "open data" project of my choosing tomorrow, and I'm thinking of going with a single webpage to provide a detailed list of Coalition commitments made on the 21 May, 2010 linked to the new legislation.gov.uk site, and the newish services.parliament.gov.uk site offering a permanent record of successes, failures and timelines of work on those commitments. Well, that's the idea anyway. What I wanted to know is, has anyone seen anyone else's attempts to do this? I hate to repeat work already going on :) Thanks in advance, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a site which aimed to do something (not on a single page ...) of the sort with the past Labour government. May give you some ideas. Sussexonian (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, if you haven't seen They Work For You, have a look at that. I'm sure you'll already know about it, but it would be negligent of me not to mention it in this context :) 86.164.66.83 (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think something similar was at least described or envisioned, if not comprehensively executed, in some of the posts to Liberal Democrat Voice, Conservative Home, or Labour List, which of course have partisan orientations. It might be worth comparing the results of your attempted objective evaluation of a particular promise's fate with the judgement of contributors to those lists. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement" lists most of the promises made. That article also contains a number of links to Wikipedia articles on subsequent bills and acts (such as, for example, "Academies Act 2010"). Those articles themselves contain links to the respective pages on official sites such as http://services.parliament.uk/bills/. Gabbe (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 1

Contents