Humanities desk
< June 14	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 15[edit]

People charged and found guilty of voter fraud[edit]

In the 2020 election, how many people have been found guilty of voter fraud? How many Democrats and how many Republicans? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.51.208.19 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This overview of US voter fraud convictions lists 11 cases related to the 2020 general elections. Unless the person was registered as a Democrat or Republican, we cannot assume a party affiliation. Of the 11 cases, the party registration is known for seven, each time a registered Republican. --Lambiam 03:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most prominent alleged Democratic voter irregularities in recent years (or at least Democratic-associated-demographic voter irregularities) have been the cases of Crystal Mason and Pamela Moses. The most prominent GOP-associated voting irregularities in recent years involved McCrae Dowless in the 2018 North Carolina 9th congressional district election... AnonMoos (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Juneteenth was declared a federal holiday in the United States?[edit]

I would like to know why Juneteenth was declared a federal holiday in the United States? Was this a result of the aftermath of the Murder of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter protests back in 2020? I am not here to debate the pros and cons of having Juneteenth as a federal holiday because this is not a forum for debating. I just want to know why Juneteenth is a holiday and how do people celebrate the holiday with for example, parades and festivals. 47.145.100.216 (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the article, it had widespread support for quite some time before Congress nearly-unanimously passed the law. It had support from both Trump and Biden. It had already been a holiday in a number of states, so this was an "easy win" for federal lawmakers. Plus it gave them all an extra holiday! --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most ancient civilisation[edit]

Which is regarded as the most ancient "civilisation"? Thanks. 86.186.37.132 (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One answer is the Sumerians. --<-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 08:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no precise definition of when a society should be considered a civilisation. Does it need to keep written records? The oldest known archaeological site that shows evidence of a complex social system is Göbekli Tepe. Not much is known of the culture that produced it, and it is not clear that one should consider it a civilisation. Societies that were undoubtedly civilisations developed more or less at the same time, independently, in several places; both for lack of a precise criterion and for the incompleteness of the archaeological record, it is not possible to identify one as the most ancient. --Lambiam 08:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you go by "State formation" and the existence of some-form of record keeping, then you can at least say that civilization developed in some river-valleys before or after other river-valleys. So the Tigris-Euphrates river-valley was first, followed very quickly by the Nile river-valley, then centuries later the Indus river-valley, then after that, the Yellow River valley. By that time (ca. 1500 B.C.), the development of civilizations was starting to occur outside of river-valleys... AnonMoos (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lambian's first point is extremely important - the concept of what defines a civilization is complex. Our articles notes several characteristics, but is it the case that every single one must be met? According to whose standard? Every grouping of humans has some element of division of labour, for example. (And note that our article is almost entirely about the history of the theories about it rather than concept itself). If you and I were in a hunter-gatherer group, it may be the case that you do more hunting and I do more gathering for any number of reasons. It's a matter of degree rather than a binary yes-or-no division, which is always going to be subjective. But even if you settle on a definition for your own purposes, any answer would still be in the form of "X... according to the latest understanding). Any new archaeological site found might upend long-established answers to that question, by either bringing to light new finds or altering the timeline of when those things occurred. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropologists have a scale of social organization running from band to tribe to chiefdom to state, and spent a lot of time and effort defining these terms and grounding them in real-world human societies. (See the article state formation which I linked above.) I'm not sure that the miasma of relativistic subjectivism is entirely justified... AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The scale is used for description and is no more accurate or reliable than any other system of categorizing all of humanity into four buckets. It's useful as a kind of shorthand so that it can be said that "X are hunter gatherers organized into bands" or "Y are pastoralists organized into weak chiefdoms". But when someone asks about who was first you need to do better than a description. Elephants and giraffes are both big, but if someone asks who is the biggest, you need the asker to clarify what they mean by big. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If forced to choose between their detailed specific researches and your vague abstract philosophical speculations, I would go with them, sorry. AnonMoos (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to choose between their research and my post, I'm telling you that you've misunderstood what they're saying. You're taking something that was designed as a general descriptor and giving it more meaning than was intended. The same thing applies to the hunter-gatherer / pastoralist / horticulturalist / agriculturalist breakdowns that usually accompany the B/T/C/S groupings. Nobody in the field considers these things to be discrete buckets that allow you to say for certain that X is a band and Y is a tribe in all cases. They're more like colours on a spectrum where you have ones that are definitely red and ones that are definitely orange and a whole bunch that are in between or that are mixtures of colours showing at the same time. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude -- have you actually looked at the "state formation" article which I linked to twice above?? Look especially at the "Table of primary states with region and approximate time of formation from Sandeford". When their hard facts and data are set beside your abstract theoretical philosophizing, there's no comparison... AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an absolute requirement that you be a condescending dickhead throughout this exchange? Like, every response from you has been peppered with dismissive wording and sarcasm and I'm not sure simply disagreeing with you is crime enough to warrant that. As I've tried to explain to you previously, I don't disagree with the experts or the article, I'm simply saying that you've taken a description and suggested it be used prescriptively which works just as well as classifying people by race or classifying nations by wealth or any other complex item. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck can't you simply look at a Wikipedia article that I linked to multiple times?? Do you have some ethical, moral, philosophical, or religious objection to being informed? If so, why are you hanging around Wikipedia? AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutinizing claims about 'child marriage' according to medical sciences[edit]

This recent controversy in India has brought issue of child marriage once again in discussion in some quarters. That includes this pay walled article by one prominent columnist available @ ProQuest in the Wikipedia Library seems to draw information from a Mother India (book) contested for other reasons.

The TOI columnist Aiyar refers to above said book as follows

".. Some of these are described in Katherine Mayo's 1927 book Mother India. She recounts that in 1891, the legislative assembly of the British Raj debated reforms including a minimum marriage age. Hindu traditionalists strongly opposed any reform. The reformers presented evidence from doctors who had treated girls at hospital after terrible abuse by adult husbands. Here is a partial list. .."

After above paragraphs the author Aiyar mentions 8 point list.

I am looking for help in

a) Confirming the 8 point list is drawn from Mother India (book)

b) If it is drawn from above book then the book's author Katherine Mayo has taken those details from which source for her book.

c) Mayo then and Aiyar now are not medical doctors, so whether 'each of those specific 8 points' stand scrutiny of medical sciences as of today?

Probably this needed to be on sciences board but rest of the connection is with humanities so I posted here.

Thanks for inputs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire book is scanned on the Internet Archive, and there is a link to it at the end of the Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list is in appendix 1, on pages 411-412. She says "The list will be found in the Legislative Assembly Debates of 1922, Vol III, Part I, p.919, Appendix. See also p. 882 of the Debates". ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks @ ColinFine, I had not noticed the link. Those details are given in appendix of the book as follows. (I had not copied from Aiyar's article for copyright reasons. but I can copy from public domain book).

The following are observations of 1891 female medical fraternity worked in India as impact of Child marriage on some very young girls.

Which of the following can be confirmed as 'negative impact/ risks of Child marriage' with medical sciences/ knowledge as it stands in present times?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

".. In the Indian Legislative Assembly of 1922, the following evidence, introduced from the floor of the house as descriptive of the conditions of the day,.. The evidence submitted consists of a list, compiled in 1891 by the western women doctors then practicing in India, and by them laid before the Viceroy, with a petition for intervention on behalf of the children of India. It is made up, they affirm, entirely of instances that have come under the hands of one or another of their own number, and whose like are continually revealed in their ordinary professional experience..."

A. Aged 9. Day after marriage. Left femur dislocated, pelvis crushed out of shape, flesh hanging in shreds.

B. Aged 10. Unable to stand, bleeding profusely, flesh much lacerated.

C. Aged 9. So completely ravished as to be almost beyond surgical repair. Her husband had two other living wives and spoke very fine English.

D. Aged 10. A very small child, and entirely undeveloped physically. This child was bleeding to death from the rectum. Her husband was a man of about forty years of age, weighing not less than eleven stone [154 Ibs.]. He had accomplished his desire in an unnatural way.

E. Aged about 9. Lower limbs completely paralyzed.

F. Aged about 12. Laceration of the perineum extending through the sphincter ani.

G. Aged about 10. Very weak from loss of blood. Stated that great violence had been done her, in an unnatural way.

H. Aged about 12. Pregnant, delivered by craniotomy with great difficulty, on account of the immature state of the pelvis and maternal passage.

I. Aged about 7. Living with husband. Died in great agony after three days.

K. Aged about 10. Condition most pitiable. After one day in hospital, was demanded by her husband, for his "lawful" use, he said.

L. Aged ii. From great violence done her person, will be a cripple for life. No use of her lower extremities.

M. Aged about 10. Crawled to hospital on her hands and knees. Has never been able -to stand erect since her marriage.

N. Aged 9. Dislocation of pubic arch, and unable to stand or to put one foot before the other.

The list can also be found in a letter to The New England Medical Journal, as part of a petition to the Indian Government, signed by "Mrs. Dr. Mansell, M.A., M.D., of Lucknow, [...] and fifty-four other lady physicians practising in India".^[1] One does not have to be a medical professional to see that these children were in medically very bad conditions. One assumes, given the context, that these resulted from ruthlessly conducted forceful sexual intercourse, but this cannot be conclusively decided based solely on the descriptions; the most that can be said is that the conditions are consistent with that assumption and in most cases not ascribable to natural causes. (Case E could be from natural causes, and cases I and K are insufficiently specific.) Whether the "husbands" felt entitled to such violent abuse of the child brides because child marriage was legalized is not a medical question. --Lambiam 20:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the valuable inputs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trump and rallies[edit]

Trump attends many rallies to support people he deems worthy of his support. My question is: does Trump get paid to attend a rally as a (keynote) speaker and, if so, how much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.51.208.19 (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I would not be surprised. It has just recently come up that Kimberly Guilfoyle was paid US$60000 for a 3-minute introduction of her fiancee at a Trumpist rally [2]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

city guides to places of historic & social interest[edit]

I think I saw a place in Wikipedia that essentially was a guide to places of historic & social interest in cities in the US, by place -- maybe it wasn't in Wikipedia? I can't find it now. Can you help, please? 73.242.134.140 (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikivoyage.org is affiliated with Wikimedia (not directly with Wikipedia). AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]