Humanities desk
< February 26	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 27

Modern presidents

i think modern president's today are violating the constitution and is suject to impeachment with out gettting authorization from the congress to send out troops because, so many times we hear the president senging out troops for nothing and many died from the war because the president was trying to make a statement from the opposing side to see it his way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.121 (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you've come here hoping to have a discussion of what you said, you've come to the wrong place. There are plenty of other more suitable places for that.

If you had a question suitable for a reference desk, though ... -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about USA, BTW ? I agree with what Jack of Oz says, you are almost soapboxing, however being especially specific and precise regarding your names/dates/parties/issues/incidents etc might make it a legitimate RD question.... Jon Ascton (talk)

War Powers Act could be relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precision is nice, but the most important thing is to actually ask a question... --Tango (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US Constitution restricts to Congress the power to declare war, but gives the President authority to command troops during a war as commander in chief. The founders of the US did not want a President to be able to place the country at war for reasons that were clear only to him, since losing a war has, many times in history, led to a country losing its independence. Unfortunately, Presidents since 1941 have simply claimed "inherent powers" to direct troops into combat, as Truman did in the Korean "Conflict," or have asked for "war powers resolutions" based on some fraudulent claim ("The North Vietnamese attacked US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin," "Saddam has Weapons of Mass destruction," etc.) The Presidents have then used these vague jingoistic resolutions to justify largescale war operations with no end in sight in some cases. The Congresses have generally been afraid to vote "No" for fear of being called unpatriotic. These undeclared wars seem unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has been unwilling to make such a ruling. Edison (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So much for not engaging soapboxers and discouraging them from spraying stuff at us. We're here to help those who seek to learn something. The OP didn't even ask something like "What do you think?". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you require inline citations for every statement in my post? They could be added. Did you read news magazines such as Time, and papers such as the New York Times over the past several decades, where everything I posted has been stated? Edison (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Are you talking to me? I wasn't disputing anything you said; I was objecting to the saying of anything at all in response to a soapbox rant that was not even remotely a question. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16 syllables

What is the name of the bengali poetry that consists of 16 syllables and it is like Haiku? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.124.52 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples found at Rabindranath_Tagore#Poetry. Schyler! (one language) 04:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bengali poetry

Is there a website that showcases how many types of poetry there are in Bengali literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.124.52 (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a very extensive article at Bengali poetry. Schyler! (one language) 04:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsignatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?

Hi, I know that India, Israel, and Pakistan are all non-signatories to the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and all are believed to have nuclear weapons. I am also aware that North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty. Iran is alleged to be in violation. My question is, are there *any* other non-signatories (albeit without nuclear weapons programs), or has *every* other government in the world signed the treaty? Eliyohub (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has a color-coded map that answers your question. Taiwan sticks out, but a lot of others haven't signed. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those haven't signed because they weren't involved in the negotiating process and have acceded under Article IX "1. This Treaty shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Treaty before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time." s:NPT, which presumably implies without signature. List of parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty says them and Taiwan (which being unrecognised I suspect isn't allowed to be a party) are the only nonsignatories. Straightontillmorning (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is incorrect. I have added some clarifications below. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous possibly, but I did read enough of the articles to mean what you said below. The bit about "not involved in .." referred to the colour-coded map and Clarityfiend's implication that those countries that were marked acceded but not "signed and ratified" were nonsignatory in any meaningful sense. Straightontillmorning (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think you were fairly unclear. What you are saying is just applied to those marked as "accession" and not signatory. Accession just means, you can join the treaty when you want to, even if it is technically closed for signatories. Those countries marked as such are essentially signatories. There are only three true non-signatories — Israel, Pakistan, India. Taiwan is the weird special case of a signatory who can't sign. North Korea is the special case of the signatory who withdrew. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if Taiwan wants to be seen as a country, why don't they sign anyway? Then if nothing else our article would say that they are a signatory... 109.128.182.182 (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not what Taiwan wants, but what continental China wants. And the latter certainly doesn't want that Taiwan is considered a country. Quest09 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See 1992 Consensus - despite having had an independence-leaning government for several years until recently, Taiwan never formally renounced the position (and has now apparently re-embraced it) that both Taiwan and mainland China are one sovereign state with two rival government ruling different areas (called "Free Area" or "Taiwan Area" versus "Mainland Area" under the law in Taiwan). So while they do not agree with the Communists being on the treaty, they are not going to sign any treaty if the Communists are a party to it. Multilateral treaties are state-level "contracts" between all the countries who have signed it. If Communist China has already signed it, then Taiwan signing it would mean it is in a "contract" with, amongst others, Communist China, which would mean that it is recognising Communist China as a separate state - which it doesn't. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few clarifications: India, Israel, and Pakistan are straight out non-signatories. They all specifically and overtly rejected the NPT. (It is not that they were not involved with the negotiating process.) It is clear why they did this in retrospect (all had bomb programs). Taiwan is the only special case. They signed the NPT in 1968, but were kicked out of the UN in 1971 at the demand of the People's Republic of China. They thus are not recognized as a state by the United Nations, and technically lack the ability to be a signatory. They have, however, pledged to abide by its terms. It is not at all the same situation as with India, Israel, and Pakistan, and they should not be lumped together. Taiwan does have effective NPT compliance due to a trilateral agreement with the US and the IAEA, and its nuclear facilities are under IAEA safeguards. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help finding a Desert Storm photo

Hey. I've been searching for this photograph for years. I saw it a long time ago in a magazine and it really stuck with me. It's a blurry image from an Iraqi fighter jet's onboard camera. In the picture, you can see an incoming missile milliseconds before it impacts with the Iraqi jet. In the far, far background, you can see a black speck which is the American jet that fired the missile. American special forces who investigated the wreckage found the camera and the photos. The original article was from an interview with the American pilot who shot down the Iraqi. I think it was National Geographic. If anybody could help me out I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks a bunch!

TravisAF (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the image you are referring to. Found it one this forum, which has other pictures and some background to the picture. Also here is a recent, 2009, article in The Atlantic about the pilot whose missile that was: article. Ravendrop 10:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is the article you read. --Sean 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't believe you guys found it. Thank you so much! TravisAF (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pendolino trains - why?

What is the point of making trains tilt at bends? If it is for the comfort of the passengers, then wouldnt the discomfort be much less than that of a car going around a corner (slower speed, but tighter bends)? Or is the tilt so that the train can go around the corner faster without de-railing? Or is it just a gimmick? Thanks 92.15.20.7 (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's essentially for the comfort of the passengers. Our article on tilting train explains in detail.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've read the article. It still seems like a lot of effort for a small effect. If the curves were banked for fast trains, then the discomfort of going around them on a slower train would be very little, just a slight tilt. The cost per un-spilled beveridge must be enormous. 92.24.189.108 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to quantify "discomfort." You probably just have to ride one to find out. Zooming across the Spanish countryside in a tilting Talgo is rather pleasant. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) In the UK at any rate, many railway track curves are banked or 'canted' to best comply with the range of speeds normally expected for passenger trains on those bends, in order to to aid vehicle stability and steering, minimise wheel and rail wear, and preserve passenger comfort: on the rare occasions a train I've been on has had to creep around one at a markedly lower speed (due to train or signalling problems, or congestion ahead), the "opposite tilt" effect has sometimes been quite disconcerting. Tilting trains are used to permit running faster than the "normal" express speeds for which the track was primarily designed. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, that a tilting train can be comfortable at any speed, while a canted track is only comfortable at one speed. Also, while the cost of the train is probably far more than a mile of canted track, it might be less than thousands of miles of track. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the following online courses for under $220/credit-hour?

It doesn't matter what college it's from; as long as the online tuition isn't over $220/credit-hour and it's transferable back to K-State, then it'll have the classes I'm looking for.

COMM 322: Interpersonal Communication

http://catalog.k-state.edu/content.php?catoid=13&navoid=1380

COMM 322 - Interpersonal Communication

Credits: (3)
Examination of the dynamics of face-to-face interpersonal interaction. Focus is on applying principles of relational communication.

Requisites
Prerequisite: COMM 105 or 106.
When Offered
Fall, Spring, Summer
UGE course
No
K-State 8
Human Diversity within the U.S.
Social Sciences

A Level 1 Korean language Class

Such a class doesn't even exist at K-State, so I would hope to take an online version from anywhere, of course just so long as the tuition is under $220/credit-hour.

I don't think Google will be that helpful, as it doesn't handle very specific requests too well. It would likely return University of Phoenix's hits, and their classes cost more than even many private colleges' classes do in Kansas, so that is why I hope for someone here to find me a great deal. Thanks. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't now if credit earned at the British Open University can be transfered to your university. But, regarding price and quality, it certainly is a pretty good choice. Quest09 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the website - http://www.open.ac.uk but why isn't there an article? Anyway, I hope to find out that they won't overcharge overseas students. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is, at Open University (presumably unqualified as the UK's was the first opened), but if you Wiki-search on that name you'll see that there are similarly named institutions in various other countries, which also might be of interest to you. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the article notes you will generally be charged more as an overseas student. As they don't receive any government funding for you that isn't surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it'll be more than $220 US per credit-hour, then what other universities will offer these online courses for a lesser amount? Remember that I'm from Kansas, if that helps anyone figure anything out. Thanks. --129.130.102.141 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

$220/credit-hour is really a lot. The Open University will charge overseas students just $50/credit-hour. However, I'm not sure we are talking about the same here. In Europe, a full study-year normally consists of 60 credits. If your university accept these credits, it might be the perfect way of saving money. A further caveat would be that they do not offer all courses for students from all countries. Quest09 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a Korean class at the OU. What other universities will offer online Korean language courses for reasonable rates? --129.130.96.58 (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic view on ancient Egypt

Could anyone recommend a good book or website on how the legacy of ancient Egypt, such as the pyramids, sphinxes, polytheistic pantheon, etc., is seen or intepreted by Islam? For example, the modern Egypt is a secular Muslim-majority country but I got an impression that many people there do not feel much of a religious dilemma when commercially exploiting their ancestors' polytheistic legacy. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters the pharaos are portrayed as evil and cruel. That's why anti-Mubarak protestors labelled Mubarak as 'pharao'. Polytheism is outlawed in Islam, but there is a tolerance for polytheistic remains if they are not used for active worship. If someone would seriously try to revive the ancient Egyptian religion, it would be extremely controversial I guess. --Soman (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just by the way, in English that's spelled pharaoh. Your pharao link goes to something completely different. --Trovatore (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some Quran links: http://corpus.quran.com/concept.jsp?id=egypt , http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=12&verse=99 , http://corpus.quran.com/concept.jsp?id=pharaoh and http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=11&verse=97 , http://quran.com/26/10-68 --Soman (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. I found it interesting that the nose of the Great Sphinx of Giza was vandalized by a 14th-century fanatic Sufi Muslim, who was enraged by the Egyptian peasants making offerings to it. (Contrary to popular belief, the story that the nose was vandalized by Napoleon's soldiers appears to be a myth.) Curiously, when in Egypt I saw several small noseless sphinxes... I seem to have read somewhere that there is a magical belief that removing their noses make them powerless or something... --BorgQueen (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know a lot about this subject, but one force favoring Ancient Egypt, among secular as well as Islamist Egyptian thinkers, was the rising Egyptian nationalism of the first half of the 20th Century, which instrumentalized Egypt's great pre-Islamic history. Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential 20th Century religious writers on Islam, who was also a literary critic, praised the early works of Naguib Mahfouz, such as Thebes at War, which glorified Pharaonic Egypt. I got this from a book by James F. Goode which looks quite interesting, and depicts the facets and efforts to reconcile the struggle between an Ancient pre-Islamic identity and a more Arab, Islamic identity. Between al-Jahiliyah and Islam: (Negotiating for the Past: Archaeology, Nationalism, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1919-1941, University of Texas Press, 2001, p ISBN 9780292714984)

In Scenes of Resurrection in the Qur'an (1947), Qutb compares concepts of other world and afterlife in Islam and pre-Islamic mythologies, Ancient Egypt among others. His treatment of pre-Islamic ideologies is described as "relatively dispassionate and even positive in some ways" He identifies "defects", but also expresses acknowledgement:

"One might think that the defects in the idea of the other world in Ancient Egypt's creed reduce its value. But we should remember that this idea was established in the shade of a pagan creed before the dawn of history. There about five thousand years passed for this idea; therefore the idea itself can be seen as great. And if we attach to this early idea the later one of tawhid, which was established by King 'Akhenaton' three thousand years ago, we can imagine the greatness of the conscience (damit) which had arrived to all of this before the dawn of history." As quoted in Sayed Khatab, The Political Thought of Sayyid Qutb: the Theory of Jahiliyyah, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006, p 90 ISBN 9780415375962.

-Sluzzelin talk 23:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of the books you mentioned seem to be highly informative! --BorgQueen (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least some Muslims seemed to have contempt for ancient Egyptians, evidenced by burning mummies for heat. However, unlike current world religions, the religion of ancient Egypt isn't perceived as a threat, so the opportunity to make a living off tourism may well trump any discomfort. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Taliban destroyed Buddhist statues for being sacreligious, so at least there are some contemporary Muslims who consider anything non-Muslim as blasphemous. Corvus cornix_talk 18:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The destruction of those statues was done by Islamic extremists who were imposing a strict interpretation of the sharia prohibition against any depiction of humans. They could have been "Muslim" depictions of humans and they still would have been destroyed. (Perhaps that also may have been involved in the defacement of the Egyptian sphinxes?) WikiDao ☯ 19:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe I read (in Mark Lehner's Complete Pyramids, which just went back to the library so I have to rely on memory) that it was a medieval Muslim fanatic who hacked off the Sphinx's nose, but he was hanged for it, so apparently most Egyptians at the time didn't approve. Most of the damage to ancient artifacts (like the burning mummies) was due to indifference rather than fanaticism: temples taken apart to make new buildings, tombs camped in, stelae turned into millstones. The Rape of the Nile by Brian M. Fagan is a good source about the treatment of Egyptian artifacts by Muslims and Westerners alike. It doesn't say much about modern Egyptian attitudes, but the impression strongly comes across that, before modern Egyptology, Egyptians simply didn't care about the stuff sitting all around them. They did with it what was useful, including selling it off once the Europeans started coming to buy in the 19th century. I think that nowadays modern Egyptians do take some pride in their ancient heritage; it first became important when Tut's tomb was opened and the Egyptians objected furiously to any of the artifacts being taken out of the country. A. Parrot (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We (that is, the "enlightened West") used to use mummies as manure or as fuel for steam engines. You'll find plenty of old buildings in Britain which incorporate pieces of older structures "quarried" after they fell into disuse (e.g. after the Dissolution of the Monasteries). Dressed building stone is far too useful to leave lying around in a ruin, whatever your religion. Many of our churches were vandalised in the name of Christianity during and immediately after the Civil War - the Roundheads, inspired by their Christian ideals even stabled horses in Lostwithiel church. DuncanHill (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NM Native American Lands

I have a friend who insists that New Mexico Native Americans "have the best land in New Mexico" and cited a ski resort as proof, forgetting ski resorts do not operate year round. I disagree, since I have read that NM Native Americans are among the poorest in the US, having been pushed by the federal gov't. onto desolate waterless lands. Who is correct?--Joanastein (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Best" is always relative. I don't know who has the "best" land, but having just read about the Zuni, who I believe live in either Arizona or New Mexico, I can say with relative certainty that they do not seem to have much economic opportunity on their land. Now, if your whole life goal is to ski, I suppose any land with a ski resort could be the "best" land. Falconus^{p t c} 02:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of the 2000 Census, 10 of the 20 poorest counties were part of reservations but only number 20 was in New Mexico (McKinley County) [1]. Rmhermen (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans were given land nobody else wanted, and, if it later became valuable for some reason, they were then evicted from that. I suspect that when they first arrived at the NM reservations (from the East, presumably), that this land was far worse than what they had before. Recently, Native Americans have been able to make money off casinos, but only if they are near a major population center. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are out in the boondocks, but still rake in the cash (mine formerly included). If you build it, they will come. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to both, and they are within driving distance from many large population centers, such as New York City. (The Las Vegas casinos did prosper, despite being far from population centers, when started, because they had little competition, early on, due to moral objections to, and thus laws against, gambling elsewhere.) StuRat (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a moral objection to gambling, they are nevertheless still a bit stymied? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oklahoma Indians got put out onto the worst land in the territory/state, till oil was discovered. Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Rogers, who was from Oklahoma and had significant American Indian ancestry, had some things to say about that. Something about how the government gave the Indians a reservation to keep "as long as the grass grows and the water flows." Then they were kicked off the land, "because the treat didn't say anything about oil," and finally they were stuck on reservations, "where the grass don't grow and the water don't flow." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]