Humanities desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

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.

May 10

Michelin guides in English

Is the 2011 Michelin guide for France available in English? I've been looking all over and I've only found French language versions (although the introduction is in English). I did find one from 2009 available, but nothing for 2010 or 2011. Does anyone know how their publication schedule works? Shadowjams (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Try typing "michelin guide for france in english" into google (the first hit I got was to the 2011 version at Amazon.UK)~~. woops... that was the french language version. Never mind. Blueboar (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for it on Charing Cross Road recently and couldn't find them in any of the bookshops I went to. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything from later than 2009 either, although there is a guide for the "main cities of Europe" for 2011, including Paris, Lyon, Strasbourg, and Toulouse. Lesgles (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ortega

Where can I find an unbiased account of Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega? The accounts in your web-site hold little truth about his tactics and the way he treats his people. Now I understand why some teachers I know will not let their students reference your site for their assignments. Lead with honesty, not the white-washed, rose colored glasses version of events, or is your web-site for entertainment purposes only? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.146.150 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are looking for is an article about him which only conforms to your existing opinion of him, and does not challenge you intellectually in any way, but instead only serves to confirm what you already believe to be true? --Jayron32 05:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here. --Golbez (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be well-referenced. If you have reliably sourced information which differs from what is in the article, you are welcome to add it (though given how controversial it is likely to be, it would be best to discuss it on the talk page first). But if you add unsourced information, it is likely to be removed very quickly. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with identifying an artist

Can anyone help in identifying this painting's artist and name? It might be a stupid guess, but is it Picasso?

All the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.79.41 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a stupid guess at all, you're quite right. It's his version of Manet's Déjeuner sur l'herbe, see here for example. --Viennese Waltz 09:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not so stupid because it certainly has a Picasso feel about it and Tineye attributes it to Picasso with the name "Dejeuner sur l'Herbe" but with further searching this title seems to belong to at least two other Picasso paintings neither one of which is the one you post. 09:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Picasso painted a varying series of Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe d'après Manet from 1960 - 1961. This particular one is dated July 12, 1961. Four of them (I don't know whether this is the entire series), can be viewed at the Musée Picasso's website, starting here. I cannot link you to the more specific page directly. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, in fact it's a "cycle of 27 paintings, 140 drawings, 3 linogravures and cardboard marquettes for sculpture carried out between 1949 and 1962", according to our article on Le déjeuner sur l'herbe. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper spray and the Chemical Weapons Convention

Can someone explain the logic of the Chemical Weapons Convention's ban on the use of nonlethal riot control agents in warfare? Why can police resort to pepper spray on a daily basis, whilst its' use in warfare is strictly banned? This sounds horribly counterintuitive. "You can shoot, but you can't use capsicum spray". Am I missing something? 124.179.224.106 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that your example is correct. But, if so, it's likely the result of an overly broad ban on "chemical weapons" that doesn't allow for a distinction between lethal chemicals, those that cause permanent injury, and those which only cause temporary irritation. Even in police use, though, pepper spray can be abused. It's good as an alternative to shooting someone, but some cops feel they can spray anyone who isn't being quite as cooperative as they would like. This is straying into using it for torture.StuRat (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Article I, clause 5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare. I have no idea what that's meant to mean, except that Article II defines riot control agents as "Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure."Maybe to outlaw bombing the entire city with tear gas? 128.232.241.211 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arms control bans are in general very silly if you look at it from the perspective of "well, you can still kill them other ways." To quote James B. Conant (an important chemist, President of Harvard, atomic administrator, and in charge of a good portion of the US World War I chemical warfare development):

I did not see in 1917, and do not see in 1968, why tearing a man’s guts our by a high-explosive shell is to be preferred to maiming him by attacking his lungs or skin. All war is immoral. Logically, the 100 percent pasifist has the only impregnable position. Once that is abandoned, as it is when a nation becomes a belligerent, one can talk sensible only in terms of the violation of agreements about the way war is conducted, or the consequences of a certain tactic or weapon.

However in practice these kinds of treaties have been meant to make war to some degree predictable, and to avoid, as much as possible, affecting nearby populations. One of the reasons you don't use chemical or biological weapons is because they have a tendency to go where the weather does, affecting civilians. (Which is yet another "law of war" violated innumerable times...) The idea of "laws of war" is itself a little oxymoronic, though done with good intentions, to be sure. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All sides in the European theatre in WW2 decided not to use poison gas as a weapon of war, so in that context the Geneva Protocol was not "silly"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They did so not because of fears of violating the Geneva Protocol, but because of fear of reprisals from the enemy. It was a pure deterrence situation, as has been documented many times. You may recall that both sides willfully violated international law quite a number of times over during that war. -Mr.98 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of War are in many ways meant to stop the escalation of horror in wars between states as a result of reciprocal reprisal. The treatment of Soviet POWs by Germany produced the situation within the Soviet State that allowed that state apparatus to justify to itself its subsequent post war treatment of German POWs. In the case of riot agents, the reprisal which was feared was the widespread use of chemical nerve agents. In addition, in most instances, another concrete limit supporting the law of war is the lack of military utility of prohibited behaviours—producing a chemical battlefield slows advances, and restricts a defensive army's capacity to retake lost territory in a subsequent advance. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War vs Criminal Justice and nonstate actors

Is the right to declare war purely the right of a nation state? For example if the Symbionese Liberation Army declares war on the U.S., is their declaration legally invalid?

Obviously, if such a declaration is valid, it would free the U.S. government of the constraints of civillian law enforcement in fighting the group. In war, you can kill your enemy, whereas in law enforcement you can't set out to kill. But it would also render the group's members into "combatants" rather than "criminals" (as long as they obey the Laws of war).

Likewise, what would stop Aafia Siddiqui from claiming that her alleged actions in shooting at a soldier were lawful in the context of a war, and thus not subject to civillian law?

Is the Holsworthy Barracks terror plot really a "terror plot" given that the intended target was military, not civillian? Does this fit the Definition of terrorism under Australian law and international treaties?

(Please do not infer any sympathy for Islamic radicalism from these questions). 124.179.224.106 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your definitions are out dated. Nations seem to have no problem defining who are "enemy combatants" and who are "criminals" (some are both), even though there are no formal declarations of war. Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, a non-state can't declare war legally under international law, and I don't think there's much possibility of such groups following the laws of war, either. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Devil's Advocate Alert) So, what happens if a non-state does in fact declare war? Is the CEO/leader prosecuted for making an illegal declaration of war? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They get plunked onto a terrorist watch list or two, I imagine. StuRat (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The declaration of war is not effective, as if they have made no such declaration. If they were to follow such declarations of war with action, then other aspects of international and national criminal laws that apply to individuals will apply. For example, if a person who is not recognised as a state "declares war" and then starts "military" action against the members of a state, then he may well be committing murder under the domestic criminal law.

Whether they get listed as terrorists or not depend on the methods they employ in such action. Legitimate alternative governments or rebel forces are not necessarily terrorists, and they may indeed very quickly win recognition as and become legitimate governments. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are extensions to the Laws of War covering wars within states. These are not widely honoured, and I am unaware of wars within states where such conventions have been honoured. Generally wars within states comprise a pre-existing state, and another body which claims to be a state. As such, the SLA declaring war on the US is legally valid, if the SLA is capable of enforcing its will upon the US. The enforcement of will, or negotiation in the face of potential enforcement of will, is one of the basic approaches to international relations. For an example of an organisation which successfully imposed its will, consider the Yugoslavian socialist partisans. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vaguely relevant to the concepts at issue was Special Category Status, which some convicted criminals in Northern Ireland gained at various times, reflecting their viewpoint that they were, de facto, prisoners of war rather than criminals. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]