Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 January 22

= January 22 =

FAMOUS PAINTINGS
I am in possession of a painting which depicts a beautiful landscape with no animal forms whatsoever,nor humans. Mountains, trees, a blue brook,and three huts clustered together, blue sky, some white clouds. I tired of searching its origin, it is signed "by young" and under the name two digits "76". I could not find this artist's identity. the thought came as to wether the "76" digits might stand for the year 1876 as I could not find anything covering the 1900's. this painting was under another painting108.94.177.87 (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly, without further information, we have no way of knowing whether the digits indicate 1786, 1876, 1976, or something else entirely - and Young is a very common name. Why do you describe the paintings as 'famous'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * When you say that "this painting was under another painting" do you mean that the topmost painting had to be removed to find the painting that you are describing? How do you know that painting was under another painting"? Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You could try to photograph the painting, and use TinEye or reverse image search on google. If it really is a famous work, it might have been photographed in the past, and might even be available online. Even if it has not been photographed prior, you could still post it here. Some people can identify periods and artists by style, even for novel paintings. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And some here would be capable of doing the same. You might start by providing some basic details - where did you get it, what painting was "on top" (style, form, media, etc), what type of frame does it have, how was the top painting removed (was the "bottom" one simply a backing in the same frame or were they on the same canvas and the "top" painting was removed) and is there anything on the back by way of merchant's stamps, signatures, codes or numbers, letters or words, or labels. Often, these things are fairly easy to narrow down from there, at least in terms of style, era and nationality. If non-famous, locating an artist might be more difficult. If you genuinely believe it to be worth something and you have the money to find out, many good auction houses can be commissioned to undertake the above research for you.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Could it be Harvey Otis Young (American, 1840 - 1901)? Rodolph (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the "by" in the signature is rather unusual, and might be useful in identification. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha! Yes, I suspect that tells us a lot. Well spotted.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It might tell us that Young's first two initials were B.Y. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Medicaid expansion in PA without legislative approval?
This article says, that the new Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf does not need legislative approval to expand medicaid. Why doesn't he need it while other states do need a law for this? Is PA the only state were the chief executive can do this? --62.153.225.50 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Harvard in-text citation
If I am referencing multiple single words in a sentence (that come from the same source, but on different pages), do I just put a generic reference at the end? E.g., (Name, date). What do I do if I do the same thing again later in the same paragraph? Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on this! 213.106.130.210 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: This is for a poem being referenced in an essay. I might have actually discovered the answer. Do I put "(l. 1)", "(l. 2)", etc., at the end of every quote? 213.106.130.210 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Do Muslim converts and Hare Krishna adherents have to choose Arabic and Indian names?
Do they have to choose new names or do these names merely represent ordination? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the Hare Krishna movement, but Muslims don't need to have Arabic names. Some converts to Islam do choose a new (usually Arabic) name in order to show their commitment or to symbolize that they are living a new life as a Muslim, but that's purely a matter of personal preference. - Lindert (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those who become initiated members of ISKCON, the Hare Krishnas, are given names by the guru doing the initiation, but the name chosen is one of the guru's choice, and not necessarily one chosen by the individual themselves. A lot like Western Christian baptism, actually. I know I would never have chosen my own given names (first and middle) if I had had that choice, which is one of the many reasons I claim to be a fictional character created by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The others included a desire for anonymity and a strong tendency toward delusionalism coupled with a really, really weak grasp of objective reality. ;) John Carter (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do I now have the image of John Belushi, dressed in a saffron robe, and saying: "Dorfman... your Hare Krishna name is... Flounder" :)  Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, Shaquille O'Neal is not an Arabic name. . -- Jayron 32 00:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean like Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) or Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay), right? No, there is no obligation for them to have changed their names - it was a choice. This section of the latter's article provides some context to his conversion and change-of-name. Elijah Muhammad, for example, only ever changed his last name. He retained "Elijah", having been born Elijah Poole, when he joined (and later led) the Nation of Islam.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Elijah Muhammad had his last name changed twice. First time to Karriem then to Muhammad. Also there was little need to change his first as it was already a semi-Islamic name, Elijah. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly right; the point was that he was free to change it (or not) the first and the second times.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth remembering that various non converts don't even use Arabic or Arabic derived names. Some Indonesian names for example and some Bosniak names. (I also wonder what names Western, Central or Northern European Muslims who's ancestors were Muslims for several generations usually have.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What would be the name of both choices?
Imagine USA merge with russia. (could be any country with any country)

Wikipedia says there are 193 UN member states on earth. This includes russia and USA. (this info is used to make my question more clear)

This can be done in 2 ways:

1-They decide to merge themselfs. UN has now 192 members states, this excludes russia and USA, but include the now existant country X.

2-USA is merged with russia. UN has now 192 members states, this excludes USA.

1 and 2 are different things that sound the same. WHat is the name for each one of those "happenings"? 201.78.152.131 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Amerika (TV miniseries) depicted a merger, of sorts. Not sure if they mentioned the UN, though. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted 2 different things, there if one of both (or an third one I am not thinking about) happened on this amerika tv series you talk about and was called merge I need to know the name of the other.


 * I don't think there are specific names for the different options you list. (Update, looks like there are some good phrases at least below) I see this as an issue of Sovereignty, and how we construe continuity of identity when parts of a system change (in the sense of Identity_(philosophy)). In your first case, USA and RU cease to exist (i.e. Dissolution_(law)), cease to have sovereignty, and a new sovereignty is formed, with a new identity. In the second case, the sovereignty and identity of RU remains the same. RU has acquired territory, and USA ceases to exist. This is basically a question about the ontology of the UN's member states and sovereignty. There may be extant UN policy on the matter, but I wouldn't bet on it. I'm happy to see we have a decent but short article titled Identity_and_change :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You would be able to see more clearly the choices by looking at 2 areas that were in the distant past countries X and Y, but now are part of country Z (that dont have other areas), or then looking at 2 areas that were in the distant past countries X and Y, but now are part of country X.201.78.152.131 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The article Timeline of country and capital changes offers some terminology. Examples *"The Republic of Crimea accedes to the Russian Federation." *"The United Kingdom transfers sovereignty of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China." *"The German Democratic Republic merges into the Federal Republic of Germany." Taknaran (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Edit to add a potential example of your situation 1: *"The Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania unite to form the Commonwealth of the Crown of the Polish Kingdom and Grand Duchy of Lithuania."


 * The types of union are covered in the political union article. Case 1 would be a "incorporating union", whereas case 2 would be an "incorporating annexation". There's also federation/confederation, where the the original states are preserved as sub-jurisdictions with varying degrees of retained sovereignty, as well as a host of sui generis cases. There's also a personal union, where they stay legally separate, but are simply ruled by the same person(s). As a side note, in the business world, the terms are mergers and acquisitions, where mergers are the coming together of two equals, whereas acquisitions are one company taking over another. Another side note is that the UN has already dealt with the reverse case. When the USSR broke up, there were a number of new member states. One issue was that the USSR was a permanent member of the security council, so what happens to that seat now that the USSR is no longer? As things shook out, Russia took over the USSR's spot on the UN security council, and all the other portions of the USSR just became regular member states. As our USSR article notes "The Russian Federation (formerly the Russian SFSR) assumed the Soviet Union's rights and obligations and is recognized as its continued legal personality." In contrast, when Yugoslavia divided, it ended, and none of the component countries continued its legal personality. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So there are some good terms to distinguish these cases, thanks! SemanticMantis (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the corporate world, this would be the difference between a merger and a takeover. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If the SciFi author Jerry Pournelle is correct, it will be called: the CoDominium. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The usual term is "union"; see the Treaty of Union in 1706 for example. Churchill proposed an "indissoluble union" between the UK and France in 1940, but the French decided to ask the Germans for an armistice instead, doubtless to the relief of the civil servants who would have had to work out how to unite a monarchy with a republic. CoDominium is a bit too much like condominium when two or more countries jointly govern another territory. Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually not that impossible -- vide New Hebrides which lasted about 75 years as a condominium.   Collect (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Human microphone
I'm surprised that the human microphone was only invented in the late 20th century. How did people address large crowds before modernity? How did the Athenians speak to 6000 other citizens during their assemblies? Did they just scream and hope they don't lose their voice before finishing their speech? --2001:4898:80E0:ED43:0:0:0:2 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Voice projection, not screaming. Actors and singers on stage all knew about this.  I guess we've got used to seeing singers with their mouth and half their face covered by a mic, which is a terribly backward step, culturally speaking.  That's why I like to watch opera.  You can see every word (even if you can't understand a single word).  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect however, that in those very large crowds, the folks at the back didn't get to hear very much. The scene in Life of Brian where Brian is trying to make sense of the Sermon on the Mount ("Blessed are the cheesemakers?") probably contains a kernel of truth. Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Addressed them in a amphitheatre. Not much difference to a modern opera house were you can here every note -even at the very back.--Aspro (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's true. Otherwise, a fairly recent example of someone addressing crowds without amplification was Bernard Montgomery who liked to finish a formal troop inspection by jumping on the bonnet of his Jeep and calling the men forward for an informal pep-talk. The effect of these speeches is described here. However, a quick look at some archive footage (see General Montgomery Addressing Troops for example) suggests that the crowd of soldiers usually numbered hundreds rather than thousands. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Megaphone says they were definitely in use by 1655. I suspect even the ancients knew that they'd get a bit more projection by cupping their hands around their mouths. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * However, they are designed to project the voice farther in one direction, at the cost of reduced volume in other directions. Thus, they don't allow you to reach more people, unless those people are all in one direction from you, instead of all around you. StuRat (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The ancients knew acoustics pretty well. I visited Chichen Itza about a decade or so ago, back when they the let people climb all the way to the top of the Big Pyramid there.  The acoustics are pretty impressive.  My wife stayed at the bottom, and we could almost carry on a conversation in regular speaking voices, she could hear me from just about anywhere, and I wasn't shouting, and if she stood in the right places, I could hear her: the acoustics were just so that they entire complex was designed to focus sounds from the top of the pyramid to the ground below.  It was a pretty impressive thing to do.  The Great Ball Court also had similar effects, someone speaking at one end can be heard at the other.  These structures obviously were built to allow people to address great crowds.  -- Jayron 32 00:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In the Rome TV series public speakers are shown to make very specific gestures while talking, in a kind of simplified sign language. The gestures are reminiscent of gestures known from Roman sculptures, but I wonder if there is any other historical source suggesting or confirming that Romans actually used a system of gestures that would help listeners understand what a speaker was saying. — Kpalion(talk) 10:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Has An Article About Everything! See Chironomia. Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Anecdote alert: I was in a very large cathedral a month ago and got a text message from a friend. My notification ringtone, which is Stephen Fry shouting "Oh, for f**k's sake!", reverberated around the entire cathedral about 20 times. Everyone was looking around, thinking "Where the hell did that come from?" - these buildings we built in a style that helps project a voice. The cathedral in question was built in 1902. They didn't have microphones then.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  11:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, they did. The microphone was invented in 1877. However, amplification wasn't invented until 1906. LongHairedFop (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And amplification was poor quality early on, and probably expensive, too, so many would have skipped it. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Too bad the article's so short, but at least now I know what it's called. Thanks, Alansplodge! — Kpalion(talk) 17:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Town criers are a phenomenon that has survived untile recent times. The criers have a distinctive way of declamation and emphasis.  See the opening of the classic Spanish film La Colmena for a depiction from Spain in the 30's.  There's also the bullhorn. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Talmudic meturgeman, (also turgemana, amora), seems to sometimes have had a role in amplifying his master's speech. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 03:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Biographical information for a translator
This item at English Wikisource Lists a Katherine Miller as as Translator.

It would be nice to provide a biographical stub on Wikisource, but I've been unable to find anything on Google.

At the very least a rough idea of their lifespan and nationality would be appreciated.

The book is a 1919 translation of a work by Romain Rolland. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Checking the book's entry in the US Library of Congress online catalogue might have links to other works by this translator, after which I'd suggest contacting her publisher(s). Notable translators do have Wikipedia pages. Deborahjay (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)