Humanities desk
< December 22	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 24 >

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.

December 23[edit]

2010 & 2000 US Census numbers[edit]

I searched the archives and could not find a definitive discussion relating to protocol on the topic, but for most cities the 2000 Census data has been replaced by the 2010 numbers. However, there are a few articles which both sets of numbers exist; on one article where I manually entered the 2010 data and deleted the outdated 2000 data, my deletion of the 2000 numbers was reverted. Has a protocol been established whether geographical articles should retain older census numbers after new data is added? It seems pointless (and clunky) to have two sections of Census data, one of which is outdated.--Chimino (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is not the appropriate venue to discuss policies, content or editing disputes on Wikipedia articles, and thus you should probably redirect your question elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or the appropriate WikiProject. That said, there was a centralized discussion a couple of years ago on Wikipedia:2010 US Census for updating this content, but that now seems inactive, so you you should definitely ask elsewhere. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Control[edit]

I am researching the names of domestic and military gun/weapons manufacturers in America. Can someone please send me a list of these manufacturers, especially those who make both domestic and military weapons? Location by state would be helpful too.

Thank you, Etoile1 (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] should help you get started.Dncsky (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photography in Tonga[edit]

When did photography first reached Tonga? When was the first photograph taken in Tonga?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps The Camera in the Coral Islands documents it? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No that is too late. I know of a photograph of a Tongan who died in 1862.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First nations to receive the New Year[edit]

I know of the Republic of Kiribati, is there any other nation besides New Zealand or Australia? Keeeith (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of them ... see our article on the International Date Line. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "lots of them". According to the illustration at that link, only the Line Islands are in the GMT+14 time zone, so they will celebrate New Years before everybody else. Every point in that time zone will celebrate New Year at the same moment. How far East it is would only affect the first point to see the sun rise on the new year. StuRat (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can say that Kiribati is the first country on Earth to receive the New Year? Keeeith (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since the time zone change last year, (Western) Samoa uses UTC+14 during Daylight Saving Time and of course, they're observing DST during the New Year (I presume we're referring to the Gregorian or perhaps Julian calendar new year) so Samoa also celebrates the new year at the same time, see Time in Samoa and UTC+14. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did so many Nazis commit suicide?[edit]

What drove them into killing themselves?. Fear?, guilt?, what? Keeeith (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a bad Ref Desk question. We can't ask them, so we can only speculate, and that's never good. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but it's always caught my attention as to why so many killed themselves. Keeeith (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. It is more than possible that a historian of NSDAP mentalités or a psychohistorian could have in fact answered this question. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to answer the question. In most cases, it's so that they wouldn't get caught. Nazis like Adolf Hitler would rather die with some dignity rather than be captured, put on trial, and executed (like what Hideki Tōjō faced after the war). It's the same reason why samurai used to kill themselves when they lost their honor, or why most spree shooters kill themselves at the end of their killing spree. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 18:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is awesome, especially for the multiple links. Keeeith (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One clarification... while a core group of the Nazi leadership committed suicide, the vast majority of Nazis (ie the rank and file members of the Nazi Party) did not. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next time try searching the archives, this question's been asked and answered more than once, and recently. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's deja vu all over again:

Timothyhere (talk · contribs)
Iowafromiowa (talk · contribs)
Keeeith (talk · contribs)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with those users, if a block comes about because of this senseless act of intolerance, I'd be very dissapointed with Wikipedia. Keeeith (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's being pointed out to you is that a) the answers to a question like this should be based on what reliable sources have said and it is unlikely that there would be reliable sources - however I can see that pointing to a psychological study could be a reasonable answer. And b) the question has been asked before and it would be nice if you would check the archives for a similar question before. There is a convenient box at the top of this page to aid you in such queries. Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the OP has been blocked as an obvious sock puppet and long term obvious ref desk troll. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it might be relevant to note that he threatened to become "another Adam Lanza" because of this block, although only for a minute. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Mass suicide in Demmin where hundreds of Demmin residents committed mass suicide. Also see Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well his questions have felt to me like the sort of thing that should worry the Department of Homeland Security. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the second Byzantine female historian?[edit]

While reading about women in the Byzantine Empire years ago, I remember several authors saying that they were only two female writers in the history of the empire, both historians. One was Anna Comnena, of course, but I can't remember the name of the other one. I do remember that she lived cirka 800, that not much of her is known but that she is often mentioned because she is regarded to be the only female writer in the history of the Byzantine empire except the much more famous Anna Comnena. Does any one recognized this and knows who she was? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irene of Athens?? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are four in Category:Byzantine women writers, the two from approximately that period being Kassia and Eudokia Makrembolitissa. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have looked, but I clearly remember that she was neither royal nor a nun, which does not seem to fit in with those. Also, I remember the books saying something like: "Except for the work, not much is known about this female writer", which does not fit in with those either - and the work itself was, I think, very small and only significant because of her unusual position as a female writer who was neither royal nor a nun. --Aciram (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I think Kassia would be the most likely canditate. In The Byzantine World Paul Stephenson writes that "In the Middle Byzantine period we have two women who wrote in their own name, the liturgical poet Kassia or Kasiane (ninth century) and the historian Anna Komnene (twelfth)." That seems to be related to the claim you remember about there being only two female authors of the Byzantine Empire. - Lindert (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, when you put it like that, it does seem Kassia is the likely candidate: this phrase does remind me of what I read. When I looked at her article, she did not seem to fit in because she was a nun and because so much seem to be known about her, while I seem to remember that this writer was some one not very well known and not a nun. Still, it was a while ago I read about this, and your quote reminds me so much about the one I read that it may actually be the very same phrase. I think I must consider this to be the answer after all. Thank you very much. A minor disappointment, in some way: there seem to be no notable women in the Byzantine Empire who was not either a royal or a nun. I will read the Kassia article more carefully - if that quote is not already in there, it would fit in the article very well!--Aciram (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for great chunks of Western history becoming a nun was the way for non-royal women to be free to pursue academic or other achievements. Even famous Saint nuns (such as St Teresa of Avila) were on record as initially choosing the convent because they were ambitious and wanted interesting opportunities. And others joined convents to escape arranged marriages. If you were a non-royal woman who was likely to become notable, you would become a nun. I would actually be surprised to find many notable non-royal, non-nun women from the period. 86.129.14.69 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incinerator robberies[edit]

I don't fully get why in Debden incinerator robberies and in another similar case mentioned there the participants were found guilty - since money were to be incinerated, they aren't subject of further circulation (presumably due to weariness, or even no longer represent a legal tender) and as such a person who possesses them can't be liable for theft. Brandmeister^talk 22:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Theft Act 1968 makes no allowances for the dishonest appropriation of property which is not legal tender. (Even the lone act of replacing a price label showing a greater price on goods with one showing a lesser price can amount to theft, despite there being no physical appropriation of property and no loss sustained by the owner.) Ankh.Morpork 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason it's illegal is the same as for counterfeiting, increasing the total amount in circulation reduces the value of each unit. StuRat (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is overlooking the likelihood that these worn-out bills were replaced with others, i.e. new ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question being asked involves the legal technicality of whether the bills are legal tender or not. Is there a difference between the law broken in stealing legal tender currency and no-longer-legal-tender currency? Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's monopoly money it's still theft. Theft applies even if the owner does not incurr a loss as a result of the approriation. Only a few items can't be legally stolen such a wild creatures or land in certain circumstances. Ankh.Morpork 02:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the value of the stolen objects may determine whether the crime is a felony or misdemeanor. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the crime and the Acts referred to above are in the UK, where we have not had the treason/felony/misdemeanour distinction for quite a long time. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legally stolen? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Poorly worded on my part. I meant only a few items are excluded from the Section 1 offence of theft, while the rest all fall under scope of the act. Ankh.Morpork 20:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandmeister -- speaking purely as a non-lawyer, it seems to me that they must have been guilty either of stealing money or passing off non-money as money, so there would be a crime either way... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I imagine this is why if you bring in DM coins or notes to a branch of the Bundesbank, they shred them (or place the coins between rollers which thoroughly deform them) before they leave the premises, so contractors are just handling loads of metal or shredded paper.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned libel cases[edit]

The Sunday Times is suing Lance Armstrong over a lost libel action for publishing doping allegations, a claim now corroborated. What other high profile cases have there been of damages being claimed for a lost libel action subsequent to the emergence of new evidence? e.g Jeffrey Archer settled a claim for damages in 2002 after having been awarded damages in his 1987 libel case. Ankh.Morpork 23:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The convoluted case of Tommy Sheridan may be relevant here; I don't know if damages were claimed against him, but he did end up imprisoned for perjury... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convoluted indeed. A defunct newspaper, ongoing police investigations and the longest perjury trial in Scottish legal history. It seems the News of the World did appeal Sheridan's libel victory. Ankh.Morpork 17:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]