Humanities desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 11

Papal conclave secrecy

Just want something to be clarified. I looked up the article for papal conclave, but failed to find any exactly related information, so here it goes. Historically, what is the reason why papal conclaves are so secretive, to the point of even putting jammers to prevent electronic devices from working? From what I have read, the purpose why the cardinals were locked in a certain place (hence the term conclave) was to force a quick decision on a new pope and prevent deadlocks, although in recent times it is said that this is done so so that the Holy Spirit enlightens them with a proper choice. However, this doesn't (fully) explain why there is so much secrecy regarding the process, although they may be related. So again, my question is: what is the official or historical reason behind the secrecy in papal conclaves? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, it is to avoid outside pressures to be brought to bear on the process. The pope used to have significant worldly power, and elections were very much factional. See The Borgias for a very much dramatised, but not totally unreasonable picture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite sections of Chateaubriand's memoirs is his telling of how, when Ambassador of France in Rome, he decided to influence the outcome of the conclave of 1829 which elected Pope Pius VIII, because he felt that one of the favorites was inimical to France's interests (and felt is the right word; he had no formal instructions or solid information to go on). He used one of the late-arriving French cardinals as his agent of influence within the conclave. --Xuxl (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of information about this and other conclave related subjects in this month's BBC History Magazine Podcast - the 'Papal Election Special'. You can download it from http://www.historyextra.com/podcasts - it's the 7th March episode. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that historically, the election of a new pope was HIGHLY political as his power extended to all of Western Christendom, so many of the powers of Europe had a strong and direct interest in who was elected pope. The secrecy of the conclave itself developed over many centuries when it was a Big Deal. Consider all of the various antipopes, the Avignon papacy, the Investiture Controversy, and the Western Schism for just some of the various historical precedents that led to the current practices. --Jayron32 22:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also read Jus exclusivae (nicknamed the "papal veto"), which was the self-claimed right of various Catholic monarchs to veto the possibility that a certain cardinal or cardinals could be elected. Separate them from outsiders, and you've prevented anyone from communicating such a veto to the cardinals once the conclave has begun; you still have to ensure that cardinals not bring such a veto into the conclave in the first place, but at least by separating them from outsiders you prevent anything from influencing them after they've started. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

jewish law

is there a jewish law that forbids usage of private wear? how about one's bought from a second hand shop? It is because one is not sure whether what he buys is ceremonially clean or unclean so there is some sort of uncertainty in second hand wears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.111.151 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "private wear" means. Do you mean "underwear"? --Dweller (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Shatnez. There is a prohibition on mixing certain fibers, nothing to do with cleanliness. Shatnez is observed by those adherents to Judaism who strictly obey the laws stated in Halacha. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And shatnez applies to all types of clothes, new or secondhand, under or over garments. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The One Who Asked: I mean any underwear...there is a possibility that a certain second hand wear is unclean...so does the law forbid any usage of second hand wear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.111.151 (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Apart from shatnez, as explained above, the ritual laws of spiritual cleanliness, outlined in the Bible, as applied to clothes (and some other aspects), have not been kept by Jews for about 2000 years, as they intrinsically linked to Temple worship. As such, Jews don't worry about clothes being spiritually "clean" or "unclean", whether new or old clothes, whether underwear or overgarments. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Canada's Prime Minister

does Stephen Harper wear glasses or not? I've seen him multiple times with and without glasses. Thanks! reply please!. 186.130.66.144 (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When he made a state visit to the Philippines late last year, it seemed that he always wore glasses. Obviously, if someone wears glasses, even occasionally, then that person does wear glasses. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot was made about the fact that Harper started always wearing the glasses in public around 2010 or so. He apparently does not need them all the time, but likes the "serious and intellectual" look they give him. See this article [1] for example. --Xuxl (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP, if you've "seen him multiple times with and without glasses", then you already know that he sometimes wears them and sometimes doesn't, and that is all you need to know. Surely you know that there are millions of people who wear glasses but only for certain functions, such as reading, driving, watching TV etc. Trying to box them into "always wears glasses" or "never wears glasses", as your question implies, is futile. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One could raise the same question about Tina Fey and many others I'm sure. Some folks only need them for certain tasks, others may wear contact lenses from time to time instead of wearing glasses. Harper's comments about Chavez may have been a bit short-sighted, but that's not really got to do with glasses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Venezuela mad at Canada, at Harper for his remarks?

on the death of Hugo Chavez? What I read is that he sent condolences and looked forward to work with a more democratic and prosperous Venezuela, yet Venezuela slammed him for his remarks. What did he say to be slammed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.130.66.144 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Siderail

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Because he "showed them up". They aren't keen on admitting that Chavez was a repressive dictator. And if the Canadian P.M. actually did say that, it wasn't very smart. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, if you aren't even aware if the event in question happened, could you please not present an answer that makes it sound like you have any insight into this whatsoever? Or maybe add a qualifier to the front of such answers like, "I am really just guessing wildly here, since I really don't know anything about the question, but..." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the link, what the Canada P.M. said was even worse than what the OP said. My comment stands, and yours is of no value to this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, your comment is the irrelevant and obnoxious one. The OP's source (given below) actually answers the question perfectly well by itself (so I'm not sure why he asked it). The Venezuelans took exception to Harper's comments, perceiving them to be "insensitive and impertinent". --Viennese Waltz 16:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a stupid thing for the Canada P.M. to say, even if it was factually on the mark. Meanwhile, you have joined 98 in making useless personal attacks here. Nice going. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one turns to this page to read moronic insults and rejoinders like this. "You're stupid." "NO YOU'RE STUPID" Etc. It is like listening to children fighting in the back of a stationwagon during a cross-country drive. Please take it to a talk page somewhere else. 75.34.24.145 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting other editors in front of the OP is bad form, and 98 and VW know that, they just don't care. Nor do you, apparently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint was aimed primarily at them, not you, but you seem to feel the need to get in a "final jab." Learn to just let it go, without even the "Nor do you, apparently." 75.34.24.145 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a mind-reader. Regardless, taking shots at other editors in front of the OP is bad form. My user talk page is open to anyone who feels the urge to say something to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the source so I don't stir up arguments [2] 186.130.66.144 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelans, or the probable majority of Venezuelans who are/were Chavez supporters, were angry at the Canadian prime minister for his implicit denigration of the recently dead Chavez during a period of mourning. Harper implied that Chavez was opposed to freedom, democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights. The truth or lack thereof of Harper's implications are not relevant to the original question. Harper's remarks broke the convention that one should not speak ill of the dead, especially during a period of mourning. Hence, the Venezuelan government, led by Chavez supporters, accused Harper of insensitivity. Marco polo (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the citation indicates, Venezuela is in denial about how the Chavez regime has damaged their economy. However, he was their guy, and Harper's comments were inflammatory, while Obama's comments were much more diplomatic. Speaking as an American, it's nice to have commies yelling at Canada, for once, instead of us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try a slightly more objective version of the statement: Venezuela's government publicly disagrees with Harper's characterization of Chavez, the nature of Venezuela's political process, and the general prosperity of the country. Is there a certain element of defending your own against an outsider's criticism? Sure, but that sort of reaction isn't unique to Venezuela. And determining an objective "yes/no" statement for things like "x damaged the economy" is tricky. Venezuela is, for instance, rated as "high" development on the HDI, slightly above average for Latin America. — Lomn 19:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Chavez was lucky that Venezuela has massive oil stocks, at a time when oil prices are skyrocketing. Had it not been for that effect, his economy would have collapsed. Also, the way they sell gasoline for pennies a gallon seems rather anti-environmental, to me, as it encourages people to waste it. A hefty gasoline tax would solve this problem, and allow them to lower other taxes, and maybe subsidize things like food prices. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and, of course, Venezuela is not communist. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

differences between wahhabis and Salafis

What are the differences between wahhabis and salafis?--Donmust90 (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Google it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One difference is that most Wahhabis don't like to be called "Wahhabis", while most Salafis are fine with being called "Salafis"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To actually answer the question, Salafist is a general term that describes persons who seek to emulate the behaviour of the Prophet's first companions; this is generally associated with a very traditional or even retrograde view of Islam. Wahhabism is an ultra-conservative movement within Sunni Islam. It only gained significant influence when Ibn Saud, who was a follower of the movement, became King of Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia in turn gained control of the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The movement has exerted great influence as a result of Saudi control of those holy sites, and the tremendous wealth that came with the rise of oil prices starting in the early 1970s which allowed Saudi Arabia to preach Wahhabism outside its historical home in the Arabian desert. --Xuxl (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God's Kingdom and Jesus

What is this "God's Kingdom" or "Kingdom of God"? What is it supposed to do? Does it refer to the messianic age that is supposed to come in the future or Kingdom Come? And why did Jesus cause political instability to the point that he was arrested and crucified? How did the significance of his death come about? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a serious megillah. Start with Jesus of Nazareth and read all about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's probably beyond the scope of the Ref Desk to answer comprehensively (even setting aside the problems of differing interpretations). I'll suggest, though, articles like kingdom of God, crucifixion of Jesus, and history of Christian theology as additional basic reading. — Lomn 19:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The perspective of the Kingdom of God held by Jehovah's Witnesses is explained at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002615. Other editors may wish to provide other perspectives.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a Jehovah's Witness, or do you just happen to know more about this denomination to the exclusion of other denominations? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

My spiritual status is undisclosed, and the limits of my knowledge are undisclosed.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or "unlimited". :) If the OP truly doesn't understand this stuff, in a way it doesn't matter what denomination he starts with. Christianity is Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a very supportable statement. Regardless, though, I appreciate the disclaimer from Wavelength. — Lomn 21:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of the JW's, but there's no evidence that any specific interpretation of the Bible is more "right" than another. The OP asked what the "Kingdom of God" is supposed to be, and pretty much any Christian denomination, including the JW's, should have the general concept covered, as it's a core premise to all of Christendom. The OP's other questions should be answered in the various links already posted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify: the "Christianity is Christianity" statement is what I find highly suspect; there is certainly not a universal agreement within the various groups claiming the label "Christian" as to which groups are legitimately "Christian". Without veering into who is "right", it's worth noting that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a nontrinitarian branch, and that the major trinitarian branches (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant) all reject nontrinitarianism as heresy. Particularly, the major trinitarian groups accept one another's baptisms and reject nontrinitarian baptisms; in like context, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the validity of trinitarian baptisms. As such, I'm rather strongly of the opinion that they should be viewed as separate schools of theology. — Lomn 21:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but it doesn't mean they aren't all Christian. To claim that non-trinitarian Christian sects aren't Christian (what are they if they aren't?) is the textbook definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy; Christians are people who follow the teachings of Christ. None of the particular groups that does so owns a monopoly on the word "Christian", and while one group may not official "recognize" the validity of the theology of another group; that doesn't mean that both groups don't get to legimately use the word "Christian" to describe themselves, or that we shouldn't respect that self-designation. Wavelength's contributions to these discussions are valuable and welcome; and double appreciated when he identifies which perspective he is giving, if only because there are so many, and it would be remiss of us to omit any major perspective in trying to answer these questions. Of course, we can't provide answers for all of the various denominations and sects, but the more we can, with reliable sources and links, the more complete an answer we can give. --Jayron32 22:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that trying to objectively define who is and who is not "Christian" is a giant mess that I don't want to get into here, and it is not my intent to advocate for that here. However, I do think it's reasonable to note that many of the major Christian subgroups operate internally in such a way as to claim that they do not recognize other subgroups as Christian. Trinitarian vs nontrinitarian is a fairly major divide, but I could also point to our article on full communion, noting that the official position of the Catholic Church is that the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Churches are themselves theologically flawed (and the Protestants substantially more so than the Orthodox), and so it's also reasonable to consider the source of theology within those divisions. I find the trinitarian / Jehovah's Witnesses gap, though, to be noteworthy in that it is (1) functionally universal and (2) bidirectional (that is, I don't see this as a case of the larger group unilaterally trying to bully the smaller out). The net result is that, contrary to Bugs' comments, the interested reader should not go in assuming that the various perspectives are without substantive distinctions. — Lomn 22:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I were going to learn about what Islam generally teaches, I'd want to start with what the largest groups generally agreed on, moving on to what the largest groups disagreed on, and only at the very end would I be conceivably interested in what little modern groups isolated from the rest of Islam taught. It would not be equally as useful to start with one as the other, although I would appreciate a member of one of those groups labelling their contributions as based on that perspective. In the same way, the Jehovah's Witness teachings on a topic are not an especially useful place to start if you want to know what Christianity generally teaches. 86.156.148.220 (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The core beliefs of Christianity, the true "fundamentals", are faith in the resurrection of Jesus; hope that we also can attain resurrection; and love of God and our fellow humans. That's what Christianity is about: faith, hope and love. I know this to be true because Jesus said it, and He should know. The arguments about the Trinity, about how Jesus was crucified, about trying to figure out what heaven is really like; and about baptism, communion, and any number of other rituals, are what divide denominations. But they don't matter. Those folks are all Christian if they have those core beliefs. That's why I say "Christianity is Christianity". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that the width of the hat brim is what divides the Amish communities. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, your argument might be more compelling if you'd provide references. — Lomn 22:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, that the Resurrection is central to Christian faith? If you think that's not the case, I don't know what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part is arguable. I am reading A Guide To The New Testament by Francis Watson, in the part about Jesus. It appears that Christians treat the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the works of miracles as "central to the Christian faith", thereby not really providing which item in the list is more significant. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Christians are hung up on the Virgin Birth (and the related subject "original sin"), and the so-called miracles can have rational explanations. But the Resurrection is essential to Christianity. Without it, there is no religion. A philosophy, maybe; but not a religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be very certain that the resurrection is essential to Christianity, even capitalizing "resurrection" presumably as a way to highlight the significance. However, it would be much appreciated, if you could list a source that explains why that alone is most important while the others are less important. It is plausible that Christians may find that the death of Jesus on the cross as most significant, because the death signifies the atonement and introduces a new covenant with God. But you or the Christians that you describe find that the resurrection of Jesus as most significant. In the political cartoon, it shows how the things mentioned are considered to be "essential" to the Christian faith by fundamentalists. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kingdom of God" is used in many Christian denominations to refer to the "end times" after the Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Jesus. The field of theology dealing with this is Christian eschatology. It is a gigantic can of worms, however, to get into what the Kingdom of God is supposed to be like, and it depends on what parts of the Bible you read, and what meaning you can extract from it. Consider:
- Many of the Parables of Jesus are begun "The Kingdom of God is like..." see Mark 4, Mark 10, Luke 13 etc for just a few examples of Jesus use of the phrase. Read the synoptic gospels and the phrase appears numerous times, often with Jesus explaining what the Kingdom of God will be like, or how people should behave if they want access to it.
- Any other biblical descriptions of the end times are usually very confusing and hard to follow, and such parts of the bible are usually some of the most contentious, usually the source of some of the greatest interdenominational differences. The major apocalyptic writings are usually cited as the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation in the new testament, so if you want to know what the Bible says on the matter, please read those, but the stuff that's in there is symbolically dense, and it isn't always readily apparent what the writers of those works meant. It is not easy reading. Generally, most cursory studies of those books in the churches I have gone to focus on the "easy stuff" (i.e. Daniel and the Lion's Den, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from Daniel, or the Letters to the Seven churches of Asia from Revelation) and it's rare that a sermon or sunday school lesson delves into some of the harder stuff from Revelation. Which is not to say that it isn't studied, it's just that it's not really easy to get into for the neophyte believer or casual bible reader. Anyone interested should read it, and should also read a variety of commentaries on it, if only to get a grasp on how much diversity of opinion there is on the apocalypse. --Jayron32 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where can a person find a Christian eschatologist? What does that person do for a living? Can a person become an amateur eschatologist? How might an eschatologist contribute to society, especially to a multi-religious community? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a person would be a theologian who specialized in eschatology. I don't have any specific recommendations, but I have no doubt that there are theologians and other religious scholars that specify in this subdiscipline. Assuming questions like "how might an eschatologist contribute to society" are a snide attempt to make some sort of commentary on such scholars, scholars of eschatology serve the same purpose as any other scholar of a similar sort: to research various perspectives on a topic and to draw conclusions based on that research. --Jayron32 23:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Google search which may lead you to some such scholars. I don't want to recommend any in particular, as I don't, off hand, know of the reputations of any of them, and given the large diversity of strongly held beliefs on this field of theology, likely no person working in the field is universally regarded as non-controversial. --Jayron32 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this field of research is limited within academia or the church, whereas a person who studies art history is limited to academia. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the people behind Freud on that cartoon staircase meant to be Hitler and Mitt Romney? μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Commons description states it is from 1922 it seem very unlikely (not to mention that they don't even bear the slightest resemblance to those persons). I am not even sure it is Freud, though he does hold a certain likeness to him. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think he carries a retort and if I'm right it's unlikely to be Freud. Sjö (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Tacitus Trap" in Chinese/Western political science?

The China Daily says:[3]

Publius Gornelius Tacitus (56-117 A.D.), a historian and a senator of the Roman Empire, said neither good nor bad policies would please the governed if the government is unwelcome, which was later called "Tacitus Trap" in political studies.

"Tacitus Trap" warns any leaders in power that when a government loses credibility, whether it tells the truth or a lie, to do good or bad, will be considered a lie, or to do bad.

But I cannot find any references to this idea, under the name of "Tacitus Trap" at least, in any other sources. Who has written about this concept in political science? 198.151.130.150 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only references I can find to such a "Tacitus Trap" are the China Daily reference you cite, and further references to it. It doesn't appear to be a terminology which is common in scholarship. Based on your description of it, it sounds like something Tacitus may have written in Agricola, which deals with contrasts between just governance and despotism in Roman-occupied Britain. --Jayron32 22:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chinese term, "塔西佗陷阱" (Taxituo Xianjing) gets 355,000 results on Google. I can't read Chinese, so I've been using Google Translate. I've found a Baidu Baike entry[4], a People's Daily commentary[5], one website which asserts that the idea is famous in western political science[6], and meta-posts skeptically reflecting on the term itself.[7][8] It would help to have a native speaker sort through this. 198.151.130.150 (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the inspiration for the articles: “Throughout his writing, he is preoccupied with the balance of power between the Senate and the Emperors, and the increasing corruption of the governing classes of Rome as they adjusted to the ever-growing wealth and power of the empire.” [[9]]DOR (HK) (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "塔西佗陷阱" (Taxituo Xianjing) is coined by Zhichang Pan, an aesthetician of China.

He uses this term from 2003 in his lecture, and the first log can be found online is his speech in 2007 about Three Kingdoms.

Since President Xi used this term in 2014, no matter the officers or scholars(Shameful lackeys!) of China tend to quote this term in their speeches and journals.

In Pan's article 'Pan Zhichang:

     "Tacitus Trap" was not coined by Tacitus ——the correction and traceback of "Tacitus Trap"(潘知常： “塔西佗陷阱”并不是塔西佗本人提出的 ——关于“塔西佗陷阱”的正本溯源).

He said:

   ' Almost all authors are disdainful of even doing basic work such as looking at Tacitus's original work. Therefore, they didn't know when I coined the term "Tacitus Trap", I just phrased his original words, and only made use of his words to explain my idea.'

I am glad that he posted this article a few months ago, which omits my time to find the inexistent reference. 04, January 2020 (UTC)

Historical battles

In alot of historical films/TV, especially classical, enemy leaders are seen meeting each other either on neutral ground or sometimes even on one or the others camp/territory. Did this kind of thing actually happen in real history? If so, what was its purpose? Clover345 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical term is "parley"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See parley (which is only mildly helpful). It's basically an opportunity for the two (or more) sides to reach some sort of compromise and thus avoid battle/war. These can take place before or during the battle, often under a flag of truce. The Munich Agreement of WWII is a more modern example. Gwinva (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In medieval warfare, talks were arranged by or even conducted in full by the heralds of the opposing armies. A famous pre-battle conference was before the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. Alansplodge (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to note that "total warfare" or the idea that to defeat one's enemy, one had to completely exterminate them, to a person, is a fairly modern notion. The idea behind warfare historically was more to demonstrate the ability to do so, without having the actual need to do so. Thus, the point of a set piece battle was to demonstrate the military superiority of one force over another. Once you've demonstrated your military superiority, you negotiate the terms of surrender. People and land and urban centers are themselves a commodity that makes a war worth fighting: If your trying to take over some plot of land which has some people on it, you want to preserve the land your fighting over, regardless of which side you are on. The idea of a pre-battle parley is to attempt to resolve the battle before it is fought. The commanders aren't particularly interested in executing or exterminating the enemy commanders: both sides understand the purposes behind the war, and either side would rather not endanger themselves or their troops if they don't have to. They're ready to fight as needed, but if the other side is willing to give up without a fight, so much the better. --Jayron32 03:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Luke 14:31, 32.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually total war refers to the complete mobilization of a country's population, industries, and resources to fight a war, rather than the need to exterminate the entire population to win the war. Sometimes a country's leaders use this to justify attacking civilians as a legitimate target to reduce an enemy military's support structure (for example in Allied bombing campaigns of WWII), but is rarely (I think) invoked to justify exterminating an entire population or even killing members of an enemy army to the last man. This doesn't detract much from the rest of Jayron's answer, however.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that medieval warfare was as chivalrous as people think. There are plenty of instances when the losing soldiers in a battle were hunted down and killed, often being chased many miles from the field. Prisoners were only taken if there was a prospect of a ransom. At the Siege of Acre (1189–1191), negotiations for the exchange of prisoners broke down and both sides executed all their prisoners, several thousand in all. At the Battle of Kleidion in 1014, between 8 and 15 thousand Bulgarian prisoners were divided "into groups of 100 men, (the Byzantines) blinded 99 men in each group and left one man in each (group) with one eye so that he could lead the others home". Alansplodge (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly medieval warfare was not chivalrous, which is why writers so lauded the rare incidents that were. My view of the epitome of chivalry is Saladin. His treatment of the prisoners after the Battle of Hattin was cool (literally - he served the thirsty Crusader leaders rosewater iced with snow from Mount Hermon), but the story of his actions at the Siege of Kerak is the winner for me. Most of his most celebrated chivalrous deeds were recorded by Christian sources. His nemesis in terms of chivalry was perhaps Raynald of Châtillon. When he was offered some of the rosewater in Saladin's tent, Saladin made a point of saying that he had not personally offered it, as such he wasn't Raynald's host, and then personally decapitated him. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a war like the Hundred Years' War had massive destruction and death, not particularly chivalrous. "Chivalry" is definitely not a reflection of the way knights actually acted (especially the ones that were just murderous thugs), but of how they should have acted. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The idea that to defeat one's enemy, one had to completely exterminate them, to a person, is a fairly modern notion"

What in the world are you talking about, Jayron? The idea that civilians have rights and cannot be arbitrarily killed is a modern notion. The idea of exterminating one's enemies goes back to the very earliest works of Western (and Eastern) literature. The Iliad makes it very clear that after a siege, the males in a defeated city were always slaughtered and the females sold into slavery. This type of massacre is also very evident in the Bible, where God commands the Israelites to destroy every man, woman, child, and animal in many Canaanite tribes/cities (i.e. Amalekites, Jericho). Read, for example, the Book of Joshua. Lest you believe that only Western people are afflicted with this murderous impulse, see this graph to see just how brutal tribal warfare was. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is sometimes just a literary device though. It's really unlikely that entire populations were always killed. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't that I believe the Iliad or Joshua happened as described; in fact, I think there's only a small kernel of truth to either. But the fact that the author(s) idealize genocidal warfare, to the point of Saul losing favor with God for failing to kill the Amalekites' animals, shows that the idea of completely exterminating one's enemy is not a modern idea. In any case, I don't think it's as unlikely as you think for wholesale slaughter to have been the norm of warfare in the Greek Dark Ages. Certainly there's no shortage of examples--the graph I linked show 30-60% of male deaths in historical tribes have been due to war, which is hardly possible without extreme barbarism. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the historical enemies of Venezuela?

After the death of Hugo Chavez, Nicolás Maduro claimed that the "historical enemies of Venezuela" were behind the cancer of the former. Which are these exactly? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of allies and enemies of Venezuela. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look quite reliable, besides having the obvious flaw that it doesn't say which is ally and which is enemy. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Chavez's worldview, the United States was the traditional enemy of Venezuela; his article makes that pretty clear. The plural refers to the U.S.'s "lackeys", which again is a notion that comes from the mind of Chavez and his followers. --Xuxl (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How long has this "historical" hostility been going on? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Spain a historical enemy too? He spoke in plural, so there must be more than one. 2.138.247.218 (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When setting up a conspiracy theory, it's best not to be too specific, so it can never be disproven. For example, if he had claimed it was the CIA, and gave a specific time when Chavez was exposed to a carcinogen, and a subsequent Wikileaks-type event occurred which revealed all CIA files from that era, with no mention of such a plot, that might make him look as paranoid as he is. His goal is to make Venezuela, and his faction specifically, look like they are victims, to gain sympathy, and hopefully votes. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spain. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a reference to the Vogons, who destroyed Venezuela in order to build an intergalactic highway. --Hegvald (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]