Humanities desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

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 24

Billy Giles suicide letter

Where can I read Billy Giles's suicide note? --Belchman (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find extracts, but not the whole thing, which it seems is quite long. This may interest you. Moonraker (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I've already read that. Anyone? --Belchman (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Peter Taylor book Loyalists only printed extracts from the four page letter. I would assume his parents are in possession of the original letter and showed it to Taylor, who just picked out pertinent bits to put in his book.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-( --Belchman (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Musical Notes time scale??

The microsound article says: "Microsound includes all sounds on the time scale shorter than musical notes, the sound object time scale, and longer than the sample time scale" What is the time scale of musical notes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.162.193 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That page, Microsound, seems to be describing the time scale of microsound, not "the time scale of musical notes". It says the scale is between 10 milliseconds and 0.1 second (100 ms). So it seems to be saying that "musical notes" are 0.1 second or longer. This is a concept I hadn't heard of. The Sound object page offers a bit more. Looks to me like the microsound page is not very well written and perhaps ought to say something like "...on the time scale shorter than sound objects and longer than samples...", or just "...all sounds between 10 and 100 milliseconds..." The link to Sampling (signal processing) is not very useful, as that page nowhere describes "the sample time scale", whatever that is. Pfly (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the book referenced on the microsound page, Microsound, by Curtis Roads, is on Google Books. It appears not all the pages referenced are previewable. But this page talks a little about the "time scale of musical notes", and defines musical notes to be between ~100 ms and ~8 seconds. Also, page 3-4 provide a basic overview of various "time scales of music". Pfly (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why would a great reckoning in a little room strike a man dead?

I apologize for posting this twice, but I think maybe the language desk doesn't get much traffic. I paste below the questions and answers from there:71.101.96.129 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were unaware of the Marlowe reference, what would this mean: "it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room." (Shakespeare, As You Like It, III, 3). Why would that strike a man dead? (I am not referring to the whole line, i.e., the idea of being misunderstood, etc. -- just the idea of a "reckoning in a little room" and why it might be fatal.)71.101.96.129 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is widely believed that this is a reference to the murder of Christopher Marlowe, who was stabbed after a meal in an argument over the "reckoning" or bill (or check, if you're American). --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

... and I would guess that the scandal was fairly well known to Shakespeare's audience, especially with its suggestion of corruption in high places. Was Shakespeare getting in a dig at Thomas Walsingham, or at Robert Cecil of the Secret Service, just as modern comedians weave in comments on current scandals? Dbfirs 08:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And to actually answer the original question (which specifically said "If someone were unaware of the Marlowe reference"): not a thing. Without that context it is an image with no import. --ColinFine (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. Is there anyone who disagrees with Colin's statement that the phrase is meaningless except in the context of Marlowe? "Reckoning" can also mean "the end" in a religious sense, or "the bad consequences" in a historical or personal sense.71.101.96.129 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I thought Shakespeare was just playing with the words (aware of the partial double meaning) , but didn't dare state so in case I'd missed something that experts were aware of. Thanks Colin. Dbfirs 21:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

END OF PASTE FROM LANGUAGE DESK.71.101.96.129 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Reckoning" in Elizabethan/Jacobean English generally meant settling a bill (check, etc). People can be struck dead by an unexpectedly large check/bill/account (this is a common trope in comedy, though I'm not sure how far back it goes). Since the context is about a poet being appreciated ("When a man's verses cannot be understood, nor a man's good wit seconded with the forward child Understanding, it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room") the connection to Marlowe seems inevitable.

There might possibly be an allusion to the phrase "day of reckoning" which originally meant the day a bill is due but is sometimes used to refer to a more serious kind of adding up, the last judgement at which all our sins are listed. Google Books returns various 17th century results for this[1], the earliest I can see being Thomas Cooper from 1609, whose use is clearly extended from the bookkeeping sense. I see no evidence of "reckoning" in Shakespeare's day meaning anything other than a literal or metaphorical settling of an account, so it isn't closely connected to someone being struck dead - although the idea of an event, even a death, as settling an account is possible.

There is a lot of commentary on this phrase, however, and I'm sure a proper search of academic journals (which I can't do at the moment) will reveal more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Knowledge - Business related question

Which global brand has historic links with Hannibal and Julius Caesar?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Meal Bread? P.S. Which website did you get that quiz question from? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Brand? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubicon? --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is: Wikipedia... its global in scope and has links to history articles about both Hannibal and Julius Caesar. (do a win a prize?) Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constutional rights for civialians

What is the constitutional right for an individual to drive a motor vehicle on public roads in the USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.248.98 (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Constitution makes any mention of motor vehicles. In any case, courts unanimously agree that there is no such right. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your question involves three issues: the privilege of operating a motor vehicle, the Freedom of movement under United States law granted by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the common law right of access to public roads and waterways. Protection of the right of access and the privilege of operating a motor vehicle is granted by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, meaning that revocation can't be arbitrary or capricious. In some cases, a person who is denied the right or privilege is entitled to a hearing and review of the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction. A person who is prohibited from using a public road might bring a challenge based on the Due Process Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the common law right of access. The right is not absolute and it is not fundamental, so it may be restricted provided that there is a legitimate government interest and the restriction is reasonably related to serving that interest. The so called reasonable basis is a low threshold and almost always will the state win on constitutional grounds. The common law grounds are another matter, and a person does indeed have a fundamental right to accessing public roads from their property, which may include crossing private property to do so in some circumstances. The right does not necessarily mean by car, however. Gx872op (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, there isn't one, but you have some recourse should the privilege be denied. Mingmingla (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State manuals provided to applicants for a drivers license assert quite emphatically that driving is a privilege, not a right. In fact, that is a possible question on the written test for a driver's license. Gx872op is quite correct to state the common law right of access to a public right of way by foot. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do US States and the Federal Government legislate regarding horse access to the road. Is horse use of roads generally covered by the same statutes that regulate motor vehicles? Bicycles? Walking? Where on-road light rail and trams exist, are these covered under a road use statute? To what extent do other fonts of law (I understand that US counties and local government areas have some legislative power) regulate the use of non-motor vehicles? … Not asking for legal advice, but the "vibe" about various approaches to this area of law by legislatures (NSW, for example, has omnibus acts covering all these uses, with a body of law covering the roads across the entire state). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., highway laws are pretty much set by individual states, which license and regulate both vehicles and drivers, so every state has a large body of statutes governing highway use - overall, fairly similar, but the details may vary from state to state. The federal government, as far as my understanding goes, doesn't directly control highway laws - except that if the feds really want to do something (like lowering the speed limit nationwide) they can tell the states, "if you don't change your laws, we won't give you any money for new highways or repair of old ones." Most states will quickly fall into line then. States generally allow cities, towns, and counties to make ordinances regulating traffic within their boundaries (e.g., you can park here, you can't park there, speed limits in business districts or residential neighborhoods, etc.). As to your question about horseback riding on highways, see this site for links to the laws in various states, which differ widely. As a personal observation, though, I can tell you that it's not common to see people riding horses along a public highway nowadays, even in rural districts of Texas, and when they do, they always make sure to stay well off the pavement, so it's not much of an issue. People going any considerable distance other than a short pleasure ride would tend to load the horses on trailers and take them where they wanted to go. Textorus (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about horses on roads, except that there are some regulations in at least some parts of the US. There's also horse-drawn wagons/buggies, which are not uncommon on roads in Amish "Dutch Pennsylvania". I came across a horse-drawn wagon on a relatively significant state highway in Missouri (I think the area had a lot of Mennonites). I don't know what regulations horse-drawn wagons have. The few I have seen all had a big bright red triangle on the back, like in this photo. As for bicycles, there are various regulations and laws, varying from state to state and even between counties and cities within a state. Some places require bicycle licenses, and many are thinking about requiring them (Seattle, for example). As an example of the kind of bicycle laws and regulations one might find in the US, this page lists a bunch of California laws on the topic. Note the provision allowing cities and counties to require licenses if they want. Pfly (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this is part of the ordinances of the city of Hays, Kansas pertaining to bicycles. The city does require bicycle licenses in order to ride on the city streets legally. The city's ordinances supplement a general statewide set of traffic ordinances, [2], which addresses a number of odd things you didn't mention, like, you can't use a snowmobile on roads except under a few conditions (such as, go figure, the road is impassable by cars due to being covered with deep snow!). And this one, which amuses me for some reason: "No person upon roller skates, or riding in or by means of any coaster, toy vehicle, or similar device, shall go upon any roadway except while crossing a street at a crosswalk and except upon streets set aside as play streets." Pfly (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a fairly standard 4th subject for this font?

I recently visited Framlingham, and spent some time examining the font in St Michael's church there. This is an octagonal font, which the visitor notes on a board provided by the church claim is 14th century. It has fairly standard (as I understand it) Suffolk lions and wildmen around the base, and the eight sides of the basin alternate between symbols of the four Evangelists and angels holding shields. The four shields held by the angels carry symbolic theological symbols, so one has the Scutum Fidei for the Trinity, one has three chalices with hosts to represent the Eucharist, and one has a complicated but clearly standardised combination of the cross/crown of thorns/spear/nails/flails/cup on a stick. The fourth angel holds a nearly blank shield with faintly differentiated areas, and the visitors notes just vaguely say it is defaced: one assumes that it was either defaced by the iconoclasts or not recarved with the others by Victorians for the same reason.

Now, I can guess at a likely subject (presumably it was a Marian image to represent the Incarnation of God, and was defaced for being an image of Mary), I don't actually know. Is there a standard fourth thing that would go with the Trinity, the Crucifixion, and the Eucharist in this context? And is there a standard form of it?

Thanks. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page claims that the font is 15th century. You're probably right that the missing shield was a symbol of the Virgin Mary; a Fleur-de-lys or Mystic rose are likely candidates. Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my links, Alan. Could you create the redirect on scutum fidei to the capitalised version? I've been caught by that before. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Your wish is my command ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks. Oo, Fleur-de-lys and mystic rose are interesting ideas I hadn't thought of: I was trying to imagine something that would fit the character of the others, and either of those would fit, especially the fleur-de-lys. Do you happen to know if either can be found in similar contexts in Suffolk around that time? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm searching at this very moment. So far, I've found this photo of the font at Saint Nicholas, Blakeney in Norfolk: "The octagonal font dates from the 15th century; its carved panels alternate images of the symbols of the Four Evangelists with seated figures of the Doctors of the Church (Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, and Pope Gregory I). The central column carries shields depicting the Instruments of the Passion and the Holy Wounds. The eastern shield is unusual in that a sword is shown with an ear stuck to it. This refers to the story of Saint Peter striking off the ear of Malchus, the High Priest's servant, in the garden of Gethsemane." Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The technical name for "combination of the cross/crown of thorns/spear/nails/flails/cup on a stick" is Arma Christi... AnonMoos (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English church furniture, J. Charles Cox, 1907 says; "About the middle of the 15th cent, the singularly happy and beautifully executed idea of depicting the Seven Sacraments of the Church, on the vessel dedicated to the initial Sacrament, occurred to the designers of the more elaborate English font. It is exceedingly probable that not a few of the fonts thus embellished were destroyed by Puritan violence, to whom such subjects would be eminently distasteful, but there are at present existing in England twenty-nine examples, which are thus distributed..." (follows a list of churches - but sadly not Framlingham)

"The pedestals are usually adorned with eight figures in niches, and the bases further enriched with small representations of the four Evangelists and their symbols. All their bowls are octagonal, and consequently some other subject had to be designed for the eighth panel. In nine cases the Crucifixion forms the subject in the eighth compartment, in seven instances the Baptism of our Lord, and on three fonts the Last Judgment. There is a single example of each of the following subjects: the Communion of the People, the Assumption, the Virgin and Child, the Holy Trinity, Our Lord in Glory, and the Martyrdom of St. Andrew at the church of St. Andrew, Melton. The eighth panel at Farningham, Kent, shows a figure kneeling before a crucifix, which is probably intended for the donor of the font. In the three remaining cases the eighth compartment is either blank or hopelessly defaced." Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a photo of the Framlingham font with an extract from the church guide book. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. very interesting! The History of Framlingham, in the county of Suffolk, begun by Robert Hawes, Gent., with considerable additions and notes by Robert Loder, 1798 says; "...an octagonal font of freestone, adorned with eight blank escutcheons and an old type.". If the shields were blank in 1798, then suffolkchurches.co.uk (linked abve) is right and the carving has been re-cut. However, rather curious that there are only four today. Oops... wrong church - this part of the chapter is describing Saxtead church. Despite describing in detail every monument in Framlingham church, I can't see any mention of the font. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm not an expert in dating medieval carvings or anything like that, but from the materials I gathered for the article on the "Scutum Fidei" or "Shield of the Trinity" diagram, it appears that its use in church decorations was much more common in the 15th century than in the 14th century. The Shield of the Trinity diagram is found in manuscripts written during the first two thirds of the 13th-century, but then seems to fall out of use for over a century (as far as the available surviving evidence indicates), and the earliest solidly-dated use as a church decoration that I've come across was the 1383 memorial bronze of John of Campden (or John de Campden), warden of St. Cross, Winchester, described in a book by Charles Boutell... P.S. I've added a link to the Flickr photpgraph of the shield on the font to the Shield of the Trinity article. thanks. -- AnonMoos (talk)

Observance of Canada Day on June 30

If July 1 (Canada Day) falls on a Saturday in a given year, what institutions would choose to observe Canada Day on the Friday before, i.e. June 30? 74.101.118.93 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Canada Day page says "If it falls on a Saturday, the following Monday is generally also a day off for those businesses ordinarily closed on Saturdays." Does that answer it? Pfly (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of Saturn on people (in Portuguese)

Há algo de verdadeiro sobre o que ouvi ontem a noite sobre a influência de saturno sobre o homem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.125.35.35 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translated to english: Is it true what I heard last night about the influence of Saturn on man? I have no answer, as I made the above translation using a combination of intuition and Google Translate. I'll let someone who speaks portuguese translate the answer "No" into portuguese for me. --Jayron32 18:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that all depends on what it was he heard... if he heard that "Saturn does not have an influence on man" then the answer would be "yes". :>) Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Cassini-Huygens Voyager 2 Astronomy Astrology --140.180.26.155 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on the last one. --Jayron32 19:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly had an influence on Galileo. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly attracts everybody. It's not a significant influence (is it even measurable? *numbercrunch* Should be 2E-6N... equivalent to the weight of 0.2 mg on Earth - small, but measurable), but it is an influence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the gravitational attraction? From the perspective of people on Earth, the only force that Saturn would exert is a tidal Force, which is (approximately) proportional to the inverse cube of distance. Using a minimum Earth-Saturn distance of 1.2E12 m (8 au), and an Earth radius of say 6.4E6 m, and the mass of Saturn as 5.7E26 kg, the maximum tidal acceleration of Saturn on a person on Earth is 2.8E-13 N/kg, or about 2.9E-14 g. For a fat 100 kg person, that's 2.8E-11 N, or 2.9 ng (I hope I got those conversions right). Referencing our handy Orders of magnitude (mass), that's on the order of the mass of a human cell. In comparison, the moon's tidal force is about 1.1E-7 g, and the sun's on the order of 5E-6 g. Buddy431 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I went for plain gravitational attraction, missing (or, if you are generous, ignoring) the fact that the Earth will be attracted equally. And I used the Sun-Saturn distance as a rough estimate (about right on average), and, importantly, a very muscular 100kg person with strong bones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old cups

If someone very rich in the 16th century, in Ireland, were to prepare an alcoholic drink, such as wine, in a particularly expensive and ornate beverege container, what would they use, and what would it be made from, some sort of ornately carved crystal or glass, perhaps, or would such materials not be common for drinking at the time? Also, if the container is not made from typical glass, could it still be called a wine glass?

148.197.80.214 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too early for Waterford Crystal, but imported Forest glass might have been available. Gold or silver are other possibilities. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A container for drinking that is not from glass, but from some metal, would be termed a goblet or chalice. There are also tankards, but these are typically not filled with wine. Neutrality^talk 00:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although Falstaff used to drink sack by the quart, which is a very big tankard by anyone's standards. Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found a picture of Falstaff with a large flagon and a smaller beaker - so perhaps he would decant it in a more civilised manner than I had imagined. Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pewter, perhaps?
Sleigh (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Itsmejudith, silver goblets. Drinking from silver goblets causes blue blood.
Sleigh (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of The Court Jester:

The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle
The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!

Great movie if you've never seen it. --Ludwigs2 15:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following my link above to Beaker (drinkware) is rather unprodutive as it only mentions modern plastic cups. This snippet view on Google books says; "For nearly a thousand years silver beakers graced the tables of princes and prelates, in castles and manor houses." (Small antique silverware by George Bernard Hughes, 1957). Antiques Glossary at antique-marks.com says; "Beaker {drinking vessel - 11thC) Drinking cup without handles or stem, and usually with a foot rim. Early beakers were made in wood, glass and pottery, although by the 11th century there were silver, silver-gilt and gold examples. In the 18th century, glasses generally replaced beakers for table use." Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scipio Africanus

Would Scipio have worn a tunica when he became a Quaestor at the age of 24? When might he have started wearing a tunica?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He always would have worn a tunica, like everyone else - that was just a basic undergarment. You probably mean a toga, and as quaestor he presumably would have worn a toga praetexta, a white toga with purple trim, like the other public officials. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now I get it.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Jintao a dictator?

How come Hu Jintao is count as dictator? I thought China is doing just fine but one of my textbook, China is consider not free country. I thought China have nice transportation systems. Two websites i fouind Hu Jintao is belong to 5th world dictator rank. I never hear Hu commit killing to Chinese peoples. Hu does not cause any genocides at all. I thought dictator is mostly on killing people a little bit on everything. Sexual harassments, gender racism, genocide-China I don't think it have any of those. Does dictator and genocide match. Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame is black/brownbelt on genocide-I wonder why they are not world's worst dictator-they suppose to be list there.--69.226.40.225 (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator is a generic term for a head of state who is neither democratically elected nor a hereditary monarch. Since the People's Republic of China is not, in any way shape or form, a democracy, dictator is a reasonable term for its leader. Not every dictator need be a bad dictator. See Benevolent dictatorship. --Jayron32 00:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that "dictator" mainly refers to someone who has personal despotic power, so I'm not sure that Hu strongly qualifies... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree (with Jayron). A dictator has "sole and absolute power", according to Dictator, which jibes with my understanding of the word. Hu Jintao is no Mao. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the leader of a one party state requires others to pull the trigger for him doesn't make him not a dictator. The answer depends on the definition. But by most liberal definitions, yes, a dictator. I agree entirely with Jayron's comments. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I agree that a dictator doesn't need to be bad. However I think many would suggest Hu Jintao is not a dictator even if certain political figures in the US suggest otherwise [3]. Others could probably explain this better then me but the Politburo of the Communist Party of China and others in China simply have too much power and influence for it to be accurate description. I'm of course using a definition of dictator close to what our article uses rather then the one Jayron32 gave which seems an odd definition (under which a ceremonial head of state could be a dictator if they weren't a heriditary monarch or elected). Note neither dictator nor Hu Jintao suggest he is a dictator. Nil Einne (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. A dictator has sole and absolute power; it is a personal characteristic. Post-Deng Xiaoping China cannot really be described as an autocracy, but as an authoritarian regime with a collective leadership. While Hu is certainly a powerful individual, in China power is concentrated within the Politburo (24 members) and its smaller Politburo Standing Committee (5-9 members).

See our article on paramount leader: "Following the death of Deng...the term has seldom been used, since power is held more-or-less collectively by the members of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China with the General Secretary acting as a first among equals figure and different factions [e.g., the Shanghai clique] jockeying for influence. Policy decisions are thought to be made via majority vote of Standing Committee members following internal discussions." See also Generations of Chinese leadership. Neutrality^talk 00:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"First among equals", as in Princeps?

I would say something like "chief oligarch". Marco polo (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help noticing that the original poster's reluctance to call Hu a dictator, based on the PRC having a "nice transportation system", has a strong echo of he made the trains run on time. --Trovatore (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and just as (or so I hear) Mussolini's train-running abilities are exaggerated, the impression that the PRC has a "nice transportation system" is simplistic. Domestic flights are often two or three hours behind schedule as a matter of course. The non-flashy non-bullet trains are dirty and crowded, and yet many people prefer them to the new bullet trains because at least they don't break down or crash as often, or as badly when they do. The big cities are in permanent gridlock, while more rural areas don't have proper roads (sometimes due more to corruption than lack of investment). Compared to most western liberal democracies, China is a long way away from having a "nice transportation system".

Back to the original, it would be quite ridiculous to call Hu a dictator. The country is ruled at the top by a collective leadership composed of the Politburo, and neither Hu or any other member of the group can impose their own wills or even their policies with ease except at the margins by influencing certain policy decisions. Probably the only area in which Hu has more influence than his peers is in theoretical party ideology, and even such influences are subtle and much delayed by the time they filter down to practical policies. For the most part, the groaning weight of the party and state machinery runs itself by inertia, and not even Hu can but nudge it a little, and only with a great deal of effort. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Authoritarian" and "Totalitarian" are dodgy cold war theoretical constructs, produced by the American social science system, to justify then state ideology. They're also not meaningfully predictive of social behaviour. Dictator is a similar term, this often is used to exclude analysis of the actual social relations of power. In the case of mid twentieth century Germany, it is often used to avoid discussing corporate, junker, military and popular responsibility. In the case of the Soviet Union the idea of "dictatorship" is used to avoid detailed analysis of the relations between union, firm, party, management and state. China's networks of power, graft, promotion and policy formation have always been more complex than a flow of policy determinations from a centre being implemented without failure or dissent at a periphery. Populism, and the discovery of policies in grass roots practice, has just as significant a role in modern states without a loyal opposition, as it does in modern states with loyal oppositions. Neutrality's specific points above about Hu's personal power answers the specific question. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on your entire first sentence. George Orwell wrote Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for socialism, as I understand it, and Orwell was not an American, and it's quite patronizing and incorrect to claim Orwell was a slave to the American social science system. (And the Cold War didn't start until rather after 1936.) Actually, I call ^{[citation needed]} on everything you wrote, Fifelfoo; it's glib and false to claim the only reason the word "dictator" is ever used is to try to pin it all on one bad guy and avoid a broader view. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Functionalism versus intentionalism. Orwell's fairly free use is tied to his Lion and Unicorn period work and Orwell has characterised his work in other ways, see his Penguin edition of letters. GADDIS, J. L. (1993), The Tragedy of Cold War History. Diplomatic History, 17: 1–16 is critical of the historiography of the Cold War on precisely this point, citing Jeane J. Kirkpatrick. Dictatorships and Double Standards,” Commentary 68 (November 1979): 34–45. as typical of the theoretical construction's use in "diplomatic history" or Soviet Union bashing. Kirkpatrick's theory resulted in explicitly wrong predictions because of its desire to construct the "authoritarian" as "our friends" and the "totalitarian" as the implacable other. The link between the authoritarian / totalitarian thesis and a peculiar self-justifying US state ideology is transparent in the analytical material of the 1950s and 1960s as any cursory reading of Congress of Cultural Freedom front organisation publications during the 1950s will demonstrate. These opinions which are strangely absent from the British theorisation of enemies and allies in their opposition to the soviet system. I don't think this is explicable in terms of the British giving asylum to a better kind of right-wing emigre. As far as sociology, David Paul Haney The Americanization of social science: intellectuals and public responsibility in the postwar United States Temple University Press, 2008 goes over the link in detail between the CCF sponsoring these theories and Seymour Martin Lipset at page 100. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the best description of Hu Jintao would be "first among equals in an authoritarian, single-party political system." Yes, I know China has many political parties, but they have no power at all. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]