Humanities desk
< February 17	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 18

Iran's war aims during the Iran-Iraq War

Other than overthrowing Saddam Hussein, wanting to set up an Islamic republic in Iraq similar to the Iranian model, and possibly forcing Iraq to pay reparations to Iran for starting the Iran-Iraq War, did Iran have any other war aims during the Iran-Iraq War? For instance, would it have also wanted to spread its revolution even further to other countries–for instance, to Kuwait, to Saudi Arabia, to the other Gulf monarchies, et cetera–by force, if necessary? Or would Iran have been satisfied with the war aims that I mentioned in my first sentence here–and would thus have not insisted on getting even more than this even if it would have won the Iran-Iraq War? Futurist110 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iran didn't start the war, so the first Iranian "aim" at the beginning was to survive and expel the invader from its territory. AnonMoos (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But what about after Iraq was kicked out of all Iranian territory? Futurist110 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per AnonMoos, and as is rather obvious in reading the article you linked, Iraq was the aggressor in the war. Iraq's primary goal was purely territorial/economic. Iraq sought to annex Khuzestan, which has a large, lucrative oil fields, and a viable port in the city of Abadan. See File:Map of the frontlines in the Iran-Iraq War.jpg, which shows the location of the oil fields Iraq wanted. The port was really important because, while Iraq has a nominal coastline it lacks any real port, making it essentially land-locked and dependent on its neighbors for imports and exports. Abadan is also one of the major oil refining centers of the world, something Iraq also needed. A secondary goal was to cripple the Islamic Republic itself, being a Shi'a-led theocracy. Iraq, remember was led by the Ba'ath Party, which was a nominally-Sunni-but-really-mostly-secularist pan-Arabic party. They had no historic interest in Iranian territory per se, and they used the rationale of stopping the Iranian regime from exporting the Islamic Revolution, (Iraq has a majority Shi'a population, remember) and they also saw the war as a pre-emptive strike. Iran really had no offensive goals. Their aim was to defend their territory, and perhaps to extract some measure of retribution on Iraq for the unprovoked attack. Once it became clear that Iraq couldn't accomplish its goals to gain oil fields, refineries, and a port city from Iran, the war ended in August 1988, and Iraq soon began planning to invade Kuwait, which they did two years later for pretty much the exact same reasons. --Jayron 32 13:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well-aware of what Iraq's goals in this war were, though I did not know specifically about Abadan. That said, though, Iran could have ended the war back in 1982 if all it would have wanted was to kick Iraq out of all of its territory. Futurist110 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're referring to Operation Ramadan, which was controversial even among the high offices in Iran. Yes, you are correct that by 1982, Iran had decided to change its aims and export the Iranian revolution across the region. --Jayron 32 15:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I was talking about that. Also, did Iraq want to stop at Iraq or spread its revolution even further than that (as in, to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, et cetera) in the hypothetical event of a complete and total Iranian victory over Iraq, including regime change in Iraq? Futurist110 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thoughts? Futurist110 (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely have thoughts. Mostly I read and regurgitate what is already written elsewhere. --Jayron 32 12:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brothel newspaper ad reminder

I'm looking for a probably made-up funny "warning" I read about (I think it was in refdesk archives) that said something like "When will the shameful house of sin be shut down, the one owned by the terrible Madame Blancharde, located at 123 Main Street, open at six PM nightly, for a cost of only seven shillings? When?" It cracked me up and I'd like to read it again and know where it came from. Temerarius (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's an anecdote that's been circulating in various forms. I encountered it in a French-language magazine during the 1980s (about a scandalous dancer, not a brothel). I've never seen it in English until now... AnonMoos (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably the one who wrote the Ref.Desk passage you remembered (see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_May_10), but I was loosely paraphrasing what I remembered from the French-language magazine in the 1980s, and don't have any additional information to offer... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Maxwell Armfield's best-known painting?

Maxwell Armfield's best-known painting is probably that on the cover of Fleetwood Mac's 1969 album Then Play On. It was featured in the February 1917 edition of The Countryside magazine, which says that the mural was originally designed for the dining room of a London mansion. See here. I would like to know a) the London mansion, and the client, and b) where is it now? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Addendum: According to the CD inlay it was in the John Jesse Collection - John Jesse was an English art dealer who sold his collection at Sotheby's in 2006 and died in 2019. DuncanHill (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article names the painting Domesticated Mural Painting, however I think this is a misunderstanding that has been now re-packaged all over the internet making it hard to find out the correct information. It turns out the painting was featured in an article in the magazine that Armfield wrote, the title of the article was "Domesticated Mural Painting", as you can see Here, note 47 on page 31. The title of the painting is thus most certainly not Domesticated Mural Painting, but the wrong title has been in the Wikipedia article long enough that the internet has reproduced the wrong name all over the place. Perhaps if we could find the actual name of the painting, it would help to track it down? --Jayron 32 13:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Yes, I was reaching the same conclusion about the name myself. I've edited the articles accordingly. Might add it to my list on my userpage DuncanHill (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a1) Not clear if you have a copy of the 1917 magazine? If not, there is a lengthy quote from it in the comments of this post [1] that describes the room in much more detail than your “see here” link does. But it does not, alas, give you the name of the house or owner.

(a2) If you think if might have been his own house, per [2], the Armfields moved from the Cotswolds to a studio in Glebe Place, Chelsea, after November 1912 and lived there until they left for America in 1915. Per Glebe Place, this was No. 39.

(b) The window for finding its move out of the John Jesse collection is wide – from the ‘60s to 2006. Sources: Jesse obituary, Sothebys press release, auction catalogue. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mural is shown and described in the article,^[3] but not named. It was designed for the dining-room of a London mansion and placed above the fireplace. --Lambiam 21:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: It's cicumstantial, but the description of his work Aries at [4] shows that he painted decoration for his own house. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full 1917 article is here. Not much help. Alansplodge (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Mick Fleetwood's dining room, or maybe a copy, but he could probably afford the original. Alansplodge (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That source does say "the Maxell Armfield painting" (emphasis added). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

, misspelling the artist's given name. But note that this is followed by an attributive clause. In full, the noun phrase (with the typo corrected) is: the Maxwell Armfield painting featured on the cover of Fleetwood Mac’s 1969 album Then Play On (emphasis added). The presence of the attribute, identifying the painting with definiteness, dictates the definite article here. --Lambiam 23:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, that led me to this interview which says, after Fleetwood says Then Play On is one of his favourite albums, "He owns the original of the artwork used for the album. The painting, which features a naked man on a horse, is called Domesticated Mural Painting and is by the artist Maxwell Armfield. It was originally designed for a London mansion". Thanks all, DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the pieces concerned are written by art historians, and if the Classic Rock journalist thinks the work is called "Domesticated Mural Painting", he may have simply Googled it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mick: "That's the original painting we used on Then Play On". Journalist: *makes note to look it up on Wikipedia later* DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And where in the piece is Fleetwood quoted as saying that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say he was? I was just pointing out how that kind of thing works. DuncanHill (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We still need the original client and location though! DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just ordered an exhibition catalogue which may be of use. There does not appear to be a catalogue raisonné for Armfield, nor can I find details of his heirs or executors. I have seen it mentioned that Mick Fleetwood knew him personally. DuncanHill (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Michael Madigan's father

I am 99% certain that his father's name is also Michael Madigan, however since 2014 the article states "Michael Flynn" as the name. Just asking for a sanity check as it seems the addition was made by a sock who did significant editing to the article which were mostly good edits. Just looking for a second set of eyes to confirm that Flynn isn't a nickname I am missing from a book or old article. Slywriter (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article also states that his father's name was Michael Madigan several times, and has copious references. You can feel confident changing the "Flynn" back to "Madigan". It is obviously not correct. --Jayron 32 17:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't change it. The bit about a Michael Flynn was added in 2014 as noted.[5] There was, in fact a Cook County Clerk named Michael Flynn. In the 1930s and 1940s. See Cook County Clerk. He was succeeded by Richard J. Daley. That's probably the reason the editor added that bit, as Madigan's father was friendly with Daley. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back, with hopefully a little more clarity on Flynn's role. Obviously, a different Flynn from the famous or infamous General. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Makes more sense now. A tweet alleging some grand conspiracy with Madigan and his father as the General is what brought this to my attention. Low profile tweet so I don't expect a sudden surge of interest in the article but wanted to make sure the record was correct here. Slywriter (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I also added the Flynn's middle initial. And I was thinking that if the 1930s-1940s Cook County official was the same guy as the General, then he must have found the Fountain of Youth! Note also how many Irishmen were involved with Chicago's city government at the time. You didn't have to be Irish to be in government, but it didn't hurt! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look at the article... It is still a bit confusing ... are we saying that the elder Michael Madigan (the subject’s father) worked for/with/under Flynn at the Cook County Clerk’s office (which is where he met Daley)? Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be it. Maybe it's a little too much detail. The important bit would seem to be that Madigan's father was friendly with Daley. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal DNA

I recently read an article that said "Neanderthals, who went extinct about 40,000 years ago, lived alongside and sometimes interbred with modern humans in Europe and Asia but not in Africa, and people of purely African descent do not carry Neanderthal DNA. Studies estimate that about 2% of DNA in people of European and Asian descent can be traced back to Neanderthals." As I understand it, Indigenous peoples are also disproportionally vulnerable to covid (in North and South America; I would assume also Indigenous peoples of Australia, etc. as well). My question is: would Indigenous North and South American peoples have the same plight as pure Black peoples with not having any Neanderthal DNA? Do (pure) Indigenous peoples have any Neanderthal DNA? 216.104.97.230 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vulnerability is socioeconomic and not genetic, AFAIK. Indigenous people among other non-European-descent groups have less access to quality healthcare and are more likely to work in high-risk jobs where they get greater contact with infected people, and are less likely to have access to high-quality profilaxis which could mediate infection risk, and all of that is purely due to the lower socioeconomic status of such peoples. There's no need to invoke a genetic difference, much less due to Neanderthals. " there's no evidence that people of color have genetic or other biological factors that make them more likely to be affected by COVID-19...they are more likely to have underlying health conditions...more likely to live in multi-generational homes, crowded conditions and densely populated areas (making) social distancing difficult....have jobs that are considered essential or can't be done remotely and involve interaction with the public...more likely to encounter barriers to getting care, such as a lack of health insurance or not being paid when missing work to get care." This is from a U.S. perspective, and applies to ethnic minorities more than just indigenous people, but applies to indigenous peoples in other countries as well, such as First Nations people in Canada, Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders, Pacific Islanders, The Moari in New Zealand. It's not genetic, it's socioeconomic. --Jayron 32 17:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That it is not genetic is far from clear, and it is very likely it is in one respect. Lighter skinned people are less likely to lack vitamin D, making it easier for the body to make it is what lighter skin is for. Recent evidence has strongly supported the positive effect of D against covid. That Mayo clinic link has a link to COVID-19 and vitamin D which demonstrates the strange resistance to this idea. Some of it is OK, but there is strained bothsidesism. It "balances" the positive studies with negative ones about vitamin D on patients - who don't have covid! Huhh?! Basically irrelevant and just plain stupid.John Z (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also cultural, like deciding to attend a Coronavirus party. Some people are also successfully suing governments to allow them to spread covid in their religious buildings so they can better spread the virus into the community. Of 19 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't completely rule out genetics. When Old World people contacted New World people around 1500, the diseases transferred from the Old World (Europe, Asia, Africa) to the New World had a devastating effect on the indigenous people. Diseases transferred in the opposite direction had very little effect (syphilis may has jumped from the New World to the Old World, but was nowhere near as bad as what moved in the other direction). Back then, nobody had access to quality healthcare, so a genetic component seems plausible. In the Old World, there were more people, the population density was higher and the trade network was better developed, making it easier for diseases to move around. You would expect Old World people to have evolved better immune systems because of that.

African-Americans are genetically Old World people, so if they get more disease, it is for socio-economic reasons. Also note that it's politically incorrect to state there are real differences between different ethnicities. We're not supposed to say that ethnic minorities are genetically inferior, but in some aspects they are (in others they may be superior). PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would expect Old World people to have evolved better immune systems because of that. Could have been, but this is not how it worked. There are two immune systems, the innate and the adaptive ones. The adaptive immune system is by definition not genetically determined but does instead learn on the field which pathogens are frequent so as to be able to fight them more efficiently. That means that Europeans coming to America had no 'better' immune systems but immune systems sharpened against common European diseases like tuberculosis and smallpox, which on the contrary were completely unknown to the adaptive immune system of native Americans. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

I wasn't talking about the innate immune system.

It's still genetically determined how effectively the adaptive immune system can adapt to new pathogens. In a part of the world where new pathogens pop up all the time, it'd better be very effective or repeated attacks will decimate the population. In parts of the world where new pathogens are rare, human evolution can afford a less effective adaptive immune system, taking higher losses in the odd case when a new one pops up, but having lower cost at other times.

In my post above I noted the asymmetry in the Columbian exchange. I didn't say that New World people couldn't handle the diseases that the Old World people could handle (which is obviously the effect of the immune system knowing those diseases). I said that the New World people couldn't handle the Old World diseases, whilst the Old World people could handle the New World diseases. Yes, there were fewer of them, which means that New World people had less pathogens to tune their immune systems to. Just saying, a genetic component is plausible. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jayron32. I had thought of the socioeconomic aspects but was not able to conceptualize it the way you explained it. 216.104.97.230 (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it has been recently discovered that many sub-Saharan African people do apparently have a small amount (0.3%) of Neanderthal DNA. It's posited that some Europeans with ancestral Neanderthal DNA migrated back into Africa some 20,000 years ago, carrying it with them.

As for indigenous North and South Americans, they have on average more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans. We used to think of Neanderthals as a European population because that's where they were first identified, but in fact they ranged far into Asia, as did their sister population the Denisovans, who seemingly were even more populous in East Asia, since modern populations there and in Australasia have up to 8% Denisovan DNA. "Modern humans", Neanderthals and Denisovans seem to have interbred readily (given the number of hybrids we have already discovered within the very sparse fossil record) and of course the ancestors of indigenous Americans migrated from (North) East Asia where such mixing had been going on. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.74.203 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A certain piece of Neanderthal DNA possibly increases risk of severe COVID according to a paper published in September.[6] Another might also [7] but a third might lower risk [8] Just having some Neanderthal genes is not enough, they have to be the right ones. Rmhermen (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]