Humanities desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

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 17[edit]

Primaries & caucuses[edit]

As I understand it, the 2008 primaries and caucauses are run by the parties. But, some state legislatures have changed the date on their primaries. Does that mean the state governments have control over there?71.218.17.131 (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primaries are run by the states and counties under largely the same procedures as general elections between candidates of different parties. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For many years there was a system set up in the US for primaries and caucuses that went unchanged. However, in the last few years there has been a number of changes to when the primaries of some states took place. There was a race between some states to get their primary held before others, which resulted in the shifting around of a bunch of the traditional dates of when these things took place. Because New Hampshire and Iowa have traditionally been the first states to hold primaries and caucuses, they had to shift their dates to keep them ahead of the other states when they changed the dates for their own primaries. One of these states, Michigan, has been punished for moving its primary ahead of the others by being boycotted recently by some of the presidential candidates. So, to answer your question, yes, the state governments do control the date that the primaries and caucuses are held. However, there are certain penalties that can be levied against states that become too extreme in their pushing against tradition, such as we've seen with the case of the boycott of the Michigan Primary this last week. -- Saukkomies 09:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only boycotting, but the Democratic Party has said that no delegates chosen at the Michigan primary will be seated at the upcoming convention. Corvus cornix_talk 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YEah, and I happen to live in Michigan, and I feel like because of this stupid ruling by the Democratic Party that they have basically taken away my voting franchise for the upcoming election! I mean, suddenly I'm no longer a citizen??? Way to go, Michigan legislators! -- Saukkomies 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book Review for The Memory Man[edit]

Where can I find book reviews of The Memory Man written by Lisa Appignanesi in which Toronto Star issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.19 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be online. You could check your local library (you're in Canada, right?), or ask someone with LexisNexis access to look it up. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or phone the Star and ask if they can tell you when the book was reviewed. Then go to the library to read it. --Anonymous, 02:38 UTC, January 19, 2008.

Inflation[edit]

How does one calculate inflation with regards to the equipmented used by the armed services? For example, a ship of the line in britian that x pounds in the 1600s or a tank that cost x rubbles in 1938 would cost what today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.141.172 (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky. You can use simple tools like The Inflation Calculator, which use some standard index (in that case, the USA's Consumer Price Index since 1800). But those simple tools don't measure things that you might want to take into account, like regional price variations or improvements in technology. For that, you need to do some subject-specific research. --M @r ē ino 14:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might take a look at a similar, recent question posed (weirdly) at the Mathematics desk Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#WWII_dollars. Anyway, you first need to convert the target currency (say, 1920s rubles) into US dollars of its time (1920s USD), and then convert those into modern dollars (2008 USD). The further back you go the harder it is to make the numbers make sense, because all of our indices are based on social indicators of what something might be worth at any given time, but these sorts of things vary widely even over the course of one century, much less four. There are many different indices you can use, some are more appropriate for a given situation than others. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Mareino hinted at above, you have to take into account the technological improvements. For example, a state of the art ship in the 1600s might have cost X dollars, and a state of the art ship today might cost Y dollars, but the ships aren't really very similar at all. Although they're both ships, the huge improvements in what the ships can do make them extremely dissimilar. As such, price comparisons aren't all that helpful. GreatManTheory (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California[edit]

Which universities and colleges are considered as "Southern California" as in part of Southern California? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.207 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Southern California article? Any school in that area would be a Southern California school. Corvus cornix_talk 04:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab leaders[edit]

Why some Arab leaders like Saudi Arabia and U.A.E. wear the traditional Islamic dress and others Arab leaders like Lebanon, Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Palestine and Iraq wear the Western clothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.207 (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There can be fine nuances, but the most basic division is the Arabian peninsula and the Gulf vs. the rest... AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the image of themselves that they want to portray at a given moment. For example here is Pervez Musharraf in a Pakistani suit, here in military uniform as he says farewell to his military role and here in western suit after his resignation as head of the armed forces. Western suit = (roughly) "I am a modern leader", traditional dress: "I am a man of tradition" and military uniform: "I have the military behind me". Of course the semiotics of dress are a lot more subtle than that, but it's a broad brush beginning. SaundersW (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia is known for its conservatism. Wrad (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia is essentially an absolutist monarchy. And, speaking of an other absolutist thestic state (this one in Europe), when have you seen the Pope wearing jeans or his favourite Armani suit ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he does wear his favorite prada shoes. :) Pastordavid (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Africa[edit]

Which Western African nations wears the Boubou, in specific? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.207 (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Boubou says that it is currently worn in a variety of countries. As the peoples of West Africa have not, traditionally, paid much attention to what the western world states are national boundaries, but were often nomadic, following food and water, I doubt that there is anything more specific to be said about "countries", aside from what the article contains. Bielle (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal buildings[edit]

What are some buildings in which metal is a prominent construction material (e.g. the Guggenheim in Bilbao)? Thanks.--Anakata (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better question would be what significant buildings of the past 110 years aren't made out of metal. Almost all skyscrapers have a steel frame, as do most low- and mid-rise commercial and institutional buildings. Masonry and wood are still used widely for homes and other smaller structures, but that's about it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And especially since the development of the international style, metal has become common as an exterior cladding for skyscrapers as well. --Anon, 06:00 UTC, January 17, 2008.

The Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles. The Markel Building in Richmond, Virginia. The Central Library in Minneapolis, Minnesota. --LarryMac | Talk 15:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a photo of the Central Library at Minneapolis Public Library. And I apologize for my fellow editors' literalism and other jackanapery. --LarryMac | Talk 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literalism and jacknapery? You seem to think the question meant something different than I did. What? --Anon, 19:03 UTC, January 17.

The question says "where metal is a prominent construction material" (emphasis added) with a specific example, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. Your response, Anon, was not nearly so literal as the first, and I won't comment further on the picture that was added. --LarryMac | Talk 19:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yhe picture is of a modern building in which metal is a prominent construction material. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. It's quite clear what the OP was referring to, and it wasn't sheds. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really almost anything by Frank Gehry. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Media influence on[edit]

How much influence does the Arab or Palestinian Media have on the Palestinian population? -65.96.173.1 (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art relative?[edit]

Does anyone know if the australian performance artist Mike Parr is related to an earlier Victorian artist, 60's sculptor Lenton Parr? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kutuzov and Napoleon[edit]

Thinking of the French campaign in Russia in 1812 would it be true to say that Kutuzov proved himself to be a better tactician than Napoleon? 217.44.77.243 (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1812 campaign was not one in which tactics played much of a role. Kutuzov in particular didn't really have much in the way of tactical or even strategic choice: he was caught between French military superiority, to which the only practical response was to trade space for time by retreating, and political pressure to fight a pitched battle to protect Moscow. You can see our article on the Battle of Borodino for some discussion of the merits of Kutuzov’s tactical dispositions.

Tolstoy is quite scathing about the abilities of both commanders in War and Peace:

If the commanders had been guided by reason, it would seem that it must have been obvious to Napoleon that by advancing thirteen hundred miles and giving battle with a probability of losing a quarter of his army, he was advancing to certain destruction, and it must have been equally clear to Kutuzov that by accepting battle and risking the loss of a quarter of his army he would certainly lose Moscow. ...

Before the battle of Borodino our strength in proportion to the French was about as five to six, but after that battle it was little more than one to two: previously we had a hundred thousand against a hundred and twenty thousand; afterwards little more than fifty thousand against a hundred thousand. Yet the shrewd and experienced Kutuzov accepted the battle, while Napoleon, who was said to be a commander of genius, gave it, losing a quarter of his army and lengthening his lines of communication still more. If it is said that he expected to end the campaign by occupying Moscow as he had ended a previous campaign by occupying Vienna, there is much evidence to the contrary. Napoleon's historians themselves tell us that from Smolensk onwards he wished to stop, knew the danger of his extended position, and knew that the occupation of Moscow would not be the end of the campaign, for he had seen at Smolensk the state in which Russian towns were left to him, and had not received a single reply to his repeated announcements of his wish to negotiate.

In giving and accepting battle at Borodino, Kutuzov acted involuntarily and irrationally. But later on, to fit what had occurred, the historians provided cunningly devised evidence of the foresight and genius the generals who, of all the blind tools of history were the most enslaved and involuntary.

Gdr 22:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, with all respect to a great novelist, I find Tolstoy's philosopy of history tiresomely tendentious! History is made by people, by people in action, not by abstract and anonymous 'forces.' Kutuzov did not in any sense act 'involuntarily and irrationally' in giving battle at Borodino; he could hardly have surrendered Moscow without some kind of fight. As it was, even though he could not stop Napoleon's forward momentum, he inflicted some serious damage and showed both the strength and sheer determination of the Russian army. How do the two men compare? Well, if we cast Napoleon in the role of Hannibal Kutuzov has to be Fabius Maximus with just a little of Scipio Africanus added to the mixture. Perhaps not as talented as Suvorov his role in the destruction of Napoleonic ambition is still highly significant. A great tactician and a great soldier. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to have you back, Clio! I agree that Tolstoy's fatalism is often tiresome, but here I think he has a point. Someone's tactical or strategic ability has to be measured against the options they have available to them. In the case of Borodino, there was great pressure on Kutuzov, from the politicians and the Tsar, and from his junior officers, to fight a battle. This pressure had already led to the dismissal of Barclay de Tolly (surely a better analogue for Fabius Maximus?). So what choice did Kutuzov have? He could fight, or be replaced with someone who would fight. Gdr 11:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray, our favorite muse is back!!! Corvus cornix_talk 23:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Political Appointments[edit]

How many political appointments is the President responsible for, not including federal judges? That is Cabinet members, department heads, ambassadors etc. I am hopefully wanting to see a hard number possibly with links breaking down the appointments.

thanks,--Czmtzc (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found List of United States political positions appointed by the Executive Branch, but with all those nasty warning tags at the top of it, I wouldn't be too confident of its completeness. Ah, but the talk page leads to Plum Book which appears to be an official list. (See Plum Book#External Link --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 06:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, WOW, over 7000 appointments, that is actually more than I expected.

Thanks tcsetattr. --Czmtzc (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney quote[edit]

Did he really say this?

"Rising gas prices are a sign of a failed presidency"; Dick Cheney, 1998 <------------ [name removed] thats about all I can find

Kushal^t 19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of those quotes that everyone repeats but nobody appears to know when or where he said it. In my opinion, if he really said it just as the quote suggests, it would have been used in every Democratic campaign in the last Congressional election. Therefore, it is more likely that he made a comment on the 1998 government's inability to control gas prices at the time and not a sweeping comment on the relation between gas prices and the Presidency. -- kainaw ™ 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply! Kushal^t 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Independence rough drafts!?[edit]

How many rough drafts did Thomas Jefferson write? 207.201.229.226 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)§§§[reply]

I don't know, but that's a hilarious question, I can see it now:

(Ben's journal:)
~~After long assault by England~~ oh no that's not right
~~As all people, ours considers its liberty~~ ah crap
~~When it comes time to~~, no
~~When after long consideration it comes time~~, no
~~When it comes time for one of History's great events~~, wait
~~When it comes time in the Course of Human events~~, or just! Yes!
~~When in the course of Human Events, it comes time~~, yes, not just time
~~When in the course of Human Events, it become high time~~, too slangy,
When in the course of Human Events, it becomes Necessary, there we go. Let's get the rest off right quick: When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. done, and...done.
Time to hit the hay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.20 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he chose to record the fact in his diaries, it is impossible to know how many drafts he wrote, because rough drafts are usually destroyed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have some of his rough drafts, showing the changes that occurred from the time Jefferson presented it to the signers to the time they came to a version they agreed upon. Wrad (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Rhode Island Religion[edit]

What where the religions in colonial rhode island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.106.168.20 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to George Berkeley: "four sorts of Anabaptists besides Presbyterians, Quakers, Independents, and many of no profession at all." Touro Synagogue was dedicated in Newport in 1763, a year after Aaron Lopez and Isaac Elizer had been denied citizenship based on a law which may or may not have been passed in 1663 stating: "no person who does not profess the Christian religion can be admitted free of this colony".—eric 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island was founded by people who were not welcome in the Puritan dominated colony of Massachusetts. Of course, once they got themselves set up in Rhode Island, they too became intolerant of anyone else who was not Christian! -- Saukkomies 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saukkomies, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. You are correct that most settlers in New England seeking "religious freedom" meant merely "religious freedom for Christians like them", but R.I. was specifically a haven for Jews in the colonial period, and as I recall was completely tolerant of that faith throughout. I do not know if other non-Christian faiths were welcome in R.I., but as there were likely few Buddhist or Zoroastrian settlers in early New England, I don't know that we could prove definitively that Rhode Island opposed such people. At any rate, their tolerance of Judaism alone speaks highly of their commitment to religious tolerance, in my book. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that additional comment, Jwrosenzweig. I am sure you are correct. I do wonder, though, about the time frame. It seems that there might have been a period immediately after Rhode Island's founding when there was less tolerance to other religions than what might have been the case later in the Colonial Period. But I do agree that of all the New England colonies (and perhaps of all the English colonies in North America, for that matter), that Rhode Island gained the reputation of being the most tolerant to different religions. There were, though, other colonies that were fairly tolerant as well, for instance Pennsylvania and New Jersey... -- Saukkomies 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my recollection that Roger Williams founded the first Baptist church in the New World in Rhode Island, but I have no idea how to prove it is true, or how many Baptists lived in R.I. in colonial times. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]