Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 October 22

= October 22 =

Question about Iliad and Odyssey
The Illiad or the Odyssey? Drmies (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a more descriptive title as the header at the top of this page suggests. Dismas |(talk) 01:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about what you're asking about? Else, see Iliad and Odyssey.  Dismas |(talk) 01:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for knowledge--I have that. I just want to know, Illiad or Odyssey? Can't do both. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure you can. Read one, and then the other. Or, to make things more challenging, read a chapter from each, alternating until they're both done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My students can't, smartypants. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't what? Read? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Bugs--read both. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So this has something do with students. Some students, I believe, have read both. Is there something we need to know about your students? —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Suetonius, duh. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Do we really have to put up with this sort of abuse of the ref desk? And from an administrator, no less?  Dismas's request for clarity was good, but that's about as far as we ought to go.  If Drmies wasn't then prepared to respond with something rational, then the whole thing should have been deleted on the spot.  It's doing ourselves a disservice to entertain such rubbish any further, and I suspect all the above responses will prove to have been a waste of time and effort.  Thanks, Comrade Administrator.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ? Drmies (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You finally explained yourself @ Baseball Bugs' talk page, of all places. The closest you've come to explaining yourself here, where it really matters, is an oblique reference to your students.  But that hardly helps at all.  If I asked you "Henry VIII or Elizabeth II?", without any context whatsoever, would you have the faintest idea what I was on about?  Of course not.  You're not only an administrator but a highly experienced Wiki editor, and you know better than to abuse this desk with unanswerable questions.  Whatever bizarre game it is you're playing, just stop it.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No I didn't; the question wasn't just "which one should I teach". This isn't a game, JackofOz, and if you think it is you only demonstrate you're acting like a child in a grown-up world. The question can be taken in many different ways, but only by those who understand the subject matter in the first place, and then they are free to ask and answer in any way they see fit. Since you are not one of those people, I'll give you a few possible hypothetical answers by hypothetical people who understand the subject matter and can give a cogent and relevant answer, with evidence. 1. The Iliad, of course, since that's the most epic of the two; the Odyssey is just some heroic tale of adventure. 2. The Odyssey, because it's the most easily accessible text and thus a good way to get students interested. 3. The Iliad since it isn't just an epic, but also an historical text, at least to some extent. 4. The Iliad, because the matter of divine intervention isn't just taken up on the level of an individual. 5. The Odyssey since it is the work of a more mature poet. 6. The Odyssey because it has more sex and allows for a deeper discussion of gender. 6. How could you pick one? They're equally important. 7. The Iliad because it is much more foundational for Western literature, especially that of the Middle Ages, than the Odyssey is. 8. The Odyssey because Keats like it better. I could go on, and while you (or perhaps Jayron) could call these mere opinions, with the right evidence (the evidence I was hoping to be provided with by people at the Humanities Ref Desk) these can be well-argued and relevant positions. You may be aware that these are very old poems and have been discussed for a couple thousand years. Obviously, people who don't understand a question should probably not answer, and people who have nothing but rants to offer, rants in which they don't just show their bad manners but also their total lack of knowledge (he who hath ears to hear...) should probably just shut up, and refrain from such odd insults like "Comrade Administrator"--what, my question is imposing Communism on you? I would have thought your insults would constitute "disruption at the Ref Desk", but hey, if that's how you all roll, power to you. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just a continuation of your game.
 * "... but only by those who understand the subject matter in the first place" - so, you're pandering to some elite; no law against that. But you'd get rather different answers depending on whether you were considering making a movie, writing an opera or a musical, doing a translation into Chinese, choosing some bed-time reading for yourself, choosing some bed-time reading for a 14 year old, teaching these poems to 14 year olds, teaching them to adults, ... the list is endless.  Your reference to "my students" came only after 2 requests for clarification, and even now we still have no idea what age these students are or what their circumstances may be, or your expectations of them.  It's clear from below that others are still pretty much in the dark as to what this all about.  It's clear you have no intention of shedding any light on the question of context, the matter I raised above.  To ask us for responses without us knowing the context: that is the definition of a game, and the definition of abuse of this service.  OK, so you're deliberately refraining from making it too concrete (not concrete at all, in fact), in the hope of getting a wide span of answers unencumbered by too much left brain.  That can be a cool game in the right forum.  But a game it most definitely is. Further, this is a Reference Desk, not an Opinions Desk or a Debate Desk or a Chat Desk or a Game Desk.  We regularly send people away for seeking opinions here.  Should there be one rule for the Great Unwashed and a different one for WP Administrators?  I called you "Comrade Administrator" because I checked out your user page and you claim both male and female genders, so I used a genderless title. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The way I read your response, it's my admin status that gives you carte blance to lash out quite inappropriately in a public forum. You could have said that on my talk page; for that matter you could have said that nicely. This genderless thing is just a ruse; my title is in my user name. Next time I'll post my question as an IP. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That does not address at all my points about your inappropriate use of this Reference Desk. Yes, I expect a standard of behaviour from administrators that is certainly no lower and, one would hope, higher than that from non-admins.  Do you disagree with that?  An IP would/should have received rather shorter shrift than you've been given.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate my ass. Maybe you should reassign yourself to where you don't have to deal with people. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made my views clear. Since you still refuse to address any of my points (btw, denying an issue is the opposite of addressing it), but prefer to descend to personal abuse, I conclude you're committed to playing your game.  Count me out.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you "show your work" by telling us the eight answers you already had, and why you were dissatisfied with them? —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have restored this after Drmies poseted and then deleted it due to criticism he recieved.
 * I think it's clear, based on his recent comments, he wants an educated reason why teaching one, rather than the other to a class would be prefereable.
 * My question is, what is the title of the class? If it's Homer, I'd go with the Odyssey as more entertaining.
 * If it's just a class on the classics in general, I'll stick with Suetonius and explain if asked. Or Drmies should hat this if he wants to withdraw it. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We would have to know a lot more about the class before anyone could start to answer this. Even then, the answer might be "whichever you would enjoy teaching more". Itsmejudith (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd go for Iliad. The Odyssey requires the Iliad for context, but the other way round it might encourage students to look out the Odyssey on their own (to see how it ends). Besides, "μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ" is rather appropriate for the above discussion. Maybe it's an omen. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think the Odyssey would be more interesting. By high school at least, your average student should have at least heard of both of them. The teacher could take a session or two to summarize the Iliad [perhaps have them read the CliffsNotes version]. Then the fun stuff begins in the Odyssey, like the Trojan Horse and the Sirens and the Cyclops and all that nifty stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See, Bugs, that's getting somewhere. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Had your original question made any sense, we could have gotten farther faster. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have just one question. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Illiad/Iliad or the Odyssey?" is actually just one question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's the students' first experience with classics, I'd vote Odyssey. It's more of a narrative story, it has more cool monsters and adventure, it fits nicely into "episodes" that can be treated individually, but also of course has a structure as a whole. In my exposure, it is more often the one taught first, so I might not be the only one with this preference. The other big matter is of course what translation, assuming that that they won't be reading in Greek. Butler's is free on project Gutenberg, but Lattimore is better and easier in my opinion - plus he writes in hexameter, so if you want to talk about scansion etc. then that's the way to go. I assume you wouldn't force the rhymed couplets of Pope upon them, but here's a nice overview of various famous translations . Finally, I do think your posting above is needlessly coy. Sure, I could tell you were asking for insights on which one, but I had no idea whether you meant to read, to teach, to have on a deserted island, or to burn in effigy. I think you can see that an additional sentence explaining what you wanted would have avoided the problems above. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your list of four options is getting there. There's more but I haven't thought of those--for instance, I hadn't thought about scansion, so thanks for that, certainly--so I wasn't trying to be coy. I can't ask what I already know. And no, I won't be using Pope--if I get to teach either one, or both, it's most likely Lombardo's. But one possible answer is, "Translator X's version of the Iliad is much better than any translation of the Odyssey (or the other way around), so you should read/teach/memorize that." Drmies (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the name of the course would help a lot. As would some background on your knowledge and the expected knowledge of students. Part of deciding which work or which translation is deciding what your goals are. If I were teaching the either one, I would definitely cover or refresh on scansion, talk about Monomyth, discuss hubris, nemesis, and the other elements of Greek tragedy. I'd introduce the Homeric_Question after talking a bit about Homer. I always enjoyed the assertion that the Iliad and the Odyssey could not have been written by the same man, because they are so different in ultimate outlook (Iliad-bleak, Odyssey-affirming), though of course that is not a very great argument... I'd also talk about metonymy, synechdoche, zeugma, chiasmus, hyperbaton as well as other relevant figures of speech and literary devices. Finally, I'd talk a bit about the Human Condition, why we still read the classics, why they still echo in popular media (e.g. Duck Tales, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, etc.)
 * --But none of that would be especially helpful for grade school children, or advanced classics majors. I suspect you are not teaching advanced classics majors, or you probably wouldn't be asking us :) Anyway, Lattimore's Odyssey is my favorite, and it is widely praised in classicist circles. That's what I would recommend, lacking any other info on you, your students, or the class. Nobody with much training will say the Iliad or Odyssey is "better", but either one may be better for certain pedagogical uses, and many people have a personal favorite. Whichever you teach, the other should be at least briefly summarized. Here are some additional resources by/for teachers on the topic . SemanticMantis (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No,, there are no such advanced students at my university, unfortunately; we barely teach the classics. This is, since you're at least taking it seriously, an upper-level/graduate class probably mostly catered by liberal arts students, and the topic is "epic", quite vaguely. You have given me much to think about and for that I thank you. Digging real quick through Google Books has given me ideas too and even more to think about, and for now I'm leaning toward both--I think that you understand that "or" doesn't have to be an exclusive "or". "Both" here means "some of both", using this book. I'm totally waffling since I wonder if these students can handle both, and the Aeneid (for which the Iliad is more helpful as a "previous" text, IMO), and Paradise Lost, and 2666. BTW, "personal favorite": I was very interested to learn if folks here know which famous writers/readers had which personal favorite, and that, I believe, is a valid question to ask in this forum. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Adults in their 20's or later pursuing an advanced degree should be reasonably expected to be read both, I would posit. -- Jayron  32  02:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no fact-based basis for my opinion but I'd be inclined to suggest "both" only because that was the way they were taught to me and I couldn't imagine doing them separately. Interestingly, the basis on which they were taught (in Australia, in my case) was as part of a similarly-named and pointlessly broad (something akin to "Epic") unit that also delved into the archaeology and the actual and possible locations for various portions of various texts. If that sounds vague then I've done my duty - the unit itself was vague to the point of almost uselessness. But it was enjoyable and I suspect that's part of what you're aiming for.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll go with Neither. No real reason... just feel like being contrary today. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good answer. But it could be worse. What if the other option were Moby-Dick? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If Drmies wants to teach a book more recent than Moby-Dick, how about A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth? The Guardian describes it as "epic". A suggestion from a purely objective point of view; that it's my favourite book in the entire world is of course merely a coincidence. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Iliad and Odyssey for kids
Does anyone know some place on the net I could take a quick look (just one or two pages) inside the Iliad and Odyssey for kids illustrated by Alice and Martin Provensen (first published in 1956 by Golden Press I believe). There's no preview in Google Books. I would just like to be able to take a look at one or two pages to check if this is a book I used to own as a kid. Judging by the cover I suspect that's the book but I'm not yet completely certain. Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 02:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazon's page on the book allows you to look at a few pages. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd tried Amazon before posting my question. But at Amazon when you click on the big picture (the cover) what you get is actually a look inside an Iliad translated by Samuel Butler, a completely different book. However I went there a second time on your advice. This time I noticed that below the big picture of the cover there were three small pictures you can enlarge. Two of those were indeed pages inside the book I was interested in. Were those two pages the few pages you meant? In any case looking at those two pages it turns out that was indeed the book I had in mind. Therefore many thanks to you. Contact Basemetal here 15:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Try Scribd.com. I use that to get my e-books. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 06:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies - I hate it when Amazon does that. This Link might be what you're looking for. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. Both Kage Tora's link and Fiddlersmouth's new link were great. As a kid I used to have that book. For some reason the scribd downloads are all of the French version, but that's great. I think that book has been translated in a bunch of languages. But what makes it a masterpiece is the pictures. How many kids image of the Homeric world was shaped by those pictures which look as if the Homeric scenes you see on Greek pottery had come alive in color? Given the almost complete disappearance of ancient Greek painting it's probably the closest you can get to how the Greeks of the classical world may have imagined the scenes of the Homeric epics. Except for male nudity of course. To follow Greek art in that respect would have been unthinkable in a children's book in 1956 in America and maybe even today. Contact Basemetal here 23:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ben Bradlee and the Iran-Contra affair
What was Ben Bradlee's role in uncovering the Iran–Contra affair? Surprisingly, I'm finding very little in the published obituaries on this. Neither of the above linked articles mention any involvement by Bradlee. There's a short line in the Reuters obit which just says that "the Post uncovered details of the Iran-Contra scandal". I'm seeing unsubstantiated claims by bloggers that Bradlee admitted to not pursuing lines of enquiry to their obvious conclusion, i.e. that Reagan was involved in the affair. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 11:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, very little. Bradlee also wasn't personally (as in doing the actual investigation and journalism) involved in uncovering Watergate, which is the issue he is most associated with.  That doesn't mean that Bradlee wasn't a key figure in both historical events.  But his role, as executive editor of the Post, would have been 1) involved in hiring reporters who had skills in investigative journalism, were compelling writers, etc.  2) Assigning said reporters to said stories, and allowing and/or encouraging them to do said investigations 3) deciding how much prominence and what resources to devote to said investigations.  As executive editor, his role would have been akin to a movie producer, he doesn't do the work, but he organizes the people who do the work, and he makes major decisions that affect how they do their work.  -- Jayron  32  13:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, let me rephrase the question. What role did the Washington Post play in uncovering the Iran-Contra affair? --Viennese Waltz 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been trying to dig up some stuff for you. I have no idea how reliable it is, but there is some criticism from an "insider", Robert Parry (journalist), who was one of the major investigators for Newsweek during the Iran Contra affair; at the time Newsweek was a subsidiary of the Post and had a lot of editorial crossover with it's parent publication.  Parry has written a lot in the intervening years about his trouble with his bosses at Newsweek (and the Washington Post) regarding his reporting of Iran-Contra.  It's a place to look.  I'm not sure whether or not Parry's criticisms are valid, or merely "axe-grinding", but it's something.  -- Jayron  32  01:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there death sentence for first-degree murder in Iraq?
This news story says "The maximum sentence for conviction of first-degree murder is life imprisonment." regarding Iraq. But our article, capital_punishment_in_Iraq, disagrees. Which one is correct? WinterWall (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The UN released a report on the use of the death penalty in Iraq (PDF) a few days ago (summarized here). It seems to say that death sentences for murder still occur.--Cam (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Seems like it's just shoddy reporting on Fox's part (though Toronto Star made the exact same mistake curiously enough ). One of the convicted, Slatten, currently faces a sentence of life imprisonment for his murder charge. Fox and Toronto Star may have confused the sentence for this particular case with the maximum possible sentence. WinterWall (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Two things: That quote isn't in either story, and the story isn't about Iraqi law. These murderers were tried in a United States federal court in Washington. They were charged by the Justice Department, not victims' families or police. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Bren Gun
How could anyone aim a bren gun? The magazine is on the top obscuring the view of the barrel, sight, and target. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * there's a little nubby thing attached to the barrel sticking out to its left in this video, i think that might have helped aiming?  ~Helicopter  Llama~  21:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The view that the shooter sees when aiming down a weapon is called "sight picture". Here is an example of Bren Mk II LMG's sight picture. Like HelicopterLlama pointed out, both the front sight post and the rear aperture is offset to the left. WinterWall (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Some more information at The Bren Gun by Neil Grant (p.40). Perhaps I'll add that to our article if I get a moment later. 09:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)