Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 August 21

= August 21 =

Conservatism in the United States
I was wondering if anybody knew a significant amount of information regarding the history of conservatism in the U.S. I've checked the article regarding it, but didn't get particularly sufficient information. Also, it would help if references are given - perhaps even a book regarding the political philosophy to educate myself, and reference through the article. Right now, my primary goal is to remove POV statements and original research from the article Conservatism, starting with the Conservatism in North America section, which is very weak even among other paragraphs in the article. It's actually a somewhat daunting task. Master&amp;Expert (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The books here (available online) may be helpful. Dostioffski (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Richard Hofstadter's books are also useful on the subject, or at least I find them so. Lexo (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Family History
I am trying to see if the Kidder Castle in Germany is the one in my blood line. My name was Melanie K. Kidder. My uncle said it was, but I am trying to figure out which one for sure. I found three on one page. Could you help me distinguish which one is the correct one? The name is in German and I do not read German.

Thank you, Melanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.128.49 (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you want to paste in a URL for the page? 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any Kidder Castle (Burg / Schloss / Ruine) via Googling German sites (I am a native speaker). There is a Normannic Kielder Castle, but that is almost in Scotland.  Can you provide some more information ?  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kidder seems to be an English name which came to the US in the early years of the settlement of New England. In 1633, there was a John Kidder at Boston and a James Kidder at Cambridge, Mass. Strawless (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dead body outlined in chalk at a crime scene
Why do police outline dead bodies in chalk at a crime scene? ScienceApe (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's necessary to remove the body fairly quickly for post-mortem and simply out of respect, but the investigation into what happened can take much longer, so they need to know where the body was in order to correctly analyse the scene. --Tango (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from Tango´s comment on forensic analysis of this specific area of the crime scene it may also be a matter of simple piety. Few people would deliberately trample over the graves in a cemetery.
 * I recall an installation in a local art gallery where I observed the audience painstakingly avoiding such a shape, embellished with crimson paint and markers for spent cartridges, outlined on the floor in a passageway. Of course, everybody knew that nobody had died there, but the cultural taboo seemed stronger.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely that could just be the cultural taboo against walking on artwork? Algebraist 22:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even the museum's taboo of touching artwork. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, it is the normal behaviour in a museum / gallery not to touch the paintings and sculptures. In this case the installation was deliberately placed in a narrow connecting passage, requiring visitors to daintily step over the outlined legs and arms.  I remember that many of the other exhibits did specifically expect people to interact (in a tactile or motoric sense) with the objects.  I recall the entire floor of the foyer being painted like one of the panels of the Sistine chapel (God creating Adam) with dummy Vatican tourists being affixed to the ceiling.  Clearly, it had been the aim of the artist(s) to fiddle with our "normal" concepts of space.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. Algebraist 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect forensics have more to do with it than respect. They don't exactly treat the bodily daintily.
 * Bodies decay in fairly predictable ways. The quicker you can get it on ice, the better a chance you'll have of pinpointing the exact cause and time of death, and be able to answer questions like "did the body die here or was it moved here?" You keep the chalk outlines to indicate after you've moved the body the general area it was in. (Note, of course, that before moving the body you also take copious photographs.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've seen some reasons, let's back up one level. Do police routinely outline dead bodies in chalk at a crime scene these days? --Anonymous, 19:18 UTC, August 22, 2008.


 * There was one episode of Mythbusters (the cola one I think) where one of them says something to the effect of "They don't really do that, you know, it's just a myth," regarding the chalk outlines. 67.169.56.8 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good old Cecil Adams has done some work on this. The column is here -- the short version is that the use of chalk outlines seems to be restricted to fiction, and to the occasional well-meaning efforts of police officers unfamiliar with murder scene protocol. If we don't address this somewhere, honestly, we might want to....although do chalk outlines merit their own article? User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1005
At the end of WWII the NAzis tried to hide what they had done by destroying the crematoria at Auschwitz, and other such things such as operation 1005. What I wish to know is are there or were there any death camps that were never discovered? eg documentaion concerning Camp X was found but the acctual location never was? What are the chances that such camps existed? do we have and article related to this of any sort, or any other relavant info would be a great help Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me moving your question here from Miscellaneous WP:RD/M, as a historical question like this falls into the same general area of law, politics etc. Which we call Humanities.

Anyway, I can't give a definitive answer, but I would say yes, probably. Albert Speer is known to have ignored (partly at least) Adolf Hitler's instructions to destroy everything (Scorched Earth).78.144.168.48 (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What's Dalai Lama's nationality?
Chinese, Indian? Tibetan isn't a nationality. Thanks a lot friends. --190.49.96.207 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have opened up a can of worms on what the difference is among nationality, citizenship and ethnicity. --Kvasir (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)This implies that Tenzin Gyatso does not hold Indian citizenship, or at least did not in April. I very much doubt he is a citizen of China. He is, however an honorary citizen of Canada and of Ukraine. I am certain he would self-identify as Tibetan, disagreeing with your statement that this is not a nationality (remember that not every nation is a sovereign state). Algebraist 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No comment on your contention that Tibetan is not a nationality, but HH may be a Stateless person within the meaning of the convention. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless those honorary citizenships count for anything. Algebraist 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Our article Honorary Canadian citizenship suggests that it is not a citizenship as such, simply a nice thing to say about someone. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Chinese citizens are of many nationalities, including Jewish, Tibetan, Mongol, Tatar, Russian and others. Tibetan is a nationality.  The DL may not be a Chinese citizen, but I think he'd be shocked to be told he's not a member of the Tibetan nation.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems fairly clear to me that the OP wants to know about citizenship. My guess is that he is officially a Chinese citizen, even if he is persona non grata. (Maybe it is different elsewhere but if I asked someone "what is your nationality" and they responded "Jewish" I'd be surprised. That's not what I consider to be a "nationality" in the standard vernacular meaning even if the term "nation" has many meanings.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding of "nationality" in JackofOz's comment preceding yours is "ethnicity," words fairly synonymous in vernacular English. For the record, in Israel, a citizen's or resident's nationality might be Jewish or Arab (or other), which prior to 2005 was noted on the ID card that serves as a form of internal passport. One's religion (Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc.) was and is not noted on that document. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And my guess is that he has probably renounced any Chinese citizenship he might have had (assuming the Chinese didn't strip him of it first). Does anyone have an actual source on this point? Algebraist 02:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to figure out what sort of passport he goes under. This blog quotes a Chinese official as saying that he has a "refugee passport." Which probably means he is a stateless person as suggested above. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some countries don't allow their citizens to renounce citizenship if they would become stateless, or don't allow it at all. I don't know if China is one of those.  --Anon, 10:45 UTC, August 22, 2008.

Although it isn't a passport, you might be interested in Green Book (Tibetan document), which says: "Those Tibetans who live in India but do not have Indian Citizenship can receive a travel document from the Indian authorities; it was reported in 1994 that the process of applying for such a document typically starts with presenting one's Green Book (along with various other documents) to the CTA office in Dharamsala, which then forwards one's application to Indian authorities." Strawless (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DL was born in 1935, before the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. He has left China/Tibet (whatever you want to call it) in 1951. It's not likely he has a PRC passport or proof of citizenship of the PRC. He may not even have PRC citizenship (that he can proof) to begin with. --Kvasir (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)