Humanities desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

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

May 29

Founding of Papeete

According to many guide books on Google Books, William Pascoe Crook founded Papeete in 1818 when he established a mission there. This source gives the further detail of April 14, 1818 [1]. Can anyone dig up more details of the founding and how it became capital of Tahiti? Also what is the name origin of Papeete? KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davies, John; Newbury, C. W. (1974). "Paofai or Wilks harbour". The history of the Tahitian mission, 1799-1830. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
Bolton, William Washington (21 December 1937). "The British Consulate on Tahiti". Pacific Islands Monthly. pp. 45–7.

Can't find anything viewable online but Papeete : 1818-1990 Christian Gleizal / Cobalt: Mairie de Papeete, ©1990 seems to be the standard work. Amazon has some copies. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Trove links for Pacific Islands Monthly: "The crazy life of Rev Crook", ""THE BRITISH CONSULATE ON TAHITI"
On the naming: 'Nanu', 'Nanu'u' and 'Nanu Bay' from the great house "erected for the use of the Ariois and other guests". The "long house" on a map of Cook's. Paofai the chiefdom. 'Wilks Harbour', 'Wilks Town' for Mathew Wilks. 'Hope Town'[3] for 'Mt Hope' were Crook resided. 'Vai'ete' for land owned by Pomare II and a home he had there. As "Vai" was the Chiefs' word for "water", it could not be used in daily converse of the common herd. There was nothing for it but to use the general word for water—"Pape". The last portion of the name was not Tapu: "Ete" meant "basket" for all (the contrivance to hold the gourds containing water). Bolton, W. W. (24 January 1938). "Romantic History of Papeete's Palaces: How the Town Got Its Name". Pacific Islands Monthly.
Société des Études Océaniennes has a series "Papeete de jadis et naguères", here's the first installment Pietri, Raymond (March 1991). "A l'abordage du village de Pape'ete" (PDF). Bullitin de la Société des Études Océaniennes.
Pomare II. returned from exile to Arue in 1808 and writes from "Papeiti" in 1812 Bolton, W. W. (16 May 1939). "Some Common Errors in Tahitian History". Pacific Islands Monthly.
Si Papeete  est devenue la capitale de la Polynésie française, elle le  doit en partie à l’esprit de décision et à l’énergie du capitaine de vaisseau  Bruat  qui conseilla le choix de ce site et le défendit avec vigueur  en avril 1844. [4]

appealing automatically places court order on hold?

[5] I think at the federal level, it's customary for a district judge issuing a court order to stay the order for some days, if the orderee (don't know the legal term for that) signals that they want to appeal. It's not mandatory though, and sometimes the order is explicitly immediate to prevent irremediable harm. I'm surprised we don't have an article about irremediable harm as a legal concept, but I'd like to think spreading the covid-19 virus to a community would qualify. In the linked article, the barber's lawyer says that in Michigan, the stay pending appeal is automatic and mandatory. Is Michigan really that dumb? Note that an intermediate level appellate court has already ordered the barber shop to close, but the barber is holding out for the state supreme court. Seems pretty dumb that he can stay open during that pendency. 2601:648:8202:96B0:9BC:E0D4:15B8:4B0A (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Irreparable injury, for example, but you are referring to endangering public health. Jmar67 (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT from your sources and others e.g. [6] [7] [8], the appeals court didn't order the barber shop to close per se. Rather they ordered overturned the trial judge's decision and ordered them to issue a preliminary injunction to close the barbershop. However this never happened before the appeal to the Supreme Court. With one party having appealed to the Supreme Court, now everything is in a holding pattern and so the preliminary injunction can't be issued. I'm assuming that if necessary, the higher level court (supreme court in this case) is supposed make injunctions or preliminary decisions to handle any urgent issues. About federal courts, you might be interested in [9] Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an ad hominem to say that a source is unreliable?

There's a meme floating around which compares scientific evidence (meta-analysis & systemic reviews, randomized controlled studies, Cohort studies, etc.) with non-scientific evidence (YouTube videos, Natural News, InfoWars, etc.) Here's a link to the meme in question: Meme. In response to this meme, someone said that this is an ad hominem logical fallacy. The claim that the meme is an ad hominem attack seems wrong to me, but I can't quite articulate why. To me, it seems perfectly acceptable, if not, preferable to reject a source because it has a history of publishing false or fake news. So, I guess this is my question: Is the meme an ad hominem logical fallacy, and if not, can someone explain why? Pealarther (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check Ad hominem and see if it fits. I don't think it does, because it's not a personal attack as such. The one problem with it is that it condemns everything that doesn't fit the scientific pyramid, and that would be hard to prove. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is an ad hominem attack as simply because it was heard from a guy you know or seen on you tube does not inherently mean that it is not scientific. 109.151.74.96 (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things on that list are considered "unreliable sources" by Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I make a chart with on the left half a pyramid of heart-healthy foodstuff, such as leafy veggies, fruits, nuts and fish, and on the right half a circle of not-heart-healthy foods, such as butter, fried bacon, T-bone steaks, potato chips and sugary drinks, is that an attack? If so, on whom? Chris Kempczinski? Or on pigs (ad suem attack)? It is simply a statement of fact, in accordance with reliable sources. Stating that YouTube videos, or statements found on popular alternative-health website such as Mercola.com, cannot be considered scientific evidence is likewise merely a statement of fact. If someone says the Earth is flat, and I say they are sadly misinformed and ignorant, is that an ad hominem attack? No, I say that not because of who says it, but because of what they say. Nevertheless, people who promote the idea that unreliable sources are a source of scientific information may feel attacked. If so, it is well deserved – but still, it is an attack on their ignorance and their spreading of disinformation, and not a personal attack. --Lambiam 17:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some general items on that list might turn out to be true, like what somebody told you, or your gut instinct. They're just not proven with scientific rigor, at least not ahead of time. The websites listed are notorious for "fake news", but that doesn't mean everything they publish is necessarily false. A blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also: the fallacy fallacy: just because the reasoning is wrong, doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is wrong. The important thing, though, is that if the reasoning is wrong, you can't be confident that the conclusion is correct. Iapetus (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of editors why cry "personal attack" every time anyone disagrees wth anything they say. Then there are many who couldn't give a fuck what anyone else thinks. The people who actually collaboratively build this thing are those in-between. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. "Taking it personally" does not necessarily equate to a qualified "personal attack". As Harry S. Truman said, with regard to the "Give 'em hell, Harry!" slogan, "I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Never again"

In the "Did you know..." section on the Wikipedia Main Page, one of the facts was: "... that U.S. presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Obama vowed "never again" (memorial pictured), but genocide took place during each of their presidencies?" What were the genocides that took place during each of their presidencies?

Thank you, Heyoostorm (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, the purpose of DYK (or really any section on the main page) is to encourage you to check out the linked article for details on what is mentioned. While problems do happen, this case isn't one of those. And indeed if you check it out Never again#Contemporary usage, it says:

However, genocide occurred during their presidencies: Cambodia in Carter's case, Anfal genocide during Reagan's presidency, Bosnia for Bush and Clinton, Rwanda under Clinton, and Yazidi genocide for Obama.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Add to that East Timor genocide. 80.44.94.249 (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the Darfur genocide and Rohingya genocide. --Lambiam 16:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the US President responsible for everything that happens in the world? I know some of them like(d) to think that, but when was the last time a US President was dragged before a court for crimes against humanity (leaving aside the entirety of the incumbent's unspeakable presidency)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My read of the article and DYK is that the point isn't about responsibility, but simply questioning the merits of saying "never again" when it happens time and time again, including during the presidencies of those who said "never again". That said, it is somewhat true that as plenty of examples have shown, in the general case (i.e. without looking at the specifics of each example), the US's military power means they had the means to interfere in any specific example, even if interfering in a beneficial way is something which is difficult as plenty of examples have shown. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that per our article, they didn't just say never again but rather "have promised that the Holocaust would not happen again, and that action would be forthcoming to stop genocide". Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) For purpose of explanation of the article (rather than answering the question about which genocides, which I'm not complaining about as it is reasonable), I don't think the list is intended to be exhaustive. Clinton is the only one who gets two listed, and I think that's mostly because it would be misleading to suggest the Bosnian genocide did not occur under his presidency, but it's also the best example for George H. W. Bush; and Rwandan genocide was seen as the best example for Clinton. And I think both of the second examples are somewhat more complicated then the ones given. First they only really concern Obama, and if you look at the article and linked sources, it seems likely the Yazidi was chosen is because it's a genocide which his administration itself had recognised as a genocide (and which was clearly during his presidency). While generally considered ongoing (with tentative hopes it may end given the ousting of Omar al-Bashir and the formation of the transitional government), it's my understanding that a big part of Darfur genocide occurred under the presidency of George W. Bush. This may not be totally clear from the section I highlighted, although sort of implied by the order, but George W. Bush is not one of the presidents mentioned. So while you could reasonably put the Darfur genocide as having occurred in part under the Obama presidency, it's a less clear example. And since it's not needed as an example for George W. Bush, I assume since he never said "never again", it's simply not given. Likewise, while the Rohingya genocide undoubtedly occurred, and in part under the Obama administration (and frankly with related actions going back long before his administration), I don't think the US have clearly recognised it as a genocide [10]. To some extent these examples also demonstrate the unfortunate truth that a lot of genocides don't really have clear ending and starting dates as there are often actions which occurred long before and continue long after. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree

See to the right of the page, as an example of a family tree:

Does anyone know of a website where the user can enter some information (father, mother, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, etc.) ... and the website will produce a family tree, somewhat similar to the example given? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it would be more preferable if the tree was listed vertically, progressing from top to bottom on the page, instead of horizontally, progressing from left to right on the page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many genealogy websites, including the pay site Ancestry.com. There is also FamilySearch.org, among others, though I don't know much about them. You should be able to find a bunch of them by Googling. It looks like you've got the oldest generation to the left, which is opposite from the usual. Ancestry can do a true family tree top-down, and can also do a pedigree chart right-to-left. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I was asking for free sites, not pay sites. Also, what is a "pedigree chart"? I assume, it's something different from a family tree? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pedigree chart shows strictly direct ancestors: 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc. Like with a thoroughbred horse. See Secretariat (horse)#Pedigree. The style you have, Ancestry calls the "family view". It focuses on a particular line, with multiple spouses and multiple descendants across generations, as appropriate. Royal Family trees are often depicted this way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try familyecho.com, free and no account required. - Lindert (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no privacy, either. Actually, to really do anything useful it looks like a login is required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean 'no privacy'? According to the site Information is private and only shown to invited family members. Sure, to export/save to an editable format you need to make an account, but if you just want to make a quick tree and print/export to pdf you don't have to. - Lindert (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't create a tree via an account, then who can (or cannot) see it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I just started a fake tree, and I can't save it unless I create a logon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

App.diagrams.net is a free tree-diagram program, although it's not specifically designed to design family trees. You can save files from it, export them as pdfs, etc. Blythwood (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, Gramps is a free program that I use to manage family relations history. I know you asked for a website, but the advantage of downloading a program is that you don't have to share your information with anybody. --ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]