Humanities desk
< December 1	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 3 >

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 2[edit]

European Fairy Tales[edit]

I remember reading three traditional European fairy tales a long ago and now I'm trying to identify them.
1) I don't remember much of it. There's a blind giant who has a girl as a servant. A guy try to save her but an evil cat warns the giant. But they are able to escape. The story continues somehow.
2) A probably French boy has a silver thread. Unwindng/pulling it makes the time go faster. So he's able to skip things like war or jail.
3) A king of a fairy kingdom turns turnips into people. But they wither/shrivel too fast like the vegetable.
Do they ring a bell to anyone? --151.41.188.110 (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm drawing blanks. Jack and the Beanstalk, no idea, and maybe some derivation of King Midas? EllenCT (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they weren't Jack and the Beanstalk or King Midas. They were from a collection of traditional European fairy tales and there was one story for every main European country. For example Baba Yaga was the tale for Russia. The second story of my list should be French. They were all "traditional" and "local" and not made up for the book. And there wasn't any ancient Greek myth. --151.41.188.110 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the first is, but the second one is The Magic Thread] (click the link and scroll down to the bottom of the page.) The Third is "King Turnip Counter" and I think the book is Fairy Tales by Nikolai Ustinov. The six stories in the book are The Magic Thread (France); King Turnip Counter (Germany); Cap o' Reeds (England); The Seven Doves (Italy); The 3 Oranges (Spain); The Witch's Swans (USSR). One of those might be your first story. I had great fun searching for this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the first does indeed seem to be The Seven Doves, complete with blind ogre, girl and cat (version here.). Nice find, Richard-of-Earth. - Karenjc (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books wasn't showing me anything for Richard's link to The Magic Thread, but another link is here. Alansplodge (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Theorists and Mathematical Sociology[edit]

The most prominent invention of positivist sociologists, I think, is the mathematical sociology and the quantitative subfields it spawned. According to some online articles, mathematical sociology is an "established sub-discipline in sociology", and it’s true according to different leading journals today. But what do critical theorists and antipostivists think of this mathematical sociology? Do they criticize it as well? Does Wikipedia have a specific article about this?49.144.142.14 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentalism is broadly criticised for its naive relationships to theory. The SEP has a good article with sections worth reading here and here. Here's a more specific attack from 1978 Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congressmen from the District of Columbia[edit]

I've heard of DC's shadow senators before (cf Shadow congressperson), but only tonight did I learn that DC also elects a shadow representative. Apparently this person generally isn't the same as their Delegate to the House of Representatives. Is this some official policy decision, e.g. the Democratic Party leadership does its best to ensure that different people are nominated for the two positions? Or is this some sort of requirement of the "state" constitution mentioned at the end of the intro to the shadow congressperson article? Or is this simply the way things have worked out, e.g. delegates don't feel like running for shadow representative and vice versa? Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The positions exist under different legal frameworks. The shadow representatives are elected under DC's state constitution, but since this constitution is not recognized by the US Congress, which has not admitted DC as a state, the shadow representatives aren't seated, don't have any rights in Congress whatsoever, and are in effect no more than lobbyists. DC's official delegate to the House of Representatives is elected under a federal law passed by Congress, is recognized by Congress, and does have limited rights within the House of Representatives. The strong position of the DC government and populace is that DC should be a state, so they hold elections for shadow representatives as if they were a state (as well as for their legally sanctioned delegate). If DC were admitted as a state under its voter-approved constitution, then the shadow representatives would become actual representatives and take the place of the official delegate. At the moment, these are four separate positions, and there is no reason why any individual should hold more than one of them. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred Years' War, Anglo-Spanish War, Anglo-Dutch Wars, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War[edit]

To what degree did the Jacobite/Williamite feud have to do with James, Duke of York, becoming proprietor of the former New Netherland? Also, in tandem, the domino question asks how Prince George of Denmark-Norway fit into this same scenario regarding the late New Sweden? Are there any records from the period or papers since then commenting upon these motives, or have they always been unacknowledged, under the table?

It cannot be purely coincidence that these two men wedded and bedded the Protestant daughters of the king who had personal possession of New York, which contained both the Dutch and Scandinavian colonies, while his Catholic heir represented a further revival of the Auld Alliance. The time, place, and circumstances argue further interest than mere evolution and convenience of dynastic relations would imply. It is a parallel interest in the Kings of England having indirect title to New France, leading to the Conquest of New France and Quebec retaining the only French monarchy left on Earth in a curious repetition and/or continuation of English pretenders to France itself. It's as if, since the King of England was denied the Crown of France by competition from the Valois and Bourbon dynasties, along with the Revolutionary Bonapartes, then Canada was consolation. I have noticed that the cultural proponents of New York and Quebec make sure to emphasize the Dutch and French basis of these English lands and institutions supplanting them, as if the English were just an imposed veneer. At least the US and Canada would be English on the whole, but Anglo-Dutch and Anglo-French in the Mid-Atlantic States and Central Provinces. In some senses, it feels like the descendants of the English conquerors themselves are playing up a moribund but exaggerated multiculturalism or bilingualism in order to memorialize the conquests, otherwise these places would have been forgotten in having any essential distinction from the rest of the states and provinces inhabiting the same countries.

Could it be that the Monarchy in Canada, along with Stephen Harper and the Tories, deliberately stress the French heritage to maintain their ties to the old Kingdom of France deposed by the French Republic, by holding onto the last of it like the Channel Islands remain the Duchy of Normandy, or Northern Ireland stands in for the Kingdom of Ireland? Could it be that because the Dutch used to be ruled by Spain as part of the Burgundian inheritance, the US has been subject to Anglo-Spanish bilingualism more befitting the old Republic of Texas alone? Would social tension between Americans and Mexicans go back to Anglo-Dutch Calvinist ancestors fighting to free themselves from Habsburg Spain, the Duke of Guise and the Spanish Armada, but ironically by winning those wars, now have descendants of the former New Spain trying to turn the tables again?

Then there is the case of St. Pierre and Miquelon showing France trying to hold on from the other side. It is ironic that Old England had to deprive New England of title to New France on account of not securing Old France, thus leading to the Intolerable Acts and Articles of Confederation in which Quebec was an explicitly-mentioned reason for the breach. All the same, going back to New Netherland, I think New York was made the capital of the early American Republic in order to capitalize on that conquest, even if Quebec was the ultimate object of American expansionism--just like how Toronto was originally named York for New York, there is an overlap and relationship between the two English conquests.

Would it be fair to say that Southern American Loyalists owed their affinity to the House of Hanover by the foundation of the Province of Georgia, like how the Loyalists in the Province of New York were tied to the House of Orange, and that states preceding the Restoration tended to be the strongest Patriot bulwarks toward Independence? Would Irish republicanism as a form of nationalism have its roots in the same period as rebuffing the Orangist takeover as American republicanism also shook off the new constitutional monarchy staffed by foreign "British" monarchs? Both English and Irish veins of republicanism come from Cromwellian preservation of the Anglo-Irish Tudor inheritance, yes? Is this really far off or not? Surely, it is easy to see the connections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.95.180 (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to see (what seems to be) a more concise version of this question, have a look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_September_5#Comparison_of_loyalism_and_republicanism_in_British_Isles_.26_North_America. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Rmhermen (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An essay, WP:TLDR, has been created in answer to this very "question"! μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did "London" start to refer to areas outside of the City of London, and why?[edit]

I've read several articles on the history of the City of London, but nothing that tells me when "London" acquired its present meaning. When and why did this happen, and are there similar stories for other cities?--Leon (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As regards London, our article on the City of London says that as early as the 16th century the name "London" was being used to mean the wider built up area, not just the area within the city walls. As the maps in the history of London article show, by 1600 London had expanded south of the Thames, into Southwark, and west along the north bank of the Thames, towards Westminster. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although none of it was officially "London" until the creation of the ~~London County Council~~ County of London in 1889. Before that, bodies with a remit across the whole London area called themselves "Metropolitan"; the Metropolitan Police District (1829), the Metropolitan Board of Works (1856) and the Metropolitan Fire Brigade (1865). Large areas of the conurbation were omitted from the County of London; the part that had spilled over the River Lea into Essex was known as "London over the Border" until 1965 when Greater London was formed. Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the natural process for any city that experiences a continuous growth beyond its original area of foundation. In fact I would be hard pressed to name a large city in modern times where this hasn't occurred. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Paris the process still isn't complete. If you just say "Paris" people may assume that you mean the administrative area consisting of 20 arrondissements. To be clear, you can specify Paris intra muros. "Greater Paris", Paris plus grand doesn't refer unambiguously to any particular area. The region parisienne is a very wide area. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1563, concerns about the possible outbreak of plague, the authorities began collecting weekly returns of the number of deaths from the parishes around the City of London (known as Bills of Mortality). These collection of parishes were the basis, in 1855, for the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Do you have a source for that? It could go in our article. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the 1540s 'a city' was just any town that had a Cathedral, nothing more nothing less. So one has in the UK (for example) the City of St Albans, which is so tiny you can walk from one side to the other in ten minutes and that includes staggering from side to side after you have had a pint or too many in Ye Olde Fighting Cocks. From what I can gather, it was to make the delivering of post easier, by naming the nearest city (eg London) as the horse drawn post coaches ran city to city. --Aspro (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, but St Albans is governed by the St Albans City and District Council, whose writ extends over 62 square miles. In the 19th century, the wealthy burghers of the City of London refused to accept any responsibility for the sprawling slums that were growing apace just outside their traditional borders; such are their ancient privileges that they were free to ignore the national government if they chose. Hence the Metropolitan authorities had to be established by parliament, rather than the Corporation of London shouldering their obligations and widening the bounds of London proper. Alansplodge (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think you'll find that District Council's came in much later. Back then you had the parish council for each parish. Only much later did Hertfordshire adopt St Albans as the 'shire' district council. [Francis Bacon] was 1st Viscount of St. Alban but vis. Roland Lytton whom was (around the same approximate time) MP for Hertfordshire. Their powers were were independent. Oh, it is time like this, I wish I had misspent more of my youth (such as smoking cigarets behind the school bicycle-sheds with the Head-Girl), rather than knuckling down to my studies and learning a lot of useless factoids that I never served me any good. I should have shunned math also and stuck to simple arithmetic -so as to become a rich banker.--Aspro (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it was the Local Government Act 1888 which created District Councils, however they were preceded by Poor Law Unions and Sanitary District Unions which allowed the parishes in a given area to pool their resources for work houses, hospitals and sewers. This never happened in London, or it wouldn't have done if the City had been left to organize things as it should have done. The end result is that in the 21st century, we have the unique situation of a Lord Mayor of London and a Mayor of London. Alansplodge (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Don't tell me any more about that! 'Unique' not quite.... This is one of the ding bat ideas they picked up from Government of New York City. --Aspro (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the much lamented "GLC" , the "Greater London Council"85.211.141.203 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however Greater London still exists and is now administered by the Greater London Authority, when it was found that the 32 London Boroughs couldn't do the GLC's job after all. How much one laments rather depends on one's political views. Alansplodge (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the youngest city in the world?[edit]

Damascus is often called the 'oldest continually inhabited city in the world' - what is the youngest? By this I don't mean something like Fairview, USA, or anywhere which recently attained "city status" but has actually had people living there in a smaller settlement for hundreds of years. I mean what is the youngest city where you could go back in time and there would be literally nothing there? I thought it might be Canberra, which celebrates its centenary this year, but perhaps there are other planned capitals that are even younger? Something in the former communist world, maybe? I know Napyidaw was built less than a decade ago but it's basically right next to an existing town. 220.239.203.14 (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try Brasília. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Milton Keynes. --Viennese Waltz 11:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...except that MK is not formally a "city", just a large town. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but according to our article; "Milton Keynes competed for formal city status in the 2000, 2002 and 2012 competitions, but was not successful. Nevertheless, the term "city" is used by its citizens, local media and bus services to describe itself, perhaps because the term "town" is taken to mean one of the constituent towns." See also Milton Keynes City F.C.. The UK is extraordinarily picky about who gets to call themselves a city. Alansplodge (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much more recent than Brasilia is Naypyidaw, founded on a greenfield site in 2002 but with a population of 925,000 by 2009. Our article doesn't say that it's "basically right next to an existing town", so I don't understand why it's being discounted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who's discounting anything? I think we're all learning here. I certainly am. HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:220.239.203.14. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naypyidaw's article says it is 3km from the town of Pyinmana, and in my opinion 3km is absolutely nothing when talking about a city of any size. I'm Australian, I don't know if we consider cities separately - when I say "city" I mean the entire metro area, and I would assume that if Naypyidaw has grown to nearly a million people then it's swallowed up the existing town, which would now form a very old neighbourhood within that city. We are all learning, though - greenfield is a useful term, and I'm basically thinking of cities that were built on that and didn't have any pre-existing settlements around to absorb. 220.239.203.14 (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was about to add Pyongsong, but it was established as far back as 1969. I would guess there are some other recent examples in China (surely, they can't all be ghost cities?). --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The Chinese drive to develop their economy has resulted in a number of new cities being constructed. Tieling New City has attracted a fair bit of media attention because few people have actually moved into it. We have an article on Tieling which is the original city 10 km down the road. We do have an article on Nanhui New City which was founded in 2003.

I would consider China's "new cities" (I recall visiting New Dali) to be examples of a satellite city outside an existing older city, though - with the two generally likely to merge in the next 10 years if they haven't already. 220.239.203.14 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in China contains some candidates which seem to have been "founded" within the last decade, though it's not altogether clear from their articles whether this is simply an administrative change or the foundation of a new settlement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Planned cities which throws up examples such as Ciudad Guayana in Venezuela, which was founded in 1961 but incorporates two smaller towns which stood there beforehand. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Belmopan in Belize, founded in 1970, which certainly seems from its article to have been on a greenfield (well, green forest) site. It's still quite small in size, however. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there’s Oyala, currently being built [1] in the middle of the jungle and planned to be the future capital of Equatorial Guinea. Taknaran (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand had a crush on Saint Petersburg, for which she worked as a tour guide, and which she credited to Tsar Peter the Great, who raised it from the swamp by the force of his will. The founding of Alexandria as a "new" city is also a fascinating story. It seems founding a world-class city is a great way to get the epithet "The Great" attached to your name. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Being strong-willed can result in effective leadership, but it's not enough. I would bet several rubles that Peter the Great had to resort to bringing in some stonemasons to get the job done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been a relic of her Nietzschean childhood, as she was vociferously anti-FDR and other public-works issues by the 1930's. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A social Darwinist: "If they can't find work, let 'em starve." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no betting required, Bugsy. From Saint Petersburg: The city was built by conscripted peasants from all over Russia; a number of Swedish prisoners of war were also involved in some years[18] under the supervision of Alexander Menshikov. Tens of thousands of serfs died building the city. And from History of Saint Petersburg: The city was built under adverse weather and geographical conditions. High mortality rate required a constant supply of workers. Peter ordered a yearly conscription of 40,000 serfs, one conscript for every nine to sixteen households. Conscripts had to provide their own tools and food for the journey of hundreds of kilometers, on foot, in gangs, often escorted by military guards and shackled to prevent desertion, yet many escaped, others died from disease and exposure under the harsh conditions. ... The new city's first building was the Peter and Paul Fortress, ... The marshland was drained and the city spread outward from the fortress under the supervision of German and Dutch engineers whom Peter had invited to Russia. Peter restricted the construction of stone buildings in all of Russia outside of St Petersburg, so that all stonemasons would come to help build the new city. ... At the same time Peter hired a large number of engineers, architects, shipbuilders, scientists and businessmen from all countries of Europe. Substantial immigration of educated professionals eventually turned St. Petersburg into a much more cosmopolitan city than Moscow and the rest of Russia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“where you could go back in time and there would be literally nothing there”. I would go with HiLo48's Brasília It was founded on April 21, 1960, to serve as the new national capital. The other contenders would be the new cities of Soviet Russia of the 1930's. The planners of the new state reasoned: Now we are no longer capitalist's, we don't have to build new industries were there is already a population of skilled workers. We can build new cities westward, into our newly annexed land of Siberia and move our workers there. So new cities spouted up all over the place 'in the middle of nowhere' during this period.--Aspro (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entering the Kaaba?[edit]

After reading the article Kaaba I found out that it is hollow, and has separate structures inside. But do Muslims actually enter the Kaaba at any time during the Hajj, or otherwise? I couldn't find out from the articles Kaaba or Hajj whether this is actually done. JIP | Talk 17:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Jaylen's answer at the bottom of this forum page. Omidinist (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From illustrations I've seen, it appears that the interior of the Kaaba consists of some modestly ornate decor; an original copy of the Quran autographed by Muhammed at a book-signing event; and a little kiosk where you can get nifty stuff like a sand globe of an oasis, or a T-shirt with an Arabic slogan which translates roughly as "I came to Mecca and all I got was this wonderful T-shirt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To consolidate the forum content here: According to Ar-Raheeq al Makhtum, Rasul said Uthman bin Talha's family would take care of the Kaaba. There is a biannual ceremony "the cleaning of the Kaaba" about fifteen days before the start of Ramadan and about fifteen days before the start of the annual pilgrimage. The Banī Shaybat (بني شيبة ) tribe has the keys and allow visitors including foreign dignitaries/diplomats who use brooms to clean the building directed by the governor of Mecca. The interior has a marble floor and half-way up the walls with tablets with Quranic inscriptions inset into it, with the upper walls covered in gold Quranic verses embroidered into a green cloth. It is furnished only with lamps from a cross beam and has a table for incense burners. The marble is anointed during the cleaning with the same scented oil used to anoint the Black Stone outside.

Anyway, besides pointing out Wikipedia has some deficiencies, this leads to the obvious question of whether any of these Bani Shaybat folks can be persuaded to contribute images to Commons. :) Wnt (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

France's time zone[edit]

Since World War 2, have there been any proposals to put France back in the Western European time zone where it previously was? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything. Any change would put France out of step with all of her neighbours except the UK, so I think it's a bit unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not if Spain were in a sensible zone as well. People have a tendency to report, in shocked tones, how late Spaniards eat/sleep/do this or that, but by Sun time, it's really not all that late. Or sometimes it is, but still not as late as it sounds. --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spain changed time zones because Franco wanted to be chummy with Hitler, rather than any rational debate. They could always change back if they wanted to. Alansplodge (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a 1997 report to the French Senate called Faut-il en finir avec l'heure d'été ? (perhaps "Should we do away with Summer Time?"). If accepted, this would have put France on the same time as the UK (British Summer Time) between April and October. It wasn't. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the Spanish still talk about doing it occasionally. - Karenjc (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do also note that France extends across many different time zones, what is being discussed here is merely Metropolitan France. --02:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)