Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 24

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.

September 24

Assonance Picture

Removed per policy because this is a duplicate of a question asked on the Language reference desk. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the UN General Assembly

Why does the UN continue to invite Iranian President Ahmadinejad to address the General Assembly? What is the UN's policy about inviting controversial or "disruptive" people to address it? Could the US prevent Ahmadinejad from speaking by denying him a visa to NYC? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The US imposing its will on the UN by refusing the right of out-of-favor heads of state to address the body would totally violate the spirit of locating the UN in the US post WW2. Khruschev, Castro, Arafat, Ahmadinejad or any other head of state must be free to address the General Assembly. The proper response to such an action as refusal of access to the UN by the US to some head of state or some UN delegation would be to relocate the UN headquarters to a neutral country such as Switzerland. The UN is as irrelevant as the League of Nations the day it becomes a puppet body of any US regime. Edison (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but if they stop inviting him, not deny his right to come, but just not invite him, could he still show up unannounced with no repercussions? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Iran still a member of the UN? With membership in an organization, there usually comes voice and vote in assemblies. Edison (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Who would draw the line, anyway, around "controversial" leaders or countries? Would that mean excluding Russia and China? How about the US itself? Is "disruption" related to speeches really such a problem? If the US started to have the ability to determine who got to give speeches at the UN, it would be a clear sign that the UN headquarters should be moved somewhere other than the US. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not many leaders promt mass walk-outs. Grsz¹¹ 13:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel could be considered more "problematic" than in just that way. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(Good question. ;)

There have been some impressive antics by world leaders addressing the UN, and Ahmadinejad is not the most "disruptive" speaker they've had address them:

• Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez actually called then-President Bush "a devil" on the floor of the General Assembly!
• Yasser Arafat famously addressed the UN wearing a gun holster (without the gun, but still) while he was still considered an "active" terrorist by US authorities! (see the #Terrorism in the 1970s and official recognition section of his article).
• And then there was the Shoe-banging incident, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev banged his shoe in anger against the rostrum while in the General Assembly -- in 1960, at the height of the Cold War, when the US and the USSR were busily striving to out-do each other in their capacity to blow each other up, and all of civilization could have been destroyed within twenty minutes of someone on either side hitting the wrong button! (Note though that Krushchev's movements were highly restricted while in NYC).

OP, why do you think the UN let's this sort of thing go on there? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

One note: I'm pretty sure that all of civilization can still be destroyed within twenty minutes of someone on either side hitting the wrong button. We just gloss over this fact since the end of the Cold War. The fact itself hasn't really changed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations General Assembly convenes its regular session each year beginning on the third Tuesday in September, and one of the opening agenda items is the "General Debate" lasting for two weeks, in which each Member State is invited to present a high-level address to the Assembly. Virtually all Member States' member speeches during this occasion are presented by the Head of State or Government, or occasionally a Foreign Minister or the equivalent, rather than by the country's U.N. Ambassador ("Permanent Representative") who represents the country on all other occasions. There is, to my knowledge, no precedent for denying the leader of a Member State the right to address the General Assembly during the General Debate (or at any other time). In fact, for better or worse (and for me it is worse because I live and work a couple of blocks from the UN Building and have been caught up in the heightened security), it would be a violation of the United States' international treaty obligations as Host Country under the Headquarters Agreement to deny entry to a Head of State or Government or to an accredited Permanent Representative. I believe that several years ago, the U.S. refused to admit Yasser Arafat to the U.S. to address a session of the General Assembly on behalf of the PLO, contending that he was not entitled to privileges under the Headquarters Agreement, and the General Assembly session was moved for a day to the U.N.'s other location at Geneva so that Arafat could speak. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat#Terrorism in the 1970s and official recognition has "Arafat became the first representative of a non-governmental organization to address a plenary session of the UN General Assembly. Arafat was also the first leader to address the UN while wearing a holster, although it did not contain a gun." Are you saying that did not happen in NYC?! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That did occur in New York City. The incident I'm recalling happened later. (Poking around, I see that his initial speech that you are citing was in 1974, while the one I am thinking of was in 1988.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for being late to the party that I started, but WikiDao, the examples you cited were all one-time incidents. Ahmadinejad does this sort of thing all the time. Disrupting the assembly once can certainly be forgiven, but doing it several times over, I think it's pretty clear that the guy is basically a real life version of an internet troll, right? So why keep bringing him back if you can't even have his word that he won't deliberately say highly inflammatory things that will piss off other world leaders to the point of making them walk out of the assembly, and thereby grabbing the spotlight away from the real issues at hand? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So, again: why do you think they'd do something like that? You seem to have some very strong feelings about it. Why not get involved, and write your Congressperson, Senator, and/or President to ask our UN Ambassador to raise the issue the next time she gets a chance? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad's hijinks are really nothing compared to the general "disruption" that takes place regularly in the UN and has for decades. There is a reason that it has a reputation as a place for grandstanding rather than action, but that's been part of the original set up from the beginning. The entire point of an international deliberative body is to allow different nations, however kooky, to have a place to present their view of the world. Attempt to declare some points of view out of bounds and unmentionable is a slippery slope that nobody really wants to go down, and for good reason. Part of having open communication is putting up with stupid communication.

Both the USSR and USA did things throughout the Cold War that resulted in walk-outs. Ahmadinejad is an elected (with some irregularities) leader of a member state in full standing. The idea that the UN as an organization would remove him from diplomacy altogether because what he said is offensive to some members (but hardly all) is kind of ridiculous. Arguably Ahmadinejad's offensiveness is at worst a distraction, nothing like the misinformation that far more consequential states have distributed to the UN in recent years. In any case, a strong argument can be made (in the Lockean tradition) that giving someone like Ahmadinejad a pulpit is better than trying to shut him up. If what he says is really so outrageous, it is better to have it coming out of his own mouth and clearly identified with him, than to give him the honor and prestige of being censored. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to comments above about the state of things during the Cold War, this item appears in today's "On This Day" list: Soviet nuclear-weapons duty officer Stanislav Petrov refused to launch a counter-strike despite his system telling him that as many as four US missiles were already in the air and on their way, narrowly averting a completely devastating global catastrophe. I don't think anyone is hovering over "the button" that vigilantly anywhere today, but it's still astonishing to think how quickly all of this could be gone (and even just "by accident," arising out of mutual distrust and failure to communicate). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Stanislov Petrov didn't decide not to launch missiles. The Soviets didn't give lieutenant colonels the chance to start World War III. He decided not to tell his superiors about the missiles showing up on his satellite early-warning system. That wasn't supposed to be his call to make. He was supposed to tell his superiors, who would realize that none of the other warnings systems showed any incoming missiles and decide not to launch a counter-attack. There is a chance that, considering how freaked out everyone was at that time, the Soviet command would have launched an attack anyway based on that one warning. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bicep chain

Is there a religious significance (in any popular religion) to a silver chain worn around the bicep? -- kainaw™ 04:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of a cilice? It is sometimes worn around the bicep. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 05:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, JW. What you have in mind is something far-different. You are talking about the thing the villain (a Christan fanatic) wears in Da Vinci Code  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Those look purposely uncomfortable. The ones I've seen (that I am wondering about) look like simple jewellery chains fastened around the upper part of the bicep. It is under the sleeve, but part of the chain hangs down and, if the guy is wearing a short sleeve shirt, the dangling part of the chain is visible. I don't want to assume these men are Hindi. But, it is only an assumption that this is religious and not just some cool fashion accessory from India. -- kainaw™ 12:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on Keyur. You can do a google image search of "baju bandh". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are worn in a similar manner - just far more decorative that what I've seen. Further, it appears to be more fashion than religion, which is what I was wondering about. -- kainaw™ 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Searches on the World Wide Web are probably more successful with the correct spelling. The singular is biceps, and the plural is either biceps or bicepses. (http://www.onelook.com/?w=biceps&ls=a).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

See Five K's#Kara. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Wave. The ਕੱੜਾ, this → you have in mind is an iron bangle worn by Sikhs on wrist. Maybe what OP has in mind this, it's called a tabij in India, sometimes worn around the bicep (but mostly around neck), it's made of silver so someone may use it with a silver chain, though typically a black thread is used  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Republicanism in Australia versus Canada

I realize that we seldom penetrate to the "why" of things, but I've always been curious as to why republicanism has always enjoyed much stronger support in Australia than in Canada. It's not as if Canada is a right-wing Protestant stronghold. Canada is famously liberal, certainly to a greater extent than Australia, yet Australia is much closer to becoming a republic. What is the cultural difference that makes Australia more prone to republicanism? LANTZY^TALK 06:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Australia isn't as close to the United States? -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Better the devil you know than the other devil you know, eh? In the various essays I've seen, it seems that there's a lot of love for ol' QE2 - enough to overcome the republican sentiment in people who would otherwise be in favour of removing the link to the monarchy. I've personally never understood that argument - you can still appreciate and honour, say, Gandhi without having him politically linked to your country at all. I don't understand it, but I've seen it trotted out enough to wonder what public sentiment for republicanism will be like when she dies. Mostly, though, I think it's because things are going good - Canada didn't suffer the kind of hit the US did in the recent economic and real estate hiccup and it's hard to foment support for sweeping political change when people have jobs, access to health care, and homes. Matt Deres (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Canada is "famously liberal"? That's not a widely known fact where I live (for either sense of "liberal"). Maybe this is just an impression for USians who live in close proximity in a less liberal system, but who have little experience with e.g. Australia? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's something more than just a figment of my Usonian imagination to say that Canada's political environment is well to the left of Australia's. To take just one issue: In Australia, even the principal party of the left is opposed to same-sex marriage. In Canada, even the reigning conservatives have thrown in the towel on that issue. It may be that Australians themselves are as liberal-minded as Canadians, but their political culture has yet to catch up. That's why I find it odd that republicanism is a viable position in Australia but entirely off the table in Canada. LANTZY^TALK 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "liberalism" (however you want to define it) really has to do with it anyway; that might be a red herring. What does someone's opinion on gay marriage or gun control or whatever really have to do with abolishing the monarchy? Matt Deres (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Monarchism tends to be a conservative viewpoint. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is why the US is a republic and the Netherlands and Sweden are monarchies ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions proving the rule. But bear in mind that in the USA, even the most liberal of mainstream viewpoints would be considered hopelessly conservative in Europe. → ROUX ₪ 01:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I suspect there may be some exceptions to that rule. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, especially if by "Europe" you mean "Europe", rather than "Western Europe". Eastern Europe is considerably more benighted and bigoted than even the southernmost bowls of the United States. And western Europe isn't exactly Shangri-La. The French, whom Americans stereotypically associate with limp-wristed liberalism, are fully as xenophobic and homophobic as Americans, notwithstanding their greater tolerance of trade unionism and adultery. LANTZY^TALK 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Canada is extremely liberal compared to the USA, and about on-par with many European nations (though not quite as far as say Sweden). Were even the most conservative of Canadian politicians to be active in the USA, they would almost all be considered left wing. In terms of republicanism here, part of the issue is that the institution of the monarchy is embedded in the constitution. As we have seen in the past couple of decades, attempting constitutional amendment is no small issue and would require a political unity at both federal and provincial levels which is unlikely to happen. Yes, a large part of HM's popularity is quite simply that she herself is an institution; there are comparatively few people alive who even remember a time when she wasn't the Queen. Add that to the general Canadian attitude of keeping things as they are and making changes slowly (yes there are exceptions), particularly when it comes to issues that address our national identity, and we are unlikely to see change in the near future. That notwithstanding, I firmly believe, sadly, that whoever accedes to the throne next will probably be the last. If it is Charles, we will almost certainly be a republic by the end of his (likely to be rather short, compared to his mother's) reign; if he somehow does not accede (which wouldn't be hard; Camilla used to be Catholic and all the Palace needs to do is seed some rumours saying she still is, giving him the ability to step aside in favour of William), we will see another long-reigning monarch which may give the monarchy the lasting sort of gravitas that HM has brought. Further, Australians have been by nature much more independent-minded than Canadians; we were settled voluntarily for the most part, while Australia was in many cases settled by criminals--they were booted out, which tends to lead to a much more independent state of mind. Being on the other side of the planet from your Queen may also be a factor, though apparently not in New Zealand which is (according to my stepfather and his family) quite staunchly pro-monarchist. → ROUX ₪ 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"...the general Canadian attitude of keeping things as they are and making changes slowly" - isn't that the very definition of a (real) conservative? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. In a dictionary definition sense, yes... but in real terms, conservatives (note the small c) are generally in favour of maintaining the status quo. Canadians, generally speaking, are fine with change. We just like to think it through first. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand and her people are sometimes characterised as "more English than the English". Many of Australia's early settlers were indeed on the wrong side of the law, but they weren't "criminals" in the sense we understand that term today. Often they were guilty of nothing more than petty theft. Very petty. Like stealing a loaf of bread. They're better described as "convicts". We do have an independence of spirit in many ways, but when it comes to amending our Constitution, that has usually proven to be a tough nut to crack. Referendums in Australia says there've been 44 proposals in 110 years, of which only 8 have ever passed. Conventional wisdom here is that a referendum needs bipartisan support to have a chance of getting through, but most issues become politicised, sometimes for no better reason than an opposition sees an opportunity to make some political advantage out of an issue that previously they didn't care much about either way, so they'll oppose whatever change has been proposed, no matter how reasonable or sensible. Sometimes they'll agree it's an OK idea in essence, but it should be implemented this way rather than that way, and that's enough for them to advocate a NO vote. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was using 'criminals' in the definitive sense; people who have been convicted of a crime. I make no judgement as to the severity of the sentence being proportionate.→ ROUX ₪ 21:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, Canadians seem in perpetual anxiety about their "national identity" and worry about remaining distinct from the larger, "aggressive" culture of their neighbor to the south. The monarchy is something that marks Canadians as different from the Yanks. Australians probably aren't that worried about being absorbed into the USA. For them, ditching the Queen might help people tell them apart from New Zealanders. —D. Monack ^talk 03:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The only time Canadians (or at least the Canadian media) talks about ditching the monarchy is when the Governor General does something expensive and everyone finds out how much taxpayer money she spent. If we didn't have a Queen we wouldn't need an expensive Governor General...but that's really as far as it goes (and I suppose no one stops to think that we would still have an expensive head of state as a republic, with a different title). When the Queen herself was here a couple of months ago, there was some grumbling about the expense, but not as much. Everyone loves the Queen! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Most Canadians don't seem to have very strong opinions about the monarchy, although there are exceptions. The monarchy simply isn't a hot-button issue like healthcare, gun control, taxes, spending, crime, and the like. The fact that there's a picture of the queen hanging in the courthouse doesn't really have that much of an impact on people's lives. Not enough, anyway, as to encourage people to try to start what would be a monster political and constitutional effort to change the status quo. Note that the Canadian Constitution requires all 10 provinces to agree to any amendment messing with the monarchy. The Australian Constitution didn't make the monarchy an entrenched clause, perhaps because no one in 1900 could ever imagine people wanting to get rid of it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

London Mayoral Elections

Hello, I checked the pages to do with the Mayor of London and elections to that post, but I did not find the answer to my question. How is the date of the election determined? The date of inauguration is 4th May but the election date has varied from 10th June, almost a month following the change of incumbent, to 4th May, one day before. Why the difference, and who decides when elections take place? I imagine they are synchronised to fit in with local elections and the British tradition of Thursday elections. Sam 17:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

I find myself quite confused by your question. How can 10 June be "almost a month earlier" than 4 May? On the face of it, it seems to be almost a month later. But how could an election be held weeks after the office-holder commences their term? And how can 4 may be one day before 4 May? Am I missing something? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I have muddled my months, of course June is after May. Which of course, leads to another question: if the inauguration date for the Mayor of London is 4th May (the date Livingstone took office in 2000, and the date Johnson assumed control in 2008), why did the 2004 election take place more than a month after the date of the inauguration? (I have italicised parts of my original post where I have altered it to correct my mistake at putting June before May.)

Is it not possible that the election was 10 June, Year 1, with the inauguration 4 May, Year 2? For example, the monarch's coronation is often quite some time after accession, partly out of respect for mourning the previous sovereign and partly because of sheer logistics. HM was officially crowned some 16 months after her accession. Even more likely is someone on the article playing silly buggers with the dates or merely misunderstanding. It is not in fact possible to have an inauguration before the choice of candidate. On a careful reading of the articles in question, it seems that there is no set date for the inauguration. → ROUX ₪ 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the London Mayoral election is held once in 4 years on the regular date of English local elections. Generally that is the first Thursday in May, but in the year of the European Parliament elections (fixed Europe-wide for early June) the local election date moves to be held on the same day. As the Euro elections are at 5-year intervals, it is a different set of local council elections that are moved each time. Sussexonian (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So Livingstone's second term was shorter than his first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Archie and anti-Oshoism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

Long time back I read an Archie comics, of course I can't recall exact wording of each character but the moral of the story was that ideal American youth should keep away from such cults. In it Jughead somehow gets entangled with Osho (did he wear an orange robe and a mala? don't remember, it's been a really long time), but nevertheless becomes a "victim" of the cult and starts saying things like -"we're all on a long journey", and "to a flower it's fall is end of the world" and other such nonsensical things. Everyone including Archie, Veronica, Betty and even Reggie is really worried about what will become of him. Then Archie makes up his mind to do something about it, perhaps he goes to a library and finds a bigbook of ridiculous quotations or talks about it with Mr.Weatherbee and in the end they somehow manage to cure Juggie by convincing him that anyone can thinkup and say such things like "to a toadstool even a butterfly is an airplane" and there is really no need to be impressed by such cult-leaders. And in the end-frame all the gang is shown with their arms around shoulders of each other, proudly addressing the

small

American youth to keep away from the silly Indian guru "who preaches from the backseat of a limo". (Osho or Rajneesh is never referred to directly but only as "the guru who preaches from the backseat of a limo").

Does anyone remember reading this comicbook and please recount the exact story, i.e. how they "cure" him etc. ? Were there any other Archie comics targeted against Osho. Thanks.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It might help if you could find an online link to the comic-book issue, or a synopsis of it, that you are referring to. By "Osho" you mean "Bhagwan" right, the same guy that was involved in the largest bioterrorism attack in US history? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, WikiDao. Sadly yes. But the same guy was hardly responsible for that. It were the people living under him. Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely as her guru he had some responsibility for her actions on his behalf? That any of his followers were involved suggests that perhaps Jughead's pals were right to be concerned! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If they could find an online link to the issue, surely they wouldn't need to ask if anyone else remembers it and can tell them details they cannot remember? 109.155.33.219 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have failed to find any such source.Do they have any blog etc. about arcihe where some comic-freak had scanned all comics, might be. It would be copywrong... Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely Jon might? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, supply of Archie comics to India was awfully limited even in golden age of comics ( now, thanks to Internet, its ceased altogether ). But maybe some Archie fan, I hope mostly US guys are on RD, may recall it. Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it was an actual, official Archie comic, and not a spoof, satire, look-alike or outright unauthorized ripoff? --Jayron32 03:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Jay. I am quite sure it was actual, official Archie, nothing less. Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Archie characters were at one time licenses to Spire Christian Comics, so maybe you are misremembering that (although it would be a huge stretch to remember that as a Rajneesh-ish cult...) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing me. I have just seen Spire Christian Comics. It says Other comics were based on true stories, Christian novels, or Christian movies.What the hell does the word "Christian" mean here ? Are we talking about Christian Religion...? Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I have seen their talk page after I wrote above text. (It comes under Wikipedia Christianity etc.) I was hoping "Christian" to be author's surname ! In that case it's surprising for me.What can have Archie (I have read enough of it to understand it's basic spirit)to do with religion ? And then Christian religion of all ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The connection is noted in the article at Al Hartley, who is the connection between Archie comics, for which he was a prominent illustrator and writer, and Spire Christian comics. It directly mentions his religious beliefs and how it informed his writing and work. --Jayron32 05:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Here is one involving a cult (although not with the Archie characters, so probably not the one you are thinking of). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I failed to open that link (technical problem). What it is, just please give me brief description. Adam, what is the difference between this Spire Christian Comics and mainstream Archie comics...?

The article's in question discuss this, but to restate it a different way: Spire Christian Comics was an independent comic company which produced Christian-themed comic books. Al Hartley was an writer and illustrator who worked for both Marvel Comics (Archie Comics parent company) and Spire Christian Comics. According to his article, Al Hartley started introducing Christian themes into Marvel-published Archie Comics, but this became discouraged. After this, he asked for and received permission to use the Archie characters in Spire-published comics, thus generating a series of Spire-published Archie comics, which were writen and illustrated by Hartley, but otherwise had no connection to Marvel, which still published their own Archie comics. I hope that makes things clearer. --Jayron32 05:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's it. That seems to be the answer. Osho was overwhelmingly critical of Christian religion. It's only natural that an author with Christian bent of mind oppose him.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Lots of others who were not overtly Christian wrote things which where critical of Bagwhan Shree Rajneesh or which spoofed him. Berkeley Breathed ran a story line in Bloom County the early 80's with Bill the Cat standing in as "Bagwhan Bill" and which lambasted the entire Rajneesh movement; Breathed is a self-avowed atheist. It's not hard to find people critical of a movement whose members poisoned some 750 patrons of Oregon-area restaurants, and they don't have to be Christians. --Jayron32 06:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There was a full anti-Osho, justified, feeling in US then 06:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

However, the Christian Archie comics were from the 70s and Rajneeshpuram was not created until the 80s. (Plus, the one comic I linked to about the cult takes place on a tropical island or something.) So I wouldn't consider this quite resolved yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If it was in the 1970s, references to orange robed cults were probably related to the Hare Krishnas, which were a common pop-culture staple at that moment and regarded warily by the "mainstream" as "brainwashers". (See the "issues within the society" section of the article.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Military might of Iran compared to Iraq

How does the current military capability of Iran compare with that of Iraq just before it was invaded? 92.15.27.8 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Iran now, or Iran at that time? Googlemeister (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read the fourth word. 92.15.27.8 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by number of troops will get you the current comparison in terms of man-power. I don't know what the pre-invasion numbers were. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

From our articles Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraqi Air Force and 2003 invasion of Iraq, It was estimated that the bulk of Iraq's army was made up of thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions and some sub-divisional special forces units. roughly 250,000-400,000 total people. Iraq's air force had about 200 fighter type aircraft (though a large number of those were not actually mission capable). Iran currently seems to have roughly 500,000 personnel and around 300 fighter jets (though again a fair number of these do not seem to be mission capable). From this, I would estimate that Iran has a 20-30% larger army and significantly larger air force then Iraq did in 2003. Numbers don't tell the whole story though, as the US was technically outnumbered around 2-1 when it invaded Iraq. Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The question was about military capability, not troop numbers. Numbers don't tell the whole story; in fact they tell you relatively little. Technology plays a huge part. As does experience; raw conscripts simply do not compare to professional well-trained veteran soldiers. Armed forces that are tested in conflict are much more efficient than those that are not. Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So do you have an answer? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We have articles on Equipment of the Iranian Army and List of countries by level of military equipment. My very limited understanding of this leads me to think that Iraq in 2003 had poorer equipment than Iran does currently, mostly because Iraq was under a pretty strict sanctions regime since the 1990s whereas Iran has been doing considerable arms trading with Russia, China, and North Korea since then. Compared to the United States, though, I don't know if that matters. The Iraqi tanks were really no match for US capabilities and the US air dominance is unchallenged. Any frontal assault would probably result in a relatively quick US "victory", but as we have seen that is hardly the mark of whether the conflict in the long run would be seen as a "successful" one or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Difference between Cape, Mantle and Cloak ??

What's the difference between Cape, Mantle and Cloak?? Historically speaking is what interests me, back in the middle ages. Coz i guess the words' meanings might have changed in modern times. But mainly i'm interested in how these garments varied from each other particularily during 1000-1400.

I know quite well what a cloak is, and I know they're supposed to be long, usually reaching down to your boots or ankles. And often they have hoods attached to them. They're supposed to cover your back, however if the cloak is big enough you might wrap the entire thing around yourself and stay warm.

But when it comes to mantle and capes, i'm unsure where the differences goes... you could of course simply tell me to search these words here on wikipedia but i already have, and i'm still unsure. Cape and mantle are said to be shorter than cloak, and capes often attached around the neck rather than over the shoulders and mantles are more of a female garment. wikipedia's sites says so, but often have i seen knights, nobles, men of the church, templars and kings of old, or depictions of them in the very least dressed in long cloak-like garments reaching down to the boots or ankles, sometimes attached over the shoulders and sometimes around the neck. And these are often called both capes and mantles.

An example; The knight templars (as seen in pictures, paintings, movies etc.) often had atop their white surcoats with the red cross another garment (also white with a red cross), looking much like a cloak without a hood. And I have often seen these being called both mantles and capes. So I'm unsure what is right and what is wrong, and what really is the difference between these garments.

One difference i tend to notice is that cloak-like garments of thin fabric which doesn't seem to protect from the weather so much and perhaps are worn more for symbolic purposes tends to be called either cape or mantle. or perhaps i'm wrong...

I guess opinions on the matter can vary, but hearing other people's opinion or knowledge about it can only be helpful.

So, Enlighten me?? :)

84.49.182.137 (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OED Online has:

cloak, n.: "A loose outer garment worn by both sexes over their other clothes."

mantle, n.: "A loose sleeveless cloak." The word was formerly applied indiscriminately to the outer garments of men, women, and children; at times it referred to various specific pieces of clothing. Its application is now chiefly restricted to long cloaks worn by women and to the robes worn by royal, ecclesiastical, and other dignitaries on ceremonial occasions.

cape, n.: "A cloak with a hood; a cloak or mantle generally; an ecclesiastical cope."

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)