Humanities desk
< February 19	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 21 >

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.

February 20[edit]

Wisconsin brouhaha: article?[edit]

I'm interested in what's going on in Wisconsin right now, so naturally I check Wikipedia hoping that here I'll be able to read up on the background and on the current events. But I can't find out if we even have an article on what's going on right now. Can someone direct me to the article, if there is one, and failing that, toss out a few good links where I can read up? Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think there should be an article right now. After the fact it will be clearer what exactly the event was, and how it should be framed in encyclopedic terms. For right now there's Wikinews. I'll see if I can find you a link. --Trovatore (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't find it there. Maybe not enough contributors? --Trovatore (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few CNN links: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/02/19/lin.wi.protests.cnn?iref=allsearch http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/19/democratic-leaders-join-protests-in-two-states/?iref=allsearch http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/19/wisconsin.budget/index.html?iref=allsearch --Trovatore (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before someone starts an article on this topic, please read WP:NOTNEWS. Lets see how events play out, gain some perspective on what impact they had, and then write an article about it. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever "this topic" is. It'd be nice if you folks conducted your private conversations elsewhere. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first guess was that Wisconsin must be a suburb of Benghazi. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

You don't get CNN in Oz?... look at the links that Trovatore provided and all will be explained. Short version... political cat fight in the US State of Wisconsin between States who are trying to cut expenses and public service union members (teachers, government workers, etc.) who do not want the cuts to impact them. The Democrats in the State Senate (who support the Unions) are hiding out in another State, to procedurally prevent a vote from taking place on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BULLSHIT. The state employees have accepted ALL the proposed cuts. ALL. They are objecting to the end of collective bargaining. Please keep your ignorance and your ideology to yourself.63.17.85.244 (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we get CNN here, but it's not compulsory to watch it. My comment was about the nature of questions needing to be evident and explicit: a reference to a "Wisconsin brouhaha" and some links provided by someone else do not cut it. If nobody can be bothered to come right out and say what the issue is, I treat it as a private conversation and ask that it be conducted elsewhere. Thank you for letting me into the secret, Blueboar. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian newspaper compares it to Egyptian protests, wow.[1] I don't know what kind of paper that is though. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the BBC, it's the U.S. protesters themselves that are comparing it to the Egyptian protests. (That's the BBC's main story on it, not a sub-story about the comparison.) For a sense of international perception (harking back to Jack's comments above), the BBC News front page for UK viewers has no story at all on this, out of about fifty headlines. If I click "World News", though, there is one headline about it, under "Other news from around the world". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a severe case of hype on the part of the Wisconsinites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW article now exists at 2011 Wisconsin budget protests. (I had nothing to do with this.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how is Belgium functioning?[edit]

Belgium today overtook Iraq for the longest period for a country to exist without a government. I understand that many institutions of state do not require political supervision, hence why the UK functions during election campaigns etc, but 250 days? What happens when a major decision has to be made, as one would expect to happen during a period of well over 6 months? Surely not all controversial decisions can be delayed, and what legitimacy does anyone have to make them? Prokhorovka (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As our article Belgian federal government points out, the last government (Leterme II) remains in office as a caretaker government. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could Germany invade Belgium now? 81.47.150.216 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I'm sure they could, but these days it's really more a question of "may Germany invade Belgium now?" And (most likely) no, they may not. WikiDao ☯ 13:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Germany actually need to invade anyone anymore? Given how economically dominant Germany is tocay, I would think they could simply foreclose and take possession. (not serious). Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany has no incentive to invade Belgium today and obviously it's a ridiculous notion, but on the other hand, think of how quickly Belgium would get a new government if it did :) And I'm betting an invasion would also do wonders for the ailing Belgian national unity... TomorrowTime (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that Germany has no incentive to invade Belgium, but Belgium has an incentive to be invaded. Perhaps some bizarre provocation stratagem... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.162.13 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mouse that Roared. 86.161.110.118 (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge and inner peace[edit]

Does any psychologist recommend revenge -instead of pardon - to reach inner peace? It sounds socially disruptive, but psychologically possible to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.150.216 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Revenge may be of interest to you. WikiDao ☯ 14:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm the OP) I don't see any recommendation there, does that mean no psychology will ever say 'hey, take revenge on that bastards.'? (evil, but psychologically, could be sweet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.179.172 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to think that's what it means, no. WikiDao ☯ 18:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a look at the Function in society section of the Revenge article? There's a quote from a philosopher there, and a philosopher can sometimes be a little like a psychologist. I do not have any psychologist in mind myself that I would like to refer you to beyond that on this issue, though, sorry. Maybe someone else will provide you with a more specific reference to what you are looking for. It's a very interesting and thoroughly-considered topic, though, so I'm sure you will find a wealth of information about it in the literature if you care to research it further yourself. Good luck! :) WikiDao ☯ 20:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question, and your reference to "pardon". I guess you're talking there about what's usually termed "forgiveness", which is not about condoning whatever they did, but is about you stopping blaming them, and you stopping allowing them to hold you back from getting on with your life. Much more liberating to realise that, no matter what they do to you, you're always in the driver's seat of your own life, and notions of revenge don't cut it at all. Mind you, it's very human to desire revenge, but it's also very human to be able to rise above it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant forgiveness. And, no, I didn't ask if I should forgive. I asked for a reference about a psychologist who accepts revenge as a means of obtaining closure.212.169.179.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know any psychologist who recommends getting even. Why would they? There are other alternatives: forgiveness, assertiveness, not clinging to offenses ... Maybe you don't find a psychologist who does it because psychologically it makes no sense to take revenge. You won't feel better and in the cases of people with mental problems (often these get advice from psychologists), it can get dangerous to suggest they should get some payback. Quest09 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be asking about negative vengeance. It is common to hear the the best vengeance is to do whatever the offender doesn't want, such as going on to live a very successful and happy life (positive vengeance). Only among less educated/civilized do you hear that one should enact physical retribution against the offender. This isn't a new concept. The old phrase "an eye for an eye" was not made to create revenge. It was made to end revenge. Previous to this mandate, the idea was "If someone makes you mad, kill their whole family, burn down their house, destroy all their crops, etc..." The mandate stated that revenge must be limited to an eye for an eye - no more. So, the idea that negative revenge is bad has been around long before any concept of psychiatry. -- kainaw ™ 23:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The endless cycle of violence in the Middle East is a pretty good illustration of how well revenge "works". If a psychologist advocated harmful retribution, it's fair to say that someone should pursue getting his license revoked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most psychological theories acknowledge the human need to live within society, and so behaviors like vengeance (with its implicit unsocial, egocentric motivation), are generally not considered to demonstrate psychological health. At best they are acts of immaturity or uncontrolled emotion, and at worst are actually anti-social. In order to legitimize vengeance, a psychological theory would have to assert that the expression of idiosyncratic violent impulses were more essential to psychological health than long-term pro-social behavior. I've never seen that done in any theory, and have a hard time imagining it as an analytical premise. Even terrorists and advocates of the death penalty justify killing people as an act of justice or necessity, not vengeance. --Ludwigs2 07:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you take pride in living by some modern version of a chivalric or gentlemanly code (eg see Knightly Virtues), and feel shame at any lapses, then you would be above taking revenge. However it would be acceptable to tell others of the facts of what you felt was unjust, and seek redress through the courts or some other judicial proceedure. A side effect of taking revenge is that it implies that you consider your opponent to have enough esteem or status to be worthy of revenge, rather than just being despicable scum not worth further attention. 92.15.2.17 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's known more as a philosopher than psychologist, and it's just a scrap, but I remember Nietzsche using the phrase 'good will to revenge' in perhaps The Gay Science. Certainly sounds like a sanction at first glance, though he also rails against revengeful 'tarantulas' in other texts. Vranak (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on Google for Neitzsche revenge produces many interesting results. However Neitzsche became more and more obviously insane as he grew older, perhaps due to syphillis, so what he writes cannot be considered reliable advice. 92.15.2.17 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He plainly had issues with sanity, but that does not diminish the fact that his writings can provide challenging and stimulating food for thought. Just as long as you don't look to him as a moral authority. Vranak (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you consider the bad results that occur in societies where revenge is acceptable - such as with vendettas, feuds, or honour killings - then clearly revenge should not be recommended by anyone. It must be more than coincidence that the countries where revenge is acceptable are all economically backward too. Where the line is between revenge and justice I'm not really sure. 92.15.8.100 (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No school of psychological thought I know of would recommend an aggrieved person take an action solely to inflict distress on another person. However, many psychologists believe that angry feelings must be expressed, and some (particularly the Gestalt_psychology school] view the enactment of a revenge fantasy in writing or another non-harmful way (such as pillow beating) as beneficial.

collective bargaining[edit]

Is the right to bargain collectively a protected right or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.85.168 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your location - different countries have different laws and regulations governing unions, strikes, ballots, collective bargaining, closed shops etc Exxolon (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in the US the laws are different from State to State. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that technically this is true of all rights in all places, and the level of protection often varies even within protected rights. The right to life for example is a protected right almost everywhere (since it is illegal to breach it), but in some places it has the extra protection that not even the state can breach it (no death penalty). The right to collective bargaining is the same, some places will have no right, others very strong protections. No right is intrinsically protected, since protection is by definition something that must come from an external source. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the US, see National Labor Relations Act. Relevant: Our Collective bargaining article notes that the right to join a trade union is claimed as a fundamental human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though that doesn't mean it's a "protected right" everywhere, by any means. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whispering columns of Jerash[edit]

In Flushing Meadows Corona Park, Queens, New York city, USA, there stands what some say is the second oldest artifact in New York city, "whispering column of Jerash" from about 120 AD; the oldest being "Cleopatra's Needle" from about 1500 BC in Central Park. The column of Jerash, according to the plaque nearby, was donated to the city by King Hussein of Jordan on the occasion of the 1964-65 World's Fair. The link from the official New York City Parks department is: http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/fmcp/highlights/12405

I would like to know more about the column's origin, about the temples from which this column came, the temples that evidently the Romans built in present day Jordan around 120 AD. Also I'd like to know why they're called "whispering" columns of Jerash. Thank you. 166.248.6.11 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an article (see, WHAAOE doesn't always apply), but googling "Whispering column of Jerash" turns up over 5,000 hits. Check that out first, and come back if you have any more questions. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE always applies: You may want to look at our article on Jerash, where some photos - including the collonaded street (cardo massimo), which shows similar Corinthian capitals - are included. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a case of WMNHAAOLEBIVAALHAAOSRTWYLF. For the uninitiated: Wikipedia may not have an article on literally everything, but it virtually always at least has an article on something related to what you're looking for. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

poem that C. S. Lewis referenced[edit]

In chapter 13 of That Hideous Strength there is a reference to a 'poem about Heaven and Hell eating into merry Middle Earth from opposite sides' -- does anyone know what this is? 128.194.35.175 (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell comes to mind, but doesn't seem to fit the context as well as it might, and I could not find any source saying definitively that that's the one alluded to in your reference. I'd be interested to know, too, though, if anyone else can find out anything more about that. Good question! :) WikiDao ☯ 20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good guess- Lewis was a bit hung up on The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. His The Great Divorce (at least the title) is his response to Blake. So I wouldn't be surprised if he referenced it elsewhere. Staecker (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book—if you can see the same snippet that Google Books gives me—connects the idea with a (not explicitly identified) "medieval English lyric". I don't recall such a lyric offhand, and I don't know how much trust to put in Mr. Lobdell. I'll try to track it down, though. Deor (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this page might have the answer, but it only says "??". If anyone finds an answer, they would probably appreciate hearing it too. Marnanel (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I spent some time paging through all the anthologies of Middle English lyrics on my shelves, checking glossaries, etc., and I haven't turned up anything; so I guess I'll leave the matter to others. (I must admit, my first thought was that Lewis was probably referring to one of his own poems, because he was prone to such mischief. I don't have at hand the books in which to check that, though.) Deor (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This writer seems to believe it was a Tolkien reference, of all things. I suppose we may be dealing with an Inklings in-joke. Marnanel (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Dengler[edit]

If he was captured and held as a prisoner by Pathet Lao, why he was "greeted as a celebrity by the Pathet Lao" after his rescue? --Jortonmol (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The destruction of the Temple of Artemis.[edit]

I'll start by just pasting in a few lines from some different pages.

"The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was destroyed on July 21, 356 BC in an act of arson committed by Herostratus. According to the story, his motivation was fame at any cost, thus the term herostratic fame." (Main page)

On the page titled, "Chersiphron"; this is said,

"...it was destroyed in 550 BC, rebuilt, burned by Herostratus in 356 BC and rebuilt again."

Can you just explain this?

I've been recently reading up on this and it's really interesting me, I'm just curious as to what happened after this/why it wasn't preserved etc.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycosa19944 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Artemis should answer all your questions. It was destroyed and rebuilt numerous times; in fact the most famous incarnation was built after Herostratus' arson. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, no, the one Herostratus burned was one of the Seven Wonders. But the one they built after that was also pretty famous. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want the truth? I did it to impress a girl. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically we aren't supposed to mention him by name at all, not that anyone seems to care about that any more. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]