November 12

According to the intro to Yeti, the scientific community generally regards the abominal snowman (and presumably his gutsy cousin, the abdominal snowman, as well) as a legend. The intro to legend says A legend...is a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude. Not being a human, how is the abominable snowman a legend? I understand that he's not a myth, because mythology explains origins and backstories, and abominable snowmen don't appear to be part of those. But how is he a legend, rather than being a non-legendary character in the folklore of the region? I just don't understand the terminology (and the divisions between the classifications) well enough to understand why he's a legend, rather than being something else. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the word origin[1] which requires it to be about humans. A legend is a story about most anything that allegedly happened but cannot be proven. And note the various terms in the Yeti article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but the text I referenced is quite clear, and it comes from one of the most prestigious folkloristics programs in the USA; I don't see how it could be inaccurate, unless there's a scholarly dispute over the meaning. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text you quoted seems to be an unsourced sentence in our article, are you saying it's a direct quote from some place? If so, it should probably be more clearly attributed. Anyway, it doesn't say "...is a narrative of solely human actions". Most Yeti stories I'm familiar with have a humans doing actions in there somewhere. I agree with Bugs that the intro to legend seems a bit too narrow, or at least confusing. But this is sort of a version of the genre problem isn't it? I don't think anyone's solved that for legend vs. folklore. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think much of that definition of legend.Prestigious does not neccessarily mean right. This is the Merriam-Webster definition which the yeti fits into quite well.Full Definition of LEGEND 1 a : a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable b : a body of such stories <a place in the legend of the frontier> c : a popular myth of recent origin d : a person or thing that inspires legends e : the subject of a legend <its violence was legend even in its own time — William Broyles Jr.> Hotclaws (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm interested in the scholarly definition, not a dictionary definition reflecting the uses of the ignorant. Or perhaps you could explain why we prefer a dictionary to a scholar in the field who's been published by one of the best folkloristics programs in the USA? Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See jargon and Semantic overload. Words have different meanings in different contexts. The use of the word "legend" in the context of that particular branch of learning doesn't have to mean the same thing in all English uses. For example, how a chemist uses the word "nucleus" is different from how a biologist would. The chemist isn't wrong because his definition doesn't include the use of the word "cell", nor is the biologist wrong because her definition doesn't include the word "nucleus". Just because one folklorist, even a respected one, uses the word in one way doesn't mean other uses are wrong. The use of the word "legend" to describe the Yeti is perfectly cromulent. --Jayron32 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused - can you clarify why you think the sentence you quoted from our article has any specific weight? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not finding any scholarly sources that say a legend must be a human. Here's a nice scholarly overview that I just skimmed "It Happened Not Too Far from Here...": A Survey of Legend Theory and Characterization [2]. It gives several different characterizations that people have used, along with many many further refs. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I just realized that ref is already in the article. Note the block quote from the scholarly article in our WP article does not specify human subject matter. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some material specifically about non-human humanoids, this article [3] is all about "Unkown hominids and New World Legends". SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, SS Ancona, has a rather superficial account of this event and some points differ from the accounts at www.wrecksite.eu. Can anybody find me a more detailed account of the sinking please? In particular, it seems unlikely that exactly 200 passengers were killed and how many of those were US citizens? Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says "over 200", 9 of which were Americans (although I am skeptical that the exact number of Americans can be known when the total is unknown). StuRat (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the "over", but surely there must have been a definitive total? For US fatalities, I found nine, eleven and twenty-five on various websites, none of which looked particularly authoritative. Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alansplodge, what about newspaper accounts? I am finding quite a few at the google newspaper archive. The first I saw said there were 656 people aboard. One account from Nov 15 mentions the nine Americans and numbers those lost at 208, but accounts seems confused with news trickling in slowly as different numbers of survivors reached shore on different days. My first link will let you browse through the other articles. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. I'll have a detailed look later on. Alansplodge (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a difficult question, should it? Everyone agrees it was July 25, 1868, as per 15 Stat. 178. However, multiple sources also point out that the government wasn't organized until May 19, 1869, and that until then it was under the jurisdiction of Dakota Territory. That's fine; sometimes territories were under the control of other territories. But what piques my curiosity is the last section of the above linked act:

SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That this act, shall take effect from and after the time when the executive and judicial officers herein provided for shall have been duly appointed and qualified

Which makes me wonder... Doesn't that mean that the act itself did not take effect until May 19, 1869, when said officers were appointed and qualified? Or at least April 15, 1869, when the first governor of Wyoming Territory took his oath of office? And thus are all the sources on the internet incorrect as to when Wyoming Territory actually came into being? (or rather, was intended to come into being; obviously, things like that have a way of being forgotten in lieu of the reality on the ground) --Golbez (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's really two parts: the creation of the territory, and the creation of the government. Two separate things, perhaps?

Note that the first section of the Act provides that the "[area that is now Wyoming] is hereby, organized into a temporary government by the name of the Territory of Wyoming"—the use of "hereby" would seem to create the government instantaneous (on July 25, 1868), but the last section of the act preempts this, making the effective date of the whole act "when the executive and judicial officers herein provided for shall have been duly appointed and qualified." So it would be the date of appointment and qualification - i.e., May 19, 1869.

I personally favor May 19, 1869. That is the day the first territorial governor adopted the seal of Wyoming (Wyo. State Library). The Encyclopedia of the Great Plains, for what it's worth, says: "Territorial government for Wyoming was organized on May 19, 1869."). Neutrality^talk 02:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was the same feeling I had, that the first section seemed to be instantaneous, whereas the last section was for the act as a whole. However, if I go with May 19, 1869, that goes against literally every source on the Internet for this, which doesn't work. But, as you say, it appears that the territory itself was made in 1868, and I'll stick with that, with a note explaining the delayed organization. (Though, it couldn't be saying "the government is organized on July 25 1868" because the government plainly was not organized until May 19 1869...) --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does technology impact the rate of employment? It is clear that after a new technology gets introduced (like a harvester) people will stop buying products produced with more traditional means (which might be more expensive). This could imply that many workers are made redundant. But if we analyze the rate across the decades, is unemployment getting up and up? Or is this just an irrational fear? --Denidi (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Structural_unemployment#Causes_and_examples has some basic information, but no numbers. Perhaps you could follow links from there, leading to more information? --Jayron32 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank. Technological unemployment linked in that article is the article that answers my question. --Denidi (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far new technology doesn't seem to have reduced employment overall, since those who lose one job just start doing some other job. For example, people were then needed to design, construct, drive and repair harvesters. Fewer people are needed there, per acre harvested, but then farmers started harvesting more acres. Also technology created other jobs, such as in automotive design. Theoretically, though, there should be a time when technology can replace all of the work done by people, which will be a challenge to our system of capitalism. At that point you'd need to distribute the wealth generated by machines to all the people, if they are to survive. StuRat (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more basic than that. When people no longer have enough money, they will stop buying stuff. Then adjustments will have to occur on the corporate side. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole concept of buying and selling things might be outdated, when a replicator can make anything you need. I suppose we would still need to buy the raw materials and energy, but that's about it. (If the same device can disassemble junk and get the raw materials from them, then even better.) StuRat (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would you pay for the replicator? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a friend replicate one for you. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would you pay for the materials? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing my point. There would be no free market, because nobody will give you a job, because anything that you could do as a job, a machine could do better and cheaper. So, you basically arrive at socialism, where everyone just has to be given stuff from the government, as that's the only way to obtain anything in such an economy. The government, in turn, would get all this stuff using robots, including those mining for raw materials. (You really can't have private companies doing this, as then you would need a way to transfer the things produced from those companies to people with no resources. You can't even have the government pay the private companies for those items, because where would the government get their money ? No more income means no more income tax, so all that is left is to tax the same companies they are paying.) StuRat (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A transmogrifier box: put in whatever, write a label on the box for the stuff you want it to become, and use the box. It can even become a duplicator if you want! Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]