Humanities desk
< March 26	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 28 >

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.

March 27

Iran and Capital Punishment

What is Iran's views on capital punishment? I know they are a retentionist, but everything I seem to find regaurding this issue is showing them as having one of the highest execution rates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.134.73.15 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're finding things that show them as having one of the highest execution rates because they have one of the highest execution rates; second after the People's Republic of China, in fact. This is because Sharia, which their legal system is based on, endorses it. See Human rights in Iran#Corporal and capital punishment. Picaroon 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that in terms of gross figures or per capita rates?Jatrius 10:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PRC is first and Iran is second in gross numbers. Singapore is the leader in per capita rates. Picaroon 23:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does China stand? Oh, we said that. Are we sure China and Iran give out the right numbers? [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about Iran, but the number of executions held in China is a state secret, so any figures there are uncertain. However, they're definitely ahead of everyone else put together by a large margin. Algebraist 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is retentionist, but I know in Iran they hang teenagers for being gay. I don't know how to link it, but if you search for "iran hanging gay" (not together as an expression, but three separate words) on Google you will see it. There's also the article Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. A.Z. 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HERO STREET USA

I wanted to know; could someone could put that in the contents of wikipedia? It's a great story that many would willingly read.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.174.131.74 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs to be created, please feel free to do it yourself. Wikipedia has free registration, so all you have to do is create an account and then create the article. Picaroon 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very brief mention in the Silvis, Illinois article. If you have some information you would like to add try this link.—eric 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hero Street USA website cites over a dozen news articles in major national press, including People (magazine) and Reader's Digest, which suggests separate article notability, doesn't it? I'd say either suggestion seems sound. Have fun! Jfarber 03:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't even take an account to create the page. It's already done. Currently it's a redirect to Silvis, Illinois. Just go here, click "edit this page" and start writing. Dismas|^(talk) 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naqqar khana or Mughal/Persian/Islamic Architecture discussing it?

Is there anyone who knows something about Persian/Mughal architecture? I want to write, and before that read about Naqqar Khana/Naubat Khana et. cetra. Kindly help me by guiding to a book or something.--Scheibenzahl 08:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to a good library, you might try Koch, Ebba (2002). Mughal Architecture: An Outline of Its History and Development (1526-1858). Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 9780195660425., Nath, Ravinder (1992). History of Mughal Architecture, Vol. 1. South Asia Books. ISBN 9788170171607., and later volumes as well as other books by this author. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also check out Mughal architecture and Iranian architecture? The latter has some references you may be interested in, the the external links for both may be helpful. - Taxman ^Talk 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lambiam and Taxman. I will try to look into the aforementioned books. My question was more directed towards Naqqar Khanas, though. Any specifics in that direction?--Scheibenzahl 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript of Kill the Messenger documentary

Is a transcript available of the Kill the Messenger (film) documentary?

--58.172.144.32 11:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF such a thing is available -- and the odds are quite good, given that this is a 2005 film, amd likely was transcribed for subtitling purposes if nothing else -- it would be copyrighted. I'd contact the film's distributor to see about getting one, and how much it would cost. (Information on distribution companies can be found at IMDB.com, usually) Jfarber 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UN authority

Does the United Nations have the authority to draw a line well inside any disputed territory Iran claims and continually tries to exercise control over by kidnappings and other criminal activity to protect the UN's own interests? 71.100.175.98 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UN can be used to solve border disputes, yes. In the case of rivers between two countries I believe it is customary to split them right down the middle, with some adjustments made for islands in the river. Of course, the two nations may bilaterally decide to use different borders. However, if one country unilaterally decides to extend it's border into another nation's territory, that's a rather serious issue, possibly an act of war. StuRat 16:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that in a situation where there is an ongoing armed conflict which can be classified in many respects as almost a civil war that includes operations in disputed border regions that it would be most wise and prudent for the world body to likewise, in its own interest, mitigate the disputed border as well. If the UN has the authority to mitigate then why doesn't it act? Nebraska bob 18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have a rather unrealistic view of the United Nations, if you will forgive me for saying so questioner. As an organisation it is no more than the sum of its parts; and, against a morass of competing sectional and political interests, it is difficult to get agreement on the resolution of disputes, even in the Security Council. When, and if, agreement is reached, there is a huge problem in determining the most effective means to be employed in dealing with problems. There are numerous UN Resolutions which have never been implemented. Consider the example of Darfur in Sudan, where the UN effectively stood aside in the face of genocide, just as it did in Rwanda in 1994. When the UN has sent in ground troops they have been so constrained by the 'rules of engagement'-the action they are allowed to take in any given set of circumstances-that they may as well not have been there at all. The most shocking example of this is Srebrenica in Croatia, established as a UN 'safe haven', where in 1995 some 8000 Muslim men and boys were taken by Serb forces and massacred, virtually under the noses of some 400 'peace keepers' from the Netherlands. And as far as protection of human rights in general is concerned, did you know that both Saudia Arabia and Cuba are members of the UN Human Rights Council? It's hard to believe, but it is nevertheless true. To be honest with you, and deeply conscious of the fact that this is a personal opinion, the United Nations, as an agency for solving international disputes, is no more effective, and possibly even worse, than the old League of Nations. It's a depressing thought. Clio the Muse 18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Clio, I agree that the UN seems pretty inept in its actions and as you say many of its opinions appear to have used lemon juice for printer's ink. That said it occurred to me that Bill Gates became the richest man in the world for one reason. That reason? The law. The law, whether you like to admit it or not, is so solid (even if enforcement of it is not always) that one can build an empire followed by a dynasty on it. That said the UN, does it not, make international law by means of Security Council mandates and if not then you are right, I am totally lost as to what the purpose or function of the UN is other than a social club where representatives of various countries can show off their wives. Nebraska bob 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law without substance is no law at all. It is one thing to to make a declaration of principle, and quite another to ensure you have the will, the means and the ability to act on that principle. On your final observation, Nebraska bob, I have no comment, other than to point out that some representatives also show off their husbands! Clio the Muse 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, you are a bit confused here. A declared principle is the substance of the law. Nebraska bob 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I think you may be the confused one, Nbob. The Declaration of Independence, for example, is an entire body of principles, from self-evident truths to independence itself, but it is not a document of law. Principles, as Clio suggests, are just that: belief statements, if you will, usually having to do with some stated intent, but without the force of law or enforcement behind them. The substance of the law would be present, instead, in a document like the United States Constitution, which contains both formal declarations of what should be right and true and a system of implementation and enforcement to ensure that such principles can be acted upon and interpreted on-site as needed. Jfarber 20:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and thank you, Jf, for making this distinction. However, correct me if I am wrong but UN mandates do possess the latter. Nebraska bob 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Joshua Chaplin or Charles Josuah Chaplin?

We have an article currently at Charles-Josuah Chaplin, which seems like an unlikely name. The ARC lists him as "Charles Joshua Chaplin", but I get Google results for both names, not all from Wikipedia mirrors. Even a book search shows hits for both. [1] [2] What's the definitive name? grendel|khan 17:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josuah does indeed look like a misspelling of Joshua. But there again, it seems to have an established usage. There was an English poet and translator by the name of Josuah Sylvester, who lived at the time of Elizabeth I and James I; and I note there is a Josuah Hess Bridge in Columbia County, Pennsylvania. For the individual in question I suppose you would really need to check his birth records to make absolutely sure that his name is correct. Clio the Muse 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josuah looks like a Biblical name, but the Concordance I cited in the question below shows no instances of the name in the Bible. Unless it has a different provenance, it would indeed seem to be a misspelling that's become a recognised, if highly unusual, name. JackofOz 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LoC Authority records give the name as Charles Joshua Chaplin. (You have to search; they don't support deep linking.) The reference in the MARC record is: Thieme-Becker: |b v. 6, p. 374 (Chaplin, Charles (Charles Joshua); French painter, engraver, and lithographer; born of English parents in Les Andelys (Eure) 6/8/1825, d. Paris 1/30/1891). There's another 670 record, but it doesn't include a middle name. The Authority record comes from "J. Paul Getty Center for the History of Art & the Humanities, Vocabulary Coordination Group (Santa Monica, CA)". I'd move it to Charles Chaplin (French artist), but that disambiguation is getting pretty crowded; I'm thinking of just moving it to "Charles Joshua Chaplin". In any case, I left a note on the page author's talk page, and I'll wait for a response before moving anything. grendel|khan 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Josuah a French spelling? Corvus cornix 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad Josuah has been away for a year; maybe he'd know. grendel|khan 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that Josuah may also be a variation of Josiah. Clio the Muse 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical people

How many are cited in today's bible

a) excluding the Mormon bible?

b) including the Mormon bible?

Thanks, Bapho 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the Christian bible -- old and new testament? And are you asking for people who are named, specificially, or just any mention of any people, even in crowds? Jfarber 20:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both testments. OK, I mean people who are not only mentioned but play a role. That's difficult to do, I know... Bapho 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bapho, a lot, I will say that much, especially if you include all the begetting! I am not going to count them, though: life is short and crowded. But do let me know if you ever manage to figure this out. Clio the Muse 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're right... but someone must already have counted them. I mean the bible is older than 2,000 years... Bapho 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed; you may very well have a point, though it must have been a tiresome task. Having said that, did you know that James Ussher, a seventeenth archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, once traced the date of the creation all the way back to the eve of Sunday 22 October 4004 BC, by working through the Bible, using the life of the patriarchs, amongst other things, as a benchmark? You will find the details in Ussher chronology. It took many hours of dedicated labour, as I feel sure you may imagine! Clio the Muse 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take Claire Llewellyn, Who's Who in the Bible (2002) and spend some leisure hours counting the entries. --Wetman 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any decent Concordance (publishing) (eg. this one) will list not just all the names (and every other key word), but will also exhaustively list all the places in the Bible where they're mentioned, so you can determine how important each name is compared to, say, Jesus. JackofOz 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather difficult to count is JC god and the holy goat 0, 1, 2, or 3? As it mentions the human race isn't that everyone? This says 2,270,365+ were killed which isn't bad considering. meltBanana 02:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The holy goat? You are not Rowan Atkinson by any chance, are you, MeltBannana? Clio the Muse 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nay. 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By "cited", I expect Bapho was interested in how many different humans are identified by name in the Bible. Jesus was a human, so he gets counted - once. The Holy Ghost and the other persons of the Trinity are not human, neither are the angels Gabriel, Michael et al - they're spirits. JackofOz 03:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "Mormon Bible". The Book of Mormon is an entirely different volume. Corvus cornix 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]