Humanities desk
< October 9	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 10

Was Hitler insane?

Was Adolf Hitler really insane? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 01:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might serve as a starting point for a discussion relevant to the posed question. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He committed suicide soon after getting married. Sounds perfectly sane to me. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Please see megalomania. Many national leaders "suffer" from this. 208.54.38.211 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean clinical insanity there is no evidence of that. Hitler was (by all accounts) mentally competent and capable of functioning effectively within conventional social contexts. Hitler was, arguably, deluded, in that he held beliefs which would not have held up to empirical scrutiny, but in that regard is not necessarily different than any other person in the world. In fact - though it is a social convention to cast people we dislike as insane - there is no substantive evidence that Hitler was psychologically or emotionally abnormal in any significant way.

Sorry. --Ludwigs2 03:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are clinical sociopaths incompetent? Why do you believe a mass murderer was "capable of functioning effectively"? 69.171.160.57 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sociopathy as a clinical diagnosis is very difficult to establish. It's an easy word to toss around colloquially, of course - anyone who behaves in ways we despise must necessarily be a sociopath - but that's not particularly meaningful. One does not have to be a sociopath to commit mass murder (and in fact, most mass murders are rage killings, which are unrelated to sociopathy). --Ludwigs2 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps sociopathy, mass murder and genocide would be helpful here. In many cases, it is easy to establish. What is colloquial to you may be common knowledge to most people. Dualus (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of Hypocrisy is a survival technique used by many. The failure to use it or the objection of its use may be considered insane, especially by those who rely upon hypocrisy for survival. According to all accounts it appears that Hitler was not a hypocrite (possibly with rare exception) since he reiterated in private what he said in public and vice versa. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germans I know tend to describe Hitler as "crazy" and that he brought "disaster" upon Germany. That's a way of scapegoating Hitler. If he was crazy, then he had a large equally-crazy following. He was not insane, he was merely evil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, being responsible for the deaths of so many people without it seeming to bother him would suggest sociopathic behavior, but I am not a psychiatrist. Googlemeister (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of ideology and distance has let many a world leader sleep peacefully despite oceans of blood on their hands. Ideology justifies the most horrific of crimes. Distance allows one to disassociate with the realities of such bloodshed. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a study looking into whether people with sociopathic tendencies might self select for ideological world leaders? Googlemeister (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of questions are a consequence of reading history though the outdated Great Man theory. The Holocaust and the military expantionism of Germany are the result of several social, political and economic causes, not just the will of a single man. Hitler, as any other leader in the world, does not act "on his own", but as the head of a number of factions that rquired the emergence of a leader like him.

Have in mind that I'm not defending Hitler, I'm defending the correct understanding of history. This perspective applies to any national leader or historical event. To think that WWII and the Holocaust took place because Hitler was crazy (which also means that if he wasn't then none of it would have happened), is just a gross oversimplification of a highly complex scenario. Cambalachero (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the most decidedly "big factors" historian recognizes that individuals do matter, though, when they get into positions of great influence because of said big factors. A world without Hitler probably would have played out very differently than a world with him. It doesn't mean Hitler the individual was everything — he couldn't have gotten into the place he was without those "big factors" — but to underestimate the importance of powerful individuals is just as silly as thinking that history is composed of nothing but powerful individuals. Most practicing historians try to take a fairly balanced approach to these sorts of things. Sometimes individuals matter; sometimes they don't. I think Hitler is among the few who truly mattered. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's physician Theodor Morell thought Hitler had syphilis, a disease that in its late stages can cause mental problems. However, proof seems to be lacking, and some people have questioned Morell's competence. Cardamon (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read this article by Michael Ignatieff recently, which is relevant:

Killing all Jews is not crazy: It is a plan that will make you master of all you survey.... There is method in apparent madness. The world is not divided between a sane world of deliberative politics and an insane world of apocalyptic violence. It is all politics, all the way down. To call a terrorist attack “senseless” is merely to admit that you have not understood its purpose.

--130.216.69.121 (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions revealing attributes of Adolph Hitler

Is there a comprehensive list of attribute questions, such as Was Hitler insane? with single word or short phrase answers? --DeeperQA (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to imagine there could be. What do you count as comprehensive? Here's a start:

Was Hitler right-handed? Yes.

Did Hitler have a silly moustache? Yes.

Did Hitler like Wagner? Yes.

Did Hitler like dogs? Yes.

Did Hitler like Jews? No.

Did Hitler like mustard gas? No.

Did Hitler like World War I? No.

The humor in such a list draws from its silliness as a concept. You can type "Was Hitler" or "Did Hitler" into Google and see what other people have often asked when it "auto-suggests" based on popular searches (Was Hitler Jewish? Was Hitler gay? Was Hitler a vegetarian? Did Hitler have one testicle?), but that's about it. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "comprehensive list" is more likely to result in attributes that along with the silly stuff includes one or more attributes which can be compared to others. For instance: Was Jesus a Hypocrite? No. How about Hitler? uh.. guess not. His private statements, beliefs and feelings, as far as we know, where not different than those which he made public. --DeeperQA (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? That Hitler Has Only Got One Ball? Or are we talking about Hitler's possible monorchism. ^Avic _ennasis @ 17:32, 12 Tishrei 5772 / 17:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hitler supposedly was a vegetarian, which some have used to ridicule vegetarianism. However, he was a vegetarian because it was easier on his system. So he at least made one good choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference, please (for the claim that he was vegetarian because it was easier on his system)? And discrediting vegetarianism based on Hitler is like saying that toilets are evil because Hitler used one. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE

See Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism. ^Avic _ennasis @ 17:36, 12 Tishrei 5772 / 17:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We generally write things in sentences on Wikipedia. So if Hitler does not include evidence of delusions about his leadership skill and eugenics, sociopathy, and criminal murder, then please add them. They are not difficult to find in reliable secondary sources. 69.171.160.57 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't already have one (there wasn't the last time I checked), an article on Hitler's mental health and/or psychology would make for fascinating reading. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before that article gets made. We seem to have endless curiousity about Mr. Hitler; from his political and religious views, his directives, to his sexuality and celebration of his 50th birthday - not to mention his possible monorchism or his personal standard. We follow him all the way to his death and the concerns of his Last will and testament. We even look for people based on their connection to Hitler; of course there is Adolf Hitler's father and Adolf Hitler's mother, but we also are concerned about Adolf Hitler's driver and even Adolf Hitler's dog. ^Avic _ennasis @ 17:55, 12 Tishrei 5772 / 17:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were he living nowadays, he would probably have frequent appearances on the cover of People. "This year's 50 most fascinating despots." And stuff like, "Grünen Riesen - The official canned vegetables of the Nazi Party." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich written by the German, William L. Shirer. According to that book Hitler required daily injection of Amphetamine.μηδείς (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shirer was American surely, like so many natives of Chicago? DuncanHill (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. The fact that Shirer is a Sioux Indian name should have given away his American ethnic background. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You called him a German. He wasn't. He was born in (that is to say, a native of) Chicago. He was brought up in America and was an American citizen all his life. By what stretch of the imagination did you get from those facts to calling him a German? DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I did read it. Great book, and unwieldy (over a thousand pages). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 14:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shirer's work was certainly a tome in its day; it is now dated and it does have some errors in it; I would highly recommend Kershaw, Ian (2008), Hitler: A Biography, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-06757-2 or the original two part work of the above bio.: Hitler: 1889–1936: Hubris, ISBN 0393046710 and Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis, ISBN 0393322521. The nice thing about the original two volume work of Kershaw's is the fact the books have detailed footnote sections for the chapters which is missing in the later one volume work. Kershaw gives the most current detailed bio on Hitler and is objectively written. Kierzek (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso/La Pasionaria

Did Picasso ever do any pictures of Dolores Ibarruri (La Pasionaria)? --superioridad ^(discusión) 03:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen many paintings by Picasso, but a painting by him of la Pasionaria doesn't ring any bells with me. Also, I've googled for a while and didn't find a picture of her by Picasso. The odds are he didn't, but I haven't found anything that clearly proves he did not. --Belchman (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding putting Native Americans into a fictional work?

So I would like to write a fiction book about a boy who accidentally tampers with an ancient Native American burial ground, causing him to summon a spirit who casts him a spell to remain 10 years old for the next 90 years.

Someone suggested that "you would tick off the Native Americans like you have never seen!"

So how about if I put down the name of a tribe that never existed ("Yuthoda" tribe) or a tribe that no longer exists (Yahi tribe)? I understand that the Comanche tribe could get ticked at involving them in a fictional work, but will I be safe if I involve a tribe that no longer is, or has never been, around?

Also, if any author is to involve a real-world Indian tribe in any fiction book, how can they go about it so as not to grab their ire? --70.179.174.63 (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try researching actual Native American beliefs, and representing them accurately and not doing the Scooby Doo version? This would go a long way. He iro 04:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

This is probably a good idea regardless. Even if you do go the route of making up a fictional "extinct tribe", it would probably still be a good idea to make it as close as possible to a local tribe. For believability reasons if nothing else.

I'm not sure if it completely addresses 70.179's concerns though. I doubt many actual tribes went around cursing people to stay ten years old for ninety years.

You might just have to live with the fact that if you mention an ethnicity, you're going to piss some people off. Besides, you should be so lucky! Controversy never fails to sell books. APL (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

If you're going to make up a tribe why not make up a whole people/civilization, or borrow one, say Atlantians, or the "Welsh Indians" of Madoc. Pfly (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It'd be a bit of a stretch to have an Atlantian burial ground in North America. In fact, it'd be surprising to have an Atlantian burial ground above sea level! APL (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the issue here is triteness more than anything. Obviously if you mention a real existing tribe, you will come across as at best ignorant and at worst a bigot. The real problem is that the "Indian Burial Ground" is about as tired a trope as you can get. Take a look at this. When this trope is used today it is almost always used in a tongue in cheek manner. It seems that this curse is just a device to allow the rest of the story to happen, so it could easily be changed without changing the rest of the story much. If I were you I'd come up with another way for the person to be stuck at 10 years old, something readers haven't seen hundreds of times. --Daniel 15:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about radiation? I think that has been used slightly less than burial ground curses. -- kainaw ™ 16:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe mischievous aliens, that hasn't been done much either. He iro 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could take a leaf out of Groundhog Day's book, conclude that there's no emotionally satisfying explanation you can use, so turn it into magical realism by not giving an explanation. Notice also that Big doesn't dwell on what actually happened and how. I think people overestimate how much set-up they need for these things, when you often get a better result by throwing the first chapter away. If you use an Indian Burial Ground, or Radiation, or Aliens, or Magical Elves, or whatever, you will generally write something viewed as pulp/B-movie stuff. You want to write a story about a boy stuck at 10 for 90 years, and you don't actually care how it happens, but any explanation will stick your story in an arbitrary genre. So don't explain it, or leave it vague.

There's no point writing an explanation if it doesn't contribute to the story you want to tell. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of places in Kentucky and Tenesssee which have indian mounds which cannot be strictly identified with modern indian tribes. See the map at http://starling.rinet.ru/maps/maps16.php?lan=en which shows an empty white spot for that area, see also http://www.freelang.net/families/maps/early-indian-languages.jpg and do a google map search to find "indian mound kentucky" and "indian mound tennessee" as places where modernly unknown tribes could have existed. Let me know if you want more help on the issue.μηδείς (talk)

Not just Kentucky and Tennessee — see the Ratcliffe Mound and Roberts Mound in Ohio, both of which (due to the lack of excavation and their unusual locations) haven't been identified as belonging to any specific mound building culture. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be not only due to a lack of excavation but also due to the fact that the natives simply died off sometime afte Columbus and before that bastard Andrew Jackson. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be relevant comparative evidence. My guess, based on thier advance culture, is that they were Muskogean Mississippians. But no proof.μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(aside on this point) It's also the case that many of these mounds were built long long before Columbus and their builders and purpose were largely forgotten by the time historical documentation arrived. In many cases the people who had built the mounds had long been displaced by other peoples. Pfly (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, many Indian mounds were not for burial purposes. We do have List of burial mounds in the United States. Still, I agree with others above that unless the cause of the spell in the story is important to the story, it is probably better to leave the specifics vague. Pfly (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point regarding the "burial mounds" is not whether they were actually burial mounds, but that they exist at all and are not incontrovertibly linked with known cultures. That seems helpful to the OP to me. μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. And I suppose "spirits" may be summoned up from any old which where... Pfly (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barthélémy Lauvergne

Who was Barthélémy Lauvergne and when was he in Hawaii?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No article on him as of yet, but see this image file [1]. He iro 05:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At last, a question of yours I can answer! Barthélémy Lauvergne was a painter, printmaker and lithographer, born in Toulon in 1805 (the precise date is disputed). He embarked for Australia in 1826 on the French exploration ship Astrolabe, serving as secretary to its captain Jules Dumont d'Urville. He visited various points on the Australian coast on that ship and on HMS Favourite, then in 1836 sailed for Hawaii on the corvette La Bonite, captained by Auguste-Nicolas Vaillant. Returning to France he lived in Paris and then Toulon, dying in Toulon in either 1871 or 1875. My sources ([2] [3] [4]) give more details. --Antiquary (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republican baby boom in Northern Ireland?

Why don't the Catholics/Republicans start a massive natural reproduction campaign in Northern Ireland to achieve a Catholic majority and win an eventual reunification referendum? Catholics are currently 40% of the population and about half of those support a united Ireland, so that could be achieved in just a few generations. This strategy was successfully used by Albanians in Kosovo and is currently increasing the percentage of Haredim in Israel dramatically. --Belchman (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is sort happening by itself anyway. I think there is a silent understanding in UK politics that this is the longterm development, and that the status of N. Ireland will be renegotiated at some point. --Soman (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because it's rather expensive and a life-changing event to have a child. And unless you can get a large number of other people to do it simultaneously, it would be a colossal waste of time and effort. I suspect that most Catholics in Northern Ireland are not sufficiently bothered about independence to take such a drastic step, and as you correctly recognise not all Catholics support unification (I wonder, with Ireland's recent financial strife, if it is becoming less popular). By comparison, killing most of the Protestants would also be a way to achieve demographic goals, but few people are currently attempting this either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what would stop Protestants from carrying out their own baby boom to counterbalance that of the Republicans? It's not as if Protestants/loyalists/Unionists lack reproductive organs - On the contrary!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing them, I'm afraid that's exactly what they would do :-) --Belchman (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is another caveat: people emigrate too. And if the Catholic population in NI is economically weaker, they will emigrate more. Quest09 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soman is probably right: "Statisticians predict both communities will achieve close to parity in size... Some foresee an eventual Catholic majority (albeit slight). However, as of 2005 most statisticians predict that Protestants will continue to slightly outnumber Catholics in Northern Ireland as a whole for some time to come." This is from our Demography and politics of Northern Ireland article. This blog (which may not be unbiased), presents a mass of statistics and concludes "In simplistic terms, there are more Catholic mothers each year, and each of them will have more children than their Protestant sisters. In the long-term this will ensure that the Catholic proportion of births continues to increase, and the Protestant proportion to decline." Make of that what you will. This lengthy thesis supports the parity scenario. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much difference between the communities in their views on birth control and having children so your 'plan' wouldn't work on that basis. The main difference during the troubles was that the unionists tended to emigrate more because of their British identity. There's some indication that difference may be much reduced now but the main thing that would stabilize the situation long term would be for them all to take on a Northern Ireland identity rather than Irish and British. If that doesn't happen then yes it is entirely possible that at some stage there would be an abrupt departure of a large part of the unionist population like there was in the south which I consider was a big loss to Ireland never mind the loss of their heritage for the people involved. Dmcq (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely to happen. See Demographic-economic paradox, aka the "Paradox of prosperity" (or one of them). On the balance, people who are more prosperous have less children, and this tends to hold across religion, politics, and anything else. Small, isolated populations are sometimes able to increase fertility for a generation or two, and there are isolated examples of individual families having large numbers of children within prosperous societies (see Jim Bob Duggar), but such occurances don't really have a great effect on the overall fertility of large populations. In a modern society, the socio-economic pressures to have small families will overcome politics. You'd have to convince all of the several hundred thousand N. Irish catholics that having large families for several generations is the way to go; and hope that in all that time politics and economics and society doesn't change dramatically to make the effort moot. Most of those people are just busy living their own lives, and probably aren't that interested in having lots of children just to further the political goals of some faction or another. Some will, but probably not enough to have enough of an effect to matter. --Jayron32 12:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this the key to understanding the differences in demographic growth. The differences in birth rates of Catholics and Protestants in N. Ireland lie in economic disparities. But do you think socio-economic cleavages between Protestants and Catholics will disappear in the near future? --Soman (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this thread makes me want to go and watch Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Whether people go to university in Britain makes more difference now. The economic differences are small and never were very large, it was more that unionist workers considered themselves middle class. Dmcq (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If non-class stratification (race, gender, ethnicity, religiousity) works in NI the way it works in most other European culture capitalist societies, then I'd suggest that even where unionist and republican workers shared other similar characteristics (length of training, industry, blue/white collar), that the myriad of ways in which one job can suck, and another cannot, probably means that whomever wasn't the same as the local ruling class got shit jobs, shit pay, and a brutal work discipline. These "factory floor" issues are just as economic as any other. And within the working class in general, such small levels of pay and quality of life disparity (when compared to the income, of for example, senior management or an owner) can amplify or cause real divisions. Taylor's payment system, and Ford's payment by "skill" system rely upon the massive cleavages in class solidarity that small pay and condition differences can make. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidence of rape among homosexuals

Has there ever been any studies into the rates/percentages of rape occurring amongst homosexuals living in homosexual communities? Specifically gays raping gays versus lesbians raping lesbians. Keep in mind this should not include prison rape which is usually perpetrated by heterosexuals. 198.151.130.133 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has sex with men, for me, he's at least bisexual, even if he do not identify as such. Quest09 (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Bisexuality, Homosexuality, Prison rape in the United States, Prison sexuality, Sexual orientation identity, Situational sexual behavior, Situational offender and Sexual orientation and then perhaps explain the relevence of your personal beliefs to the OP? Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, read that all? No, I was not answering the question, but just putting a note on it. I don't want to get that deep into it. And yes, I know that there are Men who have sex with men and do not define as homosexual. But for me it's a logical impossibility. What you do is what you are, not what you believe you are. There are no heterosexual men raping men. In the same line, what would you say of a child rapist who is not a pederast? Quest09 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether "homosexual" defines the action or the identity. If you can be a homosexual who doesn't have sex with men (which I suspect you can acknowledge exists quite frequently), then "homosexual" doesn't define the activity but the identity. You can similarly imagine a male who has sex with women regularly but who is not really "heterosexual". Similarly you can imagine people who have sex with nobody yet still fall into one of those two categories. Some descriptors are purely about the action (like pederast, or murderer, or snowboarder), some are about an identity. It is a subtle but important difference. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone can identify as homosexual and do not have homosexual sex. However, this person is being coherent, he is just admitting that he has homosexual desires. Homosexual rapist should also be coherent and admit they are "not really "heterosexual"." Wikiweek (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the question is, are you trying to force people into boxes that you've decided exist ahead of time, or are you trying to figure out where they fit in practice? Because human sexual practices do not break into neat categories of "homosexual," "heterosexual," and "bisexual." It's much more woolly territory. The articles discuss this in some depth. It's not a matter of political correctness so much as "actually trying to understand the spectrum of human sexuality." --Mr.98 (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a point Wikiweek is probably missing is that some male who rape other males in prison and similar situations may have no real desire to rape or have sex with another man. They may much rather have sex (consensual or not) with a woman. But if none is available for a very long time, raping a man may be acceptable to them as a way for them to satisfy their urges. (Note this is a very simplistic analysis on purpose, rape may also be about things like power.) Similarly some men have sex with men for payment, whether in porn or as a sex worker despite having little or no sexual attraction to men. Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I think you chose the wrong term Q09. There are many child rapists who wouldn't be considered pederasts by the common usage of that term (e.g. someone who rapes a girl and it's also questionable of someone who rapes a 5 year old boy is a pederast as well). I think you meant paedophile Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on this. Both terms are different. Most people tend to confuse both terms, and use them alternatively.Wikiweek (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wide-ranging, but see:

Note that in some of those, the perpetrators actually identify as heterosexual, particularly in cases of group rape. It's also a particularly difficult subject to delimit and study, as unlike heterosexual rapes, victims of same-sex rapes outside the context of intimate relationships can not often identify the orientation of the perpetrator with much confidence. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out that rape is primarily an act of violence, not an expression of sexual attraction. Consequently, the object of a rapist's violence is not an obvious indication of his preferred sexual partner. For example, a man primarily interested in sex with other men may be capable of raping a woman as an act of violence. Likewise, a heterosexual man may be capable of raping another man as a way of violating him. Marco polo (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I just said. The OP asked for instances where orientation is clearcut. And I just pointed out that it's particularly difficult to know that in same-sex rapes (where quite a large number are done out of homophobia - simply a way to degrade a [perceived] homosexual victim).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that all rape is more of an expression of violence than sexual attraction. Would that hold true for date rape? How about rape among animals? 67.6.175.132 (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet has an article today on a woman convicted of raping another woman, http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article13763208.ab --Soman (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time actually spent in combat

I distinctly remember reading somewhere a few years ago that conversely to the popular perception, most soldiers in the Second World War actually spent a large proportion of their active duty time waiting in foxholes, and most of the combat was usually limited to exchanging limited fire for short amounts of time, usually a few hours (compared to what video games show let's say). I believe that the said statement compared this to the past situation in Vietnam and the current one in Iraq, arguing that American soldiers in Iraq were more relied upon, and therefore more susceptible to combat fatigue as a result. Any ideas about a possible source? Raskolkhan (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Trench warfare. It was actually far more prevalent in the WWI and most iconic in the Battle of Verdun. In WW2 it became somewhat obsolete as Nazis circumvented it with Blitzkrieg tactics-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does being on the receiving end of a artillary barrage count as being in combat?
Sleigh (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the difference in combat fatigue would also be because earlier wars had fronts, so that when you got leave and left the front, you could relax. In modern wars you aren't safe anywhere, so are in a sense always in combat, whether anyone is firing at you or not. StuRat (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because world war II bombers only dropped bombs on the front lines? Googlemeister (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My statement about foxholes was more about conveying the idea that troops actually spent most their time reading books and talking with their peers, and other related leisure activities, rather than actually fighting. In fact, the link you posted about Trench Warfare demonstrates this (however there seems to be no source): "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Trench_warfare#World_War_I:_Life_in_the_trenches"

Found something: The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.

http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html

The last comparison is a bit misleading. The WWII Pacific Campaign was primarily a naval war, and the average infantryman in the South Pacific probably spent a fair bit of time in transit between islands. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hardcastle's song "Nineteen" while drawing data from probably the same sources addresses this issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That and a 1 year tour in Vietnam would probably be a lot more survivable then a 1 year tour in WW2 Pacific, what with the high casualty rate storming beaches tends to incur. Googlemeister (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would I qoute a letter that I found in an archive?

I recently went to the archives at the Royal Geographic Society in London and found a letter that would be benficial to a wikipedia article. Ciclismo91 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, primary source research of this sort is frowned upon on Wikipedia — it is considered original research, which is forbidden. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could write a book about it, get it published and then persuade someone else to quote it for you ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what it is and how accessible (i.e. verifiable) it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely forbidden - you could still use it as a reference if it relates to the letter, a bit like Jones was in Sometown on 3 August 1892 when he wrote a letter to Smith (and ref the letter) what you cant do is interpret or assume anything from the letter like Jones was not happy and he begged Smith for money is made up and original research. So as bugs says it all depends on what you want to use the letter for. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If one were to cite an archival letter — which again I would be very cautious about, and frankly don't recommend (as a trained historian, I am pretty dubious about amateur usage of archival sources) — there is no single accepted Wikipedia citation style for this, and no pre-made templates. I would do it this way, personally, just because it is straightforward, has all of the useful information, and jibes with scholarly convention:

John Smith to John Doe (15 March 1921), National Archives of Wherever (City of Whatever, Country of Wherever), John Smith Collection (MSS 40504), Box 6, Folder 3.

Or something along those lines. What's important is the full information about who wrote it (and to whom), the date, the name of the archives, the location of the archives, the name of the collection (and its identification number, if it has one), the box, the folder. (If the folder has a name rather than a number, use the name. If it had both, use both.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But don't waste your time: such a citation could, should, and probably would be removed from a Wikipedia article. It's sometimes acceptable to cite primary sources on Wikipedia, but it's never acceptable to cite unpublished primary sources (such as a letter in an archive). Wikipedians too often confuse the roles of writing history and writing an encyclopedia article. If you're thinking of citing an archival letter on Wikipedia, you're confused about what it is we do here.

A better route is to communicate with a blog, website, or historian who might be interested in this letter. You might find that historians have long known about the letter but don't find it significant enough to specifically cite. (Happens all the time.) You might find that historians have already cited this letter. In this case, you can track down a secondary source that cites the letter and cite it instead. (Been there, done that.) You might find that historians consider the letter to be unreliable, inauthentic, or otherwise problematic. (Yes, it happens.) Determining the reliability and importance of archival material is the job of historians, not Wikipedians. —Kevin Myers 01:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other historians have adequately covered the fact that this is original research from primary sources and unacceptable on Wikipedia. I'd even say that the idea that the claimed author wrote it in the claimed place on the claimed date is original research, I certainly wouldn't make this claim based on a single document. To cite archives see Mr.98's example: What the Document is (When it was created), Who holds the collection (And where), What the collection is called (And its code number), Box and Folder numbers. Remember to ask your friendly archivist about how to cite their archives, they'll have examples. Archivists are probably my favourite information professional, and I like information professionals a lot. My suggestion on using the information you believe you've discovered: write it up and get it published in a reliable source! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble finding primary sources for the water & steam power thesis

The thesis is: "While water power formed the basis of the first Industrial Revolution, it took steam and railroading to mark the border between the first and the second Industrial Revolution."

The sources I found were considered "secondary sources" and he wants three primary sources.

With "James Watt" as a beacon for the direction to take, which of his works would back up this thesis? Thanks. --129.130.98.221 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But secondary sources are more accurate. I guess you should try to find a newspaper clippings database going back that far. Didn't the New York Times recently put all their OCRed back issues online? Goodness knows I've probably typed in at least a foot high stack of their stuff in reCaptcha. 67.6.175.132 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to find online newspaper clippings going back to the first industrial revolution, or James Watt... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See scholarly histories of science and technology such as The Unbound Prometheus which is exactly on this topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then read the footnotes to find appropriate primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it would take a lot more than three primary sources to support the point. 300 perhaps. You could refer to Watt's patents or his letters, but they wouldn't show that his work was the boundary between 1st and 2nd industrial revolutions. Watt didn't even know what an industrial revolution was. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He may have:Industrial revolution#Name history shows the term was in use in his lifetime. Rmhermen (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no idea how you'd support this point through the accumulation of primary sources, it seems to hang off a number of theoretical elements (motive force as the distinguishing characteristic, the validity of the Unbound Prometheus periodisation, the exclusion of Thompsonian class formation concerns...) primary sources look like they would be illustrative here. Actually didn't water as a motive force affect different industries to steam? So there's no continuum for primary sources in like industries for a motive force analysis. Maybe going to _economic_ histories and checking for their primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you need the sources for a school or college paper, and not for a Wikipedia article (unlike school, for a Wikipedia article, we prefer secondary sources). My advice (echoing that of Fifelfoo) is to go to the library and find secondary sources on the first and second industrial revolutions... and then look at the bibliography and footnotes to see which primary sources the authors used. Then try to track down those sources and see if they can support your thesis. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trick about finding useful primary sources for this kind of thesis will be making sure they are very narrow. Because you can't do this entire argument with primary sources — it'd be quite a lot, and take mastery of the material that you don't have. What you could do is try to find examples illustrating different ways of living or thinking during this period. For this specific example (which I admit is not really my period of expertise), you might think about your three primary sources in a chronological way — one before the steam engine and railroad, one in the middle of it, one after the change had happened.

Primary sources need not come out of archives. You can find lots on the web, in the form of books or pamphlets that were published at the time.

One thing that comes to mind is to look at something like The Wealth of Nations, which is very much a "first industrial revolution" sort of document (pin factories and other economies of scale, rather than transportation or power). One could then look for something like, oh, a passage from Marx when he talks about the railroads and the differences it brought, or even a novel by Elizabeth Gaskell (many of which have to do with the industrial revolution—North and South, for example). Just ideas. These would illustrate changes in how contemporaries discussed things. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]