Humanities desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

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.

June 16[edit]

Where can I find religion data for British India for the time period between 1872 and 1947?[edit]

Where can I find religion data for British India for the time period between 1872 and 1947? Basically, I want to see how the Muslim-Hindu-other percentage composition changed in British India in its entirety as well as in various of its regions between 1872 and 1947. Futurist110 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a map at File:India religion map 1909 en.jpg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about for the whole of British India as well as for other years? Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could look through what early census data is available here and here to see if religious data is given. For context, our article Census of India prior to independence and especially the Religion section explains a bit why it may very well be inaccurate, though. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnasium (ancient Greece)[edit]

When did the Gymnasium (ancient Greece) or the practice of exercising in the nude decline? I assume during the late Roman period when Christianity was introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.22.17 (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roman attitudes toward nudity differed from those in ancient Greece. Some of this is explained at Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Male_nudity. I don't know when customs of gymnasial nudity declined in Greece. The article on history of nudity has a (largely unreferenced) subsection on Ancient Greece, but doesn't say. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This 1859 article suggests that the Romans were just too lazy: "The soldier of the early Republic was hence taught gymnastics only as a means of increasing his efficiency; the lax praetorian and the corrupt populace of the Empire turned gladly from the gymnasium to the circus and the amphitheatre... In the flourishing days of Attica, the gymnasium was in its perfection. It degenerated with the license of later times. It was absorbed and sunk in the fashions and vices of imperial Rome. Though Nero built a public gymnasium, and Roman gentlemen attached private ones to their country-seats, it gradually fell into disuse, or existed only for ignoble purposes. The gladiator succeeded naturally to the athlete, the circus to the stadium, and the sanguinary scenes of the amphitheatre brutalized the pure tastes of earlier years". Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1871 newspaper sources[edit]

This source states: "Soon after her marriage, in August, 1871, Mrs. Cleghorn and her husband visited Auckland, Sydney and Melbourne, returning to Honolulu in December of the same year. During the visit, great attention was shown to the Chiefess by the Governors and officials of the various Colonies, and thus, early in life, she was brought into contact with foreign manners and ideas." ... To narrow the dates, I have found a departure date of August 26 on the steamer Nebraska but no return dates that mentions Cleghorn or his wife. There is a December arrival of the Nebraska from Auckland but doesn't mention any name of the passengers. Given that Likelike wouldn't even have been considered a titled royal in 1871, is there any other sources (primary sources) on her travel with her husband and the governors of (New Zealand, New South Wales, and Victoria) she met? There is nothing in the American newspapers. Are there any digitized newspapers from New Zealand or Australia from 1871 out there? KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of digitised NZ papers at https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/. Had a quick search but didn't immediately find anything relevant for Archibald Cleghorn or likelike.-gadfium 05:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably them: Arrival of the Nebraska-gadfium 05:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently didn't stay long in Sydney:

Empire (Sydney, NSW : 1850 - 1875) Tue 3 Oct 1871: "ARRIVALS--October 2. ... Hero (s), 851 tons. Logan, from Melbourne 30th ult. Passengers ... For Auckland : Mr. and Mrs. Whitton, Mr. and Mrs. Cleghorn, Mrs. J. Murray, Mrs. Stretch, Mrs. Wilson, Miss Williams, Miss Richardson ...".

The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) Thu 5 Oct 1871: "CLEARANCES. - OCTOBER 4 ... Hero (s.), 851 tons, Captain Logan, for Auckland, Passengers —Mrs. Stretch, Mrs. Wilson, Mrs. Whitsun, Mrs. Cleghorn, Mrs. J. Murray, Mrs. Clements, Miss Williams, Miss Richardson, Miss ...".

Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Southern Cross, Port of Auckland, 11 OCTOBER 1871: ARRIVALS. Hero, s.s. 851 tons, Captain T. Logan, from Melbourne 30th September, via Sydney, 4th instant. Passengers: from Melbourne, cabin, Mr. and Mrs. Whitson, Mr. and Mrs. Leghorn..." Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe not her first time in Sydney:

Australian Town and Country Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1870 - 1907) Sat 23 Sep 1871: "CLEARNCES-September 14 ... Nebraska (s), 2000 tons, Harding, for Melbourne. Passengers-Mrs. Connolly, Mrs. Hamburger, and 2 children, Mrs. Cleghorn, Mr. and Mrs. Banhani, Misses Harding..."

Alansplodge (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court procedures[edit]

Can the US Supreme Court choose to review an act of congress to determine its constitutionality on its own, or must someone bring a complaint against the law to the Court? I ask this because I noticed that every Supreme Court case is titled Smith v. Doe or the like, which implies that there must always be a complainant. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC) + typo fix[reply]

The Supreme Court has strictly appellate jurisdiction except for a very narrow range of items as listed in Article Three of the United States Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume that someone would actually have to bring up a challenge to an act of Congress beforehand for SCOTUS to be able to review it. Else, SCOTUS could strike down whatever laws it pleases at whatever time that it pleases. Futurist110 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact that's generally true at lower levels of the federal court system as well. Despite right-wing gripes, the court system does not "legislate from the bench", it settles issues of laws brought to it by the people. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "legislate from the bench" argument is made by originalists who believe that a judge's duty is to enforce the law based on either its original intent or its original public meaning as opposed to using some other method of interpretation to make their rulings. Futurist110 (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's the kind of thinking that led to the Dred Scott decision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than give an op-ed, here's the Wiki article on Judicial_review_in_the_United_States Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. See case or controversy. In some other countries, this is not the case; courts can issue advisory opinions. As discussed in the article, some U.S. states also have a procedure for seeking such an opinion from the state's highest court regarding a state law. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of case titles: Supreme Court of the United States says, uncited: All case names before the Court are styled petitioner v. respondent… But it looks like ex parte cases at least used to be titled "Ex parte Doe" (example: Ex parte Endo). Does anyone with more legal know-how know if this changed? Also, cases brought on another party's behalf are titled with ex rel., as in Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're describing a sua sponte ruling. I don't know if the SCOTUS has ever done it, but the article mentions an instance from a federal appelate court. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to sources like [1], [2], the Supreme Court did act in a sua sponte manner in the case of Patterson v. Mclean Credit Union, but not in the way the OP is I think referring to. Instead in a case before them, they asked both parties to brief an argue an additional question whether they (the Supreme Court) should reconsider their decision in Runyon v. McCrary. As I understand it, this was relevant to the case but I guess both parties were just accepting as settled case law. In the end, according to their decision, they did not overrule the earlier decision but severely limited it.

From my read of those and other sources, at least as of circa 1989 this was generally accepted to be the limit of the Supreme Court's sua sponte decision making. If a case where the law or case law was relevant to their decision, the Supreme Court could ask the parties to present arguments and therefore consider issues that neither party had actually raised before. But they cannot decide to consider whether some law is constitutional when there is no existing case before them where it's relevant.

If I understand this correctly [3], the Supreme Court could still in 2015 ask for a rehearing of a case after they'd already heard it and before they'd made their decision if they couldn't come to a decision and my read from this and other sources is they can still act in the manner they did in Patterson.

About federal appeals courts, their authority may be wider but from what I can tell, I'm not sure they really have the ability to do what I think the OP is suggesting. The cases where it's coming that I've found including the one in our article [4] and others, [5], [6], Greenlaw v. United States, [7], it seems that it's not that appeals court have come out of no where and decided to rule on the constitutionality of a law. Instead they've issued a decision on a case on an issue which neither party raised. E.g. dismissing a case even if neither party asked them to, in fact perhaps before they'd even heard from either party. I.E. like with the Supreme Court, there needed to be a case where the issue came up, even if the issue itself was not raised.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]