Humanities desk
< May 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	June 1 >

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.

May 31

Liberal area in a city of a conservative Muslim nation

I have two questions about North Tehran: is North Tehran the only area that is liberal in Iran and is it the only area that is liberal in a city in a Muslim conservative nation?--Donmust90 (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean in this context? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a wikipedia article on much of your question here: Liberalism in Iran.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article entitled 'Liberalism in Iran' there - it certainly seems to cover one particular definition of 'liberalism'. As to whether it actually says anything much regarding the relevance of this particular definition of 'liberalism' to the politics of contemporary Iran I have my doubts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To expand Andy's point here, we don't know what Donmust's meaning of the terms is. Religiously conservative? Socially conservative? Politically conservative? What activities or beliefs count for conservative or liberal in the context of the question at hand is most relevant here, and that is unclear from Donmust's post. --Jayron32 04:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict I was awaiting the reply of OP before voicing that to my recollection "liberalism" is understood as a mainly western idea with western history/culture/conflict and in some part "conservative" as well, that is why many scholars of the Middle East tend to use terms such as secularists, modernists and then fundamentalists, traditionalists etc. I guess liberalism could fit some but when you state liberal ideals in the U.S. or Europe many of those issues wouldn't be shared by the most progressive Muslims or actually might be held by what is seen as Fundamentalist regimes. So yes AndyTheGrump (& Jayron32), I too await any clarity on this.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Even in the West, an American "liberal" may well be a European "conservative" (and an American "conservative" a European "ultra-conservative"). In Australia, you have the even more curious dichotomy bewteen "Liberal" and "liberal", where "Liberal" means "conservative" and "liberal" means "centre-ish".) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many areas in Iran which have liberal tendencies, in big cities like Isfahan, Rasht, Tabriz, Mashhad, Shiraz, etc. BTW, Iran is not a Muslim conservative nation, but it has a Muslim conservative government which does not represent the majority of the nation. --Omidinist (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you guys read Tehran#North Tehran? That's how I got my idea. Now please, answer the question.--Donmust90 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

I admire your passion on this topic however not every question on here has a clear cut or even consensus answer. I did read the short blurb on North Tehran as I am sure most editors have by now, I see an AP and Chicago Trib article cited with "liberal" mentioned and then further described as "moderate" and "non-secular" which I and PalaceGuard008 have discussed for you. As far as other places I see Omidinist has given some great examples. It is well known among Middle East scholars that Turkey and pre-1980s Lebanon were "non-secular" and "moderate" but again "liberal" means something very different in San Francisco then it does in Oklahoma so comparing "liberal" of western cultures to how "liberal" is defined in Islamic cultures is a bit overly broad. You may wish to specify what social issue or topic you are asking for, as well as defining what it is you consider to be "liberal".^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tie in a US presidential election - agreement in the Electoral college

This 3:37 min YouTube video explains in detail what might possibly happen if no candidate in a US presidential election wins a majority in the Electoral College. Is the video right in all aspects? Am I right that as of now, nowhere in Wikipedia this situation is explained as a whole? And the main question I'm concerned about: If there is a deadlock between three candidates, I would deem it rather natural for two of the respective parties to find an agreement and vote for the same candidates (maybe the president from one party, the vice president from the other; or both of the same party, and the other gets whatever admission was agreed on). Would this be possible? Under what conditions? Impossible under laws against faithless electors in the respective states, even if all participants agree? --KnightMove (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the video covers the United States presidential election, 1828 was one such instance, also see the somewhat relevant United States presidential election, 1884. With a lot of "constitutional" issues such as these it is really unprecedented and untested so it is hard to give a definitive answer though your suggestion that an "agreement" would be reached was how 1828 and 1884 worked themselves out & would be likely the result in any future decision. I kind of laughed at the video since it is slightly alarmist, despite their own inflated press clippings the great majority of Americans can function day to day despite what may be happening in Congress or the White House and the bureaucracy has its own self sustaining support to carry out vital functions.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If 26 delegations in the House of Representatives have a majority for one party, that's the ballgame and I doubt any negotiating would take place. The VP would be a minor prize by comparison, since he has very little direct power. If the Senate would not favor his candidate, possibly the President-elect could make a deal, but he might not like the price.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Constitution is clear on how to handle this situation. The complaints in the two 19th century cases were not about whether the Constitution covered it, but about the way it was handled by the Congress. It also occurs to me that the Constitution's rules on this reinforce the premise that it is the states, not the people directly, who elect the President. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't our article Electoral College (United States) answer this question? If not, how could we improve it? Rmhermen (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point Rmhermen, perhaps the OP may wish to be WP:BOLD on that Electoral College article ;-).^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started being BOLD by adding a short summary of this process to the lead section.[1] Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that jumped out at me was the mistaken idea that a presidential candidate or party might ‘do a deal.’ The Electoral College is made up of individuals with a right to vote on behalf of their constituencies. If they cannot decide, it goes to the House of Representatives where parties and deals may be thrown or struck. As relations between the parties stand today, there is very little chance of a president from one party and a VP from the other. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kush

Hello,

in 700 BC, did Kush extent from the Blue and White Nile to the Levant or to the Nile Delta?

Thank you for your answers.

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Kush describes this period, especially the section on the 25th Dynasty of Egypt. Rmhermen (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

yes I saw the article, but I also found a picture which describes it to be extending from the Blue and White Nile to the Nile Delta: [2].

So what is the right one?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those maps show Kush controlling the Nile Delta. One shows it extending into the Levant. Rmhermen (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how was it actually? In 700 BC, did Kush extend from the Blue and White Nile to the Nile Delta or up to the Levant?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article describes Kush-led Egypt as successfully supporting Jeruslaem against the Assyrians but it was a short-lived victory. And would probably be more considered an area of influence than direct rule. Rmhermen (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

food versus politics

A few months ago, I watched a TV mini-series about the LZ 129 Hindenburg. As I was watching, I noticed some good meals being served to the passengers. I told my mother there should be a cookbook consisting of recipes for meals that were served aboard the airship. My mother counterpointed the airship was under the control of Nazi Germany. I asked my mother what good food has to do with those politics. My mother answered probably nothing. Does a Hindenburg cookbook seem like a good idea?142.255.103.121 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Zeppelin‎ was used as a promotional/propaganda tool by the Nazi's, the idea may have the same fate as such things as an Allianz Stadium and JC Penney tea kettle and that's not even considering that the Hindenburg disaster‎ is remembered by the infamous "Oh the humanity", not the best marketing line for selling cookbooks.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it difficult to assemble material. Apparently a few menus have survived (e.g., http://i.imgur.com/w6Ukwl.jpg), but the recipes were never published and probably no longer exist. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Titanic cookbook? HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Please read our guidelines, "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate"; so we can't tell you whether it's a good idea. But it is interesting whether it can be reconstructed, or whether one might exist for the Titanic, etc., on which we can comment. PS, for an explanation of your mother's idea that neutral things are contaminated by evil things, look up sympathetic magic. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's cheap, and well-reviewd: Last Dinner On the Titanic Menus and Recipes From the Great Liner: MENUS AND RECIPES FROM THE GREAT LINER. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of several, but apparently only the menus come from the Titanic itself -- the recipes are taken or re-created from other period sources. Looie496 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is often said that the Zeppelins were tainted by their association with Nazi Germany, but that is not quite the full story. Zeppelins were a patriotic symbol for Germany long before 1933, so when the Nazis came into power they were keen to appropriate them. The Zeppelin company strongly resisted and only agreed to have swastika flags painted on their airships when the government ordered it by law. Hugo Eckener, the President of the Zeppelin company, was a firm anti-Nazi who had been willing to stand against Hitler in the 1932 Presidential election and made broadcasts in support of incumbent President Paul von Hindenburg when he decided to stand again. When Nazi Germany nationalised the Zeppelin company, they elbowed Eckener out of actual control.

If unwilling to have anything Nazi tainted but still connected with German airship development, you might want to look at the meals served on the Graf Zeppelin during its round the world flight. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, nothing tainted about a general who prosecuted the criminal First World War to support the reign of a militaristic racist. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans' use of Zeppelins to bomb from high in the air during World War I was supposedly one of the reasons the US was unwilling to sell helium to Germany and help make those giant airships safer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destroying images of Atatürk

The Mustafa Kemal Atatürk article notes that Turkish law (Wikisource link) prohibits the "destruction of objects representing him". How does this work with pictures of him in/on objects meant to be temporary? For example, do people get prosecuted if it becomes known that they've put in the trash a newspaper that has a photo of him? This question vaguely arises from something I read as a child, which claimed that pictures of Mao were so sacrosanct under PRC law (year/decade/etc. unspecified, as far as I remember) that people's houses were filled with newspapers that were functionally illegal to destroy. Not legal advice, since I'm not in Turkey and don't expect ever to be there. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate renders that as:

Anyone who publicly insult the memory of Atatürk, or jamb shall be punished with imprisonment of one to three months.
Representing Atatürk statues, busts and monuments of Atatürk's mausoleum Or the destructive, breaking, disturbance or anyone polluter is liable to imprisonment up to one month to five months.
Encourage others to commit the offenses referred to in the above paragraphs, the perpetrator shall be punished as the original one.

Not exactly sterling prose but I think it answers the question. Looie496 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is jamb? RNealK (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Jamb" is the translation that Google Translate gives for the word söven, which apparently means something like "nationalistic" or "chauvinistic". Why does Google Translate do that? Who knows? Looie496 (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googlespeak! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer the question as to what a "jamb" is, it's the vertical part of a door frame. Door frames consist of two parts: the horizontal lintel at the top, and the veritcal jambs along the sides. I, like everyone else, has no idea why Google chose that English word as the translation for that particular Turkish word. --Jayron32 06:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also has a meaning in the mining context: "Any thick mass of rock that prevents miners from following the lode or vein". Maybe we've been "jamb"ed in our own search.

Or maybe not. Here's an ad where the words "chauvinistic" and "jamb" are closely juxtaposed. I was frankly amazed when I discovered it emanated from Arizona. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]