Humanities desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

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.

November 3[edit]

Did George Wallace support the Equal Rights Amendment?[edit]

Did George Wallace support the Equal Rights Amendment? When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present states that Wallace supported the ERA. http://books.google.com/books?id=sQ1HhzuaYkEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=walace#v=onepage&q=wallace&f=false While Stand Up for Alabama: Governor George Wallace states that he did not. http://books.google.com/books?id=-i1HBMC6qsEC&pg=PA368&dq=george+wallace+%22equal+rights%22+abortion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wfVWVJb-Eq-IsQSwlYLoDg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=george%20wallace%20%22equal%20rights%22%20abortion&f=false

--Gary123 (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, interesting to research. I've not yet found any contemporary evidence of Wallace's support for the ERA. The one scholarly work I've found asserting the support cites a personal letter from Wallace to Alice Paul in 1968. Anyone got anything definitive? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Anniston (Ala.) Star, which presumably would know, wrote on Mar. 25, 1973, "Gov. George Wallace has supported the ERA publicly since 1968. The governor recently was quoted as saying he will not say any more publicly until after the state legislature acts." Of course, Alabama did not ratify the ERA. By 1976 news articles refer to him as having taking a position against the ERA, although I'm not sure exactly when he reversed his position. John M Baker (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the ERA was a complicated thing. The bulk of the support for quite a while was from conservative Republican women, as our article says; New Dealers "...felt that ERA was designed for middle class women but that working class women needed government protection." This flipped by the early 70s. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the joke was on the "No" voters, because the 14th amendment already covered it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Antonin Scalia said in 2011 he disagrees. He's kinda influential. [1] --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting a bit off-topic here, but a key argument of some opponents of the ERA was that the rights it guaranteed were already provided by constitutional and statutory provisions. So if the 14th Amendment already covered the substance of the ERA, that would not be a joke on the No voters. John M Baker (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never once heard an opponent make that argument. The opponents feared that it would erode male power dominance in America, and frequently said so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which opponents when? The opponents of the ERA in the '40s-'60s were not the opponents of the ERA of the '70s, which is the point of this whole discussion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those with difficulty following links, Equal Rights Amendment#Background provides plenty of detail of the shift of ERA support, and the changing arguments over the years for and against the ERA. This link, provided above, discusses the ERA vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment. I'd be curious to find some opponents actually saying outright that it would "erode male power dominance in the US". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opposition argument (in the 1975 - 1982 period) was that the popular rights protected by the ERA, such as equal pay for equal work, were already protected by existing law. The opposition concern was that the ERA would create unpopular rights/requirements, such as unisex restrooms, mandatory female service in military ground forces, and homosexuals' right to adopt. Thus, either the ERA would have no effect, or its effect would be in ways opposed by the majority. Supporters of the ERA were left with an unappealing menu of options: They could argue that existing law did not protect the popular rights that would be guaranteed by the ERA (but this was mostly untrue, and became increasingly untrue as time went on), that the existing laws were so important that they needed to be guaranteed by the constitution (although there was no move afoot to repeal them), that the unpopular rights should be guaranteed (an inherently self-limiting position in trying to attract votes), or that the symbolic value of the ERA itself should carry the day. They mostly went with the last one, which turned out to be not enough to secure passage. John M Baker (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opponents spoke in euphemisms about "degrading family values", which is the argument they make every time there's a push for sexual equality in much of anything. And note that most everything the opponents warned the ERA would do has since happened, one way or another: unisex restrooms (in some places), voluntary female participation in combat zones, and same-sex marriage and adoption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Bugs, at least provide a reference to back up the nonsense you make up. The issue was that the ERA was redundant, at that it would mandate things like a draft for women and equal pay by law for waitresses and cooks, which we still don't have or want. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American committing crimes abroad[edit]

EDIT: moved from Language desk

Suppose that an American goes to another country (say China) and murders a Chinese citizen. If China refuses to prosecute him for whatever reason, and he returns to the US, do US courts have a legal basis for prosecuting him? Would they likely prosecute him, considering that the crime wasn't committed within US jurisdiction?

What if the American kills another American citizen in China? Is this situation any different? --50.46.159.94 (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is the Language Desk, but~~ the Blackwater Baghdad shootings were settled in an American federal court, rather than Iraq. That may have been a special case, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law for the USA. Also, here's a list of the UK's laws that apply overseas.[2] Nanonic (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat related situation occurs when prosecuting sex tourism and child sex tourism cases, where the country the offense took place in (Cambodia, The Philippines, etc.) either don't bother to charge the offender or don't have a law to prosecute them for, so the home country of the offender charges them instead. I know Canada has such a law; I don't know about the US, though. Matt Deres (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: It's unbelievably complicated and can depend on the perspective of your question. My understanding is that the default principle is that US law does not apply extraterritorially, but for many serious situations (sex tourism and financial crimes being the most prominent examples), there can be an extraterritorial application. From an international law perspective, there is (as far as I know) no obligation for a state to prosecute its own citizens for crimes they commit abroad, but I also do not know of any prohibition that forbids it. A sovereign's jurisdiction over its citizens, regardless of where they are, is a pretty standard principle of international law. As an example of how far it can go, there have been attempts by states to prosecute foreign citizens for crimes that occurred in a foreign country (see, e.g., Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet).

Now, here's an interesting wrinkle. Murder is generally not a federal crime. Thus it would probably be up to a state to prosecute. What jurisdiction controls? That's an interesting conflict of laws question (that the course I'm taking right now has not quite reached). Anyway, I strongly suggest reading the CRS publication Nanonic links to above; it covers the question in excruciating detail, at least from a federal perspective. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blog[edit]

How can I publicise my new blog, http://thebookblogger2014.wordpress.com/ without making an account or paying? And how long does Google normally take for new sites to be found and added to its index? Thanks, 86.184.172.105 (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia isn't a forum for advertising. So, if that's what you were asking, put it out of your mind. As far as getting Google to put your site to the top of its results, a lot of it depends on other sites linking to yours. So you'll have to get your name out there and get people linking to your blog. Dismas|^(talk) 11:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas: I won't. 86.184.172.105 (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious Matty: Did you first come in as an IPer then as Matty and then back as an IPer? I've sometimes forgotten to log in and posted as an IPer by mistake but as far as I can recall never the reverse. So what went wrong? Of course it's your own business, but maybe I can learn something. Contact Basemetal here 12:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I logged in to reply to someone, but logged out here as I ask questions as an IP-especially as I have dropped the main account. I didn't want to associate the two things, hence removing my reply, and along the same lines, please can you remove the ping Basemetal? Thanks, 81.129.189.91 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I removed the ping. Contact Basemetal here 15:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 81.129.189.91 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: it should be "Who is your favourite Doctor?" Quick way to remember: if the answer to the who/m question can be "he", use who; if the answer to the who/m question can be "him", use whom. Even better: simply don't use "whom" at all. It makes no difference to the clarity of the writing, and thus is grammatically correct. (From my lunatic anti-prescriptivist point of view about grammar, that is.) --Shirt58 (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Contact Basemetal here 08:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the original question 1: It seems one way is to write a blog post titled “Ten free ways to promote your blog” :) But joking aside, there is lots of this kind of free advice out there. Here are a few you can read: [3], [4], [5], [6].

For question 2, Google essentially says there is no set time, though apparently you can speed up the process by manually submitting your site. Taknaran (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spraypaint your URL on the most famous landmark you can find. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purchasing a shorter URL will reduce the amount spray paint required. Hack (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the extra spraypaint to add something concise, catchy and controversial. One of your words should be "God". See God is Dead, God Hates Fags, God Loves Uganda, In God We Trust or God Save the Queen. The rest is up to you. "God Pissed Here" would be good. If you use that, remember to buy extra spraypaint because it was released under CC BY-SA 3.0. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about spraying my favourite poster on, say, The Fourth Plinth (or make a sculpture, it would make a change from the giant chicken) with a small tagline stating the blog name. Or I could put it on a van, I may even get 11 views if I'm lucky... Thanks for the help, 109.147.149.207 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pings[edit]

What is the "ping" template supposed to do? Send a message to the user? Because I think I've been "pinged" a few times but nothing special has happened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes the "notification" thingy (the little red numbers) say that someone mentioned you in a post. --Jayron32 17:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does that only work in the relatively newer version of the interface? Tell ya what - please post a test ping here and I'll see if it notifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs:. --Jayron32 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happened. Thank you for testing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs Did that work? There are different formats, and some need "user:" I think. Also, I have been pinged, seen the ping on the talk page where it was made, received no notification, then gotten a notification after more than an hour's delay. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing. It's possible there are bugs in the software, but they've probably got all available developers dedicated to the ~~much dreaded~~ eagerly anticipated "Flow" project. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, certain things can prevent a notification in edits with a link to your user page but the above edit [7] by Medeis and this one by me should both cause a notification if you have a checkmark at "Mention" in the Web column at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Do you? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not checked. That must have been the default originally. It is now checked. Please try again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: There. Did that one work? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just watch, Baseball Bugs' computer will boot itself after he's gone to bed, tap him on the shoulder, and tell him he's five pending pings flowing from wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Two, anyway. Thanks, all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Johnson[edit]

Hey, I am creating a draft about Joey Johnson here. While searching for a reference about where his residence is, I came upon two reliable sources that show two different residence. One of them is probably outdated but I'm having trouble finding out which one. If someone could look at when the two sources were written, it would be greatly appreciated. The two sources are [8][9]. Thanks, ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 18:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standard thing in these cases is to search for ("joey johnson" wheelchair) at google, google news, and google books. Giving a current residence is not all so as important as whom he plays for, in any case. Google news gave 0 hits but plainold google gave 3800. Use the quotes around his name when you search, or you will get things like "Joey Smith and Bob Johnson invented a rocket powered wheelchair...." μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about dating an online source. You can find out for certain when each page was written by contacting the associations directly [10], [11]. If you just want an estimate, you could guess based on the most recent dates mentioned on each page – 2013 for the wheelchairbasketball.ca source and 2012 for the paralympic.ca source, though that is not a guaranteed way to tell. A third method is to check for earlier versions of each page in the Wayback Machine.

Like μηδείς, I did not find a source for Johnson’s current residence. I did, however, find that he is from Winnipeg: [12] Taknaran (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I really don't think we need the names of his wife and children, or his exact birthdate for that matter. --NellieBly (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Notability here has to be recognized through accomplishments and commentary on his skill/importance by sports reporters and the like. Using things like residence and family to pad out an otherwise short article falls afoul of the WP:BLP policy of not identify people only tangentially related to a notable item. Best to leave out the personal details and concentrate on notability, or the article will fail WP:AFD. μηδείς (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester Castle tree[edit]

When I was a lad, an aunt told me that the tree which grows on the battlements at Colchester Castle was planted in 1815 to commemorate the Battle of Waterloo. You can see the tree in the 2008 photograph I have attached, and it (or an earlier one in the same place) appears in this 1826 print and this 1906 photograph.. I thought it might be notable enough to add to our article, but isn't anywhere on the internet as far as I can see. Can anybody find me a reference? Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This site and this site both say something along the lines of "legend has it that it was planted by the gaoler's daughter to commemorate the battle", but with no further references. This book from 1854 refers to its existence, describing it as "ancient" (is 40 years ancient for a tree? If not, it might be negative evidence), but doesn't refer to the legend (which presumably would be well within living memory at the time). Tevildo (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it is not the same tree in the 1906 photo and 2008 photo. A tree tends to grow noticeably in ~100 years, though of course it could be essentially a large bonzai, with human effort used to keep it small. Have you seen the tree up close? If so, did you see signs of heavy pruning, or could you estimate the size of the container? There's also the question of what type of tree it is. What gets called Sycamore in the UK? On the off chance it's the Platanus_occidentalis (native to NA), then it's certainly not the same tree in both photos. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, a sycamore in England is Acer pseudoplatanus which will certainly grow into a very large tree given the chance, but I don't imagine there's a lot of room for a developed root system up there. They don't let the public up to the top, so I've only seen it from the ground. The ~~first~~ second link that User:Tevildo gives above (for which much thanks) says "This one has been trimmed like a big Bonsai and has quite a lot of rot. Nonetheless, it is healthy enough to give a good show of foliage each year." Sycamores will coppice vigorously, so if a branch falls off, several new stems will grow in its place. This is the best photograph that I can find of it - now that I know the species, I'm getting a lot more search results. Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Smith, gaoler's daughter - About Miss Smith who was born and died in the keep of Colchester Castle suggests that she might have planted the tree in memory of her father the gaoler, who died in 1815. A more prosaic suggestion is in Gardening: Volumes 15-16 (Page 217) from 1907, which says; "There is a fine sycamore tree — or there was a few years ago — growing high up on the old semi-ruined walls of Colchester castle in England, the winged seed having doubtless been carried there by the wind." It's certainly true that sycamore seedlings sprout from the cracks between paving stones and anywhere else that they can find a toe hold. Thanks for your help. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Representing different states in Congress[edit]

Scott Brown used to be the Senator for Massachusetts, and he is now vying to be the Senator of New Hampshire. This made me think of the following question. Who holds the "record" in Congress for representing the most states? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was at first thinking Robert F. Kennedy, except he was never a Senator from Massachusetts. Although Tom Lehrer said in 1965 that he was proud to be from Massachusetts, "the only state with three senators." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Shields is supposedly the only one to serve as Senator from three different states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This says it has happened a few times in each house, but only mentions Daniel Webster by name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised there isn't a counterpart to Members of the Australian Parliament who have represented more than one state or territory . -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, Jack: that's a great idea for a new article. I hope someone starts that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A point of clarification: In my original question, I am not referring to Senators only, but rather to any office in Congress (i.e., the House of Representatives, also). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21 Congressmen have represented two states.[13] --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I read correctly, that article says that 21 Representatives (not Congressmen) have represented two states. Right? In other words, they are not including Senators and/or individuals who served in both houses (as a Senator and as a Rep). Also, "two" cannot be the record. From the discussion above, there have been cases of three states being represented by the same Congressmen. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the term "The Congress" in the U.S. Constitution means the Senate plus the House of Representatives, in conventional usage a representative is a "Congressman" and a senator is a Senator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. I have always believed that Congressmen refers a combination of all those who work in Congress (i.e., the Senators plus the Reps). A Senator refers to those in the Senate. And a Representative refers to those in the House. That is how I have always heard these terms being used. That is the convention I have always known. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, here Boehner is called "Congressman Boehner", while here McConnell is called "Senator McConnell". No "Congressman" to be found. However, if you google "Congressman McConnell", there are results. But I have to say I've never actually heard anyone call him or any other senator "Congressman". So now you've given me something to watch for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I said "congressmen", which is quite more ambiguous. Which led me to this interesting discussion of the words. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]