Humanities desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

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.

August 22[edit]

Building Identification[edit]

Hullo, Just wondering if anyone can identify the building on this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Us_airmail_stamp_C42.jpg I have already searched all the terms present on it and have found nothing. I am not sure if it is the Universal Postal Union's building in some part of the world (probably Switzerland) or the Post Office Department's building in the U.S. It could be an imagined building by an artist, but I think that is unlikely. Thanks, Henry 69.181.156.221 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Ariel Rios Federal Building meltBanana 00:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, that was super fast. I should have known. -H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.156.221 (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Shepherd's Crooks[edit]

Following a discussion on the Language page about the origin of "By hook or by crook"[1], I tried to make a link to an article about shepherd's crooks, only to find it redirected to the Shepherd article, which only mentions them in relation to bishop's crosiers. Therefore I dashed off a quick paragraph on the Staff (stick) page, but this has presnted some new problems. I found an apparently learned paper on the history of crooks posted by the British Agricultural History Society [2], fully referenced, which asserts that the curled-top crook as we know it, developed in western Europe in the late middle ages (about 1500). However, how does this explain the bishop's crosier (or crozier) with a curled top, some surviving examples on Google images date from the 12th Century[3]? Even more odd is the use of what is apparently a crook as a sort of staff of office by the Pharoahs of ancient Egypt[4]. Was it invented, forgotten and then re-invented? Help! Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Jesus referred to himself as "The Good Shepherd", so the crosier is the emblem of this. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What I'm asking is; if the shepherd's crooks we know today weren't in use until 1500 (see the BAHS link above) how come bishop's crooks seem to start a lot earlier. BTW Bishop's crosiers were originally cruciform (hence the name) and still are in the Eastern church. Alansplodge (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it simply ebbed in and out of fashion amongst clergy and shepherds. The crook is hardly an invention that makes shepherding possible and it probably depends a lot on the terrain and the animals being farmed as to whether (or wether) you need a curved stick which while easy to invent is probably a lot harder to make and keep from breaking than just a stick as that document mentions. Also that document acknowledges that depictions of shepherds are rare and perhaps the hooked stick visual motif had just not been invented yet while shepherds were using them only when required. The egyptian heqa of Andjety represents rule but I don't think there can be any real certainty it was derived from an agricultural implement even though it is paired with a flail which was. The crook seems to have continued as a symbol of power in roman times and it might even have been regarded as a blasphemy or lese majesty to depict a common shepherd with one in the middle ages. meltBanana 18:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As best I understand it, the practical use of a shepherd's crook (aside from as a walking stick and impromptu weapon against animals that might prey on flocks) is to guide animals this way or that way. a stick with a curve or bend at the far end (a crook) is better than a straight stick, because it can be used for pulling an animal as well as pushing. further, the symbolism of that would not be lost on any pastoral society: I suspect any culture that has a lot of shepherds is going to recognize the use crooks as a simple, practical tool, and recognize the crook as a symbol of benevolent guidance and protection. It's a common symbol in many cultures for the same reason that grain is a common symbol of fertility in many cultures - it's common and obvious for a particular form of society. --Ludwigs2 19:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A straight stick or club is not as useful for retrieving or guiding sheep as a crook. The "standard shepherd's crook" is not a form likely to be found in nature growing from a tree. I spoke to a craftsman who made rakes, walking stick and such about how he would make a classic shepherd's crook. He said he would harvest a certain type of wood in the spring, then steam it to make it pliable, then clamp it into a form to make the desired bend. He said he would overbend it, because it would spring back a bit, and that he would leave a little extra length beyond the bend to be cut off after the final form was attained. I doubt the accuracy of the reference from the British Agricultural Society, since a classic shepherds crook would have been so useful and so easy to fabricate, and such it has such a long history as a Christian symbol. Edison (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody. Alansplodge (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Austro-Hungarian Studies at university in the UK[edit]

Are there other universities in the UK apart from University College London that have undergraduate degrees focused on Central Europe? I can't afford to live in London as a student, or to study abroad for longer than an Erasmus year. What I'd really like to study is the history, culture and languages (okay, maybe not all...!) of the Austrian Empire. Is that either too obscure or too broad a subject? 86.154.105.15 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Glasgow's Department of Central and Eastern European Studies offers an undergraduate degree in Central & East European Studies, which you can optionally combine with a number of other degrees for a joint honours. Glasgow also teaches German and Russian at undergrad; I'm confident they'd let you combine either with the CEES course. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've confirmed that they definitely allow both combinations. They also teach Slavonic Studies, which you can combine with Russian. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does Russian have to do with the Austro-Hungarian Empire? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Nottingham offer a BA in German and Russian & East European Civilisations, which might be of interest. Both Glasgow and Birmingham offer Central & East European Studies. Sheffield's BA in Archaeology and Slavonic Studies is probably not quite what you're looking for. Warofdreams talk 11:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saddest Oscar film[edit]

This is a follow-up to a question I asked a few weeks ago. What is the saddest Oscar- or other top-award-winning film AND the saddest Best Film, EXCLUDING the Godfather, West Side Story, Schindler's list, and the Pianist (not that those are especially sad, but I've seen them). A related question: What are the saddest Nobel Literature Prize, Pulitzer Prize, or other top-prize winning books? 76.228.196.92 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadness is not easily quantifiable, different people will have different answers, so you'll have to read reviews of each movie. You have identified some possible top-contenders already, but don't forget to also look at movies from 80 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.14.228 (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 film) is an early Oscar winner that's pretty sad as it covers the horrors of war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How Green Was My Valley (film) from 1941 is pretty sad for reasons I won't get into unless you like spoilers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary People from 1980, and No Country for Old Men (film) are examples of winners that are somewhere between sad and exasperating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans won three Oscars. La Strada won best foreign film. Cool Hand Luke won best supporting actor. Ran won best costume design. Ladri di biciclette won an honorary award from the Academy. Is there a reason you're interested in major award winners? Are you researching the sociology of prizegiving or are you just looking for some good movies? If the latter, there are better metrics, I think. -- BenRG (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awakenings was nominated in 3 Oscar categories including Best Picture and Best Actor, but didn't win. I think it was one of the saddest films ever made. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) which used an actual injured veteran in a movie about vets having trouble readjusting to society - filmed only nine months after the war ended. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I initially took "saddest" to mean "worst," which led me to this [[5]] view that The Greatest Show on Earth was the worst Best Picture ever. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you've got a point. A number of the winners in recent years have been "lame", which is a close cousin to "sad" in that sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the Nobel Prize in Literature is more of a "lifetime achivement award" than one for a specific book, Fatelessness by Imre Kertész and Night by Elie Weisel (both Nobel laureates), as well as the Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel Maus by Art Spiegelman are all about the Holocaust. Gabbe (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Million Dollar Baby. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(not a request for legal advice!!) legally, will two women get in trouble in sweden if they collude to defame someone by inventing rape stories but then abandon the same when the jig is up?[edit]

I'm talking of course of the wikileaks founder rape allegations that were withdrawn by the accusing women when the jig was up.

my question is, will there be any ramifications for the women for colluding to do what they tried to do until the jig was up, or, can two women (or, I suppose men, or children, or whatever) decide to do that without facing consequences?

Thanks. 84.153.226.90 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not yet seen any sources describing this event in your terms. Who claims they have withdrawn the accusations? I'm aware that the warrant has been withdrawn, but there are may other possible reasons than the witnesses withdrawing their statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed they would have withdrawn their accusations, or else why would the attorney general say there is "no basis" for suspecting this person? Two people making claims would indeed be a basis. Also someone has removed this whole thread by pretending that I'm asking for legal advice. Just to make it clear to anyone who might have grown up in a cave: I am not two swedish women and I am not requesting legal advice. I am wondering on what the law might be in general on these cases, and this is (obviously) not a request for legal advice. Please don't remove this question again.

also: do they have diplomatic immunity?[edit]

My other question is I don't know the names of the two women, I would like to know if they have diplomatic immunity. Thanks. 84.153.226.90 (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they? It's not impossible, but very very unlikely - they would have to be registered as foreign diplomats in Sweden. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They would if they were two foreign diplomats. The reason I ask is because people are saying they could just be government operatives, but if so, couldn't they be diplomats who have immunity? I would like to know whether they do. It relates to the above question, in that maybe normally trying to collude to frame someone would be illegal and could land them in trouble, but in this case because of their status the most they could become is personae non gratae. Again, this is not a request for legal advice. 84.153.226.90 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Operatives" are almost never diplomats. There are fairly strict rules about what diplomats can and cannot do without causing a major stink. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this refer to the WikiLeaks guy? He was accused of rape and the charges were dropped. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate women accused him of rape, and when he responded that he had heard dirty tactics would be used, and that this was just one of them and without basis, the Internet put two and two together, and became convinced that the government was behind it. The next day, the attorney general withdrew the charges and said there was "no basis for suspicion". So, what will happen to the two women who had been making the claims? Do they get in trouble or not? I mean, the two women knew each other, so if they just invented the story but then chickened out when the Internet reached its conclusion about what they were doing, will they get in trouble for the attempted collusion? 84.153.226.90 (talk)

My understanding is that filing a false crime report is itself a crime in Sweden (and many other locations). However, to prevent people from being scared to report crimes, this is normally only prosecuted when there is copious evidence that the accuser knew that the accusations were untrue, and made them maliciously. I have heard that in actuality the two women did not formally accuse him of rape, but rather simply sought police opinion on a situation. As such the "accusations" may not meet the formal definition of "filing a false crime report". [6] - On your second question, diplomatic immunity is usually only granted to foreign ambassadors and certain ambassadorial staff in the country on official diplomatic business. It's usually not granted to tourists (or even diplomatic personnel on vacation), and is certainly not a factor for citizens within their home country. The reason their names aren't mentioned isn't immunity, but that it is common to withhold the names of crime victims, to preserve their privacy. Indeed, in Sweden it's common to also avoid publishing the names of the accused as well, although in this case the name was leaked by the press [7]. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

174.21.233.249's right. Also, the crime is called "falsk angivelse" (approx. false accusation) in Swedish and can mean up to two years in prison.Sjö (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logic train[edit]

What is a logic train? Googling has found no explaination. I understand that this and "temple" are techiques used in marketing or advertising. Are any details of these two techniques available anywhere? 92.28.255.31 (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my experience (you can take this with a grain of salt) is that every marketing department invents its own terms, since you can't very well publish it or people will take it out of context. For example, train of logic probably refers to something like cigarette companies pounding the fact that lung cancer is a strictly stochastic process. The "train of logic" is that by pounding the fact that in an individual case, smoking may or may not cause lung cancer to pop up spontaneously, the customer will ride the train to the conclusion that if they smoke, there could be no harm (which is true) and therefore they should consider the perceived benefits (which are certain) against the perceived harm (which could not materialize) and weigh the sure benefits (social, pleasurable, whatever) unduly heavily. This is just a pure guess, you would have to see what that particular person means though. 84.153.226.90 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A train of logic is a discussion that tries to show people that some point A leads to some point B leads to some point C... with the ultimate goal of convincing them of the validity of point Q somewhere down the line. it's related to a train because each point is (theoretically) connected to the next and pulls the next along to the final destination. Unfortunately, most people are not good at logic, and can't distinguish whether a connection between two points is or is not valid. Skilled rhetoricians can use logic to prove just about anything they care to prove. If 'logic train' is a real advertising term, then it probably refers to efforts to construct apparently sound chains of logic that lead to whatever conclusion the advertiser wants to promote. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on what date did the reason for invading Iraq switch from being about their WMD to their freedom?[edit]

I'm not trying to start a flame war, and perhaps the answer was that it was a gradual transition but I remember in 2003 the issue was first WMD and then Iraqi Freedom, and I would like to know what date or between what dates the switch was made? Best would be two links, one to a 2003 New York Times article that is earlier and still about the WMD and one that is to a 2003 New York Times article that is a little later and now exclusively about Iraqi freedom. If you believe my whole premise about the switch is in error I can provide some links, but I don't have the dates narrowed down, so I'm curious what the magic "switch" date or dates were. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.242.42 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to get things started, here is a january 29, 2003 article that is still about WMD - it doesn't mention Iraqi "freedom" but talks a lot about Weapons of Mass Destruction. 84.153.242.42 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO there was no specific date. When one story became too difficult to sell, the next one was already in place as an "extra" reason why my country unnecessarily invaded another sovereign nation. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both arguments were in mind. Tony Blair has always explained it this way: liberating the Iraqi people from a dictatorship was a substantial argument in favour of invasion, but that was not justification for a war in international law. The failure of Iraq to comply with its international obligations on weapons of mass destruction did amount to a justification for war in international law, and it was also a solid argument supporting overthrow of the Baathist government.

The argument about legalities has not shifted, but the liberation of Iraq became more important as a justification in the longer-run, when the reality of Iraqi weaponry became apparent. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did they start calling it "Operation Iraqi Freedom" openly? Before or after the invasion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just going by memory, it was always called that from day 1. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not go by memory when it's possible. The very amusing answer to Bugs's question is in the first two sentences of the article section 2003 invasion of Iraq#Military aspects. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't always in mind as far as some participants were concerned. The then Australian Prime Minister John Howard was questioned on this very issue at the time. He was asked whether the liberation of the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime would be reason in itself for an invasion, to which he replied "Of course it would not be sufficient reason in itself; but we know they have WMDs and that's the main reason for going in". When it was proven the WNDs didn't exist, he changed his tune. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer has it right: the two reasons were always interconnected. Kenneth Pollack, in his influential 2002 book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, argued that WMD made invasion necessary, and that recreating Iraq as a democracy should be the ultimate goal. For political reasons, the Bush administration emphasized WMD because that seemed to be the easier case to make. Whoops. And also for political reasons, some of those opposed to the war later pretended that Iraqi "freedom" had never been a part of the agenda. The conspiracy minded prefer to think that the WMD angle had been a deliberate fraud, but Hanlon's razor and the "cock-up theory of history" may be more likely explanations. —Kevin Myers 02:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]