Humanities desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

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.

December 30

Hearing, but not comprehending.

I recently replaced "hearer" with "listener", as in someone to whom a speaker speaks. Curious whether "hearer" is a word at all, I typed it into the search box and was sent to Pederasty in ancient Greece. It doesn't appear in the article. Is there a connection I'm missing, or should the redirect be pointed to something about hearing? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. User:Tyciol, who created the apparently senseless and vandalistic redirect in 2006, has been indefinitely blocked. I've redirected the redirect to Hearing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He also did it with the word inspirer. It's not in the article either and is not a standard English word. Think I'll get it CSD'd. Weird types you meet here in WP. Matt Deres (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hearer" should probably be a disambiguation page, since "hearers" were a group in Manichaeism... AnonMoos (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then again truthiness wasn't a word when Wikipedia started out, but I agree about the "weird types" that somehow invent words that are now somehow encyclopedic! :P ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louis of Spain

Who was the Louis of Spain mentioned at Joanna of Flanders#Fight back? Was he a Castilian noble or infante of Castile?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm the person who just added his name to the article, I'll answer the question. It was Luis de la Cerda. I see that Louis of Spain currently redirects to Louis I of Spain. Perhaps it should be a disambiguation page. Paul B (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern War Criminals

Many in the German High Command in WW2 were sentenced to death for war crimes. Many of these people were executed by the British executioner Albert Pierrepoint. Now, in those days, the UK had the death sentence, but now we do not. Should there be another major European war, what would happen to the alleged war criminals, considering the death sentence does not exist in the UK, but does still exist in the US? This is complete speculation, and highly unlikely, but let's say it was a remake of WW2, just for the sake of the discussion. Basically, I'm asking about a possible European war in which both the US and UK are involved as the major western forces. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect if millions were murdered again, that the death penalty would be reinstated, at least for war criminals. StuRat (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reopening this question, Andy, because it can be answered in light of the wars in the Balkans, during the 1990s. NATO was involved in peacekeeping, and there were war criminals in those wars, and in particular in the Srebrenica massacre. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you've apparently got your answer, no? μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Criminal Court? -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, disposing of characters such as Isoroku Yamamoto and Osama bin Laden during war time saves the time and expense of these international courts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but doing it during wartime, someone else is guaranteed to fill their shoes. It's better to monitor the devil, than to risk having an even bigger devil take control. I was talking about post-war, anyway. How would they be dealt with in a war against multiple countries, which each have their own laws and views on the death sentence? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As we go further away from "conventional" warfare and nation-based enemies, the task becomes more difficult. Some said we should have captured Bin Laden instead of assassinating him. But then what do you do with him? However, we're still at war with al-Qaeda... and may be for generations to come. Supposing someone like Assad were captured instead of being killed, it would be interesting to see how it would be handled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the handling of Slobodan Milošević may provide some clues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What seems very peculiar, really, is that though executions are often done unnecessarily based on "moral" considerations, any reasonable explanation for them would seem far more practically oriented. Neither execution nor life imprisonment is a good thing to do to someone; both are weighed against worse things that one supposes will happen if they're not done. (Utilitarianism of some variety) Organizations like Al Qaida and the Mexican cartels are simply very good at getting their people back out of jail; and I should think that executions would be the response of a weak government that lacks confidence in its ability to imprison an offender. However, in practice, it seems like the weaker governments often don't dare to do the executions, while the stronger ones often do with no conceivable benefit, let alone justification. I tend to doubt there's any science of it at all. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In America, at least, executions are done primarily for one practical reason: Permanent removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think there could be different opinions on that. Permanent removal is obviously a result of an execution, but I have a feeling that revenge and punishment rate pretty highly as reasons too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the always useful 'make an example out of' and 'chilling effect' that a public execution has on mass psychology. For instance, Vlad the Impaler meant his executions to be so public that almost 600 years later some still fear 'crossing him'.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Jan

Does anybody know who these are supposed to represent? Louis IX of France had many brothers named Philip and John. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an email to the church website; will let you know if there is a response.

In the meantime, perhaps someone will translate the Latin for you in case that helps. The original image is labelled: "TOMBE de cuivre jaune au milieu de choeur de l'Eglise de N.D. de Poissy. Elles est de PHILIPES et de JEAN DE FRANCE freres du Roy St. Louis, et autour sont escrites ces vers." (French: "Yellow copper tomb in the middle of the choir of the church Notre Dame de Poissy. They show Philip and John of France, brothers of the King St. Louis, and these verses are written around the edge.")

Bustorum Comitum cujusdam nomen avitum,

Gratia dat reliquo BLANCA nati et LUDOVICO,

Regibus hi nati, ne non Reges habeantur

Vite morte dati celesti sede locantur. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin doesn't really help, unfortunately...is it definitely Philip and John? How do we know? Could it be his twin brothers John and Alphonse, who died at birth? (These two don't look like babies, though...) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of the "original image" (link given by 184.147.128.82) mentions "Philipes et Jean de France". This drawing was part of the collection of Roger de Gaignières (1642-1715). Yet, this link gives: "Les deux frères de Saint Louis Alphonse et Jean (morts en bas âge) ont été ensevelis dans le choeur de l'église sous une dalle de cuivre jaune, où apparaissait une inscription en latin. Cette plaque disparaîtra pendant la révolution en 1794." The two brothers of St. Louis Alphonse and Jean (who died when they were infants) were burried in the choir of the church under a yellow copper ledger where there was an inscription in Latin. This plate disappeared during the revolution in 1794. The link gives also a quote: "Il y avait, sous la dalle, deux petits cercueils de pierre, côte à côte, maçonnés dans la terre. On y découvrit des ossements d'enfants..., les frères jumeaux de Saint Louis.", but without the name of its author. There was under the ledger two small stone coffins, side by side, [maçonnés?] in the clay. Children bones were discovered there..., the twin brothers of St. Louis. — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very likely. I did receive a return email, but not with an answer but with further email addresses to try. Given the time difference this may take another couple of days for another response but I will post if I receive one and can confirm this. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this image would deserve an article on its own, for generations of historians tried to analyze and translate the Latin text bustorum comitum etc and to identify the persons, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --91.50.2.98 (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.W. Dible - Kansas City Star

Does anyone have an account to review the Kansas City Star archives? I am looking for any information on Napoleon William Dible and/or his construction firm, N.W. Dible Company which I believe is now called Hickok-Dible. I had a link to an article at the KCS but my link was deleted when the original stub & talk pages were CSD'd with an "A7" code just as I was starting to resume work on it. I also have found the following items so far:

copy of a KCS article by Stacy Downs including vague attribution but not a verifiable link to the actual article

UPDATE: I have been able to identify that this article was published as "THE TUDOR REVIVAL: Old English design found a champion in Kansas City" on pages 10 & 12 of the 31 December 2004 issue of the Kansas City Star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly6697 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THE ABOVE IS WHAT I NEED FROM THE KCS ARCHIVES plus anything else helpful would be appreciated.

F6697^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215}_TALK 04:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get an answer here you could try over at Wikipedia:Resource requests. Thincat (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good news: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request page exists exactly for this sort of question and the folks over there are amazing. They have access to all kinds of paywall-protected databases. You can simply copy-paste this question there and they are usually quite prompt to respond. Good luck! 184.147.128.82 (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Historic Westheight" and "What's a Dible Tudor?" blog articles are simply abridged versions of the Rockhill Gardens page. The "offline biography" is literally the 1 1/2-page PDF the link goes to, not an actual book; the KC library system maintains a collection of local biography PDFs on their website. I submitted the deletion request, because Dible simply doesn't meet notability guidelines. He owned a home construction company that built the styles of houses that were popular in the US at the time. In 2004, he was posthumously mentioned in the D section of the local paper in relation to his company (which is also non-notable). In 1985, a local neighborhood newsletter wrote an article about him (your other "offline resource"). In 1906, he patented a quack device for regrowing hair. He's not well-known in KC, though I admit my evidence for proving that negative claim is anecdotal: I live there (about 20 blocks away from the Rockhill Gardens area that reprinted the Star article) and I've never heard of him nor the phrase "Dible-built", which sounds far more like advertising than an actual phrase someone would use in conversation. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion of sympathy

People often see those who lack sympathy for given negative situations as cold or blunt but I've always thought that sympathy is something which only offers temporary comfort to someone who is suffering and does very little in the long term. Is there any documented scientific evidence to support this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clover345 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathy means "feeling together." Define what you mean by "does very little in the long term." What would you prefer it to do in the long term? Do you have examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read up on the importance of empathy and sympathy (not to be confused with superficial sympathy).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And for further reading on the long-term effects of sympathy you could try these papers. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathy alone does nothing, but if it gets the person who feels sympathetic to help the object of sympathy, then it may do some good, and the situation may be reversed in the future, and both parties may well come out ahead. For example, if one person was starving while another had plenty of food, and decided to share some, perhaps later the giver will receive food. This could happen, say, if both people are subsistence farmers but grow different crops, and some years favor one crop while other years favor another. StuRat (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathy demonstrates empathy. Not showing it has potential to hurt the person who does not sympathize, depending on the situation. This article is discusses the issue: it mentions how a person with a lack of empathy can appear, as you say, cold and blunt. That type of attitude can burn bridges and hurt feelings, making it difficult for one to maintain potentially useful relationships, though it isn't necessarily always a bad thing. My feeling is that a little empathy can go a long way. Ultimately, treating people and emotions as logical just doesn't work. We aren't. Mingmingla (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It goes way deeper than that since it is bound up with mercy, something that is not just a suggestion but even a requirement according to some writings. 71.246.151.82 (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Treating people and emotions as logical doesn't work if one is assuming that notions like sympathy and empathy are necessarily symmetrically together bound. Sympathy can be assumed in the abstract regarding a given situation, yet be wrong regarding the related persons' position, feelings and genuine interests in the situation. So yes, mercy is the manner to be able to find the way to some empathy deliberately; an other manner has all the chances of burying most of the have/have-not antagonism born from attention behind the anecdotic view and recalling of the encounter. --Askedonty (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should however humbly admit, this was also somehow a little bit merging sympathy with superficial sympathy in non observance of Shantavira's previous prescription over above. --Askedonty (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]