Humanities desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

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.

February 11

HISTORY

WHAT YEAR WAS GEORGE T SAMPSON BORN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.193.12 (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Person here aksed and got an answer. schyler (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are haitians Afro french while Dominican Republic are Hispanic?

--arab 04:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Afro-French would indicate residence in or nationality of France, so although most Haitians are Black and speak a French-based creole I don't think "Afro-French" is appropriate (after all, "African Americans" are not "Afro-English"). The articles Dominican Republic#Demographics and Haiti#Demographics may be of interest. FiggyBee (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner has edited these articles[1][2][3][4][5] and is certainly aware of them. He has regularly been asking questions about the ethnicity of Haitians and Dominicans since August 2007.[6] --Lambiam 09:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culturally, you are partially right. Haitians have an Afro-French heritage and the Dominica Republic a Hispanic and African background. However, if you are trying to refer to their race, Hispanic is somehow confusing since it refers to members of a culture, but is also used to refer to its race - although Hispanics are of different races. The term Afro-French seems to refer only to a culture. Anyway, Mr.K. (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's day greetings

If I love a woman, but unhappily have no relationship deeper than friendship with her, should I greet her for Valentine's day? After all, it is the day of the lovers, and that could include Platonic lovers, right?Mr.K. (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be about romantic love, actually. Maybe you could make her day by sending her an anonymous greeting? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this way she could think that a psychopath is stalking her. Mr.K. (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why she would necessarily come to the conclusion that anonymous greeting equals psychopath. Dismas|^(talk) 07:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could just wish her "Happy Valentine's Day". But don't give her a dozen red roses and heart-shaped box of chocolates (or condoms). —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unrequited love is so romantic. **sigh** ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only experience of sending someone (a woman, amazingly enough) an anonymous Valentine was a bad one. She objected on principle to anonymous messages (I didn't know this at the time), and she was very, very annoyed. She suspected it was me and asked me if I was the sender. I of course denied it with the last breath in my body, but she still suspected me. Nothing was ever quite the same between us after that. Ah, well. (sighs dolefully) Next! -- JackofOz (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you learned to stay away from 'em after that... —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any female Wikipedians reading this: if you ever feel like demonstrating that not all women object to anonymous Valentine's, you could always send me one :-) --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only, Angr. I actually got married the following year (to a different woman). It took fourteen years of marriage to finally show me the true way. Call me a plodder if you like, but I got there in the end. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently object giving anything to someone you are not romantically involved with on Valentine's Day. Please, don't give in the the rampant commercial bastardisation of the day. Also, forgive my wretched grammar. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, sending an anonymous Valentine to someone you fancy is giving in to the day's commercialisation, but sending a Valentine to your lover isn't? How does that work? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A real Valentine is not bought in a store. But what I'm really talking about is all the generic cards for your mom, dad, uncle, dog that they sell along with spewing out candy hearts and chocolates ad nauseum that they expect you to give to everyone including your boss. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine it depends quite strongly on the country you're in, what your circle of friends usually do, etc. These things are not carved in granite. For example, in Japan Valentine's day is about women/girls giving presents to men/boys, and doesn't necessarily involve romance. Daughters give their fathers presents. 130.88.140.112 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr K, if there is someone you admire, my suggestion would be to do something nice for them on a day other than Valentine's Day. It will seem more genuine, and will have no sense of forced attention (or obligation). But then, I find Valentine's Day the most unromantic day around; being contrary by nature, I cannot feel romantic on a day I am told to be romantic. (Anniversaries are the same). (On a side note, I was going to use the word "perverse" (in the senses of contrary to that which is accepted or expected) there, which is better than contrary (which implies two minds), but the context renders it inappropriate. "Intercourse" is another word it is difficult to use these days. Am I alone in missing these words?) Gwinva (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just use them and enjoy watching people's faces light up as you give them the means to make a joke. They feel clever, you feel warm inside from making them happy, and you know you used the most appropriate word. Everyone wins. Skittle (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as bad as the loss of such words is the pronounciation of the holiday as "Valentime's Day". 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinva, I don't know where you live, but have you ever considered moving to Australia? If you ever do, there's a place that seems just right for you. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, enough to Embarrass anyone (unless they lived in Conception Bay). It's Uncertain How many people Die laughing at it; Maybee enough of Them for it to be considered Slaughter? Still, one might wander the Earth, to World's End, only to discover there's No Place like one's Hometown. What Cheer one feels there: one is always Welcome, and can be True-ly Happy. Why do people leave and risk Hurt? One must query their Wisdom. You asked where I live: Whynot tell you? You might Pity Me, but I live somewhere between Young Nick's Head and Pratt's Bottom. Which might sound Odd, but I assure you I am not Lost. Well, this might have opened a can of Worms, but you walked into it with your eyes Wide Open, so it should not be a Surprise, however Rough and Ready my paragraph is. Wymore people don't consider these weighty matters, I don't know. Something to while away an Idle Hour, anyway, as long as you didn't find it too Boring, Soso, or even Silly. Anyway, with any Luck, we might all find Paradise. Or, at least, it'll all come out in The Wash. Gwinva (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a grim disappointment that you are not receptive to greetings for Valentine's Day, Gwinva. [Sigh.] Anyway, other words we can't use comfortably are ejaculate meaning "shout out", and oral meaning "spoken". We can do without the first in proper society, of course. But verbal instead of oral is sometimes infelicitous. Verbal means primarily just "with words" – whether spoken, ejaculated, or writ on wind, water, stone, or parchment.

Finally, let us assist an anonymous participant in the course of this most edifying intercourse: it's ad nauseam, not ad nauseum.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are indeed impaled upon the Horn[s] of a dilemma. One might even comment that it is a Foulwind which blows no good; in fact, Whatipu we frequently find ourselves in. I do wonder Whatawhata is the Matamata with those who laugh at the erection of interesting cases such as this. However, for you to add nausea to the debate may have gone too far: some readers might want Te Puke. Ok, ok, that was a poor one, and completely ignores the correct prounounciation. It might even make you Runaway. I do thank you for your Remarkable concern about my response to Valentine greetings; I assure you, I do appreciate Loving greetings at other times. Anyway, before I bid you Farewell, I wish to ask: is your Motherwell? Gwinva (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last effort falls well and truly outside of the topic, Gwinva. If the trouble bore any relation to the return, point taken: we should continue. But no. I suggest we keep it dark; gullible people might think we are attempting to make sense. Meanwhile, happy days – if not necessarily Valentine days!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, after that Arresting display of skill, I feel little more than a Hopeless Novice and, without Flattery, award you the Victory. In Friendship, Gwinva (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dweller, you following this? --Milkbreath (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing

Quick question: how many rooms does the West Wing of the White House have? Thanks Batmanand | Talk 08:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say. One man's hall is another man's room. If you'd like to count them yourself, see:

One of them has a link to a comparison of the set of The West Wing to the real thing. The set is nicer. - Nunh-huh 10:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't include any of the secret basements? Ninebucks (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there are several secrets not included. - Nunh-huh 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When is the poll close of 3 states election in 12 February 2008?

I'm search all over the Wikipedia. But I don't hunt it... When is the 3states poll close tomorrow? and where is the poll close page? 121.124.4.120 (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find, Virginia closes at 7 p.m., and Maryland and Washington, D.C. close at 8 p.m. (All times Eastern.) However, if you are in one of these states or district and need to get to your polling place and vote this evening, please confirm this with a more official source than somebody posting on the Wikipedia reference desk. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Hegelian triad thesis-antithesis-synthesis really a myth?

Is the Hegelian triad thesis-antithesis-synthesis really a myth? The Hegelian triad has been repeatedly debunked as a myth and its been fairly will proven that neither Hegel, Marx, or Engels ever used it except as a term of insult. Nevertheless upon reading Hegel's logic it seems that the term very aptly describes Hegel's method of reasoning and deduction. Can someone please explain to me what is incorrect about the triad, and how Hegel's method is actually different. --Jacobin1949 (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Thesis, antithesis, synthesis again if neccessary. The second link explains what (if anything) is 'wrong' with the triad - mostly in this context what is wrong is that Hegel isn't considered to have really used it (except in chapter headings..)

The try specifically Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Reading_Hegel last paragraph - quotation from Hegel - where he expressed doubts that 'any philosophy worth the name' would be refuted by a later thought system..

(and thanks to whossoever wrote the article - I enjoyed that)87.102.79.203 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the triad can be more clearly attributed to other thinkers or those that have analysed hegels work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.79.203 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tears

what makes people cry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.228 (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read tears? English Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article on crying/weeping, but if you can read German, Esperanto, or Russian, take a look at de:Weinen, eo:Ploro, or ru:Плач. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme happiness or sadness. Sentimental and/or romantic movies/stories like August Rush, Rudy, or P.S. I Love You. Social conditioning can tell you when it is appropriate to cry, for example, women stereotypically do it more than men because it is more socially accepted. Also, onions :) . Wrad (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in the case of P.S. I Love You, one might cry in pain/disgust/embarrassment rather than extreme happiness or sadness. --Emery (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military Vicar

Isn´t there an american vicar that was or is going to be beatificated?--85.180.16.119 (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of Vincent Robert Capodanno, who was a U.S. Navy chaplain during the Vietnam war. His Cause was opened in 2002 and he is now a Servant of God, the first stage towards being recognized as a saint. A declaration as Venerable comes next and may be followed by Beatification and canonization. Xn4 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. This might be him.--85.180.18.9 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deafblind

What are the steps that at deafblind person goes through when learning to communicate? How would they start to associate symbolic language with real world events/objects? Sancho 14:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a nice description of what I was looking for here. Sancho 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Brookmyre Wikipedia entry

In the Bibliography section of the Christopher Brookmyre Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Brookmyre), all the books listed, except "Not the End of the World" have an asterisk after them. See list below:

Quite Ugly One Morning, 1996 * Country of the Blind, 1997 * Not the End of the World, 1998 One Fine Day in the Middle of the Night, 1999* Boiling a Frog, 2000* A Big Boy did it and Ran Away, 2001 * The Sacred Art of Stealing, 2003* Be My Enemy, 2004 * All Fun and Games until Somebody Loses an Eye, 2005 * A Tale Etched in Blood and Hard Black Pencil, 2006 * The Attack of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks 2007

However there is no explantion of what the asterisk represents, which is confusing.

Can you please explain the relevance of the astersik?

Eltonstoney (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The asterisks were added (without explanation that I can find) by Copygir1. You might want to ask her what they're about. Algebraist 16:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask the person who put them there: Copygirl. Saudade7 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different forms of Nazism during WW2 (Germany, Italy and Japan)

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am a University undergraduate studying International Relations at University of Sussex in the UK and was wondering if you could inform me on parts of a presentation I am doing comparing the Nazi regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan before WW2 and up to the end of the war.

I'm dividing my presentation in three parts:

1. The differences in its origin between the 3 countries 2. The differences in the use of terror 3. The difference in the use of the millitary

What i'm really looking for are facts, pictures and examples as opposed to conceptual differences.

Would you be able to give me some fruitful information on:

1. The impact of catholism on fascism in Italy 2. The origin of Japan's millitary tradition 3. The political force of the Industrial-millitary complex in Germany

I hope you will be able to answer or certainly give an outline answer to my questions. I also hope this could benefit the site itself with useful information on the discrepancies within fascist regimes and ideologies.

Moreover, I would be more than happy to send you my presentation once it is finished so that you can use it to the benefit of the site.

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide me with.

(email removed) Kind regards,

Mitchell Mcmanus Schouchana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all only germany was 'nazi'. Suggest reading fascism and nazism for italy and germany respectively. For Japan I'm not sure where to start but try History of Japan and take it from there (also try History of Japan#Early Shōwa (1926-1937) - Militarization and imperialist ambitions and Japanese fascism and Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan) these articles should answer the bulk of your question.87.102.79.203 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese ideology is usually described as "militarism" - though all three are sometimes grouped together as "fascism". Nazism is usually used only in reference to the Nazis, i.e. in Germany. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting and ambitious project, Mitchell, but I'm not at all sure how you are going to produce a worthwhile answer without examining conceptual differences, or in what manner your work will be aided by 'pictures.' Also, I am not sure that the use of 'terror' is a valid basis for comparison. Terror is terror; it was merely a question of degree.

A comparison between the three regimes is most certainly a valid task, but do be careful; they were divided by as much, if not more, than they were united. Only Germany, as has already been pointed out, can be described as a Nazi power. So, the only basis of comparison, in the broadest and loosest sense of the term, is 'Fascism', a grossly overworked label, that really only serves to describe a political style. To complicate matters still further, it is uncertain if Japan in the late 1930s fits the Fascist model at all: there was simply no place for the 'charismatic leader'-one of the features of European Fascism-alongside the divine Emperor. There was no mass party-another Fascist characteristic-with only the unimportant Japan Fascism League (Nippon Fascism Remmei) adopting the European style.

Anyway, I would respond to the specific areas you have highlighted as follows;

Fascism in Italy had a strong element of social radicalism, including anti-clericalism, to begin with, attracting people like Marinetti, a prominent artist, iconoclast and comic-opera revolutionary. However, with the rightward shift in the movement in keeping with the more reactionary forms of Rural Fascism, represented by the likes of Roberto Farinacci, a more cautious and accommodating stance towards the church was taken by Mussolini. In a country like Italy the church was always going to be an alternative source of authority and legitimacy to a mass action movement like Fascism. Mussolini was sensible enough to recognise this, abandoning his former hostility to the church, and reaching agreement in the Lateran Pacts, ending a seventy-year old dispute between the Vatican and the Italian state. This served to give his regime a new legitimacy, both at home and abroad. But it was not a stable alliance. The church remained critical of the National Fascist Party and wary at attempts at further radicalisation. There were disputes over youth movements and other issues, with the church becoming ever more critical of the regime from the late 1930s onwards. In the end the Church was as an important source of resistance to the Fascist state as the Communist Party.

The origins of Japan’s military tradition lie deep in its history. I would suggest, with respect, that this is not the most fruitful area of investigation for the kind of comparative study you have in mind. Rather, it would be altogether more meaningful to examine the increasing radicalism of the Japanese military establishment from 1930 onwards; the alliance between the military and militant nationalism; the military’s role in the promotion of new forms of rapacious imperialism at the expense of China, and the increasing role of terror in Japanese domestic politics. A useful basis for comparison would be in what way the economic crisis of the 1930s impacted on all three countries, and in what the Japanese military responded to the countries deteriorating domestic and international position. No mass party, no charismatic leader, but a military determined on an uncompromising foreign policy, one which placed considerable importance on national integration and greater state control. This was far more than simple militarism.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the 'political force' of the industrial-military complex in Germany. To be honest with you I am uncertain of the explanatory value of expressions like 'industrial-military complex'-another overworked term-in relation to Nazi Germany. Hitler's regime began, like that of Mussolini in Italy, as an alliance between traditional elites and radical outsiders, but unlike Italy-where the alliance was always evenly balanced-the radical outsiders in Germany soon superseded the traditional elites, taking both industry and army in a direction they did not necessarily wish to go. By the mid-1930s Hitler was being warned by the experts that his rearmament drive was in danger of seriously unsettling the national economy. His response was to remove the experts. In the end he was to launch the kind of war for which neither the German economy, nor the German military, was properly prepared.

I can recommend further reading, if you so wish. In the meantime, the best of luck with your project. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Potemkin's English village

Does anyone know anything about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.241.214 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village) ny156uk (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a Potemkin Village in the sense we have come to understand this term, 86.151. It was, rather, a project, sponsored by Prince Potemkin, involving Jeremy Bentham and his brother, Samuel. Samuel, who was living in Russia at the time, was approached by the Russian nobleman in early 1784, with a proposal to develop his western estates at Krichev in Belorussia, bringing in English tradesmen, experts and artisans of all sorts for the purpose. Samuel wrote to his brother in England, asking for his assistance on recruitment, anything from head of the planned botanic gardens down to milkmaids! Those selected began to arrive in Riga from the summer of 1785. Jeremy was as anxious as his brother that the whole scheme should be a success, seeing it as a way of putting his utilitarian ideas into practice. He himself came to Krichev in February 1786. The 'English-village' took shape, but it was as far from the Benthamite ideal as it was possible to get, owing to the uneven quality of the arrivals from England, many of whom came from Newcastle, and were rather rougher than poor old Jeremy had anticipated! The venture finally came to an end in 1787, when Potemkin sold the estate. You will find the details of this episode in Simon Sebag Monteifiore's Prince of Princes: the Life of Potemkin. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marines fighting and dying for our Right to Free Speech...

Okay, I am living in Berkeley and although not involved in the episode (wherein Berkeley City Counsel voted to run the Marine Recruiting Office out of town) my friend and I still got in a (civil) argument about the issue this morning. I happen to think that it is a fallacy to say that we owe our freedom of speech to the Marines, and thought so even when General Pertraeus (sp?) trotted out that cliche in response to the MoveOn ad in the NYT.

My good friend always invokes the fact that the Marines defeated the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII and, had they not, we would all be dead or else our rights to free speech would be severely limited, Constitution destroyed etc. I just have a strong sense that the Right to Free Speech is a Right that is decided by a group of people, internally and conventionally, and that no one needs to die for it (although it may be the case that the people exercising their agreed-upon right to free speech would die without the Marines, but I kind of doubt that too). To say the U.S. Constitution that the Marines (presumably) fight for is the guarantee of Free Speech seems fallacious also in that, last time I checked, people in Europe and Australia etc. seem to have the right to say whatever they want too (except in some instances Nazi hate speech). Also, I am not so sure that we actually have free speech in the U.S. anymore, what with the patriot act, or that if we do it doesn't matter because the people don't own the airwaves etc....but that is an aside.

The main question is, What would be the name of the argumentative/logical fallacy that would apply to the statement that people have free speech because the Marines fought and died for it?

(Dittoheads and other flag wavers, while certainly free to express their anger at my question, need to know that they will not change my mind or hurt my feelings by attacking me.) Thanks in advance. Saudade7 18:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're presupposing that there is a logical fallacy in that argument, but I think you're trying to say that the argument is based on a false premise. Whether or not this is true is a separate discussion. Sancho 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Depending on the facts of the world, the statement that "people have free speech because the Marines fought and died for it" could be true and it could be false. Either way, from a logical point of view there is nothing wrong with it. In logic, a false statement is not the same thing as a fallacy. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading this is a mistaken consideration of cause and effect. The person seems to decide the two are linked and that without one the other wouldn't exist. It is incorrect in so much as A) There is no evidence that without the marines the allied forces would have lost B) Had the allied forces lost freedom of speech would be hugely different C) That the continuation of free speech is a result of the allied forces winning. I may well have got this wrong but that's my interpretation ny156uk (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for responding. I guess I *felt* (not very rational!) that there was some kind of fallacy at play, but the fact that I couldn't pinpoint it should have clued me in to its absence. I think it is right to say, as 194.171.56.13 did, that it is a false statement, predicated on false premises (tautology?) as Sancho said. And I liked ny156uk's breakdown of the problems. My problem is that my friend called me at 8am (I went to sleep about 3) and imagines I am lucid enough to debate! Then, the invocation of Nazis! Always with the Nazis! Don't get me wrong, I hate the Nazis, I hate fascism. But I don't think they are a valid argument for the Marines being behind our Right to free speech! I really thought there had to be some fallacy I could invoke and get back to sleep! Thanks! Saudade7 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is also a factual error. Even if what happened in WWII has undoubtly impacted the world after WWII -in my humble opinion towards a more liberal world-, marines have not fought and died alone. They were relevant principally in the Pacific theater. Mr.K. (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several possibilities exist, depending on how you phrase your question in logic. For example, the most direct form:

The marines have died for free speech.
Thus we 'owe' free speech to them.

This is a type of sunk cost fallacy. User:Krator (t c) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure the RAF, Royal Navy, British Army, RAAF, RNZAF, Gurkhas, Royal Canadian Air Force, United States Air Force, Free French Forces, French Resistance, MTC, Royal Indian Navy,Land Army, WAAF, Argentine squadron, Royal Australian Navy, Brazilian Expeditionary Force, Royal Canadian Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy, Ceylon Garrison Artillery, Fiji Defence Force, Royal Indian Air Force, Royal Netherlands Navy, South African Army and all the other armies, navies, air forces, divisions and support crews of the Allies are suitably grateful to the Marines for their noble sacrifice. Gwinva (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say nothing of all of the other branches of the American armed forces! But, yes, you are quite right, Gwinva, and this kind of silly conceit drives me nuts as well. My right to free speech owes nothing whatsoever to the 'Marines', I am more than happy to declare! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a blanket statement to make, Clio. As much as I enjoy your normally well-researched and well-reasoned answers, I think this one is way off base. Do you really have proof that the United States Marine Corps had absolutely no part in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and hence the preservation of liberal rights such as the freedom of speech? I think it is highly probable, almost to a certainty, that they had at least a tiny effect, which makes your assertion seem a little foolish. I must ask, do you believe the British military had an effect on preserving your right to free speech? If you do, and yet claim the Marines had "nothing whatsoever" to contribute, I must accuse you of "silly conceit" as well. GreatManTheory (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be incorrect to say the U.S Marines were solely responsible for the Allied victory in World War 2. But the U.S. Marines were an important part of the Allied forces which defeated the Axis powers in World War 2. I would be interested to see any reliable sources which disclose that the participation of the U.S. Marines did not aid in the defeat of the Axis, and that indeed the Allied victory was assured without the participation of the U.S. Marines. If The Nazis and their allies had won the war because there were insufficient volunteers in the U.S. marines (and the other Allied fighting forces) the right to free speech in the Western democracies would likely have been extinguished. What part of this is hard to understand? Was there free speech in Japan, Italy, Germany, or the conquered lands during WW2, compared to the somewhat diminished degree of free speech in the U.S., Australia, Great Britain, Canada, etc during the same period, and the even greater free speech in the decades after? If The Axis had won, we would only have the right to parrot the official lines. It would be comparable to the freedom of speech enjoyed by inhabitants of Russia during the Communist epoch, or that in Iraq while Hussein was in power. What blinders people wear who assume their personal freedom of the present day has no relation to the sacrifices of soldiers in World War 2. Instead of the fighting (primarily in the Pacific) described in [7], they could have just stayed home. Edison (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between the right of free expression, and the ability (or lack thereof) to express oneself freely. The Marines et al certainly contributed to the Allied cause and enabled some people who were unable to speak their minds for fear of the consequences, to do so. But those people always had the right to say whatever they wanted; it just would have been foolish or fatal to do so. But history is full of people who took a stand and spoke out, despite knowing the risk they were taking. They spoke out because they had a right to, a right that is unalienable. The Marines could no more restore that right than the Nazis could ever have removed it in the first place. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is a difference. I was under the impression we were talking about a legal right, as opposed to what you might call a "human right." Whereas we will always have the human right to speech, it is probable that an Axis victory would have meant an end to the legal right to do so. GreatManTheory (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without the Marines and other American troops, at the present time Clio the Muse would only have a right/ability of free speech in German. Britain was on the edge of collapse at the time of the US intervention.Mr.K. (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really true. The Germans screwed themselves when they decided to attack two fronts at once. While the US definitely helped and no one knows what would have happened if they had not taken part, the idea what the Allies would have lost were it not for the US is IMHO not one shared by a great number of people outside the US. We just don't know and there is ample evidence to suggest the war wasn't as hopeless as people in the US seem to like to think. Also presuming that Nazi Germany would have lasted forever even if the Allies did collapse is just plain silly. The reality is, no one knows what the world would be like if the US hadn't intervened and anyone who claims otherwise should be ignored Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh hotclaws 07:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, that's an incitement to violence! I hope you're ducking, Mr K; there might be a backlash coming... Gwinva (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Gwinva; there is a fog of ignorance, sometimes so thick, that not even Clio has the power to disperse it! Anyway, I have to ask myself if I am destined, almost in the style of Cassandra, always to have my words misinterpreted and misunderstood. I addressed my above remarks to the proposition that we have free speech because the United States Marines fought for it, which is patently absurd. One might as well say we have free speech because John Wayne fought for it, which, for some people, might very well amount to the same thing. I most assuredly did not address myself to the subsequent qualifications; that the Marines contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers, an empirical and exact statement with which I have no argument. I do have an argument with the arrogant self-regard that is on occasions embraced by some Americans, and reflected in the original bald proposition. I would only ask you to remember that there are worlds and histories beyond yours; and if your inward-looking conceit angers your friends, just think what effect it has on your enemies!

I don't really want to belabour the point; but I am a historian and will treat the statement that the Marines saved free speech as empirical assertion, which was not my original intention, rather than a glib and silly slogan. Well, they did not save free speech in my country, which was never directly threatened by a Japanese invasion. Did they save free-speech in the United States? I was under the impression that the Japanese strategic objective was to create a large defensive perimeter around their conquests in the eastern Pacific, rather than invade mainland America. In contrast, the British were defending liberty by checking the Axis advance, time, after time after time, while the United States was still immersed in the dreams of isolationism. Anyway, I tell you what, my American cousins, for the sake of balance I will trade conceits with you, silly, foolish, or otherwise: that your liberty and your freedom are due to the sacrifice made by the Grenadier Guards, a regiment in which both my grandfather and my great-grandfather served with distinction. I hope that makes you all happy and suitably grateful! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this post is still being monitored, but I'll respond to a couple of points just for the sake of argument. Perhaps I misunderstood, but stating that the USMC had "nothing whatsoever" to do with the freedom of speech does sound awfully close to claiming they made no contribution to its defense. If you are no longer arguing that point, then we have no disagreement. As I'm sure you're aware, most Americans are fiercely patriotic, but claiming that our Marines are responsible for our own country's freedom of speech (which is how the OP presented the argument) in no way denies the contributions of other nations. I for one am very grateful for the contribution of all Allied nations.

I do want to make one final point, however. Even if the Marines engaged in no battles in the European theater, their heroic efforts in the Pacific did contribute to a victory in Europe as well. Because the Marine Corps dealt with the Japanese military, the U.S. Army was free to focus its energy in Europe, helping defeat an enemy that certainly threatened your basic rights. Therefore, it is not patently absurd to claim the Marines contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. GreatManTheory (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is patently absurd to claim that the right to free speech is owing to the Marines. This is not a plausible statement. Please read again what I have written. I cannot make the point any simpler. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not claimed that the Marines are solely responsible for our freedom of speech. I simply took issue with your assertion that this freedom owed "nothing whatsoever" to them. It is my contention that anyone who defended this right, from the United States Marine Corps to your Grenadier Guards, is in some way responsible for our current freedom of speech. Please see my above post concerning the Marines' contribution to the defeat of the Axis powers. GreatManTheory (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather certain that the Marines who were operating the Marine Recruiting Office in Berkeley were not the same Marines who died in World War II, since the former were alive while the latter were dead. A valid reason for being grateful to the latter does not automatically transfer to the former. --Lambiam 09:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also being grateful does not require that you submit completely to the people you are grateful to. For example, despite what you often hear from the US, people in Europe are in fact largely grateful for the US, as well as British, Soviet etc involvement in WW2. It doesn't mean they have to submit and be the slaves of the US, the UK etc (and clearly they didn't do that for the Soviets), they are still perfectly entitled to disagree with and even go against those they are grateful to. Just because someone has done one good thing doesn't mean everything they do is good or right Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard response to the "we saved your asses" argument is to wonder aloud just what the Marines and their colleagues were doing between September 1939 and December 1941. Better late than never and all that, but the party had been in full swing for quite a while before America turned up.

Personally, I feel I owe my freedom of speech to that motley crew of barons and clerics who forced a bad king to sign a certain document on the banks of (or possibly on an island in the middle of) the Thames, thus securing their freedom from scutage and the removal of all fish weirs. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of the matter is that life and war are too complicated to ever be able to trace a linear cause and effect, and to hold one event or action as being solely responsible for an eventual outcome is a nonsense. An equal nonsense is to work back from what we have achieved and assume we could not have achieved it if one step on the path had been different. I believe we must honour and respect all those who fought in WWII, and be grateful for what they did, but we cannot attribute every aspect of our current lives to their intervention; as Gandalf hints above, there is a bigger picture. Wellington once famously remarked that any accurate written description of Waterloo would as impossible as decribing the movements of a company at a ball. If a 4-day battle is impossible to fully map, then a 6-year war is equally elusive. Focussing on any one aspect will show you incredible and vital activity, and it is possible to make a case for many or any to be crucial. As just one example, I have read essays which "prove" that the Royal Navy won the Battle of Britain and prevented the invasion of Britain. (Without which victory, the war could well have been lost whatever the Americans fancied doing a few years later.) To return to our Waterloo example again, I can place the victory in one man's hands only, if you wish: Cpl James Graham. He closed the North Gate at Hougoumont Farm following a French attack. A small act? But Wellington wrote afterwards: "The success of the battle of Waterloo depended on the closing on the gates", and when a vicar left his money in his will to "the bravest man at Waterloo", Wellington named Cpl Graham. So, then, our freedom rests in James Graham's hands. (And the poor man doesn't even have a Wikipedia article). Gwinva (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC) He does now, although it's still in its infancy. Gwinva (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Clio, when you say "..the British were defending liberty by checking the Axis advance, time, after time after time, while the United States was still immersed in the dreams of isolationism," please balance this against Chamberlain's appeasement policies of 1938 which greatly strengthened Hitler's military might by handing over an impressive military and industrial base in Czechloslovakia, and which may have squandered a chance to stifle his overreaching ambitions before the events of 1939-1945 became necessary. The British forces also did not have much success checking the Nazi advances in France during the summer of 1940. Edison (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this just supports Gwinva's point? Maybe I'm being dense, but I fail to see how it's really relevant. Seems to have strayed into whose country is 'best' a little... Skittle (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Edison, but that is all beside the essential point. And, Skittle, my intention was not one-upmanship, but to challenge a silly and inaccurate statement. I have been forced on to wider paths against my better judgement. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert (read: clueless), but it seems unlikely that Nazi Germany could have conquered America, which would seem a prerequisite to taking away our free speech. (I'm assuming the original questioner was American because of their specific mention of the US Marines). Britain was at serious risk of being conquered; I'm not convinced America's "heartland" (the actual states, not including Pacific islands or Alaska/Hawaii which were not states during WWII) was ever at serious risk. It would have been insanely difficult to mount a large-scale invasion across the Atlantic; our American troops were working with massive support and bases provided by Britain and other European Allies. Vultur (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you don't owe your free speech to the Marines has nothing to do with their involvement in World War II or any other war. The Marines have done an exemplary in every war that I can think of, and they have played a major role in the successful defense of the United States. But even if the Marines were the only thing standing between you and Nazi/Commie/Qaeda thugs, you still would not owe your free speech to them, because the Marines are sworn to uphold the United States Constitution, and under that Constitution the Marines must protect your right to speech. They will give any civilian that right whether they think he deserves it or not. The Marine gives all and demands nothing. And if you're not impressed with that argument, then you don't know the Marines. Article VI of the Marine Code of Conduct says, "I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America." You just try and find a Marine who will disobey Article VI. --M @r ē ino 05:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey after WWI

Further to a documentary I saw on British TV tonight I would be interested to know how Turkey managed to emerge from the WWI in better shape than the other central powers? Canaris (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a meaningful question. Modern Turkey did not exist as such before 1923, and the country that controlled the land during WWI, the Ottoman Empire, was taken to pieces in the aftermath of the war. --Carnildo (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Canaris, it emerged in worse shape, as you will see if you look at the Treaty of Sevres, which essentially carved up the territory of the old Ottoman Empire along what might be described as colonial lines. It was in reaction to this treaty that the Turkish national Movement was formed, which in turn led to the Turkish War of Independence and the creation of the Turkish Republic by Kemal Ataturk, a soldier and politician of outstanding brilliance. Sevres was set aside, to be replaced by the altogether fairer Treaty of Lausanne, in the negotiations for which Turkey was admitted as an equal, in sharp contrast to the manner in which the former Central Powers were handled in the peace process of 1919-1920. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT or Straight?

I guess it's the right place to answer it. British serial killer Ian Brady raped and killed five children and teens. Three of them were boys and the last victim was a gay boy, he raped him. An user has put him into LGBT people from the UK category. Is it right?. Is he LGBT after raping three boys?. Thanks and forgive me if I'm not on the right page to answer it. If this answer isn't suitable here. Please, move my answer to the right page. Thanks. Ahmed987147 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does he self identify as LGBT? I would have thought a person's sexuality is defined by their preferences rather than a string of actual incidents, especially when they are violent sexual crimes. A person who is caught in a compromising position with a hot apple pie is not automatically a piephiliac by sexuality. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rape and murder are acts of violence rather than sex acts. His decision to rape boys does not necessarily indicate a gay orientation. This sounds like a case of mental illness rather than sexual orientation. Unless reliable sources indicate that Brady identified as gay or was involved in gay sexual relationships (raping boys doesn't count), then I think that the LGBT label lacks substantiation and should be deleted. Marco polo (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I always heard the statistic that, for the most part, adult men who rape or otherwise sexually abuse young boys usually self-identify as straight and that is usually the role they conform to in society. Indeed many are married or are priests, etc. But you would have to research that statistic. That said, rape and murder aren't about getting your sexy on, they are about asserting power and control over the victim. Saudade7 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Actually I have to disagree with the responses so far. Make no mistake, if this was a case of calling someone gay in their article without a proper reference, then I'd have to concurr and say the label needs to go, but that's not the case here. The label in this case is Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies (read: studies), and applies only on the talk page. Charlize Theron for example has one on her talk page as do many more articles (and she is not gay). The label does not say he is gay/bisexual, but that the article is worthy of inclusion in the category. If you were looking for articles on the subject of LGBT, you might technically be interested in reading the one on Ian Brady or Charlize Theron. So it's not a label saying they're gay, but rather a label to say LGBT is relevant to editors. That said, the people at the LGBT studies project might have their own opinion as to whether the article falls within their scope, they might decide that it doesn't. Rfwoolf (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with woolf. I've got to ask a question, though. How can anyone be LGBT? That's like four things. You can't be gay and lesbian. The label seems to apply more to groups than to individuals. Wrad (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rape-and-murder" pedophiles can't be classified as "straight", "gay", or anything else based on their choice of victims: it's an act of power, not of sex. --67.185.172.158 (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Rfwoolf. Is it just interesting to "LGBT editors" because he raped a gay kid? Or because he was a man who raped boys? In the first case I guess it could be interesting to LGBT Es but in the second case is it just rather defamatory classification. Also, just in case the above comment by 67... was addressed to me - I didn't say that he was straight or gay based on his choice of victims, I said that most pedophiles consider themselves straight and self-identify that way. Their self-identifying as straight is a priori their first instance of rape or abuse of another person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudade7 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not a member of the LGBT project I don't see any reason why it would be offensive. The fact that he raped boys may very well make this case of interest to LGBT editors. Not because a man raping boys has anything to do with LGBT but because a lot of people falsely attribute the problem to LGBT culture. For example, the various Catholic priest scandals have sometimes been misused by various commentators in homophobic ways ignoring the fact that it very likely had more to do with access then sexual preference and the reason it was a scandal was because of the age of the victims and position of trust of the offenders not to do with sex/gender of the victrims. (No one cares other the Catholic Church if priests are gay or regularly have sex with another man, what people do care about is when priests abuse underage children even worse when they abuse their position of trust to do so, regardless of the sex of the victims.) In other words even though the actual thing may have nothing to do with LGBT, because other people misuse the scandal to attack LGBT people and culture it may be of interest to LGBT editors so they can help monitor the article for biased edits. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Ahmed was in fact asking about this rather more questionable edit, which I undid apparently before the rest of you had read and answered this question. I've attempted to summarise the full reason why I undid it in the tiny edit summary box, but reading the above comments I think everyone here understands why. Skittle (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I agree with your revision; we cannot call *him* a LGBT person from the UK. The LGBT project on is talkpage, while I agree is questionable, has more integrity to remain. So I guess what I'm saying is that it's not okay to call him a LGBT person, but it's okay to make him part of the LGBT study group. Rfwoolf (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon above, "Rape-and-murder" criminals can't really be classified as "pedophiles" either. "Rape is about power, not sex" --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amartya Sen

What's a good work of Amartya Sen to start with? I am mostly interested in political philosophy. Looking over the titles on his Wikipedia page, it seems a lot of them are practical works on development. I generally wouldn't like that, but am open minded. User:Krator (t c) 22:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books on St.Francis of Assisi as diplomat and adventures in Egypt

I'm researching St.Francis of Assisi and I'm very intrigued by his efforts a peacemaker among the Italian city states and in Egypt. Does anyone know of any good books that examine this aspect of St. Francis' life. --Frsoroad (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about his adventures in Italy, but Francisology is pretty extensive so I'm sure it's covered somewhere. For Egypt, there is Maximiliano Roncaglia's "St. Francis of Assisi and the Middle East", but I must admit I do not know the book; it was published in 1957 so it may be out of date. The best source is probably James Powell, in various works, published over the last couple of decades. His "Anatomy of a Crusade", a history of the Fifth Crusade, deals with Francis briefly, but it would be good background for what Francis was doing there. He also wrote a couple of relevant articles, "Francesco d'Assisi e la Quinta Crociata: Una missione di pace", in Schede Medievali 4 (1983), and "St. Francis of Assisi's Way of Peace" in Medieval Encounters 13, no. 2 (2007). Adam Bishop 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk) [reply]