Humanities desk
< August 6	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 8 >

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 7[edit]

USS Plunger (SS-2)[edit]

Got another one here. The chronology of the sub itself limits this to 1902-1921; does anyone have any ideas for narrowing it further? - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~There's lots of detailed info in this article by a retired USN commander. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Hmmm, seems to be basically the same info as what we currently have. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did China learn about America[edit]

When did China first learn about the existence of the Americas (post 1492; I'm not looking for theories of Zheng He and his fleet beating Columbus)? When did they first recorded it down or mention Europeans finding/mentioning lands to their far east beyond Japan? What was the first/oldest known Chinese exonym for this region of the world?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a direct answer to your question, but our article on Foreign relations of imperial China mentions that trade with Portugal began in the early 1500s. Tuen Mun was in fact home to Portuguese settlers as early as 1514. Given this I'd say it's certainly possible the Chinese found out about the Americas not long after everyone else. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the Chinese would have known about the area indirectly through the Spanish China trade in the Philippines. The Spanish paid with silver and gold from the New World, so what would the Chinese have called the land from which this wealth originate or did they thought it came from Xiyang (Europe).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that someone at the language desk could answer the language part of the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We may never know for sure because early voyagers may have been undocumented. Erunaquest (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not interested in if theories and assumed the Chinese learn of the region from Europeans after Columbus' discovery.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a name that you might take to the language desk. According to The Economist, this map File:1763-1418ChineseMap.jpg might be dated 1418 (an alternate date is 1763). There is a label (in Chinese) on the Americas. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And see Kunyu Wanguo Quantu, made in 1602 and said in that article to be the first Chinese map showing the Americas. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

more links for 184's answer see: De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas and Yee, Cordell (1987). Traditional Chinese Cartography and the Myth of Westernization. In Harley, J. B., In Woodward, D., & In Monmonier, M. S. (1987). The History of cartography. (Vol. 2, Bk. 2) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.—eric 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty here is in treating "the Chinese" as a unified entity. There is little doubt that some individual Chinese people learned about the American land mass in the early 1500s. But how far did that knowledge propagate? It might be worth pointing out the the Norwegians knew from around 1000 A.D. onward of the American land mass down to the latitude of the Saint Lawrence River -- but that knowledge was not communicated to southern Europe. So when did "the Europeans" learn about America? Looie496 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals who funded the American revolutionary war[edit]

Trolling

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

Does Wikipedia have a list of individuals who provided funding for the American revolutionary war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft skin (talk • contribs) 06:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the funding for the American Revolution came from the issuance of paper money by Congress, rather than collected from individuals. Some wealthy colonists did provide loans to help fund the revolution, but our article doesn't list any by name. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This site gives more details about the loan program, but doesn't name any creditors. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Louis XVI probably tops the list.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 08:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the mainstream media, it very well may have been aliens. On the other hand, this guy from the far corners of the Internet seems rather more certain it was Americans. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read an article of a patriot who spent most of his money for the cause and tried (unsuccesfully) to get reimbursed after the war, but I can't recall the name. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Category:Financiers of the American Revolution, but it's only got seven entries, and my guy isn't one of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus Kosciuszko and Casimir Pulaski, who fought for the American cause, are household names in Poland. Haym Salomon, a Polish Jew included in the category mentioned by Clarityfiend above – not so much. I have long wondered why. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is ethnic prejudice. With few exceptions, military leaders become more famous than financiers. - Jmabel | Talk 17:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1939, Americans have been told to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Marcus Loew and Samuel Goldwyn were two Polish Jews behind that curtain. But you don't have to be Jewish to oppose the Bush administration, and that Bush's great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a Revolutionary War Captain who is an exception to the fame rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how many of the financiers were Jewish, since we all know that many of the founding fathers were Freemasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft skin (talk • contribs) 08:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured you were asking. The reliable sources and rest of the Internet seem to agree there was only Solomon. Notably, anyway. If you check the census records from around that time, you'll find a list of taxpayers, some probably with Jewish sounding names. Like the guy in the "certain it was Americans" link above notes, even the European loans had to be paid back, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Chaim Solomon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft skin (talk • contribs) 09:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim, Haym, Solomon, Salomon, yeah. Not Solomon. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, The people here have mentioned two financiers who were Jewish. What were their reasons to fund the American revolutionary war? Were they collaborating with Freemasons in a conspiracy to undermine traditional white society? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft skin (talk • contribs) 09:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His investment bought him the clout to help strike down the religious test in Pennsylvania. That's sort of like undermining tradition. If he was more in it for the money than the ideals of freedom, like the typical human, he got burnt by the time-honoured tradition of not paying bills and his family was left penniless.

Here are the ravings of a lunatic on the Freemason stuff. I just skimmed through it, but it seems to be the sort of answer you want.

Who's the second Jewish banker you see here? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I misread. Also, are you the guy who tried to claim that holocaust revisionism is false? Anyways, the global elite Jews have you brainwashed into thinking he's a lunatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft skin (talk • contribs) 09:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions are real, what they claim happened are usually false. Are you one of those accounts that wants to turn its question into an anti-Semitic soapbox? If so, go to YouTube. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court: Decision in Shelby County v. Holder, Doc. 12-96[edit]

A preclearance provision (Section 5) of the Voting Rights Act. The Case was brought as a Facial Challenge, which I thought meant the Decision had to either accept "all" or "nothing" of the challenge. The Decision, however parced out only part of Section 5 (taking out the teeth of Section 5...or at the least sending it back to Congress), which felt like the Case was being decided as if AllynFuller (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)it had been an As-Applied Challenge. What am I missing in my understanding of Facial v. As-Applied? Thank you![reply]

See Shelby County v. Holder and Facial challenge. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b) of the act was unconstitutional (that is, the facial challenge to that section was upheld; there are no circumstances in which it can be applied in compliance with the Constitution), but upheld the constitutionality of Section 5; or, at least, "issue[d] no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula." Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal issues arising from withheld information[edit]

What are the possible criminal implications arising from withholding information from police to the extent to which the protagonist in Nightcrawler (2014) withheld information from police according to California law? I would have some serious difficulties finding criminal liability. --91.64.67.98 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very unsafe thing to make assumptions about, and we can by no means give legal advice, but it's worth considering obstruction of justice and accessory after the fact, also contempt of court if a court order for the tape and equipment is given (wouldn't they?). I wouldn't be confident about destruction of evidence either, even if what they did was to make a copy of the tape, stop, then go back and tape over part of it, because after all, isn't the temporarily more informative copy "evidence"? Prosecutors seem to have carte blanche to write their own rules of logic as they go along. If they want you in jail, you're going to jail... and this would really tick them off. Wnt (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though if the prosecution wants to send you to jail, but knows of exculpatory evidence the police have, they must not bury it. Sort of the opposite of defending yourself by burying inculpatory evidence, but opposites are sort of relevant to each other. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary in our article says the protagonist tampers with crime scenes to make better pictures. That goes beyond withholding evidence. —Tamfang (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He does many not-quite-ethical things (at least by other people's standards). After he records the scene of a fatal burglary, the killers come back and he gets a clear shot of their faces and vehicle from a hiding spot. But he has his own plans for them, so gives the detectives a shorter version of the video, and tells them he didn't see anyone. I think that's what the OP is talking about. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]