Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< December 31 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 2 >
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 1[edit]

Christianity, America, and Capitalism[edit]

All are equal before the law, which is symbolized by blindfolded Lady Justice. Money can't buy happiness. Greed is a sin. Punishment is just. You cannot serve God and Mammon.

But then how come this? America is a very capitalist, anti-communist, individualist, and libertarian country. America has and believes in free enterprise, laissez faire, small government, individual freedom, small government, low taxes, and low welfare. America is very favourable to the rich.

Republicanism (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity, America, and Capitalism (cont.)[edit]

America is a very capitalist, anti-communist, individualist, and libertarian country. America has and believes in free enterprise, laissez faire, small government, individual freedom, low taxes, and low welfare. America is very favourable to the rich.

What does God think about that? What does Jesus think about that? What do Christians think about that? What do Christian critics of greed think about that? What does the Christian left think about that? What do Christian who help the poor and needy think about that? What do Christian socialists think about that?

Republicanism (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rigged" U.S. Presidential Elections[edit]

Which U.S. Presidential elections could have had a different outcome if they were completely free and fair? I know that this question could be somewhat opinion-influenced, but we can still use info to make conclusions. From what I know, I'd say:

Are there any other U.S. Presidential elections that I'm missing here? Futurist110 (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hundreds of them? A source for that would be nice, as well as the number of felons who did get to vote improperly. Also, you don't mention how many people in the conservative central-time-zone pan handle went home when the state was called for Gore before the polls were closed. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out the way J.Q. Adams won his one term as President. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that deal between Clay and Adams was pretty corrupt, but I don't think that any/many people who were able to vote in that election got denied the opportunity to do so. Jackson did not win a majority of the popular or electoral vote, and I don't think that voter fraud was responsible for Jackson failing to win a majority of either of these things. Futurist110 (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof that there was any such deal. Clay and Adams were allies; Jackson was a hothead and a sore loser. Funny thing is that I think he had, in many cases, the better policies, but I absolutely can't abide his personal style. --Trovatore (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Jackson's policies were positively genocidal towards Native Americans. See Trail of Tears. StuRat (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true. I said "in many cases", not "in all cases". --Trovatore (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia article is Corrupt_Bargain#Election_of_1824. The election of 1824 was a strange one by modern standards -- the Federalist Party was pretty much defunct (its few remnants definitely didn't have any hope of electing a president), so the only remaining party was the Democratic-Republicans or Democrats -- but they had a semi-informal procedure for selecting presidential candidates which didn't work too well in 1824 (the first Democratic convention wasn't until 1832), so there was no real national candidate for president, but instead a series of regional candidates. AnonMoos (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not really correct to refer to the Democratic-Republicans as "Democrats". Our article explains that, when the party fell apart, one faction (Jackson's) evolved into the Democratic Party, but another into the Whig Party. It also says "[m]ost contemporaries called it the Republican Party". --Trovatore (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added "Democrats" so that people who don't know much about the United States politics of the period could understand that the main line of that party's development led to the modern Democratic party... AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it was the "main line"? I think this is the propaganda of the modern Democratic Party. --Trovatore (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Not that it matters much anyway, of course. The positions of the parties have changed wildly over time, even over eras where continuous "heritage" is undisputed. But that's just all the more reason that it's not useful to connect the Democratic-Republicans to the modern Democrats.) --Trovatore (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after the presidential election of 1824 turned acrimonious, the anti-Jacksonians only won one election before 1848 (i.e. 1828, 1832, 1836, and 1844 were losses, and 1840 didn't actually turn out to be much of a real victory), which would certainly not seem to indicate that they were the stronger faction in the schism. Also, in the general opposition which some historians have seen as persisting in U.S. politics, the Democratic-Republicans/Democrats have a broadly "Jeffersonian" orientation, while the Whigs would join more with the Federalists and later Republicans in having a broadly "Hamiltonian" orientation... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To call the modern Democrats "Jeffersonian" is simply bizarre. --Trovatore (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trovatore -- modern Democrats don't follow Jefferson in any way that Jefferson himself would probably recognize, but that's not what's claimed by those who speak of loose "Hamiltonian" vs. "Jeffersonian" orientations persisting over many years in U.S. politics. AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No more bizarre than modern Republicans embracing Lincoln and T.R. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? I haven't claimed any such connection for the Republicans. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to clarify, by "for" I don't mean "on behalf of" — I wouldn't presume to speak for Republicans, not being one.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
United States presidential election, 1960. Gore Vidal said something along the lines that the rural Republicans were not able to stuff the ballot boxes faster than Mayor Daley. There was also some speculation about what LBJ did in Texas. Nixon did not contest the result because it would have hurt the prestige of the Presidency, but it apparantly soured him so much towards his opponents that he thought that anything was fair game. With consequences. JASpencer (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard about that but the margins in Texas that year were probably too large for voter fraud to play a decisive factor, since I'm skeptical that 46,000 illegals were able to vote for JFK or that 46,000 Nixon voters were blocked from voting in Texas that year. Futurist110 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If “all African-Americans in the Southern U.S. were able to vote (without threats, fear, or intimidation)” in any election, the results of the 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972 and 2000 presidential elections – and many, many congressional, senate, gubernatorial, etc, etc elections – might well have been different from what history records. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the Congressional, Senate, and Gubernatorial elections part but keep in mind that I was only asking about U.S. Presidential elections here. As for 1952, 1956, 1968, and 1972, I don't see how allowing all African-Americans in the South to vote in these elections would have changed the outcomes of these elections (most of them were landslides, after all). I suppose that maybe a case can be made for 1968--how many African-Americans who should have been able to vote that year were unable to? However, I'm pretty sure that my point stands for all of the other elections that you mentioned, with the exception of 2000 (which I agree with you on). Futurist110 (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the city up side down on the map at 1:13 in this music video?[edit]

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calle Widmann (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riga, Latvia. The river is Daugava. The large bridge is Vanšu Bridge. --hydrox (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Shame on me. I have been there, even on one of the bridges, and earlier today Riga was one of the cities I had in mind. I looked on an Internet map, but didn't understand anyway. Calle Widmann (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle and acoustics[edit]

What, if anything, did Aristotle have to say about the speed of sound? All I can find is references to his observation that sound is caused by air vibrating, except for this page that appears to correlate his observations with gunpowder technology. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the Soul (De Anima), Book II, Part 8: [2] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is praxeology dependent to mathematics and formal logic?[edit]

This subject is somehow unique, since it is not as popular as other humanities areas of study. In fact I find it hard to research more about it. So, because I first heard the term "praxeology" in wiki, I would like to ask more about it here. To proceed, is it dependent to mathematics and other formal sciences like philosophy per se or is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "dependent to" mean? Is it the same as "dependent on"? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 19:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just linking to the article praxeology so other answerers can follow. I'm afraid I can't understand the article at all, so have no hope of answering your question. Googling for an "introduction to praxeology" on university websites ("site:*.edu") brought up this overview of the field [3]; hope it helps. It seems to link praxeology to economics rather than to mathematics or philosophy, and asserts there is no one single approach. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Armoured trains in Britain[edit]

I've started an article about Polish armoured trains in Britain. I copied some text from List of armoured trains which has listings such as I dywizjon – trains: C, G, E. I can see that it refers to a First Division, or Division I, and that there are four such divisions, but divisions of what? JASpencer (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of hunting around, I found the website of the The Polish Institute and Sikorski Museum and their Unit Chronicles and War Diares page. That includes the War Diary of the IIIrd Armoured Trains Squadron, which seems to run from 29 November 1940 to 18 May 1942. It would be a lot more helpful if I could read Polish, but perhaps "dywizjon" translates better as "squadron"? The museum is in London, so may be willing help if asked. I found this page from East Lothian at War which says that Train "K" was operated by "12th Armoured Train Detachment of the Royal Engineers". This site says that they were in operation from June 1940 and handed over to Polish troops in April 1941. This discussion board has some useful technical details:"The train consisted of a former GER "F4" class 2-4-2T No. 7189 flanked by two low sided general purpose wagons and two LMS steel 20 ton coal wagons; locomotive and coal wagons were protected by 1/4 inch steel plate, and the entire train was camouflaged. Offensive armament consisted of rifles, machine guns and naval 6 pounders - the latter being mounted in the armoured wagons in such a way that a 240 degree arc of fire was possible ahead and astern of the train. When on patrol the train carried a crew of twenty-six, including gunners, wireless operators and locomen.". The guns were actually ex WWI tank guns: the QF 6 pounder 6 cwt Hotchkiss - according to our article anyway. Alansplodge (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I found you another picture. Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all that, particularly the clue on dywizjon which I thought was Division and not Squadron. It would make far more sense if it's a squadron, although I'm still not sure of what - even if I'm closer. Sadly the Imperial War Museum picture, if it is really from 1940 as the title suggests would probably be a British rather than a Polish crew, as I believe that they didn't get the trains until 1941.
The RMweb discussion board is a bit of a goldmine. Thank God for hobbyists.
JASpencer (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have just found Foreign Volunteers of the Allied Forces 1939-45, by Nigel Thomas says; "On 12 October 1940 I - IV (Polish) Armoured Train Battalions were formed, each with 2-5 trains...". So they're going with "battalion". I wonder if anyone on the Language desk could help? However, maybe more a case of military jargon than pure translation. Alansplodge (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This site The Polish Army in Scotland Order of Battle end 1941/beginning of 1942 also goes with "battalion". Also a bit more info and some links at The LNER Encyclopedia Discussion and reference site. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian King turn German Emperor[edit]

Was there any nation that continued to call Wilhelm I, German Emperor King of Prussia to spite him?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Between 1871 and 1888, or post-1888? Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his Wikipedia article, he still remained King of Prussia even after becoming German Emperor, so if he would have been called that in 1871 or afterwards, it would have still been accurate. Futurist110 (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but calling George III the Elector of Hanover is also accurate. But would calling the British King by one of his lesser subsidary titles be appropriate in diplomatic standings? No, anyone doing it would be trying to undermine the king. By refusing to acknowledge Wilhelm I's new status as an Emperor, they undermine him and the newly formed German Empire. Peter the Great had similiar trouble transitioning from being a Tsar to an Emperor because except for Poland, Prussia, and Sweden, the rest of Europe refused to acknowledge his new title. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing this point, rather than asking a question. μηδείς (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they really wanted to insult him, they would have called him the "Margrave of Brandenburg", and reminded him of the time that George William, Elector of Brandenburg paid feudal homage to the King of Poland... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question still stands: is there anywhere a record of people calling him King of Prussia after he became German Emperor? --Lgriot (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pride[edit]

Hypothetically, how can a person have pride but lack confidence? Wouldn't long term pride lead to confidence? 176.27.208.210 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These seem somewhat different to me. Is this maybe better suited to the Misc desk? IBE (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As our article Pride begins by saying, the word is used for (at least) two rather different emotions or attitudes. The other-regarding pride also called "hubris" may mask insecurity and lack of confidence. And even pride in the sense of valuing one's own self-worth does not necessarily mean that one is confident in all areas of life. --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
176.27.208.210 -- Not entirely sure what the drift or purpose of your question is, but the phenomenon of people who are very insistently assertive about their claimed personal status, yet also very insecure and defensive about whether other people will accept their claims, is pretty well known. Such people are often some of those most liable to lash out verbally or physically. The complete opposite attitude is that of someone who has quiet pride in their accomplishments or lineage, but doesn't much care what other people think about them... AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey that's total garbage !! How can you say such things? My answer was already perfect .... ok that was a really lame joke .... maybe I should just shoot myself ;) IBE (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On that general topic, I recall a story about a guy named Stosh who got home from work and discovered his wife with another man. The prideful Stosh pulled out a gun and held it up to his head, and the wife and the other man started to snicker. Stosh said, "Don't laugh! You're next!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can take pride in one thing but lack confidence in other areas. For example, Susan Boyle can take pride in her singing, and yet lack confidence due to her looks. StuRat (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pride's a feeling of joy in yourself based on an intellectual judgment, whereas confidence is a lack of fear that can be affected much more directly by the chemical flight response. No amount of pride is going to make something like fear of heights or of public speaking go away--those have to be treated with chemicals or desensitization therapy. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_January_1&oldid=1141892975"