Humanities desk
< January 21	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 23 >

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.

January 22

Surnames as movie titles – feedback

On 10 January, here, I asked about movie titles that use only the surnames of characters, and I got lots of good ideas.

I’ve now made a half-decent list, which can be seen @ User:JackofOz/Surname-related film titles. I was right; there are lots more than I thought.

Feel free to update it. I may turn it into an article at some stage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness without repentance

From a perfunctory reading of non-Christian religious texts, specially Eastern, I got the impression that in some belief systems it's possible to forgive without repentance from the offender. Is that true? And, if yes, wouldn't that be a kind of dangerous move, since said offenders could attack you again? 88.14.192.250 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiving someone does not necessarily equate to letting them out of prison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness doesn't imply trust. While the Pope forgave his would-be assassin, I doubt if he would meet with him without having him searched first. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in Christianity as well, one is supposed to forgive others without the need for repentence. See Matthew 18:21-22 and Matthew 6:12, 14-15 and Luke 6:37. Christian thinking makes it clear here, and in many other places, that Christians must forgive freely and willingly and without the expectance of the person you forgive to repent for their transgressions against you. This is quite different from how God reacts to such transgressions, but the OP implies that he's looking for someone "to forgive" another person, and not for a person to be forgiven by the Deity. Christianity, at least, makes a clear distinction between those two ideas. If that wasn't what the question was, I apologize, but that's how I read it. --Jayron32 02:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us", yes? No implied conditions with regard to the ones who trespassed against us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, forgiveness is 100% in the world of the forgiver. If I forgive, I make a choice to refuse to bear ill will: the person I am forgiving may be repentant or not, present or not, alive or not, may in fact be completely unaware of me and my resentment. Forgiving somebody is something I do to heal myself, and there is no other person involved. --ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. It's not saying "It's perfectly OK that you raped me and murdered my parents"; it's not a question of condoning the other's action at all. It's about your attitude to the person themself. Theoretically, a parent should never have to forgive a child, because their love for the child is unconditional; all their negative stuff should be directed to the child's actions, and the love for the child themself remains intact, no matter how badly they behave. It doesn't always work out that way in practice, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the OP, can you be a bit more specific than "Eastern"? And what did you read? IBE (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I always find it easier to forgive someone after I finish burying them in my crawlspace." :-) StuRat (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Murder in Oxford

Could someone point me to where I could find a log of crimes in Oxford (U.K.) from last year? I want to know if an assault of some kind occurred by the river near St. Aldates Street in early 2011 (Jan. or Feb., maybe March)

I tried Googling "murder" and "Oxford" but apparently there's a movie called "the Oxford Murders" that ate up all my search results.

Thanks for any help. I put this under humanities because it's about history, albeit very recent history. Sorry for the gruesome subject. 128.239.174.246 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)forsummer[reply]

In the U.S., newspapers frequently publish short, unedited summaries submitted by local police departments called a "police blotter." I have no idea if something similar happens in the U.K. But it might give you a lead. --Jayron32 02:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was almost certainly an assault of some sort in the area in that time frame! You can adjust for month and crime-type, and area. If you have information about a crime, you can contact Crimestoppers anonymously [1], although obviously this was about a year ago now. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you know anything more specific, you could check to see if it was reported in the Oxford Mail or Oxford Times, but I think those results get swamped by the sad case of the woman with learning difficulties in Witney in January 2011. I mean, there is this, but it seems unlikely to be what you remember.86.164.75.123 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your simplest option is probably to just ask the police. You can find the contact details here (obviously, don't call 999, but you could email them or call the new 101 number and they will probably be able to help you). --Tango (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The river by St. Aldates" is a bit of an odd description - St Aldates runs down to the river, crosses it on Folly Bridge, and then becomes the Abingdon Road. "Near Folly Bridge" would be the way local press would be much more likely to report it - you could try searching on assault + "folly bridge", murder + "folly bridge", which helpfully avoids the oxford + murder problem. Shimgray | talk | 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic left but social conservative and economic right but social liberal

Is there any political party that is economic left but social conservative meaning they lean left in economic issues and lean right in social issues? Is there any political party that is economic right but social liberal? -- 05:11, 22 January 2012‎ 70.31.18.111

In which country? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which country you are talking about is very important. The definitions of "right" and "left" are relative to the norms for that country and those norms vary widely. For example, the Conservative Party (UK) is considered right-of-centre, on both economic and social issues, in the UK, but it would be considered very much on the left in the US on both issues (eg. they support public health care and have openly gay ministers in government). --Tango (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Libertarian Party (United States) seems to have the "keep government out of our lives" attitude, which means they are socially liberal (no government banning of drugs, prostitution, or homosexual relationships) and financially conservative (wanting a small government and minimal taxes). StuRat (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, mainstream right wing parties in the Nordic Countries support redistribution of wealth as it is currently practiced in those countries, although when faced with financial problems they are more ready to compromise such policies than traditional left-wing parties. However, perhaps the best examples would be the newish populist parties such as True Finns and Danish People's Party which do actively support both wealth redistribution and conservative social values, and such policies have been very popular especially among workers disillusioned with traditional socialist parties. 188.117.11.111 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The political compass generally rates fascist parties as being economically "left" but socially "right." Most of those have gone out of favor though there are still a few here and there. Libertarians are usually economically "right" but socially "left". But using "left" and "right" in this context is very confusing. See the political compass article for somewhat more useful terms (though even these run into difficulty). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various Muslim or Islamist parties are socialist or left-leaning economically but have a strong component of Islamic morality that would accord with western Christian conservatives: Hamas in Palestine, the Egyptian Arab Socialist Party (which calls for Sharia law), and various more extreme Islamist movements (although very extreme Islamists oppose all political parties). The Respect Party in the UK is a mix of traditional (ie. small-c conservative) socialist and Muslim ideas; it tends to be more socially conservative than other socialist parties.

There are also lots of socialists who oppose liberal ideas like abortion, gay marriage, or drug legalisation, in leftist parties. (And many people criticised the recent British Labour Party governments for authoritarianism; they encroached on rights to free speech, free protest, and privacy; stopped short of gay marriage; opposed drug legalisation, etc; though arguably they weren't economically leftist.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The far-right British National Party is a fairly extreme example of an economic left/social right party (unsurprisingly the party is often described as fascist) - their manifesto suggests the renationalisation of most major public services and an economic model based on worker co-operatives, but they also want a system where citizenship is based on race, oppose mixed-race marriage, and want homosexuality driven "back into the closet". Depending on how you're defining right-wing, most nationalist parties in the UK could be described as left/right, but the big ones - Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party - are liberal on almost every social position that isn't related to nationalism. Smurrayinchester 13:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respect Party is social conservative? I didn't know that. By the way, what is the platform of Respect Party and who were their candidates since their first participation of the House of Commons election to recent elections?

Did you follow the link? Respect Party? Or the websites linked from that page? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the website of Respect Party and unfortunately, they have list of candidates since their first participation of House of Commons election and as well as their platform.

saluting during a foreign anthem

When Angela Merkel visited the US last year, she was greeted with a State Arrival Ceremony. Both the German and US national anthems were played, and the military officers saluted during both national anthems. However, President Obama did his civilian salute (with the right hand over the heart) during the US national anthem only. Was it appropriate for Obama to not salute a foreign anthem, as customary within the military, even though he is Commander in Chief? Ragettho (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the salute is an American custom and what Americans do to their anthem/flag, showing their allegiance to their own country. Why should Obama owe allegiance to Germany or any other foreign countries? Do Americans expect other counties' people do the salute to The Star-Spangled Banner and the flag of the United States? Oda Mari (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These things are matters of protocol; which are highly scripted. It is more newsworthy when Obama is seen to have varied from protocol.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the protocols on these matters, but it is probably significant that German civilians don't do any kind of salute during their national anthem (at least, I don't think they do). --Tango (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Obama considered to be a civilian, though? He is, after all, the Commander in Chief, and all military personnel are required to salute during foreign anthems in addition to the US one. Ragettho (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the British armed forces, even military personnel don't salute when they're not wearing uniform; also, if they're wearing uniform but no headgear, they still don't salute. Our Salute article suggests that it's the same for the USA. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's a civilian, his authority is "over" the military chain of command as civilian authority over the military is a fairly fundamental component of liberal democracy.

ALR (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agreee with ALR, he is a civilian, although in a war he would be considered a military target by an enemy nation, so there are exceptions to his civilian status. --Lgriot (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While still a civilian he'd be a legitimate target under the Law of Armed Conflict. Doesn't change his status.

ALR (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collective term for groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs

Is there a term to refer collectively to the various groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs as a large community? Would an article about this community in the context of a specific country be suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted a heading to move this question into a separate section. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be difficult to find a term that wouldn't result in terminal bickering over it's political correctness, and I think that the closest you may get are the terms you have already used, "those with physical disabilities" and those with "special needs" however both have their unpopular connotations. The entire world of physical and mental difficulty is too broad for one collective term I think. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. with SGGH.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no 'community' of 'the various groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs'. I'm not sure what definition of the word community you are expecting to apply here. In context, a word or phrase will be chosen. So, for example, in an educational context, we might talk about students with Special Educational Needs, which is a blanket term implying they need extra support in some way, but doesn't specify why they need that extra support: they might have a special need because they are visually impaired, or because they are dyslexic, or because they have a language difficulty, or because they find fine motor skills difficult, or because they have problems with anger, or because they are recently bereaved, or all sorts of reasons. When it comes to Disability Living Allowance, it is supposed to depend on what a person needs help with, not why they need help with it. So these are things which, broadly, lump these issues together, but they don't imply any sort of 'community', nor do they use a single term to refer to all people with any sort of special need. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the term "the disabled" used as a grouping expression, as in "We designed the building with the needs of the disabled in mind". HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Crips is a different group of people entirely, but South Park had fun with the term anyway. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Negative campaigning and the political system

Is there a connection between the degree of negative campaigning (in politics) and the political system in different countries? It seems to me that countries with several large parties would have less negative campaigning. You may want to ally with the other party in the future, and from a game theory perspective just because you stop the voters from voting for party B it doesn't mean this vote is going to your party. Sjö (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would at minimum have to assume a tradition of coalition-forming for that to work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the US system, during the primaries, each candidate is "on their own", rather than being represented by their party. They often go bitterly negative on each other, only to "kiss and make up" once the party makes it's choice. For example, George H. W. Bush famously referred to Ronald Reagan's supply-side economics as voodoo economics, only to take the VP slot under Reagan for the general election in 1980 and again in 1984. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rail crash at Concord West

I am seeking information in relation to a serious rail crash at Concord West around 1955. The train collided with a very large earth moving apparatus and the side was ripped out to the train. I am having difficulty finding any reference ot it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.64.171 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a good find. That information seems to be entirely absent from Railway accidents in New South Wales though and looks to be more serious than many of the other accidents listed, so should be added in. We're assuming of course that the OP is referring to Concord West in Sydney. --jjron (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly this is what he was talking about. The description of the rail crash, that is, the side of the train being ripped open, and the presence of earth-moving equipment, convince me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. Edgar Hoover

Hello all. Not a Wikipedia related message, but I was hoping someone could help. I'm interested in getting to know more about this chap, and I was wondering if anyone who perhaps worked on the topic could recommend a good biography of him? I've got a grounding in the relevant areas of history so wouldn't need a "dunces text" would like something quite in depth, and something that perhaps deals with the complexities of the man as well as his actions with the FBI. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know myself, I really have never dealt much with him. If you feel comfortable asking on the article talk page, you could. The leading editor who has edited the article recently is User:Plazak, he might be worth talking to.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of biographies listed in J. Edgar_Hoover#Sources. Athan Theoharis seems to be an academic expert, so his 1993 book might be an option. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried WP:FBI but their talk seemed pretty in-active, and I did peruse some of the biographies but couldn't tell which ones were considered definitive. I'll asked Plazak what he thinks, and look at this Theoharis one. Ta, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read (most of) the Theoharis; it looks good; serious, undogmatic unfantical left-wing, but perhaps not for the beginner. One thing is certain: Hoover was neither dumb, nor simply a sexual pervert (as is often alleged), but he used simply illegal means for much of his career.--Radh (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalām cosmological argument

Um... I've never this objection anywhere, so I'm gonna ask it here.Isn't it a sort of contradiction, saying that everything needs a cause at the beginning of the argument and then saying there is something that doesn't at the end of it?--Irrational number (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a strict contradiction per se, but certainly an inconsistent handling of assumptions in the argument. The argument seems to be that the First Cause is so special that it has to be god. There are various embellishments ("God is outside of time and space, so does not need a cause"), but they all seem like special pleading to me. From a logical point of view, I don't see a reason why every action needs a cause (what causes a U235 atom to split at a particular time?), nor do I see why infinite regression can be ruled out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good overview of the argument at the Stanford Encyclopedia [2] (written by Reichenbach, who is very dependable). Hopefully you can get something out of it. This is still an active topic for both philosophers and astrophysicists and university seminars are done on it, so you can jump right into the issue and no doubt learn a lot and even come to answers which are wholly satisfactory to you, but don't expect unanimous answers all around! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you can see how there is not that contradiction in the way the argument in posed in the SEP article. It is not assuming that absolutely everything needs a cause, but only that all things which have a beginning (or finite past) need a cause. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

siblings on either side of the law

Do we have examples of male siblings, one of whom is a career criminal, and the other of whom is significantly involved in law enforcement? If there are many such cases, would it make sense to have a WP:List article which would be a list of siblings, one of whom is reliably sourced as having been significantly involved in criminal activity, and the other of whom is reliably sourced as having been significantly involved in law enforcement? Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Bulger Brothers Whitey Bulger, Head of the Boston Irish Mafia. Billy Bulger, MA State Senate President and most powerful lawmaker in MA.

2. the Capone Brothers.

Al Capone, famous racketeer and boss of the Chicago Outfite.

James Capone, less famous Prohibition Agent (he was not assigned to chicago).

3. Guliani Family.

Gulliani, famed federal prosecutor and NY Mayor.

Gulliani's father, low level street thug and bookie who went straight around the time his son was born.

Gulliani's uncles, Officers in the New York Police Department.

Hope this helps.

David Kaczynski wasn't in law enforcement, but he did turn in his brother Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not precisely the same situation, but Edward J. O'Hare was well-connected, being a Capone employee, though he later helped Scarface get convicted for tax evasion. His son Edward O'Hare was a war hero and got an airport named after him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, J. Edgar Hoover was on both sides of the law at the same time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's likely to be many of them, given the early history of the FBI. The FBI in the 1950s and 1960s especially made "organized crime" a primary mission. And by organized crime, they generally meant Italian-American organized crime (i.e. the Mafia) and they specifically and deliberately recruited agents from the same neighborhoods they would be investigating; such people would have had "inside information" and know the culture and environment. There were a lot of Italian-American agents who had "connected" relatives, maybe even siblings. this google search turns up some good leads on the topic. --Jayron32 19:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody, for your responses. I consider them all appropriate. None were as stark as I was thinking would exist, but maybe my conception was simplistic. I was thinking we would see two brothers starting from similar backgrounds and for no apparent reason setting out in opposite directions—one pursuing some illegal activity, the other pursuing law enforcement. I would imagine such pairs exist but they may be lower profile individuals, neither of whom received a lot of notoriety. Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this hard to measure is that sometimes the gangsters are on the side of the police, or the police are on the side of the gangsters. See [3] where 25 Chicago police officers were dismissed or under investigation for gang affiliations in 1995. I have to say that in a situation of the type you describe, such a cynical interpretation would be my first reaction. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. It shows the permeability of what I have been positing to be a strict boundary. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia

Why did he call his book on the Spanish Civil War 'Homage to Catalonia'? Probably an easy question to answer but Google didn't help much. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, p. 91 has some discussion, although I wouldn't call it a RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public Broadcasting System

I just read your information on PBS. I would like to know how much money the Federal Govt gives to PBS annually. Thank you. 69.158.3.57 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 2005, it was around 66 million dollars, according to the source at footnote 18 in PBS. RudolfRed (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little bit difficult to answer, as the answer depends on what exactly you're trying to find out. If it's how much money the Federal government gives directly to PBS for general operating expenses, as far as I'm aware, the answer is none: the Federal government funds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which in turn gives money to PBS, NPR, and other broadcasters. On the CPB article page, it's listed that CPB gave $25.2 million to PBS directly for fiscal year 2010. However, because of how public television is organized, it's inaccurate to say that $25.2 million is the only Federal money going towards putting out the public television broadcast. PBS is an umbrella organization, and its member stations are independent entities which may receive funding from the government and CPB ($210.26 million from CPB for fiscal year 2010, according to the article), a portion of which (along with viewer contributions, donations, and state funds) goes to pay PBS for programming. But then, PBS doesn't really produce programs itself, rather it purchases programs from member stations (like WGBH, WNET, etc.). Additionally, a surprisingly large portion of the content on "PBS" stations actually doesn't come through PBS at all, but rather comes through independent distributors such as American Public Television (which itself often gets programs from PBS member stations), or third party producers. The production of a number of these programs is supported in part by the Federal government, either through the CPB, or through grants from other agencies like the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts. So if you want a single number, you need to figure out what, exactly, you're looking for. -- 67.40.215.173 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Gallery info

So, I get to write an essay on just about any architectural creation I want, and I chose Venturi's extension to the National Gallery, but now I come to start work, I am finding it difficult to actually find much information on the place, the various complex design features, reasons for them, criticism and praise, all that sort of thing, does anyone here know of any sites that give that sort of information?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would look for news coverage from when it opened. I would be surprised if major newspapers' architectural critics did not have something to say about it. Also check Google News Archive for the days around the time it opened.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which nation's National Gallery are we talking about? HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK. Also search the BBC web site, they keep their stuff a long time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the National Gallery. I found this, and this (click on "Download Links" in the top right margin). Also [4] this about the engineering of the place. Architecture isn't really my thing though, so I'm not sure if I'm being much help. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This interview, [5], [6], [7], [8] (and just keep pressiong "NEXT" on the bottom left of the player) may be of interest too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]