Humanities desk
< September 14	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

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.

September 15[edit]

Wars that aren't called "wars"[edit]

From Malayan Emergency:

The rubber plantations and tin-mining industries had pushed for the use of the term "emergency" since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyd's insurers if it had been termed a "war".

Are there any other examples of this? I.e. wars that aren't called "wars" for various reasons. Pizza Margherita (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about for insurance purposes, but really what you define as a war and not "counter-terrorism action", "training local forces" or "policing with some army support" is up to you. Often a major reason for not declaring "war" is to minimise discussion of it in politics. You may find this article about undeclared British military action in Vietnam, Kenya and Oman interesting.
A related topic was the Greek default of 2012. Summarising very heavily, there was some rather lurid speculation that some banks that had sold "insurance" against Greek government bonds defaulting would find some way to argue that this was not exactly a default and that therefore they would not be obliged to pay out on this insurance, possibly with the connivance of their governments (many of the insurers involved were French and German, at least at first). In the end, the default was acknowledged as a "credit event" (after a short hiatus that sparked these fears), so the insurers did pay out out. Blythwood (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians tried to call the Korean War a "police action" and then (as Richard Armour put it) "they ran out of police and had to send soldiers." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the US a declaration of war requires Congress to vote, according to the Constitution. To avoid this, they just stopped calling them wars, since WW2. See Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Formal. StuRat (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And one may not want to declare a general war. Even though the Korean War involved Chinese, American and (undisclosed) Russian forces, everyone had the sense to not escalate it into a general war between those countries. Similarly, the Falklands War (I mean Conflict) didn't escalate into a general war since the possibility of an escalation to Britain bombing Buenos Aires (or, I guess, an Argentine commando attack on London or something nuts like that) would have been a risk too great for either side to accept. Blythwood (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more interested in how the war/non-war in question is referred to by neutral third parties, such as Wikipedia or by academics. Regardless of what the American government wants it to be called, the WP article names are still Vietnam War and Iraq War, for example. Pizza Margherita (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Ongoing military conflicts" contains a number of armed conflicts which Wikipedia labels as "conflict", "insurgency", "unrest", "crisis", "separatism" or "ethnic violence". Depending on how you define it, these may or may not reach the levels of a "war". Notably, we call the FARC/National Liberation Army situation the "Colombian conflict", despite calling it an asymmetric war in the body, while the nasty but far less bloody situation in Mexico is the "Mexican Drug War". Smurrayinchester 08:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the end of World War II and the creation of the UN Charter, legitimately declaring an official war has become a lot more difficult under international law - and pretty much impossible for UN states. A "war" in a legal sense also imports various rights and obligations. To a large extent countries have (tried to) get around both the far greater legal difficulty with starting a "war" and the rights and obligations attached to them by avoiding declaring war. International humanitarian law is the branch of international law dealing with the conduct of war, and on a skim read our article seems to be a good introduction to the topic, so I recommend reading that to start with. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Veeck said this about baseball owners, but it has much more universal application: "As soon as they pass a rule, they start looking for ways around it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands?[edit]

On this topic, I thought that the Falkands conflict between England and Argentina was a "conflict" and not a "war" because neither side declared war... but I see that our article is called Falklands War. Is this conflict/war idea a canard? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says:

Neither state, however, officially declared war (both sides did declare the Islands areas a war zone and officially recognised that a state of war existed between them) and hostilities were almost exclusively limited to the territories under dispute and the area of the South Atlantic where they lie.

Article names generally follow the WP:Common name guiding principle, so if the name is generally Falklands War, that's what the article will be titled regardless of whether some people feel the name is inaccurate or wrong. The article intro does mention Falklands Conflict is an alternative name. Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HM Government sponsored an official history of the conflict which was entitled The Official History of the Falklands Campaign; however, Volume 1 was called The Origins of the Falklands War and Volume 2 was War and Diplomacy, suggesting official British acceptance that it was indeed a war. Alansplodge (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If both sides "officially recognised that a state of war existed between them", is that not the same thing as declaring war? Does the expression "declare war" have to be used in order to declare war? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems. Think of what FDR said, "A state of war exists between the US and Japan." That's an absolute. A small-scale military operation is obviously "warfare" but may not be a state of total war between two enemy nations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think of what FDR said, "A state of war exists between the US and Japan." Yes, and that meant that, in response to the Pearl Harbor attack, the US declared war on Japan. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Neville Chamberlain said in the House of Commons on Saturday, 2 September 1939 that if the Germans did not begin withdrawing from Poland by 11 a.m. on Sunday a state of war would exist between the two nations. (Incidentally, the report by Claire Hollingsworth , who is still with us, on 31 August that invasion was imminent was a scoop for the Daily Telegraph). Upon expiry of the ultimatum he went on the radio to confirm the country was at war. The conflict in Syria is correctly called a "civil war" but countries don’t usually declare war on themselves. 86.128.234.7 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the exact quote from the Sunday broadcast was: "I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article might be paraphrasing the legal situation a bit - though that may well be how the original source was phrased, as the term "war" is used pretty loosely in non-technical legal contexts. Although post-World War II it is essentially impossible for UN member states to declare war, international law recognises that a state of "armed conflict" can exist even if neither side declares war. (On Wikipedia "armed conflict" redirects to "war" and the article does not make the distinction.) But the International Red Cross website has this explanation. When the article says both sides recognised a state of "war", it probably meant (legally) a state of armed conflict. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two U.S. Supreme Court questions[edit]

1. What exactly is the earliest U.S. Supreme Court decision that was overturned?

2. What exactly is the largest time gap between the overturning of a U.S. Supreme Court decision and the initial U.S. Supreme Court decision? (Indeed, so far I can think of the 81 / 84 year gap between Pace v. Alabama (1883) and McLaughlin v. Florida (1964) / Loving v. Virginia (1967).)

Futurist110 (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On our List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions, the earliest case is Rose v Himley (1808) (something to do with seizing ships during war), and the largest gap is the 136 year one between Minturn v. Maynard (1855) and Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines Inc (1991) (about how contract law and admiralty law interact). Can't guarantee they're the oldest, but they're the ones to beat. Smurrayinchester 08:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yozgad, Turkey and The Road to En-dor[edit]

Would I be right in thinking that the Yozgad in which Jones and Hill were imprisoned in The Road to En-dor is the place Wikipedia calls Yozgat? DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

100 mi east of Ankara, held British officers from Kut-al-Amara.—eric 22:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CPD fifteen percent by mid-September requirement[edit]

Regarding the United States presidential election, 2016, does the 15% polling by mid-September requirement set by the Commission on Presidential Debates determine eligibility for all three presidential debates (and the one vice-presidential debate), or only for the first of the presidential debates with subsequent deadlines for determination of inclusion in later debates? Here is an article stating that Gary Johnson's prospects for inclusion are dim, but it doesn't explicitly indicate if the qualification for all three (four) debates is determined at one time, or if Johnson (and Bill Weld) could become eligible for latter debates if he should rise in the polls. -- ToE 15:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I found the answer here: http://debates.org/index.php?page=overviewhttp://debates.org/index.php?page=overview

Paragraph five under "How has the CPD Selected the Candidates Invited to Participate in Its Debates?"

The CPD’s determination with respect to participation in the CPD’s first-scheduled debate will be made after Labor Day 2016, but sufficiently in advance of the first-scheduled debate to allow for orderly planning. Invitations to participate in the vice-presidential debate will be extended to the running mates of each of the presidential candidates qualifying for participation in the CPD’s first presidential debate. Invitations to participate in the second and third of the CPD’s scheduled presidential debates will be based upon satisfaction of the same multiple criteria prior to each debate.

So it sounds as if Weld is out of luck (for the October 4 VP debate) if Johnson doesn't make the first (September 26) debate, but that Johnson could have a chance at the subsequent debates (October 9 & October 19) if his poll numbers rise. I haven't been able to find the deadlines for qualification in those later debates, but two weeks to ten days prior seems likely base on the timing for the first debate determination. -- ToE 16:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And today they announced their invitation of Clinton and Trump (and their running mates) to the first debate (and the VP debate) and stated, "The criteria will be reapplied to all candidates in advance of the second and third presidential debates." -- ToE 21:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children/Slave Relations in Ancient Rome[edit]

Hi, I was wondering how slaves and children acted in ancient Rome. Obviously the father had complete control of the slaves but how much control did the children have. Could the children tell the slaves to bring them water, candy, etc. Or could the slaves punish the children for being disrespectful and rude to them. I am a Latin 2 student in HS but my teacher does not know the answer. Thanks Johnnyg150 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on Children of Ancient Rome and Slavery in ancient Rome which may provide a starting point for your research. --Jayron 32 17:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to depend on the status of the slave. Roman families employed an educated slave called a paidagogos or pedagogue, who was expected not only to look after their child (usually only the boys), but to educate them or take them to school - see Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (p. 38) by Stanley Bonner. These slaves were expected to teach the child right from wrong and would be authorised to use corporal punishment. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and more generally the adult male slave-owner could decide who was "second-in-command", in his absence. Of course, the age of the children was critical, as you're not going to leave a toddler in charge of the household, but perhaps a responsible teen might be given that power. StuRat (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Matt Deres (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A digression on editor behavior

You are asking StuRat for a citation? StuRat does not do citations. You are long enough here to know that, but apparently, hope never dies. Llaanngg (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A citation needed flag serves two purposes - it alerts editors to the work that needs doing (supplying the reference), but in the meantime, it alerts unwary readers that the text is not supported and potentially suspect. Matt Deres (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do cite sources, when asked, provided I can find a source, and the person asking for the source seems to genuinely want to see it, as opposed to being obnoxious and asking for a source just to make a WP:POINT. Here's where I provided a source when asked, earlier this week: [2]. I also frequently provide sources when none were asked for, such as [3]. Note that, in return, I don't ask for sources unless I either have reason to doubt that a statement is correct, or I just want to read more info on the topic. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

A digression on pollution in England during the Industrial Revolution

In England, they had a kid from the lower class at the court who received punishment intended for the prince. That's where the term whipping boy comes from Asmrulz (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"England [is] too pure an Air for Slaves to breathe in" (a court judgement of 1569). [4] Alansplodge (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they had pure air then, but not by the time of the Great Stink. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Apparently an effect of overcrowding ( I'll become an instant admirer of anyone ready to comment the same in terms of historical materialism besides). Askedonty (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The Industrial Revolution resulted in production moving from agricultural areas mainly to cities, which then became overcrowded for their infrastructure. Still, it was a solvable problem, they just needed to spend the money required to fix the sewers, which involved taxing the rich companies and individuals (hence the reluctance, as they control the government, then, as now). StuRat (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Tales by Shakespeare: Why is Julius Caesar missing?[edit]

When I read Charles and Mary Lamb's work in school I think Julius Caesar was there. I still remember the opening line - "Early in her history Rome was... " and so on. It was surely in one volume either "Tales by Shakespeare" or in "More Tales by Shakespeare". But now it is strangely missing in almost all Lamb books I see. Even in Gutenberg's Project. Why it's so ? Can someone throw light, please. Jon Ascton (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you are recalling some other children's version, of which there are a great many. Shakespeare as Children's Literature: Edwardian Retellings in Words and Pictures by Velma Bourgeois Richmond (p. 88) quotes Winston Stokes who wrote the rival All Shakespeare's Plays in 1911: 'Moreover, there are a few notable omissions from Lamb's Tales, such as “Julius Caesar” and “The Merry Wives of of Windsor..."'.

This 1918 edition of Lamb's Tales from Shakespeare covers 20 plays but not Julius Caesar. Alansplodge (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found Julius in Historical tales from Shakespeare (1910) by Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, also Stories from Shakespeare (1890) by Mara Louise Pratt but neither fit with your remembered first line. Alansplodge (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found All Shakespeare's tales (1911) which is a compendium of Lamb's and Stokes's works and includes Stokes's retelling of Julius Caesar (p. 324). I thought I'd cracked it, but it still doesn't match your first line. I 'spect it's out there somewhere, but I give up for now... Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children's books are often subject to very loose editing standards compared to adult books. It has often been considered totally acceptable for editors to abridge, update vocabulary and cut sections, and just put a note in the publication information section that the book has been lightly abridged, if that. Or delete material or words that we would now consider racist or sexist. (Here's an example from only a few days ago.) In older books I grew up reading all references to alcoholic drinks were switched to "lemonade". I also only quite recently discovered that the 1950s "cadet edition" of The Cruel Sea I grew up on deleted a lot of the more brutal parts of the book (and I think some sexual references), replacing this with an inspiring introduction I think by the Bishop of Chichester. So it's very possible that you read an edition in which an editor had decided to add their own retelling of Julius Caesar to round out the set. Blythwood (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]