Humanities desk
< October 11	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 13 >

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.

October 12

Bengali version of haiku

In Bengali literature, they have their own haiku poetry but it is different when it comes to number of syllables and lines. i forgot what is called. Does anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.219 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the kural in Tamil literature. Could there be a Bengali equivalent? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good things Nazis did

I'm trying to compile a list of some good things Nazis did. The only things I can really think of are their treatment of animals (which was humane), and their methods for treating hypothermia (although at the cost of subjecting many human subjects to freezing temperatures). Was there anything else? ScienceApe (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of "good?" For example, the Nazis made great advances in rocket science -- but at the expense of slave labor, and they used the rockets to attack British cities. That's why questions like this are impossible to answer. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I consider the V2 rocket to be a good thing. ScienceApe (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As in any war, great strides in technology were made by the nations involved in World War II. I believe that Germany developped a lot of synthetic oil and coal derivatives: Buna rubber, for examples. IG Farben was the big German chemical company before and during the war. You can't forget advances made in all sorts of war technology (tanks, guns, planes; it's up to you whether any of that's "good" or not, but it was certainly technological progress). The one that I think people would like the most is jet engines, although it's not like we wouldn't have 747s if the Nazis hadn't invented the jet during the war (others were certainly developing similar concepts). Hitler instigated his infamous anti-smoking campaign, the butt of so many jokes employing Reductio ad Hitlerum arguments. There's also the German Autobahnen, much of which was built under the Nazis. Buddy431 (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the US jet engine programme started in 1942, before any of the Allies knew about German jets, with the assistance of Frank Whittle who wasn't a Nazi. The first US jet engine was based on a British engine. The US ended up making the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire under licence. The Soviets just copied a Rolls-Royce engine that we sent them as a present. Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The classic VW bug was a great car for its era. Magnetic tape recording was seized upon by the world after the fall of Germany and revolutionized record making and radio production. U-boats were the best submarines of the era and influenced postwar sub design. Edison (talk)

We just had this question a couple of months ago, with some more examples given there. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is largely to their credit that others determined the need to end WWII. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they did any good things. Any "good things" they did were the result of barbaric methods such as slave-labour or the lethal experimentation upon unwilling victims, eg sea hypothermia data. The VW was manufactured by the British Vw#1945:_British_Army.2C_Major_Ivan_Hirst.2C_unclear_future after the war, although designed prior to the war. A4 paper was designed in Germany but prior to when the Nazis were in power. A4 paper is in daily use throughout the world (apart from North America) today, but apparantly it was not designed by the Nazis. 92.29.125.142 (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a certain sense of chicanery involved. The Germans do have these incredibly nice roads, but the thing is, it's easy to make a nice smooth stable road if you make it three times thicker by everyone else's using virtual slave labor. But the philosophy gets a little bit dicier where technology is involved: do the externalities of the V-2 impinge on the science? Can someone say, he worked out principles of rocket design, but wasn't fouled by considerations of how those rockets were made, how that information was learned, what its purpose was at the time? Such questions have been asked in many contexts and often it seems like neither "yes" nor "no" can be satisfactory. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or as Tom Lehrer said, "'Vonce ze rockets are up, who cares vhere zey come down? Zat's not my department!' says Wernher von Braun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They gave us the Volkswagen. Assuming that's a "good" thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Almost none were built before or during the war. See Vw#1945:_British_Army.2C_Major_Ivan_Hirst.2C_unclear_future. 92.28.252.6 (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis provided us with some good laffs. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't too funny but I just thought I should reference it for perspective. Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that "good" things is perhaps a bit of an oxymoron. Maybe "useful" things would be closer to the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionably the best thing they did was lose the war. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian comic

I would ask this on the refdesk at it.wiki, but as far as I can tell there isn't one, so here goes:

In the early 90s there was a series of humorous writings called Pillole, put out by something called Università del Progetto. The one I'm looking for in particular was an account of Adam and Eve in the Garden, with God warning them not to eat of the nocciol tree (from Italian nocciolo, "hazelnut tree"), because he wanted all the Nuttell (Nutella) for himself. It was written in that funny sort of italo-English. I remember a line "Adam and Eve didn't ebber the temp that the tuons and fulmins apparved in the ciel".

Does this ring a bell with anyone? I can't seem to track it down with Google. --Trovatore (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RD has an interwiki link to the Italian page it:Wikipedia:Oracolo, which appears to be a reference desk of sorts. Algebraist 09:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've made a request there. Still, if anyone here recognizes it, please let me know. --Trovatore (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

obviously impossible

Dear Madam,

your article says: " In this series an eyewitness account tells of Hitler watching movies (which he did very often). If ever a scene showed (even fictional) cruelty to or death of an animal, Hitler would cover his eyes and look away until someone alerted him the scene was over" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism

This is obviously impossible of a man who ordered millions of people killed. So, you should change it, since as it stands it is the strongest sentence denying the holocaust as orchestrated by Hitler that I have ever read.

Please accept the expression of my regards, 92.229.15.149 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Gacy was a clown at children's parties. Monsters have feelings too, it just doesn't excuse their monstrous behaviour. There is no such thing as 'obviously impossible' when it comes to human nature and cognitive dissonance. → ROUX ₪ 10:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Roux,

Did you even read my quotation? It says he would look away even if an animal was killed. This is impossible to reconcile with ordering humans killed. You must change that sentence.

Please accept, etc 92.229.15.149 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't work that way. It's quite possible for there to be reputable sources that attest to his discomfiture at seeing cruelty to animals, co-existing with reputable sources that attest to his ordering of the Holocaust. People are complex creatures. Just because we find it hard to reconcile the opposing aspects of their characters does not mean that the more unlikely sounding reported behaviour is obviously wrong. And his feelings for animals do in NO way, shape or form amount to holocaust denial. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The article doesn't say that he did look away when an animal was killed. It says an eyewitness reported he did. There must be questions as to how reliable any friend, associate or even acquaintance of Hitler would be as an eyewitness. I think we should look at the source and check that we have reflected the source in the most appropriate way. It may take a little bit of time to do that. Any of us can help out with that, including the original poster. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that article is in dire need of attention. The point about Hitler regaling his company with graphic descriptions of an abattoir is used twice, and in support of mutually conflicting conclusions. (I'd say there's no conflict between that story and a love of animals; it's rather like Tolstoy's little prank of serving a live duck plus a meat cleaver to a carnivorous guest.)

And as we know, millions of people are happy to eat factory-farmed meat so long as they don't have to see what it means "on the ground", as they say. People can, it seems, reconcile anything inside their own heads.--Rallette (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else getting sick of 92's trolling? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

92, you should go have a listen to the gentle, acoustic Look at Your Game, Girl sung by Charles Manson. Nobody would ever guess that soft, melodic voice belonged to the wild-eyed Manson. Jack of Oz is right: human beings are complex, contradictory. A ferocious wife-beater could cry during a sad film; decent law-abiding citizens often walk uncaringly past injured people in the street, violent criminals attend religious services....I could go on and on citing the contradictory behaviour of humans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be eyewitness yourself to Hitler's tender moments with his dog (video). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the obvious question that arises from this is "Did Hitler ever watch any of the cruel acts that he caused"? Was he ever present at an execution, or visit a concentration camp? Buddy431 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article about the failed 20 July plot to assassinate Hitler notes that Hitler ordered those found guilty to be "hanged like cattle". The executions were reportedly filmed and later reviewed by Hitler. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the attraction of the whole 'boogieman' scenario - the belief that horrendous events must be caused by ravening maniacs - the reality of the situation is that evil events are usually caused by more-or-less normal people who believe they are 'doing the right thing' according to a flawed interpretation of some ideology. Doesn't matter whether you're talking about the Manson killings, the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay, or any other brutality; one has to be tremendously morally self-righteous even to contemplate such acts. --Ludwigs2 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. There's a difference between "getting a government to do bad things" and "getting a small group of people to do bad things." There are different dynamics of accountability, how convincing you have to be, etc. Manson, for example, was pretty much a "raving maniac" who wanted to start a race war because he thought it would lead to him being appointed king of the whites. He was a sadist and a pimp and a guy who got people to follow him in part because he targeted very vulnerable individuals and then isolated them from everyone else and gave them huge amounts of drugs while he then drilled in his crazy worldview. Such an approach will probably at best get you about what Manson got — a dozen or so people willing to do horrible things in his name. It won't let you take over an entire nation, though. Hitler and Manson are two totally incomparable situations, even if some aspects of their worldviews overlap. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, it's easier to get a nation to do atrocities than to get a small group to do so. Much greater diffusion of responsibility; much more potential for applying social pressure to recalcitrant individuals. Manson would have had a distinct problem appearing respectable enough to get himself elected to office, obviously, but if he had managed to do so it would have been child's play for him to convince the nation to start a race war, and he would have made the Nazis look like rank amateurs. --Ludwigs2 21:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look away when a movie features onscreen surgery, but that doesn't mean I'm morally opposed to doctors, I just prefer not to watch them work. APL (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People support the death penalty but hug their children at night. Impossible! Aaronite (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe this question/request is done in good faith. Surely you have met people who are callous towards the fate of human beings in need (e.g. the poor or the unlucky) but would certainly cringe at the idea of hurting an animal? It is not that hard to believe at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it's not asked in good faith - if you don't pick that up from the 'dear madam' bit, you're gooney. but it's not a super-stupid question, all things considered, so whatever... --Ludwigs2 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any eyewitness record of Hitler watching movies of mass murders in the Holocaust?Edison (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this is an instance of what seems to be known as "trolling" here at the RD. Surprising that it was not dealt with as summarily as the one about "how do magnets work".

I thought this discussion was worthwhile; I think every one of the respondents above made a good point. Is there an article, though, that directly addresses the "gangster-crying-at-the-opera" phenomenon? I couldn't find one with that or similar search terms. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of a ruthless killer garbed in the divine robes of the Holy Church: Cesare Borgia. Note that some historians are now attempting to whitewash him and his crimes. It should also be mentioned that Hitler had once thought of becoming a priest himself! It is in his article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Borgia at least had the wherewithal to employ Leonardo da Vinci, I guess. And I suppose it should be pointed out that some "ruthless killing" is considered acceptable, occasionally even commendable, even by "us".

The aerial bombardment of cities by the Allies during World War II, for example, culminating of course in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How could President Truman have done it? Well, in the context at the time it seemed to be what needed to be done, so he did it. It is something that now all Americans (at least) "accept" and understand to have been done in their name, as horrible a thing as it truly was to do. Civilians are killed on a regular basis by military action (and OGA drone strikes...) today, and all Americans bear collective responsibility for that. Still, we permit it, let it be done in our name, with the understanding that it is a consequence of our national interest in needing to fight "terrorists", even though we (the vast majority of us) deeply regret that consequence and feel great remorse for those victims.

This is all far afield now from a discussion of what went on in Hitler's "experience". But we are all very complex beings, and there is good and evil in us all. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this article: Zoroastrianism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we are going to start getting theological about it, our Problem of evil article ought perhaps to be mentioned here. And then from a completely different perspective, there is also the Evolutionary ethics article. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can a dummies' guide to recognising trolls be included at the top of this page? For those of us who are dummies in that regard.Itsmejudith (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing a guide to that is likely going to go way beyond the scope of this question (or this whole desk!), and will probably lead to exhaustive ~~debate~~ discussion on the talk page if proposed. There's What is a troll? which I haven't read myself yet. And I do not see any simple appropriate header templates at Reference desk templates to use here, either, if that's what you meant. I've seen something used that might serve that purpose, but don't know where that is WikiDao ☯ (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19th Century English diction

Dear Madam,

I am interested in a "link" to a clear speaker of English from the 19th century... I have looked at several early recordings but the sound quality is very, very low. I am interested in diction, elocution, and pronunciation from this time. Thank you for any assistance you may be able to render in this matter.

In the wait of your response, please accept my most distinguished sentiments, 92.229.15.149 (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, sound-recording technology was still rather primitive then, and time has not been kind to many of the physical media on which the recordings were stored. AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the limitations of the equipment would not allow preservation of such details. Remember the grumpy faces and stiff poses of early photographs limited by the long reaction time of the photographic plates in use at the time. Early sound recording probably encouraged loud, slow, over-enunciated speech that didn't exactly preserve "natural" speech. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An after-dinner speaker in 1888

See the article on Arthur Sullivan.

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind going further back in time, there are the current residents of Tangier Island. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above recording of Sullivan is a good example from the UK. Here is Thomas Edison, on a cylinder from 1888,"Around the world on the Phonograph." I note that initial "r" sounds sound a bit like a "flap r" and that vowels sound a bit longer than in modern speech. He can be taken as a nortmal speaker of 19th century midwestern US English, and not someone trained in elocution. Edison (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note he says "hotehl" with a long "a" for the "e"' in hotel. In "Bombay" he has a long pure "a" like European languages, without the diphthong "ay" or "aee" of modern US English. Edison's (born 1847) English sounded more like 19th century UK English than their equivalents a century and more later. Edison (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the wait of your response, please accept my most distinguished sentiments - that seems very much in keeping with a question about 19th century manners. Is it a historically recorded valedictory form, or did you make it up yourself? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fairly standard, compare to: "Awaiting your urgent response, I ask you, Dear Sir, to accept the assurance of my most distinguished sentiments,...". PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Robert Browning, born 1812, in 1889, reciting a poem: [1], and here is Florence Nightingale, born 1820, recorded 1890, on Edison cylinders. Here [2] is Arthur Conan Doyle, born 1859, recorded in 1927. I note that the same speaker's speech patterns may vary over the decades.Edison (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can listen to Alfred Lord Tennyson (1809-1892) reciting The Charge of the Light Brigade (poem) here[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siamese Twin Terminology

It would appear to me that the term Siamese Twin would now be deemed politically incorrect, seeing as not all twins come from Siam. Would the more correct term today be conjoined twin? If not, then what would be considered politically correct? Thanks! Stripey the crab (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conjoined twins - but not necessarily more "politically correct", just a better, clearer, less misleading term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on Conjoined twins that explains the origin of the term Siamese twins. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness is the only reason why the terminology changed. "Conjoined twins" is not better, clearer or less misleading, since the term Siamese twins was already widely used and understood. --Viennese Waltz 07:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to whose definition does "Siamese" mean "conjoined"? "Conjoined twins" is obviously more correct, but I fail to see any sense in which it is "politically" correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the 1988 edition of Chambers English Dictionary in front of me. "Siamese twins: Chinese twins (1811-74), born in Siam, joined from birth by a fleshy ligature: any set of twins thus joined" [my emphasis]. --Viennese Waltz 08:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm curious as to why you think that the terminology only changed because of "political correctness", when it is clearly a more accurate and appropriate term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept that "conjoined" is a more accurate or appropriate term. How can it be, when the "Siamese" definition I quoted above is there in the dictionary? Notwithstanding Trovatore's comment below, there is no risk of ambiguity. No-one talks about "Siamese twins" meaning "twins from Siam", and if they did need to, then the context would make it clear that they were talking about twins from Siam rather than twins who are joined together. Your argument seems to be that "conjoined" is a neutral, purely descriptive term. My point is, so is "Siamese". --Viennese Waltz 09:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a word or term is in dictionaries does not necessarily mean it is neutral, appropriate, PC or anything else. "Fuck", "cunt" and "nigger" are all found in most dictionaries, but one still must be somewhat judicious in their use. I think the point is this: Using an expression that uses a racial descriptor to apply to people of widely different races could easily be seen as politically incorrect, and its use would therefore be contraindicated. Using a more technically accurate expression, while not necessarily a case of politically correctness per se, would be the obvious alternative in this case. Another way of looking at it is that "Siamese twins" was completely accepted as the term, until the era of political corrrectness arrived, since when it has been deemed to no longer be appropriate. Had that era never arrived, we'd still probably be talking about Siamese twins. But we don't, and we can thank nobody but the political correctness police for that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the deprecation of that term really driven by the political correctness police in this case? I wasn't aware that "Siamese" was ever much of a racial slur, was it? I think the eponymous case just became less culturally familiar and other cases with no "Siamese" connection ;) but with the quality of "being conjoined" became somewhat more familiar (I can't really think of any, but I'm sure they're out there). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I find the notion of there being "political correctness police" in cases like this quite baffling. Many people found the term "Siamese twins" inappropriate and inaccurate, compared to the term "conjoined twins" - so they stopped using it, in favour of the more accurate term. "Political correctness" does not describe the process. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Not a slur at all, but a word doesn't need to have pejorative possibilities to render its use undesirable. It's analogous to female presiding officers saying they didn't want to be referred to as "chairmen". There's nothing wrong with being a man, but to refer to a woman as any kind of "man" is as silly as referring to conjoined twins from Zanzibar, Iceland or Brazil as "Siamese". If I may put on my OR hat: Had the original so-called Siamese twins been Americans, does anyone seriously believe the term "American twins" would ever have come into use? Well, we can never know, but I would say No. To that extent, the use of "Siamese twins" had a whiff of racism about it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me borrow that OR hat for a moment. Remember when we used to call tongue kisses "French kisses" even when they were not performed by Frenchmen? I know, how weird was that?

I don't know, I don't think the racial slur argument completely carries water here. I think this is one of the cases where the word Siamese is being avoided because it's a remainder of the fact that Siam used to be a colonial name of an "exotic land" - but if that is so, one has to wonder why we still call a breed of cats Siamese, or a type of tea Ceylon tea. I don't think there is any compelling reason to have had the terminology changed, I think some sort of hyper-corrective PC mindset was at work here. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a racial descriptor, there's no doubt it has "racial" tones to its use. The eponymous twins came from a far away little-known place with an exotic name. It was a selling point to use it, but it could have been just about any other similarly exotic-sounding place for all Americans would have known. Which is certainly indicative of exploitation and cultural ignorance, no doubt. And the social move away from that sort of thing has undoubtedly played a part in the term's deprecation. Also, it was simply practical or otherwise linguistically desirable to shift to a more accurately descriptive name. So: all of the above. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that Siamese twins was widely understood, it did create a problem when you wanted to talk about non-conjoined twins who happened to be Siamese. This is only somewhat alleviated by the fact that the contemporary demonym is Thai, because you could still have occasion to speak of non-conjoined twins from a historical period for which the term Siamese would be appropriate. --Trovatore (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment in Venezuela

Did Hugo Chavez reinstate capital punishment when he came to power? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of that, and I could not find any sources claiming this. The abolition of the death penalty has been written into the Venezuelan constitution, so it's not simply an act by any one official that can change this. See Capital punishment in Venezuela. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But don't authoritarian leaders generally use the death penalty to crush dissent? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that hypothesis is true, it follows that either Chavez is not a leader, not authoritarian, or that the general case does not apply. I think there is something in at least 3 of the 4 possibilities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also bear in mind that Venezuela is more than 90% Roman Catholic, and today's Catholic church strongly discourages capital punishment (see JPII's Evangelium Vitae). It is not technically forbidden, but it's so strongly discouraged that it might as well be. LANTZY ^TALK 07:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the only place where Catholics don't mind the death penalty is the United States. Of the eleven U.S. states in which Catholicism is the largest denomination, eight employ the death penalty, and one of them, Texas, accounts for about half of the annual executions in the United States. The death penalty even remains legal in Pennsylvania, where more than half the population is Catholic. I think it may be the only majority-Catholic polity in the world where capital punishment has not been abolished.LANTZY ^TALK 07:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was abolished at one stage in the USA, but was later unabolished (disabolished? deabolished?) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reinstated, reintroduced, regressed to Itsmejudith (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, according to this article, Venezuela was the very first country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, all the way back in 1863. If that is true, it is probable that Venezuelans would perceive capital punishment to be not merely immoral but also foreign and un-Venezuelan. A Venezuelan government, however powerful, would be very unlikely to betray a point of national pride, just as an American government would be unlikely to, say, establish a hereditary monarchy. LANTZY ^TALK 07:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "don't authoritarian leaders generally use the death penalty to crush dissent?" – Chavez uses a talk show, "Aló Presidente", to address dissent, which is a much more transparent and "accessible" tool for that purpose (and the related purpose of achieving consensus) than many national leaders make (as much) use of these days. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]