Humanities desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 19[edit]

Hawaiian constitution[edit]

Who authored the 1840 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked around but found nothing. Google books may have it. It definitely sounds like a missionary, probably British and protestant from the way it reads. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books indeed. Apparently William Richards was the main author: [1], [2]. And yes, he was a missionary. But from the New rather than the Old England. Pfly (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, I have 3/4 of the accuracy of google books and am only 1/4 the price! μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew Richard had something to do with it, but did any Hawaiians contribute to the constitution. The 1839 Bill of Rights of Hawaii were written by Hawaiians.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a slightly different question. That level of info didn't turn up in my (very rapid) searching I'm afraid. Pfly (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor in Honolulu[edit]

What is the difference between Honolulu Harbor and Pearl Harbor? Why was one historically used before the other?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are physically distinct harbors located in different geographical locations. Our article on Pearl Harbor indicates that it was not suitable as a deep-water port until 1869, when the shallow approach was dredged to allow for larger vessels. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honolulu Harbor is the main harbor for Oahu. It has been for hundreds of years. Pearl Harbor was a minor harbor used by small trading ships. During a time of much conflict between Hawaii and various naval forces from England, France, and the U.S., King Kalākaua gave the U.S. exclusive rights to Pearl Harbor, making it a reasonable choice as a permanent naval port for the U.S. Navy. Honolulu Harbor is not exclusive to the U.S., so it is not a good choice as a port for the U.S. Navy. -- kainaw ™ 12:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruler from birth to death[edit]

John I of France was king from birth to death, as he was born to a deceased king who had had no sons. Are there any other cases of rulers who ascended the moment they were born and reigned until death? Alfonso XIII of Spain was also born posthumously and became king upon his birth but was deposed ten years before his death so he does not count. Surtsicna (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely. There are quite a few names listed at Posthumous birth#Royalty and nobility so you would just need to check each of their status at death.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For kings specifically, our list only has a few others, Shapur II, Chlothar II, and Sebastian of Portugal. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian of Portugal wasn't born king, although he was born posthumously, because his father (who was only 16 at the time!) died while still heir to the throne. Sebastian didn't become king until he was three, when his grandfather died. Pais (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That seems to leave us with Shapur II of Persia, Chlothar II of Neustria and John I of France, if counting only kings. William IV and William III were both born sovereign princes of Orange, while Theobald IV was born count of Orange. Surtsicna (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange[edit]

The Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange mystifies me. According to the article, it is extremely popular in Israel, with 79% of the population supporting! Yet it involves the release of people who received multiple life sentences for committing heinous crimes, who are going right out to celebrations of their cause. I remember in decades past hearing of Israel as being praised for being unyielding with terrorists, storming planes with troops when the U.S. (in the 70s-80s) might have let them take off for some destination. I just don't understand why even one Israeli could see this as a good deal, let alone most of them. Is there some factor that can explain this? Wnt (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1000 for 1 has a symbolic value of 1000 of yours is worth 1 of ours and there seem to be a policy of "no soldier left behind" at place. Add to that that even those murderers got their 10+ years in prison. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a YNet article about many foreign people trying to understand this. [3] As was said, the mere fact that military service is compulsory (and most kids do it gladly), means that Gilad could be anyone's kid next. That's how many Israelis saw it, and so many Israelis sympathised. Hell, I worry about my gf being abducted from time to time (though she thankfully doesn't work at any shitty border posts). As my Hebrew teacher said, there was probably not one Israeli Jew who didn't want Gilad back, but many people who lost family were none-to-pleased with handing back 1.027 prisoners, some of whom were convicted of murder. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One way to look at it is that Palestine now has a thousand extra violent criminals walking free among them, and Israel is now paying the expenses for 1,000 fewer bodies in their prisons. Looks like a winner! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but they will be and are being treated as kings at home. No less than 250.000 people did show up to greet them in Gaza, and as long as they keep their noses clean, they're safe to live their lives normally again. If not, I trust my gf to deal with them. ;) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 18:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball: Not every one was released to Gaza/West Bank. Not every one was a violent criminal. Some were only awaiting trial. Some were deported to Jordan and Egypt.88.8.75.87 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M'yes, there was an interesting breakdown of them. It's also only less than halfway done, they only released the first 470 or so. Some were released in E. J'lem, some in the West Bank, and some were deported or prohibited for X number of years from re-entering the West Bank (a select few are banned for life). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 18:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to say that when the pendulum swings, it often swings far in the other direction, but I hope that secret negotiations arrived at this for a long lasting peace accord, maybe a two state solution or allowing Palestine in the UN, or not wasting money fighting a land war in Asia, or shrinking the military industrial complex, who knows? Maybe it is to make up for the imbalance in deaths. Dualus (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's time to kill some innocents to even the score? Where is the outrage from the usual suspects? μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could this please not become an Israel-Palestine debate? Those are worse than annoying (most net drama is, if not done for trolling). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 20:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is convicted as a violent criminal is sometimes a function of who appoints the judges and controls the courts. It has not been possible, for instance, for the Palestinians to try any Israeli person who is suspected of having killed Palestinians outside the rules of war. Edison (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm feeling, unspoken, from these responses is that although the Palestinians are spoken of and convicted as terrorists, nonetheless there is some sense that they are POWs - i.e. even though they killed many Israelis, there doesn't seem to be a sense that the moment these people get out, that they're going to start up killing more Israelis on their own; rather, that whether Israelis are killed depends on some high-level command decision, and if that happens anyone might do it. Is that a correct inference? Wnt (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vocalisation done during a celebration in Arab and Arab-influenced cultures[edit]

So I was watching Turn left at the end of the world (an Israeli film), and I noticed that the Morroccan Jews, when celebrating made a vocalisation that I have seen in Arab cultures during celebrations; it is a sound that seems to go something like ay-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi. What is the name of this? Also, how does one vocalise this? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ululation? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it (after using YouTube, oww my ears). Uh-l'-l'-l'-l'-l'-l' probably would have been a better way to characterise the sound. (I don't know the IPA) Still not sure how to vocalise that sound though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep practicing. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Practicing does not help if one cannot figure out how to properly use their tongue for this exercise. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google knows --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know, sometimes the simplest answer is the best. xD Thanks!

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 23:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three cheers for William of Okham! Alansplodge (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting citizenship by parliament vote?[edit]

I read the article about Bobby Fischer which got an Icelandic citizenship when Iceland's parliament voted in march 2005 to give Bobby full citizenship. How many other people have short cut the normal immigration procedures by having the country parliament to "vote them in" ? Electron9 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recently repatriated Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit has a whole bunch of them. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a source on that? I know he has dual Israeli-French citizenship, however, I don't have any evidence that he got it through some special procedure. What he got was a bunch of honorary citizenships of cities around the world, but those are not real citizenships. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, when I read that article earlier today, I was a little confused about what the difference between an honorary citizenship and a normal citizenship would be, in terms of practicalities. If, as in the case of Fischer, Shalit got into some trouble and had to take refuge in one of these cities, would they allow him, as being a citizen? Or would they take him as a refugee (or deny him entry rights, as the case may be)? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's only honorary (=symbolic), it's like a PhD honoris causa, not indeed real. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the cities are in the US, and as far as I know there is no such thing in the US as citizenship in a city, so honorary is all it can possibly be. Citizenship in states is mentioned in the 14th amendment, so it has some sort of legal existence, but very limited -- your home state can tax you on your income in another state, for example, but I don't think it can ordinarily apply its law extraterritorially to what you do in another state. --Trovatore (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: I ask myself what Shalit did to get the honorary citizenships. He was necessarily a passive element and he definitely didn't do anything to these cities. 88.8.75.87 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US Congress can and does grant citizenship by statute such as the 1924 act unambiguously granting citizenship to all American Indians and the 1949 act giving citizenship to Puerto Ricans. Congress has also granted citizenship posthumously. I haven't been able to find evidence for individual living persons in the US, but would assume it has happened. μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congress can grant citizenship through a private bill. See [4]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can make someone an Honorary citizen of the United States also, but that's apparently just a sort of award. Interestingly, apparently they can also declare someone a natural-born-citizen, and this has been done at least once -- you'd think that you'd have be born in the USA to be a "natural-born-citizen", but apparently this is not necessarily true. It is true that a private bill can make someone a citizen, and apparently they mooted doing this for Elián González but didn't. Herostratus (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we've discussed here many times, one doesn't necessarily have to be born in the USA to be a natural-born citizen. As long as at least one parent is a US citizen, a baby is born an American citizen no matter where in the world the birth occurs. To need to be specially declared a natural-born citizen, one would have to have been born outside the USA and to parents neither of whom was a US citizen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the case now but has not always been, it is a matter of statute not the Constitution. μηδείς (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the "natural-born" part affects only one thing, which is one's eligibility to serve as president (and by extension vice-president). And in that regard, I don't believe the question has ever been fully tested. To me Jack's interpretation seems natural, but it cannot be regarded as a matter of settled law. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my girlfriend was born in Israel, but she is a dual citizen of Israel and Norway ever since birth (I suspect that her mother was born in Norway, but I've never asked). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 03:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]