Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 April 1

= April 1 =

Can anyone get a better, original source for the newly discovered Etruscan-language slab?
FLORENCE, Italy, March 31 (UPI) — A 500-pound slab of sandstone recently unearthed in Italy after 2,500 years underground might offer valuable new insight into Etruscan history and the lives experienced by members of the ancient civilization, scientists said Thursday. from http://www.breitbart.com/news/archaeologists-hope-mysterious-2500-year-old-italian-slab-illuminates-ancient-society/

Thanks, μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the original report release from Southern Methodist University: "The stele was officially reported during a scientific exhibit of the Tuscan Archaeological Superintendency starting March 19, 'Shadow of the Etruscans,' in Prato, Italy." No peer-reviewed article in an academic journal yet; I imagine that will take 18 months or so, after the stele has underwent photogrammetry and laser scanning. Neutralitytalk 05:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note also that this new find is from Poggio Colla - our article needs to be updated accordingly, I think. Neutralitytalk 05:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources say different things, what to do?
Greetings reference desk!

I'm currently working on an article about Bettisia Gozzadini on da-wiki. Gozzadini was a professor of Law at Bologna university in the thirteenth century. The problem I've run into is that multiple reputable sources have a different variation of her lifespan. The paper Women in Italian astronomy claims her lifespan was from 1209-1261 which is also the years listed on her en-wiki page. But other works such as The Anatomy of Difference: Race and Sex in Eighteenth-Century Science claims that she was teaching law as late as 1296 (without specifying what they think her lifespan was) which obviously doesn't match up. The 1296 date is also written in The mind has no sex?: Women in the origins of modern science., also without specifying a birth and death date.

This is all I've been able to dig up so far using Google Scholar and a trial-JSTOR account, I was wondering if any of you source wizards know of some historical documentation or something else that can clarify this. One of my sources has to be wrong.

Best Regards, InsaneHacker (&#128490;) 06:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Explicit citation is usually the way to handle it. You can either put both facts down, with cites for each, and just leave it at that, or you can name the sources directly, especially where the sources themselves are recognizable experts in the field.  In this case, I think the former is sufficient, put her life-span years in twice, stating "XXXX-YYYY" (cite 1) or "XXXX-YYYY" (cite 2) or something like that.  -- Jayron 32 11:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you have a typo. I find 752 years old to be outside the normal range of a human lifespan.  -- Jayron 32 11:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't catch that. Thanks for the advice. Best Regards, InsaneHacker (&#128490;) 13:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

What happened to London in 1784?
I am working on translating some content about the history of the City of London into Chinese Wikipedia. The Chinese language article on the City of London currently claims that, in 1784, Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger granted the City of London autonomy. I can't find anything that suggests this is true, and 1784 in Great Britain mentions nothing of the sort, but want to check whether it is an erroneous statement of something significant that should be in the article. Did anything change with respect to the governance of London / Middlesex / City of London in 1784? Or at another point during the prime ministership of Pitt the Younger? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Someone has mistranslated, or misunderstood. In 1784 William Pitt was granted the Freedom of the City of London - meaning that he was honoured by the administration of the City, not that he gave any extra powers or rights to the City. It is mentioned in the article about William Pitt the Younger 217.44.50.87 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that must be it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this sounds like a bad machine translation. It was the CITY granting an honor to Pitt (not the other way around) and it was a specific honor called a Freedom of the City.  You might want to clean that up.  -- Jayron 32 15:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clues: also found the same error in the Chinese language version of William Pitt the Younger. Will clean both up. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note the date on this article, which is to similar effect. London independence is not beyond the bounds of credibility. Tevildo (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We've had that for a long time, at least in the City. The Queen still has to stop at Temple Bar before she's allowed in. Alansplodge (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction, our article says that is "incorrect" but she does always stop there anyway. Alansplodge (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Phew, for a moment there I thought you meant Temple Bar in Dublin. :) KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 15:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

People who have served in all three branches of a U.S. state government
We have a list of people who have served in all three branches of the United States federal government, but as of yet no equivalent list of people who have served in all three branches of a state government (i.e., in the executive branch (as governor or in some other position), in the state legislature, and as a state judge).

I've identified (see User:Neutrality/workshop12) seven people who qualify - Thomas W. Bartley, Charles Harold Haden II, Ted Kulongoski, Dan K. Moore, C. William O'Neill, Samuel L. Southard, and George A. Wilson. There must be others - does anyone have any idea who I am missing? Neutralitytalk 14:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are likely hundreds or thousands if spread across the whole U.S. I'm not saying this isn't a worthwhile project, but you'd want to do this on a state-by-state basis, for each state.  -- Jayron 32 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Found others North Carolina (to go with Dan K. Moore above):


 * I. Beverly Lake, served as Deputy Attorney General (Executive), State Senator (Legislative) and State Supreme Court justice (judicial) struck due to qualifications you listed below after I found it.
 * J. Frank Huskins, served as chairmen of the State Industry Commission (E), State Rep (L), and State Supreme Court (J).
 * James Iredell, Jr., served as Governor (E) State House of Commons (L), and Superior Court judge (J)
 * Lacy Thornburg, served as Attorney General (E), State House of Rep (L), and State Superior Court (J)
 * Daniel Lindsay Russell, Governor (E), State House of Commons (L), State Superior Court (J)
 * Daniel Gould Fowle, Governor (E), State House of Commons (L), State Superior Court (J)
 * David Lowry Swain, Governor (E), State House of Commons (L), State Superior Court (J)
 * David Stone (politician), Governor (E), State House of Commons (L), State Superior Court (J)
 * Samuel Ashe (North Carolina governor), Governor (E), State Senate (L), State Superior Court (J)
 * Samuel Johnston, Governor (E), various Colonial legislatures (L) (if you count that), State Superior Court (J)
 * Alfred Moore Attorney General (E), State General Assembly (L), State Superior Court (also later U.S. Supreme Court) (J)
 * Romulus Mitchell Saunders Attorney General (E), State House of Commons (L), State Superior Court (J)


 * Still looking for more. Will update periodically.  -- Jayron 32 15:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For executive branch, I would probably limit to high-level positions: so anything elected + top-level appointments (Cabinet, agency heads, state commissions, etc.) So I would exclude those people whose executive service was only being a deputy/assistant attorney general. (Sandra Day O'Connor would fall under this category: she was in the Arizona Senate, served as an Arizona state judge, and was an assistant AG). Neutralitytalk 15:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Found another - Forrest H. Anderson of Montana. Neutralitytalk 16:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's one for your Illinois list: James Shields (politician, born 1810). Besides being the only person to serve as a U.S. senator for 3 states, within Illinois he also served as State Auditor (E), in the Illinois State House of Reps (L) and in the Illinois Supreme Court (J).  -- Jayron 32 18:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Was James Iredell, Jr. a state judge? I see that James Jr. served in the state House of Commons and was governor; and that James Iredell, Sr. was a state judge and Attorney General of North Carolina, but I don't think that either father or son served in all three branches. Neutralitytalk 19:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Has anyone managed to do the three different branches, but each in a different state? DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sam Houston hit two branches in two different states. It would be rare indeed for someone to get three.  -- Jayron 32 18:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Salmon P. Chase is my favorite [Federal] example: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, US Senator, Secretary of the Treasury, Governor of Ohio and the face on the US$1 and later the US$10,000 bills.DOR (HK) (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

City as center of affluence or poverty
It seems that in America, the city has "inner-city people", which are very poor. But in China, the city dwellers are more affluent and westernized (fast food and etc.). Why is this so? Why are American inner-city people poor? 140.254.70.25 (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think your premise is incorrect. Chinese cites have plenty of poor. And many American cities have plenty of rich, especially with modern gentrification. Urban poverty in the U.S. is mostly centered in post-industrial cities where most of the jobs have left, e.g. in the Rust Belt. I'm not sure why you seem to be linking fast food to affluence, as fast food is usually cheap and unhealthy food; the poor consuming fast food regularly has been cited as a factor in the increasing rates of diabetes and obesity in the U.S. Now there is a rural-urban economic divide in China, with urban areas being, on average, wealthier than rural areas, but this is true of many countries. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, while the poorest people in the US can afford fast food, the poorest people in the third world can't. You would think that would improve their health, but they may suffer from malnutrition from not getting enough nutrients. StuRat (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There seems to have been a decision made in the US to have the wealthy and middle-class people move out of cites and into the suburbs, after WW2. I imagine this was done for economic development (building and selling lots of new houses) as well as out of racism (setting up all-white suburban communities).  The mechanisms to get them to move included:


 * 1) The GI Bill, which provided low interest loans to those wanting to move to the suburbs (as long as they were white).


 * 2) Inexpensive cars built right here in Detroit (ironic since Detroit has suffered greatly from white flight).


 * 3) A superhighway system to get you where you wanted to go quickly.


 * 4) Cheap oil to provide cheap gasoline. This involved becoming allies with some rather anti-democratic governments with poor human rights records, but lots of oil, like Saudi Arabia.


 * So, once most the rich and middle-class people leave, the city no longer has the tax base to support itself, so abandoned homes are left to decay, street lights aren't repaired after the copper wire is stolen by scrappers, the schools go without maintenance, the police and ambulances don't come when called, etc. And it's a vicious cycle, because nobody wants to move into such an area.


 * As mentioned above, gentrification has the potential to reverse this trend. Rich, usually white people can move into a poor area, cheaply, displacing all the poor people there, then change the area to be nice again.  Not exactly good news for those poor people, either.  StuRat (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Citation needed for the claim that "there seems to have been a decision" for this migration to happen, as opposed to it being an accidental consequence of economic factors. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's some proof that blacks were systematically denied mortgages (which were of course needed by most to buy homes in the suburbs): . StuRat (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I should also mention that, at the beginning of history, cities were the center of affluence, while poor people had to live out beyond the city gates, where they were unprotected from attackers. ("Civilized" originally meant "having the attributes of a city dweller".) StuRat (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The original question has been extensively studied in the context of urban geography, specifically urban historical geography and urban morphology. Unfortunately, Wikipedia only has very poor articles about those areas of study, but chapter 9 of this book will give some leads.  Essentially, my over-simplified understanding (based on my half-forgotten studies of several decades ago) is that, at relatively early stages of industrialization, prosperity tends to be concentrated in trading centres (i.e. cities), but as they become increasingly congested and unattractive, and if transport to those centres is less important an issue (or is actively addressed by new highways, etc., and telecommunications technology), more affluent people over time tend to move back out to quieter, less densely populated and more environmentally attractive areas such as suburbs and rural areas - leaving poorer people behind.   Of course, differences in government policy are also a major factor in determining land uses.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The opposite is gentrification, when the wealthy move back into formerly-deprived inner-city areas, displacing those on low incomes. You can't please all the people all the time. Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I've just seen that already linked at the top of the thread. Alansplodge (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * With regard to the US, see white flight (the dispersal of the relatively prosperous from the inner city to the suburbs) and redlining (the denial of services to certain, mainly black, areas). A blog I've found eye-opening is Granola Shotgun, "stories about urbanism, adaptation, and resilience". For a non-US perspective, see how France, and especially Paris, has relegated poor immigrant communities to the periphery, la banlieue, which has an entirely different connotation than the North American "suburb". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, just about every society has different places for poor and rich people to live, also often split up by ethnicity/race/religion. The US may be unique, though, in deciding to keep the poor people in the cities.  Why was this decision made ?  It may have to do with migrations of poor people, often blacks, from the rural South to cities to work in factories, from the early 20th century through WW2, where they were needed for building the "Arsenal of Democracy".  After WW2, there was no legal way to evict them, and returning WW2 vets didn't want to live among poor blacks, so moving out to all-white suburbs seems to have been the solution. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * China is a big country with a fairly significant disparity between different cities. Different Chinese cities are also at different stages of demographic change. Many of the largest metropolises went through a period in the last couple of decades when those who could afford it bought bigger homes in the suburbs, leaving only poorer residents living in cramped conditions in the city centre. This has changed more recently, with intensive urban renewal or redevelopment in the city centre driving out those residents in favour of the even-richer who can afford to buy the very expensive new apartments or renovated houses in the city centre.
 * Smaller cities are experiencing a different sort of change: population is declining in many rural areas, and former farmers are moving into regional cities because of job opportunities, or simply because they can afford to after their farmland is acquired by the government or developers. Many of these regional cities are rapidly developing, so they are at a very different stage of development to the metropolises. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Research origin of a signet fingerring or seal
I am trying to identify the origin and/or use of a signet ring or seal ring. The only background information I have is that it is European & pre-WWII. The ring is a reverse image so believe it is a wax stamp or seal. The image itself is outlined by a shield. Inside the shield the image is of a vertical broad sword sword with the grip to the bottom. In the tip of the handle is an Iron or Maltese cross. At the top of the sword blade is superimposed an edelweiss flower. Over the entire motif there is a large letter "S" that covers the length of the sword from the handle to the tip of the sword. The "S" is reversed. I would be interested in any assistance that might be offered and I thank all in advance for time spent on behalf of my request. Cldaf1945 (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you already know most of what they were used for (to press into wax to leave a "signature"). That wax could be on a document or used to seal an envelope.  This was supposed to ensure that the person you think wrote the letter really did.  The wax seal would also make it tamper-evident.  Since anyone getting hold of the seal could forge documents in your name, it was important to keep it on you, hence the ring form.  The history goes way back, with the Sumerians using a cuneiform cylinder necklace they rolled onto clay tablets to leave their "signature".  StuRat (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * PS: On rereading this Q, I get the impression you are more interesting in the origin of this particular seal ? Is that the case ? StuRat (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Like this one? I think it almost certainly has a military connection. This website shows some of the variety of rings worn by Second World War German servicemen, displaying the emblems of corps, divisions, or designs to commemorate particular campaigns or battles. The edelweiss was the emblem of the German mountain troops or Gebirgsjäger but what the "S" stands for eludes me. Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've just seen on that eBay link a caption in small text which says: "signet ring of special unit Brandenburger z.b.V Canaris 20mm". The Brandenburgers were the special forces regiment under the direct control of the Abwehr, the Nazi German intelligence agency which was commanded by Admiral Canaris. Given the small size of that prestigious unit, I think its quite likely that your ring is a reproduction, since original artefacts are highly sought after by those with an interest in that sort of thing. Alansplodge (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's another one! Alansplodge (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Love the disclaimers, including no returns and no guarantee of originality. Sounds like it's made in China and he knows it.  BTW, he doesn't seem to know it's a signet ring, based on the description. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * China? I would guess Germany. But yeah, its totally fake. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good find, but the Germans probably get them made in China. Alansplodge (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * At first that is what I thought too. But then I noticed that this guy has "art" in his username. His website says: "Nach Idee, Logo, Bild, oder Vorlage." so I think he actually designs them himself. It probably wouldn't be very cost effective to have a single custom ring designed in Germany and produced in China. There is a chance that he outsources work to China to produce them, but it seems to be a one man operation of someone who makes the designs himself so I wouldn't be surprised if he produces them too. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if German soldiers actually wore rings like this. In the UK in the 1940s, rings were considered rather effeminate or at least effete, according to my father, who never wore a ring in his life, not even a wedding ring. Alansplodge (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See (for example) SS-Ehrenring. Reminds me of this sketch. This page contains the text: "...there are many photos that show SS Officers TK rings being worn on both right and left hand ring fingers both with skull facing towards and away from them. So, it looks like the regulations were clear but not always followed.". In this context TK means TotenKopf, meaning skull, literal translation Death's Head. Bizarrely that page also says: "Wear the ring with honor!"... I don't really understand why people wear jewelry in the first place, I've never felt the need to wear any, but I especially don't understand why people would wear this kind of jewelry. This page contains the text: "The SS Honor Ring is perhaps one of the most sought after items from World War 2. It is also one of the most Copied and Faked items in the Militaria Collecting world. An original ring can bring upwards of $10,000 dollars.". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)