Humanities desk
< May 22	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 23[edit]

H. Blacklock & Co[edit]

Seeing this as a publisher name in some works, but couldn't find the Wikipedia article.

Trying to determine who they became in 2012-2015, if they survived.

Id also be interested in knowing if they published in the US via an agreement with a US publisher.

This is so that I can determine if a work published by them in 1904/1914 editions was ever published (in compliance with the formalities) in the US. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website, H Blacklock & Co Ltd were taken over by McCorquodale & Co Ltd, based in Merseyside, in about 1930 - this company ceased trading in 2005. There is a printing (not publishing) company called McCorquodale 2005 (UK) Ltd based in Derby, which is probably their successor. They might be a good place to start any further enquiries. Tevildo (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ShakespeareFan00 your comment about the formalities — I understand that you may be looking for information besides the simple license status, but as far as the license, it's fine. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the USA, regardless of the jurisdiction in which it was first published, and regardless of whether it complied with US requirements at the time of publication. Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe[edit]

Now that Russia withdrew, what's the status of this treaty with respect to the non-Russian signatories? Are they still following the treaty? Are they legally required to? My other car is a cadr (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It hasnt actually withdrawn completely its just taken its toys and refused to play anymore, but it is still represented by Belarus at treaty meetings. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of Queen Victoria's daughters, an eminent scientist, and a mysterious bird.[edit]

Elspeth Huxley, in her book Gallipot Eyes, recounts a story told to her by her husband, Gervas Huxley. One of Queen Victoria's daughters, finding herself in close proximity to Thomas Huxley, inquired: "Do tell me, professor, what is the name of that bird one often hears in springtime that makes a silly noise something like 'cuckoo, cuckoo'?" I'd like to know which daughter. DuncanHill (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Elspeth was an author, a journalist and a government advisor, I'd like to know if she didn't make the whole thing up. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the board memberships and directorships of Delaware Corporations considered public record?[edit]

↑ My other car is a cadr (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This commercial site says: "Corporations can also be filed in Delaware through a registered agent without listing shareholders, directors, and officers on the public record. However, on or before March 1 of each year after the initial filing, each Delaware corporation is required to file a franchise tax payment and must list the names and addresses of the company's directors and officers. This information is required even if your Delaware agent pays your taxes for you. This information may be obtained by anyone requesting it from the Delaware Division of Corporations for a small payment of $10. Some states post this information on their websites, but not Delaware." Director information may also be available from other states if the corporation does business in those states, and of course information about public companies is available from the SEC. John M Baker (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the excellent answer. My other car is a cadr (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

United States paleo-indians[edit]

In the entry about the history of the United States, it says that paleo-Indians migrated from Eurasia 15,000 years ago. I would like to know what proof there is of that? I know there is a THEORY that this happened but there is evidence that this did not happen, and that they were indigenous to this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.202.151 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No scientist or scholar doubts that modern humans arose in Africa, spread from there throughout Eurasia, and then to the Americas from east Asia. The fact that you are entertaining the idea that humans arose indigenously in the Americas shows a great lack of understanding of biology and archeology. For example, if you want proof of the out-of-Asia theory, what is your counter hypothesis? Did native Americans evolve from South American primates, or were they created there by God? And if comparative genetics, anthropology and linguistics don't convince you, what would you accept as proof? An ancient written text? See peopling of the Americas as a start. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we ignore mainstream anthropology, does anyone argue that modern humans are indigenous to the Americas and later migrated elsewhere? The most Americas-centered religious group of which I'm aware, the Latter Day Saint movement, posits that the earliest people in the Americas came from the Old World. We may even be able to discount native mythologies: such accounts are often local in scope, and they may only account for the origins of the tribe and its neighbors without attempting to explain the origins of all humans. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the OP has asked for "proof" I take that to mean scientific demonstration, rather than reference to a revealed text. All historical proof is ultimately ostensive. You have to be familiar with the physical evidence, you can't derive such proofs from axioms or refer to religious authority. It's possible he's using "what proof" in the way creationists do when they challenge evolution, but such discussions have limited value and aren't really appropriate here. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning whether he's even understanding something properly; I've never heard such a concept before, and I'm wondering whether perhaps he's misunderstood something, rather than simply asking about evidence for a position that's gotten only minimal support. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems odd that he says the theory is that the people came from Eurasia, rather than being more specific and just saying Asia, or even East Asia. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because that's what the article the OP referred to says: "The prevailing theory proposes that people migrated from Eurasia across Beringia, a land bridge that connected Siberia to present-day Alaska during the Ice Age, and then spread southward throughout the Americas and possibly going as far south as the Antarctic peninsula. " (History of the United States#Pre-Columbian era)? --ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stu, yes, the East Asain/Beringia land bridge is overwhelmingly the most supported theory, but there is also the Solutrean hypothesis and the even less likely idea of some sort of Proto-Polynesian South Pacific crossing directly to South America popularized by Thor Heyerdahl. Perhaps that is why the OP used "Eurasian", although as pointed out above the phrasing of the question does betray a misunderstanding of the field, so probably not.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Heyerdahl proposed contacts the other way round - from South America to Polynesia. The Kon-Tiki expedition was supposed to show the plausibility if that. He also, though less prominently, proposed settlement of Polynesia by Asian populations via the American North-West, but I'm not aware that he ever championed direct contact back from Polynesia to South America. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to read the article on Scientific theory as you capitalise the term in your query. A theory is not some fringy set of hypotheses but a tested and verified body of concepts. I also suggest the WP entries Multiregional origin of modern humans and Archaic human admixture with modern humans. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Solutrean Hypothesis is considered disproven, and at best the presence of Austronesian language words for the sweet potatoes in South American are considered evidence of a fourth migration, not disproof in any way of the out-of-Asia hypothesis. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I particularly believe The Solutrean Hypothesis, but it and the out-of-Asia theory aren't mutually exclusive. Both could be true. And I wouldn't say it is "disproven". If you look at the language most writers use, it is usually, due to the lack of convincing evidence, cautiously dismissed as "unlikely". Many seem to be hedging their bets in case more convincing evidence for an otherwise thoroughly plausible hypothesis is uncovered in the future.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Solutrean hypothesis is based on two main points, the supposed similarity of the Clovis toolkit to the Solutrean toolkit, which is now discounted, as well as the X haplogroup connection, which is also now discounted. I agree this is not disproof, but given the lack of evidence or necessity, it's as good as disproof according to Ockham's Razor. The American presence of the sweet potato and the Austronesian word for it is much more impressive. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot of speculations on the topic, but the two clearest bits of evidence I can think of are Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Clovis point. The history of a continent is a complicated thing, and I don't mean to discourage creative exploration of the possibilities, but these are two stumblingblocks that any interesting ideas need to get around. Wnt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure in what way you see Clovis points as relevant, Wnt, since they are an indigenous innovation, not showing any link to Asia, but also not the earliest toolkit in the Americas either, as recent research has shown. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry - I linked to the actual Clovis point rather than Clovis culture. There's a discussion in this article about the various pre-Clovis civilizations - the point being, few are dated more than just a little before Clovis, and those that are are controversial. So any theory of Native Americans has to work around this fairly late date of colonization, or strongly defend the evidence for earlier colonization and explain why it left less evidence. Wnt (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Supreme Court Justices[edit]

Can anybody help me identified the two Associate Justices to the left and right of Albert Francis Judd (center)? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, the associate justices between 1881 and 1893 were Benjamin H. Austin, Edward Preston, Richard Frederick Bickerton, Abraham Fornander and Sanford B. Dole.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KAVEBEAR the documentation for the pic says that Judd is in the center so it is the names of the AJ's on either side of him that you are looking for. MarnetteD|Talk 03:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the two on the sides.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK this is just a guess - the one on the right (his left) looks like Fornander if you allow for him being ten years (+ or -) older and having had his beard trimmed. The other one does not look like Dole (the only other one whose article has a pic) so it should be one of the others that you linked. I hope another editor will be able to give you fuller info. MarnetteD|Talk 03:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're neither Dole or Fornander. It can't be a younger Fornander since he was appointed a year before he died and he never served on the Supreme Court formally since he was suffering from illness the last year of his life. It is one of the other three. Hopefully someone else can help. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]