Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 May 6

= May 6 =

Wars
What's the most trivial war ever fought? 99.226.26.154 (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you mean "trivial", but no war can be trivial if even one person is hurt in it. The Anglo-Zanzibar War lasted 38 minutes, so maybe that will do. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, no war is entirely trivial; but as for trivial causes you could look at the War of Jenkins' Ear. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Pig War in which only one tasty pig was killed. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War appears not only to be a protracted but also a trivial war – although I'm not sure it qualifies, as it does not quite satisfy the requirement that it has been fought. --Lambiam 01:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can have a "trivial war," because war, by definition, involves killing people. But wars can be fought over trivial things. The casus belli for the Franco-Prussian War was something completely absurd. The resulting war killed tens of thousands of people and changed the balance of power in Europe for generations. In 1999, India and Pakistan fought a war over a chunk of largely uninhabitable and useless mountain terrain. In 1925, Greece and Bulgaria fought something called the War of the Stray Dog. Then there's the Pastry War of 1838, which led to a French occupation of Mexico. (Mexico?) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a remark on the Kargil War of 1999: uninhabitable, yes. Useless, no. The heights looked down on a crucial road connecting Srinagar and Ladakh. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Depending on your definition of "war", take a look at WP:LAME. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 03:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Football War comes to mind. While the Wikipedia article claims that the casus belli was not the outcome of an international soccer game, it does point out that both countries involved could be considered to have lost the war. (Or am I confusing "most trivial" with "most pathetic"?) -- llywrch (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the Cod War, although it might not quite meet your definition of having been fought.HS7 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I meant war started over the most trivial matter. 99.226.26.154 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then the Ear must surely have it! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely it must. But wasn't that war actually fought over British attempts at imperialism, with the ear incident just being a convenient excuse. In which case I would like to renominate the Cod war as having the most trivial cause. That is, of course, if you consider food to be less important that sorting out which government officially owns which bits of land.HS7 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It grew out of Anglo-Spanish commercial rivalry. But I was focusing not on the conflict itself, or its root causes, but on the monumental triviality of the casus belli, Robert Jenkins' pickled ear!  The course of the ensuing conflict was not in the least amusing, widening, as it did, into the War of the Austrian Succession.  As far as the Cod War is concerned, I completely disagree that the causes were in any way trivial, despite the silly and inflated name given to the episode by the press.  After all, Iceland was attempting to defend what was, in practice, the central and defining part of its economic life.  We are now all too well aware of the disastrous effects of over-fishing on the stocks of cod and other fish in the Atlantic.  Clio the Muse (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Filioque
As I understand it, Trinity means triple unity. Christian teaching holds that G-d is Thrice One. It's three times the same charm.


 * The Love of the Father is the Love of the Son, and the Love of the Son is the Love of the Spirit, and vice versa.
 * The Mercy of the Father is the Mercy of the Son, and the Mercy of the Son is the Mercy of the Spirit, and vice versa.
 * The Will of the Father is the Will of the Son, and the Will of the Son is the Will of the Spirit, and vice versa.
 * The Creation of the Father is the Creation of the Son, and the Creation of the Son is the Creation of the Spirit, and vice versa.
 * The Grace of the Father is the Grace of the Son, and the Grace of the Son is the Grace of the Spirit, and vice versa.
 * The Joy of the Father is the Joy of the Son, and the Joy of the Son is the Joy of the Spirit, and vice versa.
 * The Wisdom of the Father is the Wisdom of the Son, and the Wisdom of the Son is the Wisdom of the Spirit, and vice versa.
 * The Power of the Father is the Power of the Son, and the Power of the Son is the Power of the Spirit, and vice versa.
 * etc

At what point to the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics disagree with this ? The Orthodox say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. 

What is the Orthodox belief on the Godhead and is it really that different from the Catholic one ? For example most Orthodox would hold : that the Love of the Spirit is also the same Love as the Son ; that the Eternity of the Son is also the same Eternity as the Spirit ; that the Omnipresence and Omnipotence of the Son is alo the Same Omnipresence and Omnipotence as the Spirit.

This issue is rather important because it is the object of a 1 000 year schism that I hope will be resolved soon. In fact, it was announced recently that the Ecumenical Patriarch had agreed to hold top-level discussions with Rome on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.243.164 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article on the filioque clause has quite a lot on this subject. --Delirium (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gas price economics 101
The law of supply and demand tells us that prices decrease when supply is greater than demand and prices increase when demand is greater than supply.

Which candidate then has demonstrated by their own reduction in demand for gasoline or jet fuel, their commitment to reduction of demand as a means of reducing crude oil prices, or have promoted increasing supply as a means of reducing crude oil prices?

In other words will a gas tax holiday have the effect of increasing supply and reducing demand, thus reducing prices, or will it have the effect of increasing supply and increasing demand, thus keeping prices the same (depending on ratio of change), or will it have the effect of decreasing supply and increasing demand, thus increasing prices, or will it have the effect of decreasing both supply and demand, thus keeping prices the same (again depending on ratio of change)? --Schaum 05:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxa (talk • contribs)
 * 71.100.6.147 my old friend, why do you persevere with this cheap scam of "signing" your posts with words put in a special coloured font so that they look like an account name? Your account name is no more "Schaum" than it was "Taxa" in your earlier post. We all know it's not a wiki account, because you can't click on it, and we all know that you are a persistent troll who insists on posting tedious and barely comprehensible diatribes. Please stop doing so. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To bring out persons such as yourself from hiding, my friend. However, the question is quite genuine and asked by no less than five of my fellow students. --Schaum 10:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Five students?A whole five? Oh well, that makes all the difference.hotclaws 02:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the whole class. Only five wanted to include the reference desk opinion. -- Taxa (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a skeezy thing to do, man. Would you *please* either register for a username or honestly ask your genuine questions as the anon IP that you are? -Toptomcat (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bet you feel the same way about the opposite sex. -- Taxa (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of answering the question...It would depend. Is a 'tax holiday' just one day in the year where no tax is payable? If that date is 'known' in advance then you would expect supply to increase as higher-demand would be anticipated. If they don't get enough warning then you might expect supply to be limit thus meaning prices may temporarily shift. The problem is how does the 'tax holiday' work? I could be misunderstanding the question though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The tax holiday is proposed to run from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The object of the tax holiday is to eliminate the Federal sales tax on gasoline. --Taxa 16:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxa (talk • contribs)


 * In a short answer both 'candidates' (and I'm assuming you mean US Democratic Presidential nomination candidates - there are other elections and other candidates in the world you know) have demonstrated their unbelieveable ability to pander to the short term desires of the electorate at the cost of long term benefits to the US and the World.
 * In case nobody had noticed, the US has pretty much the lowest gas prices in the industrialised world. Other countries pay two or three times as much, and it doesn't seem to be hurting their economies. Oil is in short supply, and it's price is going to go up, no matter what you do.
 * The only way to deal with this in the long term is to reduce dependency on oil (the US consumes a ridiculous fraction of the world's oil). Doing that isn't easy, but it is possible - new technologies, tiny adjustments in lifestyle. But it needs people to be thinking about how to do it - both ordinary people and politicians. Instead statements about 'tax holidays' are encouraging people to do the reverse. Instead of reducing their costs by reducing their energy consumption people are trying to reduce their costs by lobbying for tax reductions, which is a false economy (hey folks, you're going to have to pay those taxes on something). DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My solution for that is for everyone with a job they can do from home via the Internet to roll out of bed into their luxury home office instead of scraping ice and rolling out the driveway... Next I would demand the right to vote over the Internet and not be force to use gas to get to the polls.... But I'm not running for office so fat chance of this every really happening because of me.;-) --Taxa 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The simplest answer to the original question is that a "tax holiday" would have an initial effect of reducing retail prices in the United States. It would initially do nothing to reduce wholesale (pre-tax) prices and would therefore have no effect on supply.  However, by lowering retail prices, the tax holiday would increase demand in the United States.  That would tend to drive wholesale and retail prices up somewhat in the medium to short term.  Since supply seems to be fairly inelastic (in that it has not increased in response to rising prices), supply is unlikely to increase in response to the slightly higher prices.  In effect, the tax holiday would likely end up transferring revenue from the US government to oil-producing corporations and nations, with little ultimate change in the retail price (since the initial drop from the tax holiday would lead to higher demand and higher pre-tax prices).  Marco polo (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sub question

 * About ten years ago I recall seeing a picture of two scientist standing over a pressure container which they said could turn stuff into crude oil but it was very expensive. Then about a week or so ago I read where an American lab found a way to make gasoline directly through a series of chemical transformations using electricity and poop that was less expensive so that gasoline might cost more but would not have to be supplied from the Middle East. Maybe I'm daft but if electricity can turn poop into gasoline then why haven't we started building nuclear generators to power the gasoline production equipment and become totally independent of the Middle East or did I miss something? --Taxa 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if the process is that easy (and that efficient to be used in industry), opposition to nuclear power is fairly widespread throughout the US (~60/~40 favor/oppose) and those opposed are particularly vocal in their opposition. You'd need to convince people to put nuclear power plants in their back yard before this strategy will work.--droptone (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just guessing but recalling my own "price is no object" attitude toward the cost of computer hardware over the past thirty years it is not difficult to imagine that most people probably have the same attitude toward not only the vehicles they own but toward the cost of the fuel to keep them on the road. Just guessing I bet there is nothing they would not sacrifice to keep their ride on the road, even making gas for themselves in their own back yard. -- Taxa (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed something.hotclaws 02:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A picture of a painting from my dad which died in 1996.
Hullo,

I would like to publish a photo of a painting of my dead father's produced in the 1960's and already publishes on american newspapers at the time of the landing on the moon and kept online from 1995 to 1998 on teh Artnet Italia web site that used to be at: http://www.thru.com/art The original painting was acquired by the Kennedy collection. Please give me hints about the possibility and the tags by which I can download it as my previous attempts were deleted.

Thanks, Fabrizio Bartolomucci —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbartolom (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take your question to Media copyright questions, where there are many people able to assist with such queries. Gwinva (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Voltaire's Third Letter on Oedipus
The Oedipus Rex article indicates that Voltiare's Third Letter on Oedipus observes that the evidence appears to exonerate Oedipus of patricide and incest. However, the argument quoted- the inconsistency between Oedipus' and Jocasta's versions of Laius' death- seems to exonerate him only of patricide. Is there content in the Third Letter addressing the incest question? -Toptomcat (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Toptomcat, it's a while since I have read Voltaire’s Third Letter, but from memory it's chiefly concerned with the murder. The incest, an unintended by-product of that act, hardly receives a mention.  The Letter itself, of course, is not so much an analysis of Oedipus' crime as a critique of Sophocles’ play.  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The size of the atom according to the ancient atomists
The guidelines above are against cross-posting. As this question has now been move to the Science deak, I have deleted it here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Next position
What jobs or offices do mayors of cities most often take after their term limits expire? -- Taxa (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well (I don't know where you are, but I'm going to answer from a British perspective), nothing glamorous. I live in Crawley (which is basically a city except in name) and our last mayor remained a local councillor before retiring. Now he's a private citizen just like the rest of us. Our present mayor lives on our street, and her only perk is the Jaguar with a flag on the bonnet that sometimes appears! Then when her term comes to an end, she's going to retire I believe. The Mayor of London is really the only "high profile" mayorship, so I predict that the former mayor, Ken Livingstone, will remain a public figure in his own right. However, in most other places, if the mayor has a job (store manager at Sainsbury's for example) then they'll retain it, and not look for anything more "public". I don't know about Lord Mayors, but I shouldn't think it would too different even then. PeterSymonds | talk  19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously there are a wide variety of options for an ex-mayor. Reelection is often the preferred option. Some stay in their jobs until the bitter end. In the U.S., many seek higher office in Congress, as governor, or even president. Some may seek "lesser" office as, say, city councilman. In many smaller towns, the office of mayor is part-time so ex-mayors just return to their day jobs. Academia is often an option. Some ex-mayors end up in prison. Some do a variety of things: Ex-NYC mayor Ed Koch ran for governor, practiced law, was the judge on The People's Court, wrote a children's book, became a newspaper columnist and film reviewer. --D. Monack | talk 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. Has any former mayor ever become President of the US?   Corvus cornix  talk  19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Calvin Coolidge was mayor of Northampton, Massachusetts after previously serving as city councilman and city solicitor. --D. Monack | talk 19:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Grover Cleveland was mayor of Buffalo, New York. Two very underrated presidents, IMO. --D. Monack | talk 19:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems so much more politically glamorous over there! PeterSymonds | talk  19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There seem to be quite a few mayors who's follow up career move is toward imprisonment. Charges span everything from shoplifting, battery and drug use to fraud and corruption and even the occasional homicide. One guy whose fancy had turned to bank robbery at least admitted that that was "a dumb move."  So much for glamorous.  71.236.23.111 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the British perspective will interest the OP very much. Nearly all mayors in the UK are indirectly elected and hold a remarkably uninfluential position for a short time, usually one or two years. There's usually a gold chain to go with the title, but little or no pay, which reflects the rather hollow reality of being such a mayor. The few exceptions to this are the UK's directly elected mayors, further to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Local Government Act 2000: they have some real executive powers and are paid enough money to live on, but there are only a handful of them. What these mayors do after losing office depends mostly on their previous life outside politics, and not on their having been a mayor. Xn4 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

British commanders negligence on the Western Front during the great war (First World War)
To what extent can it be argued that the tactics of commanders during the great war were responsible for the mass casualties suffered on the western front. Thanks --Hadseys 19:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest reading some of the comments under 'British in WWI' at the question above, asked May 4. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hadseys, first of all, let me draw your attention to a book with the English title of Is War Now Impossible?. It was written by one Ivan Bloch and first published in Paris in 1898. In this he argued that conflict between industrial powers, one balanced against the other, would inevitably degenerate into attrition and trench warfare, with famine and revolution following on in style of the apocalypse. I'm sure you will agree that this is a reasonably accurate prediction of the course of the Great War, with Revolution and upheaval spreading towards the end across the whole of central and Eastern Europe.

So, now let me focus on the main thrust of your question, which is concerned specifically with the tactics of British commanders. Yes, some, it is true, were more limited in imagination than others, but all were dealing with some unique circumstances, and not just the British, circumstances anticipated by Bloch. The size of the armies, and the length of the fronts-some 475 miles in the west-meant that the outflanking manoeuvre, the classic way of defeating an enemy in battle, simply was no longer available. The only way to win was to fight through the opponent's defensive system, and this entailed disastrously high casualties. It would take time, and technical advance, to work a way through this problem. In the meantime stalemate was inevitable. There was already a foretaste of this during the Crimean War and in the American Civil War, specifically in the 1864-5 Siege of Petersburg.

Now I turn to the one man long considered to be the very acme of incompetence and insensitivity; namely Douglas Haig. I take the view that only the English could have developed such a negative picture of arguably one of the nation's greatest commanders. His contribution in defeating the Germans was widely recognised at the time, by both the people of Britain and a number of foreign observers, including General Pershing. It was several years later when the true extent of the sacrifice involved in winning the Great War began to sink in that a new mood of hostility and revisionism began to emerge. This developed over the years, finding popular expression in John Littlewood's stage production of Oh! What a Lovely War, as well as support in several academic monographs.

The whole campaign of vilification seemed to be based on the assumption that Haig sacrificed men unnecessarily; that battles were fought simply for reasons of attrition, and nothing besides; that there was somehow another, less bloody, road to victory that Haig and his colleagues did not take. But wars cannot be won without confronting the main enemy army in battle; and this, sad to say, is inevitably a gruesome process. Consider the example of U. S. Grant, who in his campaign from the Wilderness to Petersburg in 1864 and 1865 was arguably responsible for the death of more Americans than any other man in history. At one battle alone, that at Cold Harbor in the early summer of 1864, the Union losses, as a proportion of the total strength of the Army of the Potomac, were as great as some of the battle losses on the western front. Grant could have taken the same road as McLellan, Burnside, Hooker and so many others before him and retreated back to his start line; but he pushed on, to Richmond and victory. Likewise, in the Second World War, Georgy Zhukov, the greatest of all the Soviet commanders, sustained losses at Stalingrad and Kursk quite as dreadful as those at the Somme and Passchendaele. What other way was there of defeating the Germans?

Haig, like all other commanders at the time, began without knowing what the new warfare, the great battle of men and materials, was really about: heavy prolonged artillery barrages were followed by unsupported and uncoordinated assaults on enemy positions, with the inevitable consequences in casualties. However, by 1918, he had moved through a sharp learning curve, turning the British Army into one of the best in the world, a remarkable achievement when one considers that the country had little in the way of a military tradition, and in 1914 was only able to field four 'contemptible' divisions in France. In the final offensive of 1918 Haig, in carefully co-coordinating a creeping artillery barrage with measured and discreet infantry attacks, was able to advance in relentless stages against the German positions, covering more ground than the rest of the Allied armies. It was this that broke the back of the German army and assured victory. For further information on this subject I would urge you to read John Terraine's Douglas Haig: the Educated Soldier, which, despite its age, is still the best treatment of the subject. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to address the question of the commanders' competence (or otherwise), but rather make an aside which may or may not be relevant. It intrigues me how many people (and that is vague, and by no means directed at the OP) assume the commanders (of both sides) were incompetent because they engaged in trench warfare, which is a "Bad Thing" because it led to high casualties, and while lasting months/years gained little ground.  "All those deaths for a few square feet of mud" and all that.  But why is success determined by what is gained rather than what is not lost?   The trenches were held.  Is that success?  What if the trenches had not been held? What if the army (of whichever side) had retreated?  Or reduced the men they threw at the front line?  Answer = the enemy would have advanced.  Would that have been a "Good Thing"? Or preferable to lives lost in the trenches?  Would that have turned the course of the war? In a good way? As in all things, we need to look at the big picture if we want to pass judgements on the relevance/correctness of the small things.  Gwinva (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Winning, Gwinva, is, I suppose, the only truly "Good Thing". Clio the Muse (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. So if holding the trenches (at whatever cost) prevented the Germans advancing and gaining enough territory to win (a "Bad Thing" for the Allies), then the Allies gained more than "a few feet of mud" by pursuing their trench warfare.  If this is the case, them perhaps the commanders were not incompetent, but playing their (costly but necessary) part in achieving the eventual "Good Thing": Victory.  Gwinva's Guide  to the  Great War: all you need to know. Of course, this does not address the tactics of the individual commanders, but at least reminds us to consider the strategy.  Trench warfare ≠ Bad Thing.→ Trench commanders ≠ Incompetent. They may have been, of course. And there might have been a better strategy.  But that's another debate. Gwinva (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

plurals and group names
Moved question to Language desk, where you will find many people knowledgeable about language. Gwinva (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Dutch War
Why did Louis XIV of France join the second dutch war on the side of the dutch in 1666? I have heard he had some sort of alliance with the Dutch but was reluctant to join their side and even when France formally joined the war they did not do much to help the Dutch (correct me if that is wrong). Why would Louis do this when he attacked the Dutch a few years later? Any help would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.140.194 (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See the 1665 section of the Second Anglo-Dutch War article. There was indeed an alliance - but also the war was expanding in a way which alarmed hhim. Rmhermen (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He was bound by a treaty arrangement with the Dutch, 172.142, dating back to 1662. However, Louis' chief preoccupation was to lay hold of the Spanish Netherlands, an ambition which was to be a source of continuing trouble in international relations. He had no particular love of the Dutch but he was concerned that the alliance between England and Spain would see the collapse of the Republic and the revival of Habsburg power on his northern border, the one thing that he most assuredly did not want. In the event there was really no need for Louis to do much to aid his allies, other than keep the Spanish in check, because, in what was essentially a conflict at sea, the Dutch proved well able to defend themselves, inflicting reverse after reverse on the English, including one of the most embarrassing incidents in their long naval history.

For Louis to achieve his aim in the Spanish Netherlands the Dutch would have to have collaborated with his plans, becoming, for all practical intents, a client state. In the end, under the guidance of William of Orange, they were to be among his most formidable opponents. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Opposite of personification
Speaking of personification as a literary device, is there an opposite term, where, instead of assigning human characteristics to inanimate objects, you objectify a human? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiilaiqualyn (talk • contribs) 22:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Objectification seems to be the standard word, though its somewhat less specific than this. Algebraist 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dehumanisation would fit, if you look at some samples of political propaganda. Maybe alienation, as in Kafka´s The Metamorphosis?  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks. Kaiilaiqualyn (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * People as "chattel" is when people are traded or enslaved as personal property. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)