Humanities desk
< October 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	November 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.

October 31

Picasso painting

Hi, does anybody know the name of the model that Pablo Picasso used in his cubism portrait painting called "Woman with Mustard Pot"? Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Pablo_Picasso,_1910

--RossSLynch (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a long look and could not find anything that claims a model was used for that painting. I will continue to look unless someone else has a definite answer.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I found no direct reference either, it seems and looks likely that it was Fernande Olivier. Compare the shape, hairline, etc with that of the sculpture shown in her article, or with this collage. Not good enough for reference, but maybe searching along with her name might yield something (or not, I wasn't successful). Nor is the mustard-pot painting included among the sixteen examples of "exhibition highlights" displayed here, on occasion of the National Gallery's exhibition "Picasso - The Cubist Portraits of Fernande Olivier" (2003-2004), but, again, compare some of those sixteen highlights with the one you're asking about. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was a woman who had been in a disfiguring industrial accident or had gone to an amateur plastic surgeon. Edison (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq war

There are plenty of books which argue against the US intervention in Iraq. I plan to read some of them, but for balance I'd like a book that argues that the Iraq war was justified (preferably available in Kindle). Any recommendations? Thanks. 74.15.138.165 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious winners were the Kurds and the Shia. The Shia would tend to denounce anything the US does, due to US opposition to Iran. The Kurds, on the other hand, might be more generous. So, you might want to look for books written from the Iraqi Kurdish POV. The Marsh Arabs and environmentalists might also be invasion-friendly, since Saddam tried to destroy their livelihood by draining the marshes, but they are now being restored. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To name winners like this is fairly odd, countless Shia died in the invasion, and yet more died in the sectarian violence that followed in its footsteps. Shia opposition to the occupation cannot be reduced to US-Iran relations. --Soman (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you guys go down this completely predictable path of political argument, let's take a minute to reread the OPs question: I'd like a book that argues that the Iraq war was justified (preferably available in Kindle). Any recommendations? So guys, any book recommendations? Shadowjams (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just about anything by the neocons should do the trick: William Irving, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Condelizza Rice, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, John Boulton, Randy Scheunemann, etc. I tend to want to rinse my eyeballs afterwards, however. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Cheney, (who is in no sense a neocon) Condoleeza Rice, nor John Bolton wrote books arguing for war. Christopher Hitchens was the best of the anti-Saddam pundits.

Yea, that would be an odd choice for a US Conservative to write about now, since the WMD used to justify the war were never found. Therefore, that war doesn't support their cause with the general public. Plus, by removing the counter-balance to Iran and putting the Shia in charge in Iraq, the result is a stronger Iran, which not even conservatives would see as a success. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1991 war never ended, Stu. Saddam was in material violation of the armistice within a month of the first US evacuation, firing on coalition aircraft over a no-fly zone he himself agreed to in the original ceasefire. Bush II's pleading to Congress and the UN (whose approval he got) was politically motivated, not necessary according to any law of war. One of Bush's and Blair's points was that Saddam claimed he had WMD's and prevented the inspectors from verifying their status. You do remember Saddam claiming he had weapons, and him leading Hans Blix on a merry-multi-year chase, do you not? General consensus is any weapons Saddam did have went to Syria, to border with which was not closed during the second invasion. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sending them to Syria wouldn't make any sense, since they weren't allies. He didn't actually have them, but wanted everyone to think he did, so these phantom WMDs would deter anyone from attacking. He seriously miscalculated there. Of course, he had previously miscalculated that he could grab Kuwait without consequences, and before that that he could conquer Iran, but nobody ever accused him of being a genius. StuRat (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not looking to argue one way or the other, and obviously Syria did not actively fight during the war. But Baath Party is relevant, and there were reports of very active traffic over the open border for the beginning phase of the war. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Bush's book Decision Points makes some arguments in favor of the Iraq War and the Iraq invasion, though obviously the whole book is not purely about this topic/issue. Futurist110 (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that, if I understand the OP's point, is that it's after the fact. I thought he was looking for arguments written before the war or very early in it. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about history on courtesy and manners

Did Social_rule its rude to stare originate in Victorian_morality? Venustar84 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt it. Being stared at causes everyone discomfort, regardless of culture, doesn't it ? StuRat (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any event it's codified in pre-Victorian schools of etiquette too. Eleazar Moody's The School of Good Manners, first published in 1715, is one example. At this link you can click on an online view of a later but still pre-Victorian print including the instructions "stare not in the face on anyone (especially thy superiors) at the table" and "Stare not at every unusual person or thing which thou feel" and "If thy master be discoursing in this School with a stranger, stare not confidently on them, hearken to their talk". ---Sluzzelin talk 01:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it's rude to stare isn't even a human rule. Most higher and social mammals will take it as a direct threat if from a stranger or a rival. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Staring is the pre-state of stalking, which is the pre-state of hunting. Being starred at wakes our animal instinct that tells us that we are being hunted. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting observation, but it would be better if you could provide a source of reference to confirm your claim. 140.254.136.167 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Medeis said, it's a general principle among primates that looking at an individual is a challenge -- averting the eyes is a gesture of submission. People who work with rhesus macaques have to be careful about looking them in the eyes, because it can make them very angry. So this is something that goes deep into our biology. Looie496 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although in the UK, it is considered rather disrespectful or even insolent not to look at somebody in authority when they're speaking to you. This caused some problems here with immigrants from the West Indies, where apparently the opposite is true. Alansplodge (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm this! When I was a psychology student in 1979 we were asked by the local police to investigate why more West Indian young men were being arrested than white ones. We observed their body language and were able to report this very difference between the two groups. By asking some West Indian elders, we were able to explain this difference. However, I'm not sure this research was ever published. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recall either reading or hearing about it as a news item years ago, but I couldn't find a reference when I searched. The closest I got was "Look away when I speak to you". Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a subtle difference between merely "looking at" and "staring at". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another exception to the rule is in the military traditions of some European countries, where the members of guards of honour are required to turn their heads and gaze at the honoured person, as in this YouTube clip. In contrast, British soldiers have to stare straight ahead. Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously different cultures have different rules. But there's a difference between staring and being attentive to what a speaker is saying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Televangelism outside of the United States

Reading our article on televangelism, I noticed that among the only examples mentioned of prominent televangelism outside of the United States are in Brazil and Ecuador (although in the latter case only one example was given); indeed, our list of televangelists mainly lists Americans (although there is a separate list for Brazilian televangelists). In my country, the Catholic-dominant Philippines, some TV stations are owned by religious groups (although the Catholic Church just launched its own station this year), and masses are broadcast during Sunday mornings by the major networks (although this is probably intended for those who cannot go to church that day, such as the elderly), but religious programming is only limited to shows aired by the aforementioned religious stations. My question is, why has televangelism as seen in the United States not seem to have caught on worldwide, or at least is not as common or prominent as it is in the United States? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the five main channels are quite heavily regulated, and are required to have an element of religious programming - see for example Songs of Praise. Evangelism is not allowed. None of the minor digital channels are (to my knowledge) operated by religious bodies. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BSkyB in the UK shows religious programming on the channels numbered 580-600. Some of the programming is televangelism both imported from the USA and home grown. Astronaut (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Televangelism is very popular in Nigeria - they might actually rival the US for number of channels carrying such programming. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nightowls in Australia can get any amount of this stuff on TV. Usually between midnight and dawn. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same here in Germany (atleast 3 or 4 regular "shows"), but all very late during the night or very early on Saturday/Sunday morning in less-known channels. Don't know, how large or influential those movements are - Germany is generally not that enthusiastic about religious topics (increasing number of church members leaving). And the "established" old churches still have an overwhelming influence over the remaining religious activities. GermanJoe (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In mystery/detective stories

How often is it actually the butler do "did it"? 114.75.169.91 (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tropes page The Butler Did It discusses the (possible) origin of the expression, the "rule" against doing it, and lists some rule breakers. At detective fiction is a huge area, and the TV Tropes article is uncharacteristically small, that suggests it is still very infrequent. There are far more cases where it's done to knowingly break the rule, again in that article. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find this Guardian article informative "Why we think the butler did it". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a redirect at The butler did it to Mary Roberts Rinehart. --Jayron32 17:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valdemar III's seal

Is File:Valdemar 3 kongesegl.jpg Valdemar III of Denmark's seal as king of Denmark or duke of Schleswig?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that bit at the top left in the bottom image says "reg", I would assume it's his seal as king. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assisted suicide

Have there been documented cases of assisted suicide where the person is not suffering a terminal illness? Say a person is physically healthy, wants their life to be over but does not want to commit the fatal act themselves, so they ask another person to kill them. Kind of like a suicide pact, but where the first person knows that the second person is not going to die. Has this ever happened? --Viennese Waltz 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Japanese ritual suicide or seppuku requires a faithful assistant or kaishakunin to finish things off. A fairly recent participant was author and right-wing activist Yukio Mishima, whose mates made a bit of a hash of chopping his head off. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the same thing when it's part of a failed coup d'état.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but he was following a well worn path and making a political point by doing it that way. Alansplodge (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree that an injury is not a terminal illness, there is the case mentioned in the Bible at Judges 9:54.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of the stories thay tell in Sunday School! Alansplodge (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A blind woman in the Netherlands was recently granted assisted suicide. To be sure, she wasn't physically helthy per the OP's conditions, but she wasn't terminally ill either. Sjö (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]