Humanities desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 7 >

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 6[edit]

Coughing while standing at attention[edit]

In most militaries/navies/etc., are the soldiers/sailors/etc. permitted to cough/sneeze/make other involuntary bodily noise while standing at attention? Or does this level of permission or lack thereof vary widely from service to service and country to country? Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidding involuntary actions would be the height of stupidity ("Soldiers are not allowed to hit the ground when stumbling"). Of course, for military organizations, that makes it a toss-up... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "etc" may include the organisation Scientology, a training regime called TR-0 that is applied in that organisation forbids the trainee even to blink.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the etc. was intended to include Marines, coast guardsmen, and other governmental military forces; I'm not asking about nongovernmental organisations of any sort. I figure that sneezes can be suppressed, and perhaps coughs too with difficulty, so perhaps they would be seen as voluntary enough to be prohibited. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US Marines: When at attention, any and all noise or movement is prohibited. It is considered self-control to be able to control one's body. I cannot speak for any other service. -- kainaw ™ 05:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A British Scout of my acquaintance, due to receive a high decoration from the Queen, was told she was on no account to make any movement in the presence of the Queen, no matter what. Nevertheless, she fainted while standing at attention, and fell on her face, but dared not arise. Her Majesty entered the scene, and said to the girl, "One must stand up eventually, mustn't one?" A U.S. Marine, standing at attention beside the coffin of President John Kennedy, was observed to have snot and tears running down his face, but made absolutely no movement to wipe them away. One can control voluntary body movements, but not blood pressure or exudations from glands. Edison (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of that classic British army injunction "Silence when you speak to an officer!". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a different form of this question is: "is it possible to suppress coughs and sneezes?". --Sean 15:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the answer is "yes". It is also possible to suppress the urge to scratch an itch or anything else you want to ask about. In other words, generations of military men and women have proven that it is possible to stand at attention. -- kainaw ™ 15:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the Mr. Bean sketch where he goes to visit London and takes a photo of one of the guards there. To spice the photo up a bit he decorates the guard with flowers and other things. Of course, this is just comedy, but it is making fun of the idea that these guards are not allowed to move. In actual fact, they can, and apparently they can arrest you for touching them. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 15:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant point - the _guards_ can't arrest you for touching them, but a _police officer_ could (common assault as a minimum, and probably quite a few violations of anti-terrorism legislation). A soldier has no more right of arrest than any civilian, and common assault isn't an arrestable offence (felony to our US readers). Tevildo (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that British palace guards are allowed to take one pace forward to stamp and stand at attention. If that stride brings them into collision with an onlooker who is taunting them then that's not the guard's concern. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My father told me that the Guards at Buckingham Palace used to stand in front of the railings until in the 1950s an American lady deliberatly got in the way and received a good kick with a large army boot. She tried to sue and lost, but the Guards were moved inside the railings as a result. I've never seen this story elsewhere, so a pinch of salt is required. A Guardsman still stands on the pavement round the corner at St James's Palace[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Salerno, Italy defense in WW 11[edit]

I would like to know if there is a picture of the statue of US Unknown soldier that is in the mall near the city park in Salerno. I went through there on a tour and there was no stop so I couldn't get a picture of it. I had a dear friend killed there and was never found and I would like the picture as a rememberance of him. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.14.21 (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor thing, it is WW II or WW2, not WW 11. Googlemeister (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in your timeline! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only found three examples commemorating Allied troops, but none of them is really a statue: plaque, plaque, monument. 80.219.8.3 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cursus honorum[edit]

[Moved from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, if you wonder about Steve ;-)]

I see in the article cursus honorum there are various sequential steps and positions of public offices. Would it be fair to say these are the following and in this order?

Military Tribune
Quaestor
Aediles
Praetor
Consul
Proconsul
Governor
Censor
Tribune of the Plebs
Princeps senatus
Magister Equitum (Master of the Horse) - 2nd in command (like a Vice President)
Dictator

From approximately what time range did this apply? How does Princeps play a role in this?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this a science question? Can I suggest you take this to the Humanities reference desk - the people there are much more capable of answering questions of a historical nature. All we're able to tell you is that the people who held these offices evolved from small shrew-like mammals and while in office they fully obeyed ALL of the laws of thermodynamics! SteveBaker (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, though I was on the Humanities Desk. My mitake.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we can also tell you is that you should read your sources. In particular, Governor: "Though not part of the Cursus Honorum...". Also, a governor is usually a proconsul or a propraetor at the same time - one being a rank, the other a position. Censor: "After a term as consul, the final step in the Cursus Honorum was the office of censor" - which implies that all the later positions are not part of the c.h. In particular, as long as (non-thermodynamic) laws mattered, the plebeian tribune had to be a plebeian, while for quite a while the cursus honorum was reserved to aristocrats. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what custom and law were before the lex Villia Annalis. There was a probable law passed in 196 requiring praetorship for candidates to the consulship. The lex Annalis of Lucisus Villius was passed 180 setting minimum ages and intervals between each magistracy and kept the 196 law. This was expanded in 81 by the lex Cornelia de Magistratibus of Sulla requiring quaestorship before praetorship. With exceptions, the provisions were mostly observed through 46. Try Astin, A. E. (1958). The Lex Annalis before Sulla. OCLC 2466328, or we could probably find most of the relevant passages from Livy and Cicero. Is this more Jerome Code?—eric 23:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 100 reasons for asking the question. I'll see if I can't get that book you suggest from my local library. In The Twelve Caesars by Michael Grant ISBN 0-684-14402-6 in Julius Caesar (pp. 36-51) it touches on what you are saying. For example on page 37 it says However, at the end of 81, after energetic legislative activity, Sulla abdicated from his dictatorship, and, after a further year as consul, retired into private life. On page 38 it says But the consular elections for 48 could not be held since the consuls empowered to hold them had fled to Pompey. In their absence, therefore, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus - who was praetor, the office next in seniority to the consulship - was requested by Caesar to arrange for the Assembly to nominate him as dictator. On page 39 it goes on to say The only helper that the state authorized a dictator to possess was an official deputy, described by the archaic and irrelevant title of Master of the Horse. This deputy, who ranked with the praetors, derived his powers from the dictator, and the commissions of the two men came to an end at the same time. Caesar's Master of the Horse were Antony (48-7) and then Lepidus (46-4).--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grampian Hotel, Stevenage, UK[edit]

Hello, in the 80's in Stevenage, UK, I lived what I believe was called Grampian Hotel (or Hotel Grampian). I just wanted to see if I could locate it on a map, but couldn't find much with Google. Has it been closed and/or demolished? 80.223.110.171 (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This document (p. 95) refers to the building of "The Grampian Hotel at The Forum" in Stevenage in 1973. Apparently, there's now a hotel at The Forum named the Ibis Stevenage Centre, located at 51°54′13″N 0°12′12″W / 51.9036°N 0.2034°W. Perhaps that's the same place, having undergone a change of ownership and name? Deor (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it, Deor.DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A chum of mine who hails from Stevenage confirms that the Grampian and the Ibis are one and the same. He says that it also had another name in-between, but can't remember what! 17:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Retail level stock and bond transactions[edit]

What happened to the idea of buying and selling stocks and bonds by means of gift card technology as used in various retail stores to convert cash to a cash card for transactions at a particular store or for a particular item or service? 71.100.3.13 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Was there ever such an idea? What would be the benefit of it? --Tango (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buying and selling stocks is a controlled market, in part to ensure that the transactions are informed ones. I doubt that, as regulations stand now in the U.S., U.K. and Canada, which are the only countries about which I have any knowledge, retailling in this fashion would be permitted. Bielle (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1973, U.S. savings bonds were considered an ultra-safe yet reasonably profitable investment, and could be bought at lots of places in the U.S., but I would doubt that the supermarket check-out line was one of those places... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions?[edit]

Can you ask any questions here? I have heard people talking about this cannot be used as a forum or something, but here does that not apply? NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does apply. You may ask questions that are likely to have a factual answer. Take a look at the text at the top of this page for those matters which we do not encourage; forum-type questions, which request opinions and discussions of opinions, are one of those things. Bielle (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then. Regarding WW2 and the allied bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima what was that mans name who survived both explosions of the atomic bomb? I saw him in the news and heard that he died recently. Is this true? If I had his name I could probably find the rest of the story. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend. Searching "survived both hiroshima and nagasaki" (without the quotes) turns up this. His name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "survivor of Nagasaki and Hiroshima" gets you this story and the name Tsutomu Yamaguchi. We have an article on everything.Bielle (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I feel really silly such a simple google of the word would have gotten me the right answer. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed but that link is broken. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe the links work now. Bielle (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, those types of questions are perfectly appropriate to ask here. You could obviously have googled it, but we don't mind at all those types of questions. Belisarius (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an insult, or is it right to call somebody a "mercenary"[edit]

I've been reading so so so much about Blackwater and most newspapers call them "mercenaries", is it right to call them so? --190.50.124.215 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean Blackwater Worldwide. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What else would you call them? TomorrowTime (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual definition of a "mercenary" is a "soldier for hire". That means he has no inherent loyalty to the one he's fighting for, he's only in it for the money. If that's what Blackwater is, then that's what they are. And, yes, it is kind of an insult. It means they are possibly going to look out for their own interests first, as with any outsourced organization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalent in the sports world is a guy who jumps from team to team, getting a higher wage each time. Alex Rodriguez was the poster boy for that phenomenon (contrasting with lifer Derek Jeter), although finally helping produce a winner this past year will cut down on some of those complaints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think it's hard to argue that soldiers from Blackwater don't fit the definition of "mercenary" (i.e. "soldier for hire"), so technically, no, I don't necessarily think it's wrong to refer to them as such. The word, however, does have negative connotations of big hulking amoral men who don't have the percieved "honor" of a regular soldier and don't follow the same rules. So if you want to write about them in a more neutral tone, you should probably use a more neutral term,like our article, which calls them a "private military company". But no, I don't think it's wrong per se to call them mercenaries if that's what you want to call them Belisarius (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I wouldn't say that "mercenary" was an insult (when it's meant literally, of course) - it's not in the same category as "terrorist" or "insurgent". However, the only one of Blackwater's (or, rather, "Xe Services" - no relation to the exchange rate site) divisions that provides _mercenaries_ in the strict sense (that is, personnel to take part in actual military operations) is Greystone Limited - Blackwater Security Consulting, the subject of the controversy, describe their operatives as "Independent Contractors", and their role is to provide security rather than military personnel - police rather than soldiers. That doesn't preclude them from using lethal force, of course. Tevildo (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mercenary" has negative connotations, but it is because of what the job describes, not the word used. People are uncomfortable with the idea of soldiers for hire (perhaps rightfully so). If someone is actually a soldier for hire, as with Blackwater's personnel, then the word is accurate. If the word is being metaphorically ("he's such a mercenary, because his loyalty is with whomever is paying his salary" -- but he's not a soldier), then it can be meant as an insult. But in the case of actual soldiers for hire, it is literally accurate. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a mercenary soldier is willing to take a bullet, then he's just another soldier. But others are another story. Ballplayers who jump from team to team are kind of held in disdain by a significant number of fans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is who he (or she) is willing to take a bullet for. The reason mercenaries are distrusted is that they don't swear any loyalty to the country that hires them other than the money. Historically mercenaries have also been a strong sign of a dubious conflict. It also doesn't help that they have been (and still are) far less accountable for things like war crimes than enlisted soldiers. (As we've seen in Iraq, there are severe jurisdictional problems associated with using "contractors" of this sort. The U.S. doesn't want them being tried for anything under Iraqi law, but will not try them under U.S. law for crimes committed in Iraq.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ironic thing is that mercenaries are actually supposed to have less protections and rights then regular soldiers since they aren't recognised as lawful combatants and therefore entitled to the protections of prisoners of wars. And therefore can't get away with things soldiers can and instead could be charged as ordinary criminals for unlawful killings and stuff like that. However most of the Blackwater personnel aren't technically mercenaries and the legal situation in Iraq is rather problematic. And as it's not something really handled in international law, even with those legally defined as mercenaries, unless the government of the country where they are acting or some other government (perhaps of their home country) is willing and able to take action against them (difficult if the place they are involved in is in crisis) then there's little hope of action against them whereas most countries do take some degree of responsibility for their soldiers. Nil Einne (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Tevildo's point, as mentioned in mercenary and United Nations Mercenary Convention, there are actually international and national definitions of mercenaries. However many of the Blackwater personnel don't fit the current international definitions. In particular, even soldiers for hire are usually not mercenaries if they are a national of a party to the conflict so Blackwater personnel in Iraq who are US citizens or nationals may not be mercernaries under international law even if engaging in military operations, provided they aren't trying to overthrow the government or undermine its territorial integrity as long as US remains a party to the conflict. BTW, as mentioned in the article, if you expand the definition of mercenaries, there is also the question of whether the Gurkhas and French Foreign Legion fit that definition. Nil Einne (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Blackwater's role in Iraq does not exactly fit the definition of "mercenary", but they have been described as such for political reasons, since the word has a very negative connotation, at least in the United States. There is a strain of anti-military sentiment in American history, usually associated with Thomas Jefferson, that regards all professional soldiers with unease. It is rooted in the Enlightenment distrust of standing armies. In the Jeffersonian tradition, the only really trustworthy soldier is the civilian who takes up arms only when his country needs him (i.e. a militiaman); anyone who enlists for a paycheck, even in the service of his own country, is a "mercenary" in the Jeffersonian view. Mercenaries in Jefferson's time were regarded with scorn; the "soldier trade", as the international mercenary market was then known, was very controversial.

After the American Revolution, the militia was romanticized and received praise at the expense of the common enlisted soldier who, it was claimed, fought only for a paycheck and not for patriotism. It took years for Americans to get comfortable with the idea of a professional, full-time army. Private military companies like Blackwater, whether technically mercenaries or not, stir up the old Jeffersonian fears. —Kevin Myers 02:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as a bit of stretch to associate modern distrust of mercenaries with Jeffersonian notions. I suspect the modern revulsion at organizations like Blackwater comes both from the shady dealings that have been evident in their tenure, and from the idea of farming out military work to corporations. Fear of large corporations, even those which aren't armed, is pretty common these days. I don't think anyone minds individuals making money from doing war work, but they are dubious about the idea of "private military organizations" which operate as billion-dollar companies and were notably cosy with politicians. I see little affinity with Jefferson's point of view in the modern discourse about this—it is actually fairly alien. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Distrust of mercenaries" and "fear of large corporations" are hardly alien to the Jefferson tradition, but alas this is not the place to expound further upon this interesting topic. I'll just say that while Jefferson would have regarded Blackwater with horror, Hamilton would have wanted to become its CEO. I realize that most Americans who have an opinion on Blackwater would not associate their position with Jefferson or Hamilton, but I suspect that we'd find Hamiltonians and not Jeffersonians among Blackwater's defenders. —Kevin Myers 04:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative to hiring mercenaries to fill the military rosters would be the draft, but the American public apparently does not want conscription. Even the regular Army is essentially "privatized" in the sense that it's all volunteer. The volunteer Army is somewhere on the fence between mercenary or not, as people often join for calculated reasons. Even Colin Powell said he joined the Army because he "wanted a job". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the target actually is a mercenary there should be no reason to take umbrage with that term. At the worst of times it's a pretty mild epithet -- we all like money. Vranak (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mildly insulting" is indeed a good way to put it. And the average citizen doesn't spend his life working for one company nowadays. In a sense, most of us are mercenaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries", by A.E.Housman:

These, on the day that Heaven was falling,

The hour when Earth's foundations fled,

Followed their mercenary calling

And took their wages, and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;

They stayed: and Earth's foundations stay;

What God abandoned, these defended,

And saved the sum of things, for pay.

Rhinoracer (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a friend of mine, who used to work for one of Blackwater's competitors - "We prefer the term security consultants." Trugster | Talk 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]