Humanities desk
< October 13	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 15 >

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.

October 14

Voting intentions.

ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone between October 10 and 11, weighting the results to the profile of all adults. This was a news item this morning. Can someone tell me what "weighting the results to the profile"means please?--88.111.33.45 06:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you take a sample from the electorate you will often not have a "representative" sample, in which social characteristics are distributed in the same way as the electorate. You might for instance find that you have 2/3 male and 1/3 female. It may then be prudent, in order to ensure that your results can say something about the whole population to assign more weight to a subgroup of respondents, (in this case female) in order to ensure that in your sample is representative: the distribution of characteristics are the same as in the population (i.e. 50% female and 50% male). C mon 11:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that pollsters normally use purely random samples instead of attempting to stratify them as this has been found to give more accurate results. Is this true? Although I suppose in this case they could just have found that there was a lot of systematic bias in their sample (like the male-female thing C mon mentioned, if say women were more likely to answer the phone). Bistromathic 19:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MBA in Australia

What are the job prospects in Finance sector post MBA from Australia? --------

Good. Also , you get to call the MD a bloody bastard without getting sacked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.61.118 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Islamic Scholars: You cannot remove a despotic ruler if he is muslim

I have been troubled as a muslim by a recent statement from some scholars that in Islam you cannot revolt or depose or rise up against a ruler of a country even if cruel, despotic, dictatorial if he is a muslim and allows and maintains muslim laws and religion to be practiced in that country. However, if the ulema (scholars)declare him to be anti-islamic only then can he be declared unfit to rule! Otherwise, you have to accept his rule, however harsh, and pray to God and be patient for the change in the situation. I am troubled by this and want to understand whether this is true and what is the logic behind this? Everyone who is knowledgable is welcome to comment. Thanks. Aftab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.96.154 (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[This fatwa] on the islamtoday.com fatwa archive might be of use, in explaining the logic if nothing else. Algebraist 09:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim any special knowledge, but my understanding is that this is specifically a feature of Wahabism (forgive me if I have spelt this incorrectly), which is very convenient for the al Saud dynasty, who could certainly be described as cruel, despotic and dictatorial. Such a ruling would also be helpful to General Musharraf, another despot and dictator. Interestingly, both the al Sauds and Musharraf enjoy considerable support from certain western governments. DuncanHill 10:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add an obvious point of comparison, the Christian Scriptures have Paul insisting, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." etc. (Romans 13:1ff.). Compare and contrast the intent & consequences, etc. Wareh 13:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of the bomber offensive

Did the Church of England ever raise any objections to the actions of Bomber command in the Second World War? 217.42.103.102 09:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop George Bell certainly did, but the CoE as a whole? Apparently not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, too, did Cosmo Gordon Lang, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, in the House of Lords' debate brought forward by Bell in February, 1944. Here is an extract from his speech;

We were always told that government policy was to limit attacks to definite military objectives or their immediate neighbourhood, and not directly or purposely to involve the destruction of the lives and homes of people. I do not think it can be said that the policy has been adhered to in these apparently deliberate attempts to destroy whole cities, and I venture to think that there is some force-I think we must all admit it-in the plea that either the hitherto declared policy is to be changed or this new policy is definitely to be adopted.

However, most of the church establishment lined up behind William Temple, Lang's successor, in holding to the official position advanced by the government. Clio the Muse 22:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis de Tocqueville

After his death it was said of Alexis de Tocqueville that he had shown his countrymen that after the revolution they had lived unknowingly under the same regime. How true is this? Pere Duchesne 11:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you can read to see how convincing you find it is his The Old Regime and the Revolution. I believe the book is probably considered more important in the history of social and political theory than in the historiography of the French Revolution. Tocqueville pursued an argument that might be used to shed light on the endurance of the patterns that define the state of society, the assertion of political authority, etc., through any revolution. This counterintuitive thesis is a useful tool in looking at political history, and some of the book's points are compelling, so I think it's fair to say that a true understanding of post-Revolution French society and government has to avoid facile assumptions about the new sweeping out the old. But "same regime" is obviously an exaggeration. Wareh 13:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know this assessment. It was that given by Henri Dominique Lacordaire, elected chair of the French Academy after Tocqueville's death. It's an interesting argument which takes as to the heart of the nature of revolution; of ideology; of liberty and of freedom. If anything I would say that Lacordaire understates the case; for what came after, in Tocqueville's understanding, was in every way worse than what went before. What I mean here is that the process of revolution, the ideologies to which it gave rise, the hatreds which it nurtured, released the practitioners from all moderation and restraint, presenting in the use and abuse of power far greater challenges to real freedom and individual liberty. Without genuine commitment to freedom, in other words, the new democracies are also new despotisms, more oppressive in every way. In 1848 he wrote, having witnessed the revolutionary violence in Paris which brought the July Monarchy to an end, "I have always believed that in revolutions, especially democratic revolutions, madmen, not those so called by courtesy, but genuine madmen, have played a considerable political part."

After the Second French Republic gave way to the plebiscitiry dictatorship of Napoleon III Tocqueville sought consolation in the composition of The Ancien Regime and the Revolution, turning his mind to an account of the first Revolution, giving final shape to his conservative philosophy in the process. It continues to be a brilliant evocation, along with Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, of the dangers of 'pure democracy'; of ideologies of hatred, of social and institutional collapse. With nothing left the French army emerged as the only viable national institution; and with the army came Napoleon. For as Tocqueville expressed it, "The French love liberty but only as the least of their possessions." A movement that supposedly aimed at freedom ended in centralised dictatorship, far more complete than anything existing under the old order. The state, in other words, is immesurably strengthened. In State and Revolution Lenin predicted the death of the institution in what must rank as one of the most dishonest or self-deluded texts ever written. Tocqueville knew better; he knew that Liberty alone is capable of struggling successfully against revolution. Clio the Muse 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of life in hell

This old issue of Dinosaur Comics raises a good point: if the devil is meant to be a tempter, why doesn't he make hell a nice place? Surely if he wants to tempt people, an eternity of suffering at his hands is no way to go about it. Laïka 13:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton has quite a bit on this in Paradise Lost, if I recall. But I can't recall what he said about it. I believe the whole point is that the devil wants to mistreat people for some reason or another. If he made hell like heaven, then that wouldn't really be mistreatment, would it? So to get people there he results to trickery, etc. Anyway Milton does a lot better with it than I am. :-) --24.147.86.187 14:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever said the Christian belief system made sense. See [1] for a start. Exxolon 14:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the devil's psychology is fully based on movies like The Prophecy and Constantine, and in no way on any literary or biblical texts, but it may provide some insight anyway. As I understand it, Lucifer and some of his kin, when they were angels, became jealous of God's love for humanity. All people had to do to be absolved for the most hideous crime was to ask forgiveness and acknowledge god, whereas the angels, whose entire being was devoted to Him, could never get that kind of attention. Here they are, willing to sacrifice anything in his glory, and all he cares about is these filthy humans, that aren't even sure he even exists. Lucifer became so jealous of humanity that he defied god, staged a coup and was cast out of heaven. Of course, any human that acknowledges god and asks to be forgiven can not be touched by the devil. However, if a human being were renounce God (for personal reasons, or just by selling their soul), then God can't or won't help them, and the devil has free reign. So, once they've been tempted and have gone to hell, the Devil takes his revenge on humanity, one person at the time by inflicting unspeakable horrors upon the for all eternity. It's a sad state of affairs, really. risk 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, why has he got such a bad reputation anyway? Isn't he the one who punishes the bad guys in the end. Someone's got to do it. Nice delegation of responsablities from Dog who sends the dirty work to be done by one of his ex guard who's no longer part of the official organization. hmmm. So the devil would be a sort of private contractor, heh? Keria 16:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the question has been answered here to some extent before; see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 19#Perceptions of the Devil. Laïka 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't think the devil is supposed to get much choice with the themes of hell; isn't he supposed to be being punished too? Secondly, I think the bad rep is to do with trying to tempt people into becoming bad guys, so he can punish them. Skittle 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On one of the other boards, someone pointed out an episode of The Twilight Zone that's relevant here. In that episode, a mobster dies and wakes up in a posh gambling hotel. Everything seems great at first: he's popular with the ladies, the staff are oh-so-helpful and he wins at the tables. All the time. After a while, he notices that things are so easy, there's no challenge at all. He gets so bored, he tells the manager he wants to go to "the other place" instead. The manager just chuckles and says, "Why sir, this is the other place!"

Suffice to say, most of our ideas of hell are carried by the sheer force of tradition. We imagine a burning pit of hellfire and torture because that's what we were told it was. As you pointed out, the traditional belief doesn't make a lot of sense once you look at it. But, it has the weight of tradition behind it, so that's the popular concept in Christian thought.

Part of this is probably based on the Jewish beliefs in Sheol and Gehenna. The former is likely where Catholicism got its concept of Purgatory, while the latter is closer to our concepts of hell. Basically, a burning trash dump gets turned into the spiritual afterlife of eternal fire for sinners. - Kesh 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Devil isn't entirely a Christian construct anyway. I know a lot of Christians who don't believe in him at all. Wrad 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farewel happy Fields

Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail

Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell

Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings

A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time.

The mind is its own place, and in it self

Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.

Paradise Lost, Book 1, line 250. Clio the Muse 22:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda

Has propaganda always had a pejorative meaning? If not, when did the word acquire its present overtones? 86.147.184.194 14:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Etymology at the link. That should tell you what you want to know. -- JackofOz 15:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist?

What are the circumstances behind the arrest of Subhas Chandra Bose in 1924 and does this incident illustrate the dangers of defining people as terrorists by suspicion alone? Mohanjit Singh 17:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was a victim of what one Indian politician has called the 'lawless laws', used against all those suspected of wanting to overthrow the Raj. It began in August 1923, when the chief secretary of the government in Bengal wrote to Dehli, asking for powers to arrest suspected radicals, or 'revolutionaries', as they were called, without warrent. Though Bose was a member of Congress, he did not believe in Ghandi's emphasis on 'non-violence'; for his own sources of inspiration lay elsewhere. While a student at Cambridge had expressed some sympathy for the Irish Republican Army. Yet he had taken no practical steps to embark on a more militant political course. Even so, he was kept under observation. By this time the Bengal request for the arrest of suspects without warrant had been passed from Dehli to London, where it was approved by Sydney Olivier, Secretary of State for India in the Labour government of Ramsay MacDonald. As a result Bose was arrested in Calcutta at dawn on 25 October 1924, and kept in prison for two years, Guantanamo-style, without charge. Clio the Muse 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a search engine that will search for a shape or monogram

I have charcoal portrait of an American Indian Chief. The artist signs with a monogram. It is an A and a F with the F drawen onto the lower right leg of the A. How do I research who this artist is? Also is there any way to search fo a signature.

Thank you, D. Sandy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.229.84 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking an art librarian who will show you reference books that have artists' marks and signatures? Here is a link to a bibliography of some books that do that:Finding Information on Artists' Signatures and Monograms from the Victoria and Albert Museum.http://www.vam.ac.uk/nal/findinginfo/info_artists/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdef (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Questionnaire

I've been reading about Ernst von Salomon and his novel Der Fragebogen based on the questionnaire the Americans used in post war Germany supposedly to weed out former Nazis. Does anyone know what kind of questions were asked? Stockmann 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know some of what went into the Fragebogen. It tended to reflect American preconceptions of what they had been fighting against, Junkers and Prussians in the main, really all rather old fashioned. In essence, there was a deep confusion about the nature of the Nazi state. For example, there was a question on dueling scars, the 'badge of honour' conferred on its members by the Burschenschaft, the nationalist student fraternities. What could be more Nazi than that? Well, they had actually been abolished in 1935. The Junker class was also considered to be the backbone of Nazism, and no thought was given to the fact that a great many of the people in this conservative elite had been heavily involved in the 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler. In general, the Fragebogen caused more problems than it resolved, and was a source of much resentment and ironic comment, evidenced in Von Salomon's novel. There was a joke popular at the time which reflected the national mood. Two years after the end of the war a man goes into Allied headquarters "I would like to report that I am a Nazi" "You should have made this confession a year ago." "I wasn't a Nazi a year ago." Clio the Muse 00:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative. Thanks. Stockmann 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

policy and procedures

Why do organisations have policies and procedures? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annisa07 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they want to keep things running smoothly (procedures) and make sure basic rules are followed (policies). NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Can you think of any alternatives that would work? --ColinFine 22:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers have, or should have, policies and procedures for ensuring their pupils do their homework appropriately. -- JackofOz 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, policies and procedures are designed so that disagreements in the way things are done in that particular organisation do not arise. The policies illustrate what the organisation is supposed to achieve and possibly, believe. In the event of a disagreement, the policy is used to moderate. A procedure shows a way to act in the event of a situation where a person doesn't know exactly what to do. For example, in an organisation that cares for children, there is likely to be a procedure to follow in the event of an accident that seriously injures a child. Because the people running the event would not necessarily be completely prepared for the situation without having a procedure in place, the procedure gives them a manner of dealing with the child's injury, the child's parents, the other children, media attention, etc. Steewi 03:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legend about someone attacking the sea with a sword

I seem to recall something about a mythical, legendary or literary figure, probably a king or knight, who went down to a beach to attack the sea or ocean with his sword and do battle with the waves. Can anyone advise as to who this was supposed to be? 66.28.20.178 23:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds vaguely like Canute the Great. He didn't attack the sea, but "deliberately placed his throne on the beach and used his evident inability to order the tide to roll back to display to his courtiers the limitations of a king's power to command the seas". -- JackofOz 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the legend of Canute and the tides, but the person I'm thinking of was probably someone else -- possibly a King Lear-type character, actively trying to do battle with the sea. --66.28.20.178 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of Xerxes' lashing of the Hellespont as told by Herodotus (Histories, book 7, chapter 35). Read the context here. (Interesting: I just answered another "what's the source" Herodotus question on the language desk. But Xerxes is a real person, so maybe you're looking for something from chivalric romance.) Wareh 23:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman historian Seutonius gives an account of Caligula making war on the 'ocean', having his troops gather sea shells as a mark of his triumph. In his novel, I, Claudius, Robert Graves says the 'battle' was fought against Neptune, god of the sea. None of this really fits with your outline, though. Caligula was certainly no legend, though whether or not Seutonius is making up a 'legend' is another matter altogether! Clio the Muse 23:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles fights the Scamander River in Book 21 of the Iliad. Wareh 23:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although he didn't use a sword Artie, the strongest man in the world, did beat up the Atlantic Ocean for allowing the summer to end. GreatManTheory 00:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Caligula to me; I think there's a scene in the famous movie about him when he does that. --24.147.86.187 01:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam West stabs the sea with a daggar in Family Guy in Perfect Castaway to exact revenge for the death of Peter et al. Lanfear's Bane 09:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish hero Cúchulainn did that, but as far as I know only in W. B. Yeats' poem Cuchulain's Fight with the Sea (the story he based that poem on, The Death of Aífe's Only Son, doesn't include that element. --Nicknack009 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who had suggestions. Caligula seems to be the person I was most likely thinking of. --66.28.20.178 16:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]