Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 July 16

= July 16 =

What's the procedure for a province to break away from a turmoiled country and declare independence?
Let's say a country is in a turbulent and confused situation due to no functioning government, and one province wants to break away from this country. How can a province proceed to break away from this turmoiled country? What is the procedure and how can the United Nation acknowledge a break-away province as a separate, independent nation formally? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Usually it involves declaring war. Shadowjams (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe see Québec. No United Nations recognition as a state, but the Québécois are legally their own nation within their state. Further than any other province here has gotten. The federal government functions, but it's confused. There was something like a war, but not so bloody as many countries had. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very poor example; the federal government in Canada functions fine, even if one doesn't like its political direction. This is not what the OP was asking about. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for disappointing you, I guess? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's going to depend on the laws in that nation. However, many have no process for this, so they would have to make it up as they go along.  If the central government has broken down, though, it might be as simple as declaring independence.  That is, if there's no central government to oppose the separation, it will, de facto, become a reality.


 * As for the UN, I believe the UN Charter includes the right of self-determination. However, the devil is in the details.  That is, just how small of a portion of a nation has the right of self determination ?  Does a province ?  How about a city ?  A village ?  Or one family's house ?  StuRat (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If not war, it will surely involve declaring independence, at least. But the UN isn't going to admit a country unless that independence is recognized by a majority of the existing UN member countries, also including a majority of the 15 Security Council members and all 5 permanent Security Council members. And when there is turmoil in an area, they typically won't do that unless they think it benefits their own interests.  See Member states of the United Nations. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Some dude from the US state of Virginia declared himself King of North Sudan just recently. He's seriously asked Sudan and Egypt to stop disputing this large patch of desert and hand it over so his seven-year-old daughter can feel like a princess. He just put a flag down and claims that's good enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a big assumption is the bit 'one province wants to break away from this country'. How does anyone know that? In fact what will usually be the case if the political situation is turbulent is some faction wants to grab power and the people in the area are just terrorized by them. It is when the country is peaceful as a whole but there is trouble in one province that it is more likely that there is some actual problem and desire for independence there. Having someone declare independence is not the same as there being a real desire for independence or that being in any way good for the majority or even a wonderful idea for a minority. Dmcq (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It worked for The Baltic States in 1919 during the breakup of the Russian Empire; they declared independence and established themselves as autonomous republics. When the Soviet Union felt that they could act without foreign interference due to the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact they took them back again. The unfortunate people of those states had to wait until the Soviet empire began to fall apart in 1990 before they could stage the Singing Revolution. In the case of Lithuania, the government of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic passed an Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania on March 11 1991. After that, Western nations slowly began to recognize Lithuania as a sovereign state, starting with Iceland on 11 February 1991, UK on 26 August, the USA on 2 September and the Soviet Union themselves on 6 September. It became a member of the UN on 18 September 1991 and has since joined the EU and NATO in 2004. Alansplodge (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Those last were likely recognitions of the new government as the government of Lithuania. The USA and some other countries did not recognize Soviet control of the Baltics and recognized them as independent states throughout the Cold War era.John Z (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The official wording is: "The U.S. recognized the restoration of Lithuania’s independence on September 2, 1991, in an announcement by President George H.W. Bush." from A GUIDE TO THE UNITED STATES' HISTORY OF RECOGNITION, DIPLOMATIC, AND CONSULAR RELATIONS, BY COUNTRY, SINCE 1776: LITHUANIA. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Modern examples are Somaliland and Puntland, which have broken away from Somalia - surely the textbook example, for many years, of "a country.. in a turbulent and confused situation due to no functioning government". However, neither self-proclaimed state is recognised by any country or international organisation, and the two states have had some conflict with each other.  You would need to read the linked articles to get the background and details.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can a province split away from a communist, turmoiled country and form its own independent country? Is it possible or would it face a similar problem like Somaliland? 199.7.157.39 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Communist countries in practice tend to have strongly centralised administrative structures and military command, so "turmoil" would be less likely to be allowed to develop to the point where separatist movements can achieve their goals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Communist countries can descend into turmoil just like any other type - for the usual reasons. And provinces could break away in periods of chaos. There is no speacial Communist or non-Communist "procedure" other than the ability to make it stick by force, achieve internal stability, and seek international recognition. Paul B (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

George R. Carter
Can anybody help me find a book source about George R. Carter's resignation in 1905 as Governor of Hawaii? I assumed he changed his mind later on since he was governor till 1905, but there definitely seems to be a period where his resignation seems serious in 1905.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "June 23. — Gov. George R. Carter of the Territory of Hawaii, resigns office." (from Review of Reviews and World's Work, vol. 32 (1905), p. 158)
 * "July 24. — President Roosevelt declines to accept the resignation of Gov. George R. Carter, of Hawaii." (op. cit., p. 283). Moonraker (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Temporal solaces
I am reading Jeremy Taylor's The Rule and Exercises of Holy Living, which is a sort of self-help book from the 1650s. In the chapter about marriage and sex he mostly hints at things rather than saying them, but in one clause I am puzzled about what he's hinting at.


 * 5. A widow must forbid herself to use those temporal solaces, which in her former estate were innocent, but now are dangerous. (Context here; "sue" on that page is a copyist's error for "use".)

What kind of a "temporal solace" is permissible for married women but not widows? He can't be saying "don't go out and have casual sex", because he's already said that more directly. He presumably isn't talking about masturbation, because just above he says that widows shouldn't think happily about sex with their late husbands in case they become lustful. Any thoughts?


 * I suspect that this is not about sex but more about alcohol, socializing, and other such "temporal" (non-spiritual) sources of comfort. I don't think that sex would have been thought of as a "solace" in the 17th century.  Things like drinking or lighthearted interaction, particularly in the presence of males, might be "dangerous" to a widow because they might lead her to carnal desires for which she no longer has an "innocent" outlet (i.e. her husband). Marco polo (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In traditional European cultures, there was often a "merry widow" stereotype, because young widows were sexually experienced, under fewer social restrictions than unmarried young women, and sometimes in charge of wealth they had inherited and more or less in control of their own lives (as relatively few women were then). In the early 20th century, the merry widow stereotype gave way to the merry young divorcee stereotype (both of them pretty much defunct now)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't fathom the whole meaning here, which no doubt is deliberately obscure, but Marco polo seems to be on the right track, and I agree with him that the meaning of "temporal" is "non-spiritual" or "worldly", because that is how it was almost invariably used at the time. Moonraker (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Influence of EU membership on English law
Has English law experienced significant changes since the formation of the European Union, as a result of UK's membership in the EU? If the answer is yes, are there themes in the changes and what are the most significant specific changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.49.104 (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to . Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. CS Miller (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as English law. There is British law, and Welsh and Scottish law. See West Lothian question. And yes, I know I"m sort of ignoring NI here. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There certainly is such a thing as English law. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ... even though there is no such thing as purely English legislation. Legislation is not the sole source of law. —Tamfang (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really my field, but see if The effect of European Law helps. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If the OP is probably studying for an LLB Bachelor of Laws at a university in England or Wales, his question is properly phrased. The UK has been a member state of the EU since 1973, by referendum. In practice, English law has existed for perhaps 800 years. The law has always been changed incrementally; there has never been an overnight revolution in the law. The UK Constitution is partly written and uncodified. Other EU countries adopted new constitutions in one go; many have legal codes or at least criminal codes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.238.188 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if the crazy filter bot isn't going to let me finish giving this guy a bit of groundwork, it's my loss too. WP:DBN 92.25.238.188 (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is this?
is an overview of Sarajevo during the siege, circa 1994. Where was it taken? I'm trying (and failing) to figure out the building or mountaintop park (or whatever else) where the men are standing; at least two are Americans (Frank McCloskey, second from left, and the soldier at right), so it's possible that they're in a no-man's-land or in Serbian lines under some sort of flag of truce. The hill at left appears near the left of File:Sarajevo panorama.jpg, but the two are plainly taken from different angles. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In the panorama picture, look about 1/7 of the way in from the left, halfway down, and you see a white tower about 10 stories high standing on top of a lower base building and dominating its surroundings. If you look just to the right of that (as seen in the picture's perspective), there's a square 4-story building with a brown ground floor and yellow above, and a reddish roof that is not flat.  My theory is that the same two buildings are in the mystery picture just behind the head of the bearded man (third from the left), but the lower building is in front, so they're being seen from almost exactly the opposite direction.


 * Now, we know the panorama was taken from the Avaz Twist Tower, and the railway structure near the tower is easily picked out in Google Maps "satellite" imagery. Tracking along the streets from there, I think the white tower is the building at coordinates 43.8579,18.4117 and the lower building is at 43.857,18.4111.  Therefore if I have identified the buildings correctly, then in the mystery photo we are looking at them from the southwest.  I wondered if the location was Vraca Memorial Park, but in this photo taken in 2010 the high points of the background hills don't match well enough.  Still, it could be somewhere near there.  In particular, in the nearer range of hills, the shadowed valley behind the head of the second man from the left looks to me a lot like the one to the right of the highest sunlit hill near the top right corner of the 2010 photo. Some discrepancies in the buildings could of course be explained by construction and demolition over the years.


 * Or else I'm completely wrong.


 * --50.100.189.160 (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bicorn tapestry?
I have a sneaking suspicion that File:Bicorn-tapestry.jpg may be a fake (photoshopped or the like), not least because I can find no indication of a museum in Dresden that might plausibly be called the "Museum of Archeology" in English. Google searches for tapestry bicorn Dresden and the like are turning up nothing. It was uploaded to Commons by a user who has uploaded nothing other than another dubious image of a "bicorn" and who has made no edits to en.wp except to insert these images in and make some other suspicious edits to a previous version of our article Bicorn (monster). Can anyone help me prove (or can anyone disprove) that this was something created to support a hoax. Deor (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your suspicion should be heard. The uncropped unicorned original shows the Body of Saint Stephen being exposed to the beasts, one of the twelve tapestries of Tenture de l'histoire de Saint Etienne hanging in the Musée national du Moyen Âge (in Paris, not Dresden). ---Sluzzelin talk  20:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sluzzelin. Shame on me for not finding the St. Stephen image right here on WP. I'll nominate both the "bicorn" images for deletion on Commons. Deor (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Too late, Deor :-) Since Sluzzelin proved that it's a hoax, I've tagged the tapestry for deletion, but since the lithograph isn't necessarily a hoax, I've instead filed a DR.  Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And thanks to you, Nyttend. You caught me trying to figure out the process for filing a request for deletion at Commons (and trying to see if the "lithograph", which looks more like a woodcut to me, was also based on an image there). Deor (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for completeness (and for the opportunity to pose as the smartass I wish to be): I wasn't familiar with this particular work of art (though I love The Hunt of the Unicorn), but no artist of that time would have depicted two completely identical horns, whether Gaultier de Campes, to whom the ensemble has been attribued, or anyone else. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sluzzelin, I've even visited that museum in Paris—admittedly, about 40 years ago—but I failed to recall that particular tapestry, perhaps overcome by the stunning Dame à la licorne ones (and I'm a fan of the ones in the Cloisters, too). Though trained in medieval literature, rather than art, I certainly thought that the image seemed bogus. Your smartassery is much appreciated. Deor (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Deor, you're welcome. Filing a DR is really simple — just click the "Nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox to the left, a few lines below the link to Special:WhatLinksHere.  Type your rationale (include tildes, as it doesn't automatically sign for you) and hit "Proceed", and a script will create the DR, add it to the log, and notify the uploader.  Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How did the American concept of evangelicalism change from Lutheranism to conservative Protestant Christianity?
So, I was reading Martin E. Marty's book, "Lutheran Questions, Lutheran Answers", and in it, the author described how his family became Lutheran. A long time ago, his Swiss ancestor (great-grandfather) arrived to the United States and Reformed in theology. When choosing a church, he picked "Evangelical", probably thinking it was Reformed. As it turned out, it was Lutheran, and so from then on, his descendants - including the author of the book - was Lutheran. The narrative illustrates that early Americans recognized that "evangelical" meant "Lutheranism". How did the connotation of "evangelical" broaden to include conservative Protestant American right-wing voters? 140.254.136.176 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a background bit — note that "Evangelical" is in the names of many Lutheran churches. You really would do well (if you don't already have it) to gain an awareness of the general development of American Protestantism through the last few centuries; the explosive growth of Methodism, the rapid spread of the Baptists, and the rise of the Restoration movement in the early nineteenth century frontier changed the statistics greatly, causing American Christianity to have a strong Arminian flavor and much more like the evangelicals you're thinking of than the confessional Lutheran and Reformed churches.  Lutherans have never been a large percentage of the American Christian population, by the way.  Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Those groups have engaged in a lot of evangelization in the US, which would make evangelical a reasonable descriptive word for them and related groups. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, don't put the cart before the horse: Many American southerners are both evangelical and politically conservative, but those concepts are not necessarily related. Being a conservative evangelical is kinda like being a red apple.  Sure, some apples are red, but not all red fruit are apples, and not all apples are red.  That there are many red apples doesn't make appleness cause a fruit to be red, nor does redness cause a fruit to be an apple.  They are coincidentally correlated facts... There are many evangelical Christians who fall on the left side (some fairly far to the left) of the American political spectrum.  -- Jayron  32  22:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John Carter: "evangelical" isn't the adjectival form of "evangelism". At least, I'm sure some people informally use it that way, but in the names of churches it refers to evangelicalism, a quite different thing. Of course evangelicals evangelise, but so do most other kinds of Christian. Marnanel (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How common are Christian-to-Buddhist family conversions in the world?
I've read stories about entire Buddhist or Taoist families converting to Christianity. I am searching for stories about (multi-generational) Christian families that convert to Buddhism (that is, the whole family converts). 140.254.136.176 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While I am sure that did happen historically (the Nestorian church in China, and many former-Kirishitan families in Japan), I'm not sure there will be any stories. Christianity tends to be more individualist (Jesus told the disciples to reject their families if they did not join) and exclusive (what with the rather common belief in a permanent hell), while Buddhism doesn't exactly support individualism (as fixating on the self is considered problematic) and is usually more inclusive (since mistakes always can be solved in a later incarnation).  If a member of a Buddhist family converts to another religion, it's not too much of a problem.  If a member of a Christian family converts to another religion, it's going to cause some stress.  If a mostly Buddhist family has a member who hopes everyone will convert to some other religion, there's less reason to not go along for the sake of family harmony.  If a mostly Christian family has a member who hopes everyone will convert to some other religion, that's going to cause some conflict.  Christianity also tends to focus more on proselytism than Buddhism, and one claim enjoyed by many members of proselytizing religions is "we got a bunch of people to convert at the same time."  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * First, you need to define a "family". Then define what it means for a whole family to convert. If two parents convert, and then say that their five children aged under ten now believe in a different thing, to me, that's nonsense. A true religious belief cannot exist before the teenage years. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've always understood that Buddhism and religions are not mutually exclusive. One can be a Christian Buddhist or a Jewish Buddhist or an atheist Buddhist or whatever, so no "conversion" is necessary.  Is this understanding wrong?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing is wrong. It's  belief system, and there are no immutable laws of physics that say you cannot follow such a hybrid elief system.  See syncretism.   -- Jayron  32  23:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (e-c)That would depend I think on whether you define Buddhism as the basic teachings of Buddha hiself or as the religious system developed by his followers. Also, in some cases, where the "god" worshipped is not the omnipotent, omniscient, etc., monotheistic creator god, they might be more easily compatible, but the impersonal ultimate Nirvana and the personal ultimate god of monotheism are generally harder to make compatible, but I imagine there are groups which have at least tried to do so. I've heard of Jewish Buddhists too, but Judaism's status as an ethno-religious movement is as I remember involved there. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect this will be a swine to research due to the the many strains of Buddhism on the menu. The Theravada of Lanka and Thailand has drawn in many Europeans who have settled there, some of whom would describe themselves as Christians beforehand, often for want of a better description. Mahayana Buddhism has many flavours, including Zen, which actively proselytise in the West. This gives a fragmented database which I have not seen collected into the sort of research you are looking for. However, they are a helpful lot, and I suspect that a bit of Googling and a LOT of emails could give you a useful research paper. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

140.254.136.176 -- My hunch is that you should start with South Korea, a country where Buddhism and Christianity are the two main religions, where the culture places great importance on the family, and where sometimes people have been known to change religious affiliation depending on circumstances... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)