Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 3

= November 3 =

Hypothetical Cannon.
Is it possible that the construction details highlighted in the Turin Canon, have been misinterpreted?" As in, is it possible that the details provided by the Canon are more by way of a reference to Reconstruction work or Renovation, as opposed to their original manufacture? If, as some suggest, the Pyramids were constructed around 10,500 BC, then during their 8,000 year temporal journey to Khufu's reign, they would undoubtedly have experienced a similar number of earthquakes as they have on their trip from Khufu's time to present day. As a result of these earthquakes, back in Khufu's day, they may well have looked a lot like they do now, in need of a good face lift. Perhaps Khufu looked from his palace balcony one morning and realized that if they were left as they were, then one day they wouldn't be there any more. So, he instigates their Renovation in order that future generations and even Civilizations, could stand in their shadow and marvel at their splendor. This Reconstruction Hypothesis goes well to explain why Khufu's name appears but once inside the Great pyramid, (by way of saying Khufu had something to do with this pyramid, but not its original construction) and not painted on every wall and carved in to every block of stone in order to leave future generations in no doubt whatsoever.

Jaaar. (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Placing a stone in place every 5 minutes isn't impossible, if you assume many teams were working in parallel. At least on the lower levels, this would have been easy to do.  StuRat (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no intellectual war. There are actual archaeologists doing actual archaeological research, and there are crazy pseudoscientists screaming from the sidelines. The actual archaeologists don't even argue about one stone every five minutes being too fast. In fact, many have argued this is too slow, and could have been done once every two minutes. See Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. As for the idea of resurfacing, not all stone is made equal. I have a feeling it would be quite obvious if the surface stones were quarried 8,000 years after the underlying ones. Just look at something more modern. The Washington Monument was surfaced with marble quarried from two different locations just 20 years and a few miles apart, but you can see the difference (see File:Washington Monument (from Jefferson Memorial) IMG 4731.JPG). Yes, it's a different stone, but that was actually the closest the builders could get to making the new stones look like the old ones. I doubt that Khufu could have done such a spectacular job that modern archaeologists couldn't spot an 8,000 year difference. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like the current estimate for the number of blocks is about 600,000. If it took 20 years to build, that averages out to about 3 blocks per hour.  Given that the great majority of stones were in the interior and didn't have to be matched perfectly, that doesn't seem impossible. Looie496 (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, one (pronoun) does not take a capital. Nor is it a synonym for "I". Marnanel (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One must respectfully agree with Maranel's first point, but disagree with his/her second: in some stylistic contexts it may be so used.
 * On a different point: as a small aid to the OP, the relevant spelling is "canon", not "cannon". Substituting the latter for the former might lead to misdirected searches, etc; one is now led to speculate as to what historical weapon a "Turin Cannon" might be. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.19 (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... which had tricked me into clicking into this question with a mental image of a gigantic monument of cannons stacked into a pyramid located in Turin... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the Turin Canon is the Turin King List, since we haven't mentioned that yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's also important to note precedence. The pyramids of Khufu weren't built in isolation, there are numerous other pyramids from different time periods. Each betray their origin in history separately, and you can arrange them historically and clearly see the progression of design and construction techniques. The first dynasty mastabas for example, were simply rectangular tombs. In the second dynasty mastabas were already showing designs reminiscent of stairways. Until the the third dynasty architect Imhotep revolutionized it by building the first pyramid, the Pyramid of Djoser. With its distinctive steps, it was really just a pile of mastabas. But the achievement was monumental enough that Imhotep was immortalized as a demigod in Ancient Egyptian religion. After that was a succession of more and more refined pyramids during the Old Kingdom ("the Age of Pyramids"), including three clear transitional and experimental ones built during the reign of a single pharaoh, Sneferu. This included the Bent Pyramid and the first true pyramid, the Red Pyramid. Sneferu also attempted to finish and renovate the Meidum pyramid (originally designed as a step pyramid for the previous pharaoh, Huni), as another true pyramid. Though he apparently ultimately gave up after it collapsed due to engineering errors. Khufu's pyramids were built after Sneferu's.


 * All these, makes it clear that the design of pyramids were a series of innovations building upon earlier innovations. And there are over a hundred pyramids, built in a span of 3,500 years. If the pyramids of Giza were really built more than 8,000 years earlier, then it follows that all of them were. Unless these pseudoarcheologists are also suggesting that the other pyramids were merely copycats. In which case, the existence of mastabas, stepped pyramids, and other transitional forms would be nonsensical. A mastaba doesn't look anything like the pyramids of Giza.


 * And If later pharaohs simply reconfigured and restored them to become tombs, well... almost all pharaohs were buried in pyramids during the Old Kingdom, correct? If they simply took over ancient structures, then why didn't the earliest pharaohs pick the best of them all? Why didn't the pyramids of Giza belong to Djoser instead of Khufu? Why not even Menes or the older long forgotten kings of the Naqada culture which arose merely a half or so millenium before Khufu?-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  09:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

American School of Design, New York
I am writing an article on illustrator Adrienne Adams and my sources (http://theartofchildrenspicturebooks.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/going-barefoot.html & http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=58180908) say she attended the American School of Design in New York, is this likely to be the National Academy of Design ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Proof of chastity
On our article about the Dominican Order, there is a picture of Aquinas with the caption:


 * St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), considered by the Catholic Church to be its greatest medieval theologian, is girded by angels with a mystical belt of purity after his proof of chastity.

What is a proof of chastity, in this context? The link leads only to Chastity, which doesn't explain. Marnanel (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a story that Thomas' brothers invited a prostitute for him, but he angered and threw a firebrand. Brandmeistertalk  12:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do campaigns bother with internal polls?
Every major political campaign (Presidential, Senate and House AFAIK) has internal polling, polls which they pay for and get to choose whether to release. But why bother? If there's one thing that 538 and so on show us is that you can get all the information you need from publicly available polls which are common. Given the campaigns, especially the smaller ones need to spend every dollar they can on advertising and so on, why do they persist in wasting money on frequent internal polls, even when the public pollsters are providing the information for free (from their perspective)? They aren't even very accurate from what I've seen. 86.163.43.112 (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the polls for internal consumption ask a lot of questions about potential campaign strategies. It is useful to the campaign to know which of the issues it is campaigning prominently on are ones which voters care about (especially enough to change their vote). The public polls do not always ask these questions. Polls also allow the campaign to discreetly test out new issues and see if they are likely to be successful, without risking damaging the campaign if they turn out to be harmful. The public polls can't test that. Remember that voting intentions are usually only one of a multitude of questions in a poll. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Building in Toronto
Is it possible to identify this building in Toronto at 2:29 (and from 2:19)? Looks like some official or governmental. I'm not 100% sure whether the city in the beginning of the video is Toronto, judging by Vegas ads and signs, so would be also thankful for that clarification. Brandmeistertalk  12:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It certainly looks like Toronto. In your edit to the article, you claim it shows the Metro Theatre, but Metro Theatre doesn't have that neat archway thing seen in the video (nor have one opposite it), at least according to Google Streetview. Incidentally, unless the video is in the public domain, that YouTube link shouldn't be in the article. Matt Deres (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The inscription below Metro Theatre in the video reads "Toronto Cinema" and at 3:14 you can spot the inscription "Don't forget to see the rest of Toronto". Also, one of the flags on the building at 2:29 is Canadian. Even if that particular building isn't in Toronto, I bet it's somewhere in Canada. Brandmeistertalk  14:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a TTC streetcar at the beginning (around 0:25), so that's Toronto. The thing around 0:40 that says Metro Theatre also says "Zanzibar", although that's doesn't look like Zanzibar Tavern. At 1:04 you can see the Sam the Record Man sign. (So basically this is the same part of Yonge Street that passed for Harlem in the Hulk movie...) The prostitutes or whatever they are around 1:20 look like they are outside the Princess of Wales Theatre (and again at 2:15). The parts you are asking about at 2:19 and 2:29 looks like Union Station, at least the inside of it, even though she seems to be outside...several other street shots look familiar, but it's in black and white and sometimes washed out, so it's hard to tell. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if maybe it's the entrance to the old post office building on Front Street shown (barely) at the top left of this photo. The windows at 2:25 look like those in the picture. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This image matches the upper arch squares, although some of the other architectural details don't quite match. The title says Union Station. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't the old post office building part of Union Station now too? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Union Station (Toronto) says so. I just always thought of them as separate. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Account
Hi, please help me before I'm wrongly blocked. I created account User:Kharzaii but I missed an I, so I created this new account. But it's not a sock account, can anybody please eliminate User:Kharzaii? Kharzaiii (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The prohibition on sock puppets says that you may not use them to edit disruptively, which includes getting around blocks and faking the appearance of multiple people agreeing on something. What you've done is far from being disruptive, so you're not going to be blocked.  Based on your statement here, I've redirected Kharzaii to Kharzaiii; if you change your mind and want to use it, you can switch around the redirect.  FYI, for the future — the Reference Desk is not the best place to come for this type of issue; you'd do better at the Help Desk.  This isn't because it's a bad place to come, but because the Help Desk (unlike the Reference Desk) is designed for problems you encounter with the editing process.  Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Where and when should I cast my vote?
Hi, I have a residence in Oklahoma but live in New York. Where should I vote? and secondly, I have a scheduled appointment with my psychiatrist, can I vote earlier? When do polls open? Thank you indeed. Netwwork (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On the latter question, according to the City of New York polling page, the polls open at 6am and close at 9pm. If you are not in New York City, Google "election polls open" with your city name. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You'd need to vote by absentee ballot, but it's probably too late to get one now. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You vote wherever you are registered to vote.  If you are registered in New York you vote there, if registered in OK, you vote there instead.   I think all states require advance registration, so if you are not already registered, it is probably too late.  RudolfRed (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some states let you register and vote on the spot on the day. (You can definitely do this in the District of Columbia, anyway.) I don't think New York does, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Same-day registration. 24.23.145.28 (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be able to ask for a Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, although our article says it is for overseas voters. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The ballot may be downloaded here: []DOR (HK) (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Minority-Majority Congressional/Electoral Districts
Are there any countries besides the United States of America which are required to create minority-majority districts by law? Futurist110 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a direct answer, but many nations handle the issue of minority representation by allocating a certain number of seats in congress/parliament to certain minorities, and perhaps some positions in the executive branch, as well. These minority members can be elected "at large" or appointed.  Also note that it would be difficult to avoid creating minority districts in the US, due to the level of segregation of minorities. StuRat (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware of this. I know that Iran, for instance, has a seat in Parliament reserved for Jews. And while some majority-minority districts would need to be drawn in the U.S. even without the Voting Rights Act, some of them might get abolished, such as the ones in Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, or the ones in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio if the Democrats control the redistricting process there in the future. Futurist110 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, this all seems weird from a UK perspective. Here, electoral districts are drawn by independent commissions which must not take note of either party affiliation or ethnic profiles. Right now there's controversy about the impending redrawing of boundaries to equalise the populations of rural and urban constitutences - effectively removing the UK's equivalent of the population/electoral college discrepancy in the US. This is regarded as highly political because it will slightly tip the balance in favour of the Conservative Party (as the Labour Party holds a large majority of the lower-population urban constituencies). Draw district boundaries along racial lines? Most people would be horrified. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not that way as in the linked article, but here in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein we have a Danish Minority (recognised national minority). They have a party of their own South Schleswig Voter Federation, and as long as they put up candidates only in those counties where live a "significant" number of Danish, they are freed of the 5%-of-all-votes-threshold any other party has to pass. So - they are not guaranteed representation in the parliament. But in some way presence of a minority in certain counties is recognised and a special ruling is installed. So maybe (very roughly) along the lines of what you asked ? Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is pretty interesting. If they don't need 5% like the other parties, how much percent in the polls do they need in order to get represented in Parliament? Futurist110 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I could not find exact data, but at their historical minimum in 1983 they got one seat with 1.3% of the popular vote and currently they have 3 seats with 4.6% of the popular vote (after the seat allocation has been changed to the Sainte-Laguë method, but that had only minor influence). There are 69 seats in total, so unless I don't understand the method, 1.45% should guarantee you a seat. If there are enough parties, in theory you can get a seat with an ε of votes, although you then run into boundary conditions of the law (what do you do if there are 160000 parties, each with one vote?). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Do any other German minority parties for other minority groups get the same preferential treatment as Danish-Germans do? Futurist110 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I know. There are additional recognised national minorities, namely the Frisians, Sorbs, Sinti and Roma which enjoy special protections. But none of them seems to have a special election privileges. The special status of Danes in Schleswig-Holstein goes back to two matching declarations by the German and Danish governments in 1955. The German minority in Denmark enjoys similar privileges. Schleswig has long had a mixed population and belonged to different states for a very long time. The de:Bonn-Kopenhagener Erklärungen have more-or-less succeeded in stopping nationalistic arguments about poor oppressed minorities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do UK electoral boundaries have any overt criteria other than compactness? —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Harmony with local government boundaries where possible; equality of population; 'special considerations' (such as the Western Isles being pretty isolated from everywhere else). AlexTiefling (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I never quite understood how you can stop Gerrymandering. Just saying you shouldn't do it can't be enough.  I suppose setting specific limits on the shapes of districts might help, like having them all be rectangular, but there would still be ways to "fix" rectangular districts.  You can set up a "nonpartisan commission" to set the boundaries, but how can you find members who are not susceptible to political considerations ?  StuRat (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What about an automatic rule? Like:
 * Start with the smallest available units (census tracts?).
 * Make a list of pairs of adjacent units.
 * While the number of units exceeds the desired number:
 * Find the pair with the smallest total population.
 * If these two units can be merged to form a compact district (by some reasonable geometric definition):
 * Merge them and adjust the list of pairs.
 * Else:
 * Strike that pair from the list.
 * (This algo will probably require some backtracking and other tweaks.)
 * In a bicameral state, one house could be districted by longitude and the other by latitude. —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * UK boundary drawing is done in public - here are the current proposals for Northern Ireland, the Commission makes proposals, political parties and members of the public comment and make submissions on the proposals, the Commission takes account of the submissions and amends the proposals - the current proposals are out for another 8 weeks of public comment. In the past, not breaching local authority borders when drawing Parliamentary constituency boundaries (and in Northern Ireland, Assembly boundaries) was a sacrosanct principle, but for the current round of boundary drawing the Government has decreed that all constituencies (except for a very few exceptions like the Western Isles) will have a similar number of electors (to within quite a narrow band) so that has gone out of the window. The Commission will still try to produce constituencies that have a commonality of interest (easy road communications, etc) though the English boundary commission notoriously managed to produce one constituency which has territory on both sides of the estuary of the River Mersey and no obvious means of travelling between them without a diversion of many miles. Small-scale gerrymandering is possible - I was active in local politics when local authority boundaries were redrawn about 15 years ago and remember the local Labour Party made proposals to the commission for moving a few wards here and there in a way which was advantageous to themselves, and the other parties didn't object, so the consequences were their own look-out! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Legislative district drawing is done by different methods in different US states. As the result of a recent change in the law, California uses neutral district drawing. This was pushed by the state Republican Party because of a long history of Democratic Party control of the state legislature, which gerrymandered for years. The result, to the dismay of the Republicans, is several even more Democratic districts. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the new California law keep all or almost all of the minority-majority congressional districts? Futurist110 (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The new law requires the people who draw the districts to consider ethnic interests. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)