Humanities desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 16 >

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.

October 15

Tahiti

2 question:

Did the Kingdom of Tahiti in the early 19th century had queen consorts?

Who is the current pretender (recognized or unrecognized) to the Pomare dynasty of Tahiti? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen_of_Tahiti has the answer to number two (see the bottom of the article). Falconus^{p t c} 02:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For number one, I think it's a yes, sort of. The impression I've been getting from reading about this era is that both the title of king of Tahiti and the ascribing of the ultimate authority to the husband rather than the wife may have been European views imposed on top of a different Tahitian social structure. There were several chiefs, no one supreme, and both husband and wife in such a "royal" couple seemed to have power of negotiating relations and making decisions.

Anyway, you need a good history of Tahiti, but for starters online have a look at Tahiti: The Island Paradise, by Nicholas Senn (BiblioBazaar, 2008 – but a reprint of an older book), ISBN 9780559279393. On page 61-63 it gives Tetua as the name of one of Pomare I's (to 1803) wives, and possibly the person responsible for his influence. (The wikipedia page says he had four wives).

Page 67 gives Tetuanui as the first wife of Pomare II (1803-1821); page 78 mentions another wife called Terite and a third with no given name described simply as Pomare vehine. And page 81 mentions another wife, referred to Marama – although as that was her father's name it might not actually have been her own name.

Pomare III (1821-1827) died at age seven. He was succeeded by his sister Pomare IV who reigned to 1877, which takes you out of the early 19th century. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the annual budget of the US Department of State Office of the Legal Adviser?

Also, on a related note, does anyone know where I can find a state department budget more detailed than simply the "budget in brief" presented on their website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try reading the Congressional Record, since the budget will have been approved by Congress, or the Federal Register, because I believe that all executive departments publish reports in it. However, I've never used either one (except for small PDF excerpts that I found with Google), so I can't help you search through it. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli terrorists

Have any Jewish people blown themselves up to kill a bunch of Muslims? 71.100.5.245 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Jewish religious terrorism and Zionist political violence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist terrorists were actually the first to start using car bombing in the Middle East (see Stern gang), against both Palestinians and British civilians. Only later were the tactics taken up by Palestinians.* Many of the terrorist tactics we have come to associate with Muslim terrorists originated elsewhere. Palestinian suicide bombing comes most directly, if I recall, from the example set by the Tamil tigers. (A very interesting read on this subject is Mike Davis, Buda's Wagon: A Brief History of the Car Bomb, 2007). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Which, I think should be obvious to any clear-thinking person, does not make it right or fair or anything like that. But it does serve as a counterpoint to those who believe there is some kind of Muslim exceptionalism regarding this kind of terrorism. There have been a lot of different groups engaging in terrorism in the 20th century. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While not actually blowing himself up, Baruch Goldstein himself could hardly have expected to survive the massacre he planned, so it counts as suicidal terrorism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An exceptionally prominent Jew gave expressed approval ^{Joh 15:13} of sacrificing one's life for a cause. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he was not speaking on behalf of Judaism -- thus his assertion can no more represent Judaism as it could people who wore sandals or those who had long hair. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He might beg to differ. He was Jewish and claimed to be the Messiah and/or was claimed to be by His followers, who were also Jewish. He was dispatched, as a number of contemporary Messiah claimants were. The difference was that His following did not die with Him. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 07:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he was rejected by the Jews. In Judaism, he is a false prophet and his message thus cannot be said to be representative of Judaism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. See the article INRI. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: he was rejected by most jews. Others followed him and began the early Christian religion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, for sacrifing one's own life, but not others. Unless He made oxcart bombs in His spare time. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't exactly Jewish, but consider the life of Samson: he died by intentionally pulling down over his head a Philistine temple that was full of Philistines (enemies of Israel). The biblical account notes that he proclaimed that he wanted to die with the Philistines, and it records that he was quite successful in his attempt, killing more Philistines in that event than in all the rest of his life. The polytheistic Philistines weren't Muslims, of course, but this might be an inspiration to militant Jews. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off-topic, but what tense should be used with Biblical narratives? Esther is in the past (i.e. historical) tense, Book of Job is in the present (fictional), while Samson blithely switches back and forth in the first paragraph! Clarityfiend (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that question has been discussed at length among the editors who specialize in Bible articles, so you might want to seek out that discussion. The O.T., in particular, gets tricky, because a lot of it walks the line between history and folk tales. Also, keep in mind that the Bible (as with the Quran) are primary sources, so restating them "as if they were true" is also tricky ground. Seems like it would be safer to treat them as literature, in which case describing their "plot lines" in the present tense works, and also reads better. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 07:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject heading says "Israeli terrorists" but the question asks "Have any Jewish people blown themselves up to kill a bunch of Muslims". While definitions of terrorism vary, many don't require the perpetrator sacrifice their lives. And not all Israelis are Jewish nor are all Jewish people Israeli. Moses is sometimes called a terrorist for this reason. However the bible would suggest Moses was perhaps more of a messenger or spokesperson for God. So in those terms, it's perhaps better to say God is a terrorist and there are many actions in the Old Testament/Tanakh which some people particularly some atheists would argue are terrorist acts. (this mentions Moses as well) [1] [2] Of course whether God can be considered an Israeli or Jewish is a different issue. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Geography / General knowledge question may be some history

Which place has an old structure (now a museum) that was the site of the absolute first utilization of a now well-used natural resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.95.8 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather obscure for homework. It sounds more like a pub quiz question or something. --Tango (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a home work question. I have tried it myself to research. Hence sought help.

Basically i am looking for places where the mostly used natural resources like coal oil gas were first used. will apprecaite help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.95.8 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way you initially framed the question sounded like you either already knew the answer or you were repeating a specific question given to you by someone else. Do you have a specific location that you were looking for in mind that you simply cannot come up with the specific name, or are you looking for examples of anywhere that would fit the description?

Coal has been used for thousands of years, and I greatly doubt that the location of the "absolute first utilization" is known, let alone still standing as a museum (See Coal and History of coal mining).

I think the same situation is true for oil as well - see Petroleum, Petroleum industry, and History of petroleum. —Akrabbim^talk 18:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first building to be lit by gas was William Murdock's house in Redruth - this might very well be a museum today, but we don't have an article on it. The first non-private building to be lit by gas was the Soho Foundry in Birmingham - this is still a working factory, but it does have a small private museum attached to it. The first building to be lit by electricity was Joseph Swan's house in Low Fell - probably _not_ a museum, based on our article. Tevildo (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I have a definite answer. The Museum of Science and Industry, Birmingham was the first place that electricity was used commercially (for electroplating). However, it closed in 1997 and is now derelict. Tevildo (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question the certainty of this claim of precedence. Artifacts known as the Baghdad Batteries, excavated in the vicinity of that city and thought to be approaching two millennia old, have been interpreted as primitive electric cells putatively used to electroplate gold on to jewellery or similar small items. This would presumably have been a commercial application. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer may be Cragside, which is considered the first place of use of domestic electric lighting. It also used hydraulic power. 78.151.123.102 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question about "places where natural resources were first used" is welcome because it is notable information on which an encyclopedia may help. The OP's added constraints that there must be a structure at the place and the structure must now be a museum make one wonder Why is that important? Does the museum have to be open to viewing exhibits about the resource? Is this research to collate places or museums? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is what you are after, as it's a bit obscure, but the Gobelins Manufactory, a seventeenth century tapestry factory in Paris, now largely preserved for tours, was the first place to use chlorine - in 1785, as a dye. Warofdreams talk 01:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have guessed the rackets courts at University of Chicago but it appears not to have a museum. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "absolute first utilization" pretty much rule out any answers involving coal, natural gas, or petroleum/oil -- all have been used since pre-historic times, albeit in tiny quantities. Answers involving electricity or power are wrong, because the question calls for a "natural resource", which electricity and power aren't. The answer may well be Gobelins Manufactory for chlorine, cited above, or it may be that my fellow Wikipedians and I still haven't solved the riddle. That's the problem when the riddle-poser doesn't know the answer ... --M @r ē ino 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

two victims nowadays

It's understood Francine Hughes was found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity for setting fire to her abusive husband, James "Mickey" Hughes, while he slept in 1977. I know Tracey Thurman is partially paralyzed from when she was nearly killed by her abusive husband, Charles "Buck" Thurman in 1983. I was wondering what those two women and their children are doing nowadays. Is Buck Thurman back in jail?24.90.204.234 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they've done something newsworthy, I doubt anyone here could tell you much. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright restrictions on Olympic photos

Reading this story from the Signpost, I was confused about the IOC's grounds for the lawsuit. Are they saying that it's somehow a violation of copyright laws to buy an Olympic ticket, take a picture there, and permit the picture to be used commercially? Or is it some other crazy matter? Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they say that when you buy a ticket, you agree to the smallprint associated with it, which includes the no-commercial-photography stipulation. They (and other big-money sports events) also restrict commercial video, and real-time (or real-time-ish) live-blogging of events. The practical legality of this (whether such a contract stipulation is really legal) is untested in most jurisdictions, but that's one of those pay-$10M-to-find-out-in-court questions. 87.114.150.241 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) My understanding is that an Olympics event, like many musical, artistic, cultural and sporting events, place controls on the intellectual property derived from the "performance" at the event by tacking conditions onto the patron's entry.

This is how it works normally: when you buy a ticket to enter a venue, you are being granted a licence to enter the land (venue). This licence can be granted on certain terms. These terms can be incorporated by reference and, for example, printed on your ticket. (Hence the reference to the ticket.)

These conditions are contractual in nature: you hand over money and promise to abide by these rules, and in return the owner of the land grants you a licence to enter upon the land.

Presumably one of the conditions of entry to the venue is that the patron will not make commercial use of, or permit the commercial use of, photos of competitors taken at the event.

Alternatively, it may stipulate that you agree to assign the intellectual property in your photos to the IOC, who then grants a licence back to you to use it for non-commercial purposes, though I don't think this is the case here, since the article seems to refer to the photographer granting licences.

Assuming the first case, then, if you then allow the photo to be used commercially, you have, on the face of it, breached a term of the contract between you and the IOC (?) formed when you bought a ticket to the event. Note that this would not be a question of infringement of copyright, but merely a contractual matter. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking a sports event is not a "performance"—it does not exist in "fixed form" other than the copyrighted works made from it (recordings, photographs, etc.) which is in the US case anyway required for something to be copyrightable (if sports were scripted, it would be something else... WWE, for example, probably falls into a different category than the Olympics).

To me, it looks like this is a contractual issue and not a copyright one, looking at the IOC's specific requests. Presumably if you had somehow gotten in without a ticket, it wouldn't be an issue. (You'd be breaking other rules, but not copyright.) Copyright seems to be the mechanism of control here, but not the underlying issue of dispute. But I'm no lawyer. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really no different from going to the theater, discretely taking a few shots of some hot production, and then trying to sell them. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...actually, yes it is quite different. "Dramatic performances" are specially covered by copyright law. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The two are quite different in nature. A sporting event is not an artistic work or (arguably) a performance. However, in some jusridictions performers face the same issue in preventing recording of the performance as the IOC would face in preventing recording of the sporting event from an intellectual property standpoint - hence why the prohibition on photography is often also enforced contractually as a condition of entry instead.

The issue here is copyright, but not the IOC's copyright - it's the photographer's copyright and how he has licensed its use. The IOC probably has no copyright in the images, and only has a contractual claim. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the issue here is contract law; the IOC is not claiming that their copyright was violated, rather that the person who took and licenced the picture for commercial use violated the contact they entered into when they purchased the ticket. This isn't about intellectual property; its about violating a contract. --Jayron32 03:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the way the contract was breached was through the (allegedly) inappropriate licensing of the images. IP is an issue, though the claim is contractual in nature. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right... again, I think the issue is contractual, but IP is being used as the mechanism of control. The contract says, "you handle your IP in a certain way"—it's not a straight IP problem though (which would not be a contract so much as a statement—"we own the IP on this"—which they can't do in this case, I don't think). --Mr.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]