Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< April 2 << Mar | April | May >> April 4 >
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.


Contents


[edit] April 3

[edit] Iran-U.S. War

If Iran and the US were to go to war would it be likely for Iran to win?? And do you think russia or china will side with Iran or would they just stay out of the conflict(if it occurs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

I would not like to address my opinions here, but since you asked a opinionated question, I will reply with an opinionated answer. Considering the facts, I would say that it is not likely. That's all I will say. Sr13 (T|C) 02:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It really would depend on the scope of the war, and how you define winning. If the US and allies just went in and droped a bunch of bombs, then they would probably "win" in that they could destroy the Iranian military with very small losses on the US side. On the other hand the US would "lose" because just dropping bombs would be unlikely to change the Iranian government, in fact it would give the people reason to rally behind the government. If the US tried to invade with ground troops, the situation would become much more tricky. US ground forces are already streched thin in Iraq, so while the US military could probably pull off an invasion, there just wouldn't be the forces available for the resulting occupation. Remember, it took almost a year of occupation before US foces finally captured Saddam Hussein. Additionally, the fighting fitness of the US military has been degraded by the occupation of Iraq. Iran is also a larger and more rugged country than Iraq. Finally, unless there is a huge change of opinion, I personally do not think that there is the political will to support an occupation of Iran. In conclusion, while I think it is possible for the US to militarily defeat Iran, I do not believe that the US could easily occupy Iran.
As for Russia and China, they would probably not support the US at the United Nations, but I doubt that they would interfere militarily. Russia would probably stand aside and watch while both side pummled each other, China would be more concerned, because much of Iranian oil exports go to China, so an interuption of Iranian oil production would have an immediate impact on China. On the other hand, China is a huge trading partner with the US and would not like to lose their trade status.Czmtzc 12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the US would have a hard time of it if they were to invade; air strikes would be much more likely. The US will always be hamstrung in occupations (as compared to historical regimes) because it's a liberal democracy. It's actually not particularly difficult to put down insurgencies: the Nazis basically did it in France, Hafiz al-Assad did it in Hama, the Romans did it in the Levant, and there are many other examples. The problem is that you have to be willing to kill every man, woman, and child that lives in whatever neighborhood your soldier was attacked in. After that happens a few times, the population itself will work hard to prevent any insurgent activity. Since the US is, or at least wants to be, one of "the good guys", it's not willing to go this far to win an elective war, and hopefully never will be. --TotoBaggins 12:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if the U.S. launched successful air strikes against Iran, the blowback would be considerable. The Iranians would be likely to try to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, through which almost all of the region's oil exports pass. This would send oil prices soaring and likely bring on a recession in the United States (exacerbated by the collapse of the housing boom). While Iran might not be able to close the Strait of Hormuz, it could almost certainly bring the fight to U.S. troops in Iraq by boosting financial and military support for Shiite militias there. Marco polo 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have only one thing to say to this: when trying to put out one fire is it really wise to start another that would, if anything, be even bigger and less subject to containment? Toto, I'm not quite sure that I agree with all of your points on the efficacy of tyrannies in the supresssion of insurgencies. In real historical terms, repression has a tendency to breed even more resistance, not less. Wartime resistance in France, in fact, grew year by year, despite the oppressive measures of the occupation regime. In both Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, again despite the most vicious and murderous repression, far in excess of what happened in France, the Nazis were forced to fight major partisan wars, which they effectively lost. And we know from the history of the war in Vietnam that even soldiers from liberal democracies can be reduced to the kind of wholesale barbarism that you are hinting at. When this happens, contrary to your contention, the people, if anything, grow even more angry. Clio the Muse 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What is there about being a "liberal democracy" that would prevent Collective punishment? It was an official policy of the British and United States governments in past wars an occupations. Granted, the Geneva Conventions seem to argue against them but the present U.S. Attorney General has called them "quaint" and questioned their ability to restrain U.S. policy. [1]. Edison 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Because the gorverment has to answer to the people at election time. The more barbaric the policy of retaliation to the occupied country, the less support the invader will get from their home land. That is why liberal democracies quickly tire of long wars and need to see real evidence of progress in order to continue support.-Czmtzc 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is an opinion question, I have answered here, instead: [2]. StuRat 16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to happen so I'm not going to entertain the original poster's penchant for war (or worrying about war). Vranak

@ Vranak Hmm mmm.... dr.ef.tymac 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Forget it. In January, debka.com was reporting that the US had secret plans to attack Iran in February. Obviously, it didn't happen. Same here. Not with the British sailor situation as it is, not with the fact that Bush would probably be impeached if he did secretly attack Iran, etc... zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that U.S. intelligence, military, and/or diplomatic sources periodically leak "plans" to attack Iran just to keep the pressure on the Iranians. Marco polo 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was d'Estaing a Huguenot?

I have heard that Comte Jean Baptiste Charles Henri Hector d'Estaing was a Huguenot or of Huguenot heritage. Does anyone know of anything to back this up? 151.196.17.153 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I find this contention quite surprising. Can you be any more exact about the source of your information? The vast bulk of the Huguenots left France after Louis XIV passed the Edict of Fontainebleau, revoking earlier acts of toleration. So, when the admiral was born in 1729 it was illegal to be a Protestant. The first active phase of persecution came to an end with the death of Louis in 1715, though the laws against them remained in place during the reign of Louis XV. Persecution revived in the mid-1720s during the premiership of Louis Henri, Duc de Bourbon. Though the new policy was pursued with far less vigour, there was still active discrimination in many branches of French life against practicing Huguenots. For the Comte de Estaing to have risen so high in the French military service, while a known heretic, would, therefore, have been all but impossible. I cannot, say, though, if his antecedents had any Huguenot connections, though Auvergne, where he was born, was not, so far as I am aware, an area strongly associated with French Protestantism. Clio the Muse 05:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The Estaing seat is the Château de Ravel. Any sign of Protestantism there? --Wetman 05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, both of you. The ducal house of La Tour d'Auvergne appears to have had some Huguenot roots but otherwise I can't find anything to support the idea that d'Estaing was a Huguenot. Possibly he had Huguenot ancestors, but I can't find anything to support that one way or another. 151.196.28.220 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who would follow Pervez Musharraf?

If Pervez Musharraf were to be assassinated, who would be in charge of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? 75.35.72.51 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever recieves the backing of the Pakistani military. Flamarande 07:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the constitution, the Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan (currently Muhammad Mian Soomro) would act as President. After him, it's the Speaker of the National Assembly (currently Chaudhry Amir Hussain). But as Flamarande says, the military probably has more say than the constitution does. -- Vardion 08:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When will Mothering Sunday next fall on March 12th?

The date up to 2016 is given on the "Mothering Sunday" page, but I haven't been able to get a formula that will tell me when it nest hits 12th March. The reason I want to know is that I was born on Mothering Sunday, and my mother is curious to know if it's likely to hit that date again in her lifetime. I'd be grateful for spome help.172.159.53.101 08:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mothering Sunday is the same as Laetare Sunday, which is three weeks before Easter in the Western liturgical calendar. So it is on the 12th of March precisely in those years in which 2nd April is Easter Sunday. That will be the case in this century in 2051 and 2056, if I did not make a mistake in my calculations.  --LambiamTalk 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Easter will fall on April 2 on those years. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Guillotine

Why wasn't the guillotine named the 'guillotin'? Guillotin is closer to the Dr. Guillotin's name.69.218.230.103 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a actually a language question, equivalent to, "what are some of the French language rules for changing a person's name into a noun describing a thing". If you cut and paste both questions at the WP:Reference_desk/Language I suspect you will get an even better answer. alteripse 12:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
From Joseph-Ignace_Guillotin: "Dr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin (May 28, 1738 – March 26, 1814) did not invent the guillotine, but on October 10, 1789 proposed the use of a mechanical device to carry out death penalties in France. His name became an eponym, and eventually his relatives, after asking the government to stop using the name to describe the machine, changed their family name."
From Guillotine: "... Antoine Louis (1723–1792), member of the Académie Chirurgicale, developed the concept put forward by Guillotin, and it was from his design that the first guillotine was built. The guillotine was first called louison or louisette, but the press preferred guillotine as it had a nicer ring to it."
"A nicer ring to it" between IPA /luisõ/, /luisɛt/ and /gyijotin/? Les lézards qui sautent! Yep, best to leave this up to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language. --Shirt58 13:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the infernal machine should really have been called 'The Schmidt', after the German piano maker, Tobias Schmidt, who built the prototype in 1791. In the early days it was in fact known as a 'Louison', or a 'Louisette', after another champion of this 'humane' method of execution. The first public use came in April 1792, when Nicholas Pelletier, a highwayman, was beheaded. It was only later that year that it began to acquire a more sinister political purpose. Incidentally, the extra 'e' seemingly was added by an unknown English poet, because 'guillotine' fitted better with his ryhming scheme, at least it was according to the information provided here [3]. I saw one in Vietnam-a truly ghastly object. Clio the Muse 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the reason the French revolutionaries so loved the guillotine was that it was "classless". Up until that time, nobles had been beheaded by an axeman, who had to be well trained and practiced to do a proper job. For commoners, they didn't bother with this expense, so just used some cheaper method of execution, like hanging. The guillotine, for the first time, allowed them to execute everyone by beheading. Unfortunately, it was a bit too easy, and the desire to "entertain the mob" may have been one factor leading to the huge number of executions, much as during the Roman Empire. StuRat 16:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
When the guillotine was adopted on 20 March 1792, the Reign of Terror was eighteen months in the future and Louis XVI was still King of France, and would be for nearly four months afterwards. It's popularly associated with the Revolutionary Tribunal and the Committee of Public Safety, but it predates them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, Angus, Louis would contine to be king until the declaration of the Republic in September 1792, though he lost the last vestiges of royal power in the August uprising. You are, of course, quite right in your contention that the mass use of the guillotine is most associated with the Reign of Terror, though it was already being used for political executions well before September 1793. It is also important to understand that the Terror, and the use of mass execution, was not to 'entertain the mob' Roman style, but a way of legitimising and channelling the violence unleashed by the Revolution, which came in successive waves, and threatened to reduce France to a state of complete anarchy. Revolutionary France was, in some important respects, similar to contemporary Iran, with several interest groups competing for influence and power. In the end the Terror, for Robespierre and his faction, was the only way of regaining the monopoly of revolutionary violence, a way of heading off the wild men, like Hébert, and controlling the anarchy of the sans-culottes. The guillotine was, it might be said, the sword of the institutionalised revolution. Clio the Muse 22:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romain Gary

On Dec 2 1980 the French writer and Diplomat comitted suicide.

He left a note explaining his action. I had a typed copy at that time that I kept in my archives.

I lost that copy and now I need it for research on Gary.

Where do I find a copy of that letter please ?

aniskaros

This is probably for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Two suggestions:
Good luck! -- Deborahjay 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's at least partially quoted in: Garcin, Jérôme (1982) "Romain Gary," 1981 Universalia, pp. 551-552, OCLC 19750801.—eric 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Utilitarianism

Hi. I have a 2,500 essay to write on the topic "Utilitarianism can only ever lead to the treatment of individuals as means rather than ends in themselves." This is a criticism made of utilitarianism made most notably by Kant. I sort of understand what the criticism is getting at, and have done a lot of research on the topic. However, I am struggling to get started on writing the essay itself. Obviously I'm not asking for anyone to write the essay for me or anything like that, but I was wondering if anyone could suggest how I might approach the essay, any ideas that may help me get started on it, any ideas of what I might cover, etc. Thanks in advance. TP86 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To begin with you have to ask yourself if you agree with this statement or not? If you do, then the article you have linked contains a number of trenchant criticisms from a whole range of intellectual perspectives, beyond that of Immanuel Kant. If you do not, you have to think of an effective defense of the notion that the true goal of social policy and public morality is indeed the greatest good of the greatest number. So, which is to be? I personally feel that the whole notion of collective happiness is based on a serious intellectual and logical fallacy, and in terms of state policy could conceivably have quite sinister consequences. What more 'perfect' utilitarian society is there than that described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, or Yevgeny Zamyatin in We? Anyway, the very best of luck with your essay, from me writing in the year 60AF (After Ford) Clio the Muse 15:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
@ TP86 To begin with you have to ask yourself if you agree with this statement or not? ... and to get there, you might do well to first operationally define what Utilitarianism actually means, and the extent to which this definition can be rationally applied to matters of public policy, in contrast to strictly personal matters of one's own ultimate values. For an extreme example, a Solipsist might contend that the topic represents a false dichotomy, and thus, methodological solipsism would influence both the definition and development of the topic.
Rigorously defining key terms is also a good way to: 1) demonstrate your familiarity with the topic; 2) bolster the internal consistency of your conclusions; and 3) take a sizable chunk outta that 2,500 word limit without much heavy lifting :) dr.ef.tymac 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this sort of thing is that 'utilitarianism', to the novice, just sounds like a position that favors 'useful' (use, utility) action. Hardly something that can be argued against. In fact hardly something that can be discussed meaningfully at all. But back in the 18th and 19th centuries, big-U Utilitarianism was a particular position favoring particular policies, which nowadays are rather irrelevant to our current state of affairs. I guess what I'm getting at is that Utilitarianism doesn't really mean much these days. Of course that doesn't stop mediocre teachers from assigning essays on it. Vranak

I think that judgement might just be a tad too harsh, Vranak, on the assignment and, more particularly, on the poor teacher!. Utilitarianism, as a mode of though and system of ideas, is deeply redolent of forms of bourgeois mediocrity, but it remains a valid subject of investigation notwithstanding, if for no better reason than the insight it provides to the kind of attitudes that underpinned so many of the great industrial and political changes that swept the western world in the nineteenth century. Even today, it is not entirely without political application, when policy is often weighed in terms of what may be perceived to be good for the community as a whole, rather than what may be individually worthwhile. Besides, any academic assignment is about focusing the mind; and that is a worthwhile exercise in itself. Clio the Muse 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You lost me at deeply redolent of forms of bourgeois mediocrity. All I know is that I feel more sympathy for thirty students given a decadent assignment than one teacher labelled 'mediocre' on the internet. Vranak
Oh, I see: mediocre and decadent. What a fascinating combination! I had always associated decadence with a certain type of literary genius. Clio the Muse 05:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyway... what's your take on a professor who assigns a 2500-word essay on Utilitarianism, in the year 2007? Vranak
I really have no 'take' on this, as you put it, and it must be obvious from what I have written above that I have very little respect for utilitarianism as a branch of thought, or a guide to social policy. But this is really beside the point. It exists, and did, at one time, form an important part of the Anglo-Saxon intellectual tradition. You may be right that any assignment of this kind is subject to the test of relevance, though this would really depend on the kind of class it has been set for. For me, however, the content is far less important that the skills required in producing an answer. It matters not if the test is about ancient Epicureans or Victorian Utilitarians. It is all to the good. Clio the Muse 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Vranak

I've sympathy with both Vranak and Clio's views on this. Thinking of Utilitarianism as it applies to thinking behind the first opium war is a fascinating exercise for me, and for those who choose such study. In modern terms, I don't think the philosophy is relivant, as it doesn't apply to ordinary conservatives and is oppositional to modern leftwing expressions (like victim promotion, minority adoption and cause celebre). DDB 05:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a position, DDB; I merely attempt to address an issue in the terms presented. I know I could give a scorcher of an answer to this question, which is worth the effort for the sheer intellectual pleasure it would give, if nothing besides. After all, ours not to reason why, ours but to do...or don't! Clio the Muse 05:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Did Kant really say that? Also, it very much depends on the form of utilitarianism. For instance, Rule utilitarianism has some cases which require the treating of people as ends. Also, what exactly is wrong with assigning an essay on utilitarianism? It is a very powerful ethical philosophy which has many contemporary proponents. Also, Jeremy Bentham (founder of utilitarianism) was a strong advocate of ending animal cruelty, which seems to suggest that he didn't approve of animals being used for (that specific) means to an end. As an hedonistic act utilitarian myself, I would be more than happy to help you with your essay ('Tis the right thing to do, hehe). Either respond here or on my talk page =).--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 05:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


How does rule utilitarianism lead to the treatment of individuals as an en in themselves? Is it becuase it is based on rules whihc can never condone evils acts, therofre individuals are respected for who they are?? im slightly confused! has nayone got an example that would help??!!

[edit] Benching?

What does "to bench" mean in this context? Neither Bench nor wikt:bench is much use. —Angr 18:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See bentsching. I've added it to the disambig page and wikilinked it in the article. Natgoo 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! —Angr 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy See

Is the term "Holy See" a synonym for "Vatican City?" --wpktsfs 19:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See Holy See. --Kainaw (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Holy See" is sometimes used as a synonym for Vatican City; this usage is somewhat incorrect as technically speaking there's a difference which you can read about in the link Kainaw provided. --JayHenry 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court Cases concerning student rights at school

I need to do a project on student rights at school, where they were violated and the supreme court had to deal with the issues. For Example, the Tinker case, and the Broussard v. School board of Norfolk, and I need some other sources, but nothing too vulgar, to work off of, as I need to cite these and give information on them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.198.107 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Category:United_States_education_case_law lists alot of cases (not all SCOTUS) -- Diletante 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the relevant section of the ACLU's web site. Also try the Legal Information Institute, which has many court opinions. If you get a recent case, you can look at all the cases cited in the opinion and look up those cases in turn. -- Mwalcoff 01:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In Australia, we've recently had the (developing) case of some school students from elite private schools being drug tested at their chosen sport here DDB 11:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paintings by Dwight Frederick Kirsch

We have a large oil painting by Kirsch. He is a well known artist in Nebraska I understand. We would like to sell this painting, perhaps on ebay, but we have no idea os what the possible value would be. How does one go about getting a value? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.222.173.170 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

You could find an art appraiser who is familiar with this particular genre of painting. But I would try looking for museums in Nebraska perhaps, and call them, and just ask. I have some familiarity with galleries and museums and I've found that museum curators, especially at somewhat smaller museums, are usually helpful and have a good idea what they're talking about. Ultimately, of course, the painting is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. --JayHenry 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zion National Park Name

Why is Zion Canyon named as such? Who named it? It think it was the Mormons or something. Anyways, I just want an etymology. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.32.52 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Have a look at Zion National Park. The name, which comes from the Bible, and means 'place of peace', is though to have been given, in the first place, to Zion Canyon by one Isaac Behunin, who settled there in 1863. Clio the Muse 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This Behunin has been described as a "Mormon settler," and he is quoted as having said, "A man can worship God among these great cathedrals as well as in any man-made church - this is Zion." I don't have any reason to regard these googled sources as reliable, but it's plausible. Though the park is often unjustly neglected in comparison to the Grand Canyon (huge) and Bryce Canyon (fantastically shaped rocks), it in fact has an awesome sublimity of its own that fully justifies its toponyms' many references to the desert God of old ("Table of the Patriarchs" or things like that). Wareh 03:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sartre on Stalin

It is often said that Sartre supported Stalin, however all I have been able to find after extensive research is secondary sources. Does anyone have a direct quote from Sartre where he states his opinion of Stalin? --Gary123 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Continental Op Detective Agency! 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gary. As always with Sartre there is no simple answer to your question. His relationship with Stalin and Communism was ambiguous, sometimes warm, and other times very cold. For the kind of information you are looking for you will really need to look through the relevant editions of Les Temps Modernes, published in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Sartre was initially highly suspicious of Stalinism, and published information on the gulags and exposures of the show trials. In January 1950 he wrote; If there are ten million in concentration camps...we wonder what reason we could still have for using the term socialism in connection with it...From this we conclude that we should not show any indulgence towards Communism, but under no circumstances can we form an alliance with its enemies. He also wrote that Stalinism had rendered Marxism sterile, and that The politics of Stalinist Communism are incompatible with the honest exercise of the literary profession. His attitude began to change somewhat with the onset of the Cold War, and the growing mood of anti-Communist hysteria in the west in general, and France in particular. But even so, Les Temps Modernes retained a certain critical detachment, publishing a series of articles criticising the show trials in Czechoslovakia in 1953. There were also articles exposing Stalin's anti-semitic policies. You really should also have a look at The Critique of Dialectical Reason, where Sartre examines Stalinism as a historical phenomenon. I would suggest, moreover, that you read Ian Birchall's book Sartre Against Stalinism, as well as The Prime of Life and Force of Circumstances, volumes two and three of Simone de Beauvoir's autobiography. There you have it: no direct quotes on Stalin the man, but lots of sources to explore! Best of luck. Clio the Muse 00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seder

What is the Kiddish Cup used for at a Jewish Seder?

For starters, Wikipedia has articles on kiddush and Pesach Seder. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)