Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 18

= November 18 =

Other than Cubans and Colombians, which Latino nationalities in the U.S tend to vote more for Republicans?
I know that Republicans don’t tend to do well with the Latino community in the U.S and it was clearly evident in the 2012 presidential elections, but I know that Cubans (first) and Colombians (second) tend to the better with Republicans than with other Latino groups. Other than Cubans and Colombians respectively, what other Latino nationalities do Republicans do better than the average percentage of Latinos who vote for the Republican Party in every election (about 25% to 35% in general)?

Also, do Republicans tend to do better on average in getting the vote of non-Mexican Latinos than they do with Mexican Latinos in general or do Republicans do as bad on average in getting the vote of non-Mexican Latinos as they do with Mexican Latinos in general? Mexicans make up about two-thirds of the Latino community in the U.S. Willminator (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's clear that Cubans are pro-Republican, since Republicans are anti-Fidel. But why would Colombians be pro-Republican, been the Republicans tough on crime and all? Comploose (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but on the Political Trends section of the Hispanic and Latino Americans article, it says that Colombians also tend to have more conservative views than other Latino Americans. Willminator (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

American merchant/missionary families in the 1800s
In the 1800s, were the children born to American missionaries and merchants in other countries considered citizens of the United States? If not were they given citizenship once they decide to return to live back in the US.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the 1800s, but the current law is here and here at Wikipedia. Repeatedly throughout U.S. history, the law of jus soli, or citizenship by "right of soil", has been reaffirmed: that is, anyone born within the U.S. is a U.S. citizen.  The U.S. has had varying laws regarding the law of jus sanguinis, or citizenship "by right of blood"; that is U.S. laws regarding acquiring citizenship through one's parents has varied throughout history.  Since the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, affirmed by United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the principle of jus soli has been enshrined in the U.S. constitution.  Laws regarding jus sanguinis are, however, left up to the whims of Congress.  -- Jayron  32  12:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a lot of time, you may want to look through the downloads that are available at http://www.rparchives.org/refprescov.html; this is the denominational magazine of a US church that maintained a mission in Syria throughout the period of the magazine's publication, so it may discuss the subject. However, looking through one volume for "citiz" produced lots of irrelevant points, since the denomination's big talking point was its refusal to accept most of the rights of citizenship in the USA.  Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Witches' sabbaths
Our article lacks solid information about when and how the term came into use. Is there really a connection with medieval antisemitism? Or is that a coincidence? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some have claimed that it came from an Old French word Esbat, and didn't originally have a connection with the Jewish day of rest. The OED does not agree... AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is our general article on Sabbath any help? Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or indeed the article on Witches' Sabbath? It is probably not a connection to the Jewish sabbath - but more an inversion of the Christian sabbath. Witches were often accused of inverting Christian rituals, after all, related to the sabbath is the black mass, which has a more explicit link to Christian worship. Alternatively, you may be being paranoid.90.212.157.32 (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the existing articles are very helpful on this question. The inversion of the Christian sabbath, and the "black mass" parallel seem plausible to me, but it would be good to have a reference. I am asking because of our Wheel of the Year article, which needs better referencing. (I may be paranoid but that doesn't mean they're not out to get me.) Itsmejudith (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are some references got by searching for “etymology” and “witches’ Sabbath”.
 * * The Witch Figure: Folklore Essays By A Group Of Scholars In England p. 115 says: “The Oxford English Dictionary cites the Hebrew word Sabbath as the origin of the witches’ Sabbath, and witches’ synagogues are referred to be the inquisitor Bouget.” The context is the association of Jewish people with the Evil Eye and other witch-like characteristics in medieval Europe, so the implication is that a Hebrew word is used to associate witches with Jewish people.
 * * Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath p. 1 says “Local variations, especially in the name given to the gatherings, were frequent. Alongside the term sabbat, of obscure etymology and late diffusion, we find scholarly expressions such as sagarum synagoga or strigiarum conventus, which translated a myriad of popular terms such as striaz, barlott, akelarre, and so on.”
 * * http://pi.library.yorku.ca/dspace/bitstream/handle/10315/3966/icos23_356.pdf?sequence=1 On the Name of the Weekly Day of Rest] (scholarly conference paper) says “In most European languages we find words derived from the Hebrew Shabbat, with a wide variety of meanings. ... witches’ sabbath, a term used in all European languages, e.g., German and Dutch Hexensabbat, Russian shabash vyed’m, Slovene sabat čarovnic, French sabbat de sorcières, or Italian sabba di streghe. ... The expression witches’ sabbath has its roots in the European Middle Ages, which were permeated by the general belief in the evil power of witches and in the malevolence of Jews and heretics. … Referring to such imagined gatherings as ‘Sabbaths’ stems from the intermingling of witches and Jews in the popular mind.”
 * 184.147.123.169 (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Which countries have voted in favor of Israel?
In the recent General Assembly regarding the airstrikes and missiles launching. Keeiither (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Has there been a "vote" in the General Assembly regarding the issue? Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The General Assembly has not considered the matter since the recent upturn in violence - see . The Security Council held a closed meeting at 9p.m. on 14th November but no vote was taken.  -- Arwel Parry (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Biography of Sherley Toulson
Doesn't exist on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.91.79.92 (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So fix it... write an article yourself. Be sure to base it on reliable sources that you can cite. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The spelling is Shirley Toulson - more info here to get you started, though it's not a reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Hopu
When did Hawaiian Christian convert Thomas Hopu died?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "He died in 1864." Statewide County HI Archives News... Important People - Part 16. August 7, 2008 Alansplodge (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I question that site's reliability since his fellow classmate William Kanui also died in 1864 and there might be a confusion. No sources on google book mentions Hopu's death on 1864. And Hopu was the more famous one, so it make no sense.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Harper's administration and foreign policy
I am amazed to read the news and find how much the current Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper tries to make Canada look scary and strong to the World. From supporting the Syrian rebels to supporting Israel and its airstrikes against Hamas targets. Is it the party or just Harper the one who has decided to take Canada to the top issues in international relations? My question comes about from an earlier question that I read. Keeiither (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit, I don't support terrorists and I'm not condemning Israeli airstrikes, just cited them as an example of Harper's foreign policy. Keeiither (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh? These are hardly controversial positions. Everyone other than Russia, China and Iran supports the Syrian rebels, and the United States still lists Hamas as a terrorist organization. It would be very odd if Harper didn't espouse these views. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I can reword Keeither's question: "Canada has a foreign policy?  Why?".  OK, maybe not quite that strong, but that's the gist of what I think he/she is asking, and I have to admit the thought crosses my mind too. --Trovatore (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Canada is a sovereign state with its own interests and agenda to pursue? Matt Deres (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because we keep a low profile doesn't mean we're not involved in the rest of the world. See list of Canadian peacekeeping missions and Canada's role in the Afghanistan War for example. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we do get around and get stuff done. Of course that didn’t stop other people rewriting history and taking credit. :) Royor (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

History of the Hawaiian Islands
What is the difference between this and  ? Why were two books published in the same year by different publishers? And why are some information in one book but not the other; the one published by E. Moxon mentions Keaweamahi, a person I am writing an article about, but the one published by Tappan and Dennet doesn't. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They both mention Keaweamahi. But they are not typeset the same; in the English edition, it's on page 343; in the Boston edition it's on page 374, and it's split between lines, so it's hyphenated (which is why your search didn't find it.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --jpgordon:==( o ) 00:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

European priest-kings?
One thing that's always puzzled me regarding the Jacobite succession - would there have been any problems with Henry Benedict Stuart becoming King of the United Kingdom (or whatever name a restored House of Stuart would choose for the kingdom) due to his being a cardinal? Would he have to resign his office as cardinal? And, on a more general point, has there ever been a European king who has been an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic church? (I think it's safe to say there haven't been any European queens in that category). Tevildo (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Henry, the Cardinal-King of Portugal. Ferdinando I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany (not a king) was also a cardinal before he became grand duke.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also for the female one, There was Byzantine Empress Theodora who was dragged out of her monastery to be made co-Empress.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It came very close to happening in France. See Treaty of Nemours, Treaty of Joinville, and Charles, Cardinal de Bourbon.  For about 9 months in 1589-1590, much of France (the Catholic League) considered him the legitimate king after the assassination of Henry III.  After he died under house arrest, his claim passed to his distant cousin nephew (and chief rival) Henry, King of Navarre, who had been considered the legitimate King by the rest of France; since Henry IV held the true power even during the 9-month dispute, modern counting of the Kings of France tends to ignore Charles.  -- Jayron  32  19:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Charles was not really King Henry III of Navarre's distant cousin. He was no less than his uncle, the next surviving brother of Henry's father. Tevildo, your best example is indeed King Henry of Portugal. As for cardinals reigning as kings, here would be no constitutional issues that I'm aware of; however, succession might be tricky, as ordained priests of the Roman Catholic Church normally cannot produce legitimate children. Interestingly, though, every anointed and crowned king was regarded as a priest of some sort, as the coronation was seen as conferring spiritual power to the monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So corrected. I had briefly forgotten the relationship.  -- Jayron  32  20:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who could blame you? The Capetians and the Habsburgs are not exactly known for clear family relationships. They could easily be their aunt's grandchild or their father's grandniece. Surtsicna (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, thanks very much. There was more to the French Wars of Religion than the St Bartholomew's Day massacre, then?  I'll have to do some reading. :)  I note also that Henry (Portugal) tried to renounce his position but the Pope prevented him - perhaps Henry (Scotland) might have had to do something similar to stop the Hanoverians getting the throne back anyway.  But my question is answered.  Tevildo (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The French Wars of Religion is a fascinating time; especially interesting is the War of the Three Henrys, the last of the wars and one of the few times in history where there was a genuine tripartite war: Henry III fought both Henry, Duc de Guise (for control of the Catholic League) and Henry, King of Navarre (the Protestant claimant to the throne); while Guise and Henry of Navarre fought for control of the succession. Henry III tried to play both sides, at various times in opposition to, and in alliance with, Henry of Navarre.  The sequence of the war is filled with assassination plots, double crosses, and interference from the Spanish.  Both Henry of Guise and Henry III were assassinated by each other's supporters, Henry of Navarre would thus assume the throne after converting to Catholicism to bring peace to the country.  -- Jayron  32  20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What rank is applied to the Popes in dignity compared to kings, princes, emperors, etc.? Given cardinals are titled princes of the church, one would expect the Pope to have a regal rank at least. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In modern diplomatic ranking, the Pope is accorded the dignity given to any Head of State (due to the fact that he is head of state of Vatican City). ie he would rank with Monarchs and Presidents.  Note: this is different from his "rank" in ecclesiastical terms.  He ranks very highly as Bishop of Rome, but where the Bishop of Rome ranks in comparison to certain other Bishoprics (ie the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch etc.) depends on who you ask.  Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand it was very common for younger sons of monarchs (and other aristocrats) to seek a career in the church. They weren't going to inherit much, so they had to do something and that was one of the few options. If that would then create a problem were their older brother to die without issue (which wasn't uncommon), I doubt it would have been allowed. --Tango (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you mean "wouldn't have been allowed". We have at least one positive example of a King-Cardinal, Henry, King of Portugal who tried to renounce his vows to produce an heir: he was not allowed and this led to the eventual Union of Portuguese and Spanish crowns.  But he was allowed to be king, just not allowed to renounce his vows and cease being a priest.  We also have another near miss, also already mentioned, being Charles, Cardinal de Bourbon, which had the French Wars of Religion gone differently, would have resulted in him actually being King, at least for a short while before his nephew inherited from him (said nephew became king anyways, so it wouldn't have changed much).  Priests were allowed to become kings.  They just didn't happen to often inherit via primogeniture.  -- Jayron  32  14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose Tango wanted to say that younger sons would not have been allowed to become priests if that would make them ineligible to succeed. I'm not sure what you meant by your last sentence, though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only actual king-priest, Henry of Portugal, did succeed his grandnephew according to primogeniture. If you wanted to say that primogeniture diminished their chances of succeeding, I agree, as only younger sons were chosen for priesthood. Surtsicna (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But a) being priests didn't make them ineligible to succeed (i.e. Henry), and b) Once is not often. That is, the only major European kingdom do be inherited via primogeniture by a priest was Portugal under Henry, and that gives us 1/n times, where n is the total number of kings in European history.  I would call that "didn't happen often".  -- Jayron  32  17:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It also bears mentioning in this discussion that many priests, bishops, and cardinals did act as monarchs for territories. There was, of course, the Papal States, which were ruled by the "Bishop of Rome". There were Prince-abbots and Prince-Bishops who ruled feudal territories of the Holy Roman Empire and who, after the decentralization of the Empire following the Thirty Years War were functionally independent rulers. There were also the ecclesiastically-ruled crusader states, such as the Knights of St. John and the Teutonic Knights who's Grand Masters were functionally Princes of their own independent territories. And finally, there were many clerics who had real power behind figurehead kings, aka Éminence grise. -- Jayron  32  14:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

John Casimir Vasa never received any of the sacred orders, but was created cardinal in the consistory of 1646. He didn't go to Rome to receive the red hat and the title, though; instead, he resigned the cardinalate in a letter written to the pope in 1647. He went on to become king of Poland in 1649, abdicated in 1672, and died as an abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Prés near Paris. — Kpalion(talk) 18:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The Philippines and total plastic bag bans (again) (moved from Science Refdesk)

 * I've taken the liberty of moving this from the Science Refdesk. Hint: you'll get a better answer about laws on the desk that answers questions about law. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I asked this question about total plastic bag bans in the Philippines three weeks ago but only got a single response, which was a link to a website. Reading the link, it did not answer my original question. So here I am, asking it again. For reference, there's already the link to my original question, but basically, in a nutshell, does the Philippines have a large number of total plastic bag bans compared to the rest of Southeast Asia? I'm aware that there are other places such as Yangon that have totally banned them as well, while a few places have plastic bag taxes, but is the Philippines leading the way in total bans? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your original question was about Asia not just South East Asia. While the answers could be the same, Asia is a lot wider area then SEA so is a lot harder to answer. Particularly since your questions is fairly unclear. For example, per your own original question, clearly the Philippines is behind Bangladesh in terms of an actual ban (ignoring enforcement issues) so you could say it is less of a pioneer then Bangladesh in Asia. But of course this doesn't in itself necessarily mean they shouldn't be regarded as a pioneer in Asia. In terms of your new question, it seems fairly easy to answer based on the information you provided in your original question and the link. Particular since only you know what you mean by pioneer so you could answer it far more easily then us. For example you've already commented on Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. The reference mentions Myanmar. You just have to check Singapore, Laos, Timor-Leste, Cambodia and Brunei. Depending on your definition of pioneer you may not even have to check them all. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To make things clearer, let me try to rephrase the question: Compared to other Southeast Asian countries, does the Philippines have a particularly high number of local-level plastic bag bans? The reason why my first question was phrased like that was because it was intended to be an introduction to the topic, to give potential respondents some background on the topic. It appears that I failed miserably to make the question clear. I am also asking this because there may have been information about bans in other SEA countries which I have missed. The original question was about the Philippines being a "pioneer," but I guess "trendsetter" should have been the appropriate term. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Nine Years' War/Rhineland and the Empire
Can the contributors to Section 3.1 Rhineland and the Empire of the Nine Years' War article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years'_War expand on the French workers used in the Rhineland during the war?

Several of my ancestors came up the Village of Büchelberg in the Bienwald forest in the Rhineland. The village was supposedly founded by French workers from the province of Picardy in 1692 to build forts during the war.

The Bienwald article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bienwald also does not discuss the founding of the village.

Are there records to indicate where the workers came from?

Thanks

Johann Raab (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a bit of a start (hopefully more people will chime in). I’m guessing this source in French is where the Picardy info came from – however it also doesn’t specify where in Picardy. If you would like more details about the town, its official page in German offers interesting tidbits, especially about the salt trade route, though also not directly answering your question. Settlement in the area certainly seems much older than 1692, with references in records back to the 12th century at least.
 * (Long shot:, the French page mentions Johann Daniel Schöpflin, a historian at Strasbourg University, as having written about the place. If you have any latin, you might look at this book of his.) 184.147.123.169 (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A cursory examination of the index of that book (whose contents are in French and German as well as Latin) suggests that it doesn't mention Büchelberg, and I suspect that it doesn't go that far forward in history, either. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. It was the only book by him I could find and I had no idea what it was about. Sorry for the detour, Johann Raab. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a collection of Imperial edicts, apparently mostly, if not entirely, from the medieval period. No worries - there could easily have been a town charter or something in there - I just don't think there is. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above links to Büchlberg in Bavaria and to Schöpflin's book are interesting but misleading. You might want to visit the homepage of Büchelberg in the Bienwald forest here. It has a link to a 6-pages-extract from the town chronicle (cover page plus pages 55 thru 59 with the founding of Büchelberg in the late 1680's and early 1690's) PDF, 6,9 MB. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have exchanged emails with the Town Adminstrator of Büchelberg (a very distant relative) who is familiar with the town chronicle. It does not indicate the place(s) in Picardy. I also exchanged emails with a French history professor who suggested that the best place to search is at the French Military Library outside Paris.Johann Raab (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The surnames of the early families in Büchelberg are documented here. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)