Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 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.

November 20

E. Hanni

Can someone please tell me who E. Hanni was? He is credited with some postcards featuring seens in French Polynesia during the late 1800s and the early 1900s.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a bit of help for ref-desk searchers: It appears that the name should be "E. Hänni". Deor (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

More help: The fr.wp list Éditeurs français de cartes postales has an entry "Hänni (E.) éditeur à Paris, Boulevard Voltaire". Deor (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

His name was Eugène Hänni (nicknamed le Père Vanille), born 1870 in La Chaux-de-Fonds, apparently murdered in Paris in 1908. [1] The travel letters to his friend Dr. Jules Jacot-Guillarmod (1868-1925) were published under the title Trois ans chez les Canaques . ---Sluzzelin talk 01:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, Boulevard Voltaire is a major thoroughfare in Paris in the 11th arrondissement, see fr:Boulevard Voltaire. --Jayron32 01:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh thanks. What was his profession called? Was he a photographer? When did he visit French Polynesia and when did he left?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the biographical foreword of the book that Sluzzelin linked above (last full paragraph on this page), he arrived in French Polynesia at the end of January 1894 and left on September 20, 1896. Deor (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Vanilla is one of the few exports of the islands, so it is possible he was a trader or had attempted to set up a plantation. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael D. Higgins knee operation in 2004?

Recently-elected Irish President Michael D. Higgins broke his knee in Colombia in 2010, but when he was seeking the Labour Party nomination to contest the Presidency back in September 2004, a contemporary RTÉ news report stated,

"There's been speculation for months about whether Michael D Higgins would run for the Presidency. Today, he told Labour TDs and Senators that he was willing to do so, that his recent knee operation wouldn't prevent him, and that it would be good for the party and for the presidency to have a contest." — Youtube recording

Does anyone know anything about this knee operation in (circa) 2004?

1. Why did he need the operation?
2. Did he acquire a limp as a result of it, or did he only begin to limp in 2010?
3. Was it the same knee that he broke in 2010?
4. [Bonus question] If it was the same knee, have the 2004 operation and the 2010 fracture combined to make him limp so much nowadays? — O'Dea (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying to track down origin of a “Latin American prayer”

Where does the quote "Give bread to those who have none, and hunger for justice to those who have bread." come from? Online it is variously attributed to a “Latin American prayer” or, as is the case on the National Farm Worker Ministry site, as a “Nicaraguan prayer”[2] Thanks. --143.44.68.157 (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I see at least one reference to a guest translating it from the Spanish they had learnt it in, so if you are good enough at Spanish to guess at original phrasing, that might give more luck. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you post the link to that please? thanks. --143.44.68.157 (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Three-fifths compromise

What is the proper capitalization? The bold link of our article refers to it as Three-Fifths compromise, but the title is Three-fifths compromise. Albacore (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It should either be three-fifths compromise or Three-Fifths Compromise, depending on whether it is a common noun (lower case) or proper noun (upper case). What is clearly wrong is the form appearing now in the lead sentence of the article, Three-Fifths compromise. Since this was a specific compromise that is somewhat famous in American history, I think it is a proper noun that should be all upper-case, and a quick browse of Google hits suggests that a majority of sources outside Wikipedia agree with me. Therefore, I will set about changing the headword and first sentence to all caps. Of course, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even people who do not understand the distinction between proper and common nouns, so it is possible that someone will change it back despite my effort. Marco polo (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I was unable to move the article, perhaps because of redirects, so I have made a technical request for a move. I hope administrators do the right thing, but I have no control over that. Marco polo (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is probably a better question for the Language desk. They have some good grammar people over there. I am inclined to agree with Marco polo; i.e. "Three-Fifths Compromise" is correct. However, there doesn't seem to be consistency in scholarly works. I see it written as "Three-Fifths Compromise" and "Three-fifths Compromise" there. It really is all over the place. Interesting enough the Constitution itself spells 3/5 as "three fifths" with no hyphen. Shadowjams (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think, if it's a proper noun, it's better as Three-fifths Compromise, three fifths being a single number. Of course it's normally spelled without the hyphen except when used to modify something else; that's why it's that way in the constitution. --Trovatore (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

fairy tale

Think it's Hans Christian Andersen, there's a princess, and her lady in waiting, and the lady in waiting pulls off some trick, and they swap places, and the lady in waiting gets all the good stuff, and then the princess pops up again, and they're at dinner, and the lady in waiting ends up choosing this horrible punishment for a theoretical person who had carried out such an act, and then the princess reveals all and the lady in waiting ends up getting killed horribly. But what's the story called? Harley Spleet (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the tales listed under Hans Christian Andersen?

One thing I'm fairly certain of - it's NOT "The Princess and the Peon".

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean "The Goose Girl". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"The South needs its entire territory"

Reading this article by Marx on the American Civil War, I noticed this bit:

“The South needs its entire territory. It will and must have it.” With this battle-cry the secessionists fell upon Kentucky. By their “entire territory” they understand in the first place all the so-called border states--Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and Arkansas. Besides, they lay claim to the entire territory south of the line that runs from the north-west corner of Missouri to the Pacific Ocean. What the slaveholders, therefore, call the South, embraces more than three-quarters of the territory hitherto comprised by the Union.

I can't find any other reference to the phrase "The South needs its entire territory". Is Marx referring to actual policy/war aims of the Confederacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superiority (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer the specific question, but here's a book providing some interesting overview of Marx's interest in the American Civil War: The Civil War in American Culture, pp. 132-135. I hadn't realized how interested he was and how much he wrote about it. I can't find the exact quote anywhere except attributed to Marx. I'm thinking it was mainly a opinion he had. According to A Dictionary of Marxist thought Marx and Engels both followed the war "with an ardent wish for Northern victory". Perhaps this played into this quotation of Marx's, which certainly portrays The South as the aggressor.

There's a bit more on the general topic here, Marx at the margins, pp. 80s-90s or so. It seems that Marx not only ardently wished for a Northern victory but in his writings about the war "developed two themes", one of which was "Southern fanaticism" (and Northern "pusillanimity"). Pages 88-89 describes Marx's view that The South, or at least a powerful minority of Southerners, provoked war, "initiated the war", "and that its goal was the opening of the entire U.S. to slavery, hence its attacks northward in the early months of the war". Also that the "economic institution" of "Southern slavery" required "the acquisition of new territories". In short, it seems that Marx thought the Confederacy had to not just hold onto the territory it controlled but expand and acquire as much additional territory as possible.

The Confederacy was never all that strongly unified, and had many different goals and aims, depending on whose goals and aims one looks at, and at what point during the war era. From the start there were radicals and moderates, some seeking a peaceful solution and others agitating for war (both in the North and South). Certainly the Confederacy hoped to win over Kentucky and Missouri (both of which had break-away secessionist factions and were given stars on the Battle Flag). Maryland too, though obviously complicated by the location of Washington D.C. Anyway, it is hard to say exactly what the goals and aims of the Confederacy were--other than simply surviving in the end. Pfly (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In considering Marx's views on the Civil War it would be worth tracking down what information he was getting about it. The British position was a notoriously complicated one, and the prevailing position of many of the leading British newspapers was staunchly anti-North. So he may have been getting a more garbled account of things than we know today. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)