Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 8

= October 8 =

Follow-ups on Suaad Mohamud
In 2009, I read about the interesting case of Suaad Mohamud. Canada prevented her from re-entering the country after her visit to Kenya, because she didn't look like her passport photo, was 6-7 cm shorter than the height on her driver's license, couldn't name Lake Ontario, didn't know Canada's current or former prime ministers, couldn't describe what she did at work, couldn't name any of the subway stops she encountered every day, didn't know her only son's birthdate or birthplace, and claimed to attend 2 different colleges while being unable to name professors from either. Then DNA tests proved she was really Suaad, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Then she filed a lawsuit, the obligatory ending of all modern tragedies. You can go here to read more about it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/28/lawsuit-mohamud.html

I tried to follow up on this, but couldn't find anything. What happened to the lawsuit? What happened to the Canadian government's internal investigation? Did anyone care to interview her or her family members and ask why she didn't know anything? I know it's quite likely that after she came home safely, nobody bothered to follow up on the story. But just in case somebody did, I'm very curious to know what they discovered. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per you own source, it appears to be somewhat disputed what she did and didn't say. What you have described appears to be the government's explaination. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The source says the lawyer claims the government didn't give the full story. He didn't say that the story the government did give is inaccurate.  --140.180.242.9 (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In December 2010, federal court judge Sean Harrington ordered the federal government to pay her $13,500 in legal costs. “They (embassy officials) were arrogant, dismissive, refused to come to her aid and circled the wagons when cracks in their case began to appear,” he said. Four interviews and being put under pressure will result in inconsistent statements, not being able to remember some basic facts etc. It's easy to confuse people, and a list of all these inconsistencies may look more convincing than a complete transcript or a recording would. As for people ignorant of basic facts about a country, a few years ago when a reporter asked our (Belgian) prime minister to sing the national anthem, he sang the French one instead. Ssscienccce (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But he didn't say it was 100% accurate either. As Ssscienccce has emphasised, we have no way of knowing what she did get right. Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Federal Court's decision is [here]. Zoonoses (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Boni & Liveright : cowled monk ? soviet posters ?
Hello L.O. (Learned Ones) ! I’m translating Boni & Liveright for WP french, and

1° I can’t find its logo : "a cowled monk" (quite a witty logo, given the kind of B&L’s publications !). Is someone able to show it ?

2° I don’t see in the WP english article any mention of the soviet posters I stumbled upon on Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Boni+%26+Liveright&title=Special%3Asearch). Were they really issued by B&L ? Any commentary on that surprising production ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See the Liveright logo here, and an earlier 1922 version here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Re 2°: See Through the Russian Revolution, as explained in File:Soviet Poster 5.jpg. -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot to both ! "cowled monk" : I thought he was hooded, but actually he is not, and seems quite open to the world...I discover Albert Rhys Williams, & am fascinated...Thanks again , t.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, he is wearing a cowl, but not on his head! Alansplodge (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this have a name?
Towns that have a name like Oklahoma, Pennsylvania or Paris, Kentucky or Poland, Ohio? Do you call towns like that something, an encyclopedic term? Thanks!Marketdiamond (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than toponym? Probably not.  I don't know that there has been devised a specific term for "places that share a name with another place".  -- Jayron  32  12:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayron32, to be very clear though it wouldn't be the proverbial "Springfield" so places that share name with another place isn't what I'm exactly asking its more like small one or two stoplight hamlets that share a name with a megopolis, nation, state or cultural center (Hollywood, Greenwich Village etc.), more the culture shock of a small small rustic town in Kentucky verses the world center that is Paris or the entire state of Oklahoma confused with a one stoplight burg in Pennsylvania, that kind of thing, not looking for the 1,000s of Glendales or Springfields etc. Marketdiamond (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the term in reverse (ignoring size, which for some reason you seem to feel is important here) is eponym, an eponym is the source of the name, so Paris, France is the eponym for Paris, Kentucky. Also, it does happen often enough the reverse as you describe; many American cities are considerably larger than their eponymous sources: Boston, Massachusetts is much larger than Boston, Lincolnshire after which it was named.  Likewise, I think Memphis, Tennessee is larger than Memphis, Egypt ever was.  And compare Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with Alaşehir, or the ancient Philadelphia.  -- Jayron  32  16:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or for that matter Portland, Oregon, which was named after Portland, Maine. Pais (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which was itself named after Portland. Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't always move west: Pasadena, Texas is named after Pasadena, California. --Trovatore (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it has a specific name, but check out List of places named after places in the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In that light, we should have List of U.S. places named for European cities.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I for one would like to see that article, but if someone creates it, please provide an inline cite to a reliable source to show the town was "named for a European city" and not just "Named for a US city which was named for a European city," such as some little US Boston, Memphis or Philadelphia which was named after the well known US city rather than the less well known (to frontiersmen) non-US city. (Also note that we would need similar lists for every name-source continent). Many articles about small towns have no discussion of the name origin, or declare, without a ref, what the town is named for. Edison (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. For example, New Boston, New Hampshire was named for Boston, Massachusetts, which was in turn named for Boston, Lincolnshire.  There are many places like that, where there's a chain of inspiration.  Such lists probably aren't a wise idea, because there are many folk etymologies for place names, and really, of the millions of named places in the world, you could likely come up with some unwieldy number of articles of arbitrarily organized lists of cities.  -- Jayron  32  02:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for all these great insights, sincerely I am learning a lot, alas no solution to the problem at hand though (is the mark of genius asking lots of questions on RefDesk that just truly have escaped human intelligence for the ages lol? Watch for it everyone I might invent a word ala Stephen Colbert lol.  Thanks again for all the insightful responses! Marketdiamond (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And for another response that doesn't answer the question, but warns folks to not always assume that names come from Europe, Melbourne, Florida got its name because the first postmaster came from Melbourne, Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trovatore  (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 October 2012‎
 * But Melbourne, Australia, was named after William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, whose title came from Melbourne, Derbyshire. Which is in Europe.  :-)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but I'm really surprised to see a Brit writing that final sentence. ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In an extreme case, Cartagena, Colombia was named after Cartagena, Spain, which was named after Carthage, which means "New City" - implicitly, "New Tyre". So Cartagena, Colombia, is effectively New New New Tyre. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, four continents in once chain! An extreme case indeed. Can anyone find a better one? — Kpalion(talk) 10:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Four I counted 3 but yes that is impressive. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Tyre -- Asia; Carthage -- Africa; Cartagena, Spain -- Europe; Cartagena, Colombia -- South America. AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, but I call translation foul on that Tyre one! Impressive none the less! Marketdiamond (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"your mind is always on your music"!
there is a comic/caricature with a woman being played like a cello (you know, she looks like this - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lcIyObjNdyc/TxB9qmQIysI/AAAAAAAABds/FZXMtLTIcYM/s1600/man-ray-cello-woman.jpg - but since it's a caricature/comic she looks even more like a cello), as she says something like "Your mind is always on your music!"

can someone find a link to this comic for me? thanks. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I found Cello Woman by Hara Reita. Close but no cigar, I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this site, it's a photo by Man Ray of Alice Prin, aka Kiki, Queen of Montparnasse. This site concurs and states the title is Le Violon d’Ingres. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only cartoon I can find of it isn't very close to your description. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the OP was looking for a caricature "like this" but "even more like a cello". I've drawn a blank so far. Alansplodge (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Voter registration requirements in New York in 1864
Last night's episode of Copper (TV series) took place on the 1864 Presidential election day. The show mainly concerns Irish-American immigrants living in the Five Points area of Manhattan. It showed Irish voters being given free whiskey in order to vote for the Boss Tweed/Tammany Hall machine. It got me to wondering, what were the voter requirements during that period? Were there citizenship requirements for these Irish immigrants to vote, or could any male over the age of 21 vote, regardless of how long they had lived in the US? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a solid question, and I don't begrudge you for asking it. It would be worthwhile to find an answer, but I will note that I don't think Tammany Hall was particularly concerned about the legality of what it was doing in any other aspect of its hold on power, so I'm not sure it would have mattered much what local voting laws were at the time.  Tammany Hall operated on the "Golden Rule": he who has the gold, rules.  It was a fantastically corrupt organization. -- Jayron  32  18:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The book "Boss Tweed"" by Ackerman, 2011, describes New York City vote fraud techniques in 1868 (things were likely much the same in 1864 so far as the letter of the law).. A voter's name and address needed to be on the voting rolls for him to be able to vote. Tammany Hall would make up lists of fake names and addresses, and groups of paid fraudsters would go and register to vote under those names, often accompanied by naturalization papers with real signatures of the proper judges, but filled out in false names or by persons who had not been resident in the US for a sufficient time. The Naturalization Law of 1802 was the applicable law in the 1860's. The applicant had to be a "free white person," and present a certificate from a court, recorded when he arrived, showing when he arrived and from where, and swear allegiance, and show that he had resided in the US for 5 years and in the state or territory for 1 year. Here is a  "Petition for Naturalization" from that era. The applicant had to say that he renounced loyalty to his former ruler, and state when and where he arrived and on what ship. So it was not a simple matter of an Irishman getting off the boat and voting; he needed naturalization papers to register, but they could be bought cheap or provided free by political functionaries. Then the party bosses followed up by sending people to vote multiple times under various names not their own. Soldiers from New York who were away from home could also file a form to allow someone else to vote for them, an obvious method of possible vote buying. In addition, they got telegraph reports from areas of New York state where the other party was strong, then added just enough fake votes to win statewide contests. This same process of finding out how many votes were needed was used in Kentucky at least through the Roosevelt administration and was known as "counting in" the election. Slow returns were a signature of vote fraud. In Memphis Tennessee, "Boss Crump" was also known for finding as many votes as were needed and providing them. This was more precise than just throwing in a bunch of fake votes and failing to win on the one hand, or bringing down a Congressional investigation through overkill.  Going beyond proof of residence or of naturalization, some states required proof that a "poll tax" had been paid, making it harder for poor people, including African-Americans and recent immigrants, to vote. It was sometimes waived if a "Grandfather Clause" was satisfied, with a voter bringing in sworn proof that his grandfather had been eligible to vote before the American Civil War. Edison (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Sleepy suburb"
Does anyone know what the origin of this term is? For example Sleepy suburb lives through nightmare. Having lived in suburban and urban areas, I can't say I was generally more tired in one than the other. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Our article Commuter town says: A commuter town may also be known as a bedroom community or bedroom suburb (Canada and U.S. usage), a dormitory town or dormitory suburb (UK Commonwealth and Ireland usage), or less commonly a dormitory village (UK Commonwealth and Ireland). These terms suggest that residents sleep in these neighborhoods, but normally work elsewhere; they also suggest that these communities have little commercial or industrial activity beyond a small amount of retail, oriented toward serving the residents. Maybe this is part of the reason that the two words have stuck together? --NorwegianBluetalk 21:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That, and particular people are always fantastically fond of all alliteration. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I always thought it had to do with the fact "they roll up the sidewalk at dusk" in the suburbs and anyone desiring a nightlife had to go into the big city. Rmhermen (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the statement has origins in all of the above. Suburbs are bedrooms communities (places where people sleep and do little else), but they are also noted (by many, not just me) as places of such mind-numbing boredom that it lulls people to perpetual drowsiness.  Compare to The City That Never Sleeps, an epithet applied so several decidedly unsurbuban places.  -- Jayron  32  22:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From Collins American English Dictionary: sleepy: not very active; dull; quiet ⇒ "a sleepy little town".  I come across the expression "sleepy little town" quite often (seems almost a cliché for some writers, when the main character reminisces about his youth), so maybe sleepy suburb is simply a variation on that theme? Ssscienccce (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Google's "n-Grams" site is your friend for the study of the history of cliches: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=sleepy+suburb&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=2, and, specifically for the early history. The earliest quote known to Google Books is from 1871: "... A river- boat soon brought us to that interesting but sleepy suburb of London".-- Vmenkov (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So the original "sleepy suburb" was Chelsea. Interesting.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Chelsea was apparently also the earliest [model of a] shady suburb. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How about Sleepy Hollow? Best-Story-Ever, Washington Irving was a genius, imagine how much $ all those films made!  Marketdiamond (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Who could sleep in a place like that ? :-) StuRat (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lodging and Visitor board persons (Historic Hudson Valley) sleep real well especially during November after all those tourism $$s are counted. BTW, wasn't it originally "Greensburg"?  Marketdiamond (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting answers, thanks everyone. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

British Marines' right to search US cities and arrest British deserters after the Revolutionary War
I certainly don't take old TV dramas as reliable sources for history, but I recently watched an old episode of the Daniel Boone TV show, episode 106 "Then Who Will They Hang from the Yardarm If Willy Gets Away?" Original Air Date: 02-08-68, and was puzzled. In it, British Marines, sometime after the American Revolution is over, are in Charleston South Carolina, searching for Willy, a young British sailor who deserted his ship. They announce to all that under "the treaty" they have the right to search buildings and wagons for the deserter.The deserter moves to Kentucky, but another British sailor goes there and blackmails him with threats of turning him over to the British, who would likely hang him. Did the writers make this up completely, or was there some provision for foreign powers to search for and capture deserters in a US port city? Edison (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The British certainly claimed a privilege to stop U.S. ships in international waters and search them for deserters; see War of 1812... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. One episode of the Daniel Boone TV show had an Aztec prince in full pre-Columbian regalia turning up in Kentucky! AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the writer of that episode must have thought he was putting on a coon-skin cap, but actually put a live raccoon on his head, which then attacked him, causing brain damage. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't laugh about the Aztec thing in Kentucky . . . check out Meadowcroft Rockshelter . . . 16,000 years ago and there are tons more "sites" up and down the Ohio Valley, in fact the largest settlement in North America was in present day Illinois near the Mississippi and Ohio junction. Marketdiamond (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That was 16,000 years ago. By the time of Daniel Boone, the Aztecs were gone. StuRat (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * They were "mound builders" etc., not Aztecs... AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: Meadowcroft and Moundbuilders, we do have a Champ article, so if a pea sized brained reptile could survive 16,000 years a tribe that resembled "Aztecs" could conceivably . . . btw never saw that episode but could the average U.S. college graduate differentiate an Aztec vs. a Ohio Valley 18th century Indian chief in full regalia? And if not how was Boone to call him anything different given no schooling  . . . Columbus after all called them Indians because they looked the part of Asian sub-continentals, also see American Pepper vs. Black Pepper the Indian vine--the other Indian not Aztec Indian.  Confused?  So may have been Daniel Boone ;-). Marketdiamond (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- if you had seen the actual TV episode in question, you would have probably found it rather laughable, as I did, since it showed a self-identifying Aztec prince (dressed suitably according to Hollywood ideas) traveling a long way to seek out Daniel Boone. In any case, the Aztecs did not actually become politically prominent until ca. 1428, and Kentucky is far out of the range of the Uto-Aztecan languages... AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything about deserters in "the treaty". Jay intended for Jay's Treaty to include a negotiated end to this practice, but was unsuccessful, according to our article. The legal argument the British used was that the empire did not recognize the right of its own subjects to become citizens of another country. Therefore, anyone who was ever a British subject was always a subject to British law, including those born in the Colonies prior to the Treaty of Paris (but yes, they did have an awful false positive rate, and impressed many sailors who had never been British subjects). The issue was ignored even in the Treaty of Ghent (Treaty of Ghent). The British never officially reversed their legal opinion on the matter, but the practice stopped after the War of 1812, or so says this unreferenced section. Anyway, on that basis, the TV show made it up. The United States never endorsed the practice of impressment (be it as a matter of drafting subjects or recovering deserters). The British believed they had a legal argument, but it was not based on any treaty. And their legal argument didn't extend to invading sovereign territory to recover deserters. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful links. Maybe I missed in my haphazard viewing some allegation of murder, if for instance the fugitive was accused of participation in a mutiny, which might require turning the offender over, per article 27 of Jay's Treaty, approved 1796, as opposed to simply deserting peacefully from a ship. Edison (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * At the time of the U.S. Civil War, it was pointed out that the British position with respect to the Trent Affair was 180° diametrically opposed to the British position in 1812... AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As was the American position. It should not surprise us that this change in position occurred... opinions about stopping and searching neutral shipping during wars usually depend on who is the searcher and who is the searchee (the searcher feels it is justified, the searchee does not). Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)