Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 December 13

= December 13 =

Multiple Questions on Historical Sources
Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here could offer sources (journal articles or books, preferably online) dealing with any of the following subjects:


 * The air war element of the Korean War.
 * Mass killings of civilians before, during, and after the Korean War.
 * The 1965-1966 Indonesian coup and mass killings.
 * Reliable sources (i.e. non-conspiracy theories) on stay-behind and/or Operation Gladio.

Thanks, GABHello! 00:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * For #1: The Air Force Historical Research Agency has a very detailed 62-page timeline of U.S. Air Force actions in the Korean War, along with lots of statistical information (aircraft losses, sorties, type of flight, etc.). For more of an analytical or topical approach, see the Coalition Air Warfare in the Korean War, 1950–1953, which transcribed the proceedings of a 2001 Air Force Historical Foundation symposium on this topic. There were four sessions of the symposium, which became four sections of the anthology: Planning and Operations; Air Superiority, Air Support of Ground Forces; Air Interdiction and Bombardment, Air Reconnaissance and Intelligence, and Logistical Support of Air Operations. Neutralitytalk 07:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mass killings in Korea, or elsewhere in the region also, or anywhere? Mass killings by the Koreas, or also by other states that participated in the Korean War, or by anyone?  Lots has been written on the Nanking Massacre (our article cites a lot of stuff that looks useful), but that was thirteen years before the Korean War started, and the string   doesn't appear except in a couple brief mentions of South Korean government protests against something the Japanese prime minister did in 2006.  Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi GAB. For quick overviews of mass killings, Death by Government by Rudolph Rummel, The Great Big Book of Horrible Things by Matthew White, and Final Solutions by Benjamin Valentino are good places to start.  If I recall correctly, they all contain sections on the Korean War, North Korea, and the Indonesian mass killings.  Death counts and sources from Rummel and White are online here  and here  respectively.  I've found some of the citations on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the No Gun Ri Massacre article useful, but I'm sure you know about those already.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Brill books question
On Wikimedia Commons there's a of a page from a 1540 book, a French edition of Suetonius's Lives of the Twelve Caesars, and published by Robert Estienne. The typeface is identified as being an italic cut by French engraver Claude Garamond (or Garamont), after whom many modern fonts are named. It is used on many Wikipedia articles on Garamond and his typefaces in various languages-indeed, I put it on the English-language wiki before I got suspicious.

I'm a bit concerned about this image, since I have seen a lot of sources saying it is not clear Garamond cut italic type until the mid-1540s while working as a publisher himself. The French government article on Garamond says he 'perhaps' cut one for Estienne, so it has doubts too, and of course the one supposed to be by him might not even be this. Warde (1926) thinks no italics until after this book was printed. Two modern books on the topic which seem to be relevant are published by Dutch academic publisher Brill, which I know gives e-book licenses to Wikipedia. I don't feel this one query merits me applying for one, so can someone who has one of those licenses look them up? They're'' 'The palaeotypography of the French Renaissance. Selected papers on sixteenth-century typefaces. 2 vols' (Vervliet) and 'Dutch typography in the sixteenth century: the collected works of Paul Valema Blouw'. ''I've cited both on the Garamond article, but I've only been able to read the bits on Google Books. The answer may not be hard to find - Vervliet lists notable books which used each font he was able to attribute to a specific designer.

As for the image in question, I doubt its caption reflects any modern research. It was bought by a collector in 1948 and transferred to Colorado College in 1981. Their website simply prints what the donor told them in 1981. (Claude Garamond is a well-known engraver of type, so my impression is that it was a bit too common in the past to attribute anything that looks nice in 16th century French printing to him without looking too closely at how it matched types he used in his own publications.)

I'm out of my depth here. I'm a sciences person with no formal qualifications or experience in historical research, printing, reading French-language sources or art history. But I feel that the attribution of this book to Garamond is more than doubtful and needs to be cleared up. Blythwood (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What made 'liberals' rethink their stance of not attacking terrorists?
Why have liberals changed their mind about the war on terror? For example, they recently started supporting the idea of bombing the ISIS. --Scicurious (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That question has an awful lot of assumptions and false premises wrapped up in it. Which 'liberals'?  Where?  When?  Did they not support bombing ISIS before?  Do they actually support bombing ISIS now?  Is there actually a meaningful way to 'bomb ISIS', when its members tend to be intermixed with a non-terrorist civilian population?  Is it remotely meaningful to try to lump all 'liberals' together as having a single viewpoint on anything?
 * More generally, your use of scare quotes around 'liberals' and the sheer ignorance of the question leaves me to wonder if you're just trolling here. In 2001, for instance, there was essentially unanimous support for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists among both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' (the lone vote against came from a House Democrat, but her objection was to the wording of the authorization, rather than to the use of military force against terrorists).  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Liberals are not supporting bombing the ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denidi (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The split has been present a long time - see Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. My guess is that those in or near power tend to enjoy exercising their bombing prerogatives, while those further from it tend to find more reason for reflection.  (Under those circumstances it is not difficult to guess who tends to prevail...) Wnt (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be particularly interesting to see a study on that note — of course you couldn't do a blind test (hard to find placebos in this kind of setting, and no two chance-of-war situations are identical), but I can imagine a PhD dissertation being written about the extent to which legislators' and other politicians' support for or opposition to the use of military force (whether American politicians or those from other countries) is related to their support for or opposition to the politician or group of politicians that's advocating the use of military force in a certain situation. For some American examples, Republicans supporting Bush's calls for force and opposing Obama's, or Democrats opposing Bush's and supporting Obama's.  Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * From a liberal POV, bombing anyone is a bad thing, but so is allowing a genocidal regime to continue to commit atrocities. Thus, as the atrocities got worse, that side of the equation gained the upper hand.  Note that this isn't unique to liberals, though.  Many others might agree.  StuRat (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Jesus, Morgoth, & Joseph, can we at least demand the OP specify what he means by Liberal before ejaculating all over the place? μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we don't get to demand anything from OP (other than perhaps WP:CIVIL), but you may respond or not as you see fit. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may respond as I see fit, what was the point of your addressing me? μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your question. You asked "Can... we demand...?" and I provided an answer of "No". The point I was trying to make is that respondents don't really get to make demands of OPs here. Respondents can leave responses, or not, but we don't get to tell anybody what to do, and we certainly can't prevent others from answering if they see fit. You can request a clarification of course. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Most American liberals supported bombing the Japanese Empire and the Nazis during World War II, regimes that routinely engaged in conduct that can be called "terrorist". Liberal support for bombing was strong early in the Vietnam War, though it faded over the years. But even at the end, the hardcore anticommunist liberals like George Meany supported the bombing, and there is little doubt that the Vietnamese communist forces engaged in what we now call "terrorism". Many (though not all) liberals supported bombing the Taliban in Afghanistan post 9/11. So, the premise of the question seems flawed. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Some definitions of terrorism restrict it to non-state agents, which would exclude out Japan, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, and possibly the Taliban. Obviously "state terrorism" presupposes a different definition. jnestorius(talk) 00:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The Streets Of Ashkalon
In 1962 Harry Harrison wrote a sci-fi short story by this title, wherein a primitive race struggles to understand Christianity, and finally decides to seek a major miracle to prove God's existence: the crucifixion of the Missionary to see if he will rise from the dead on the third day. The name "Ashkalon" appears nowhere in the story except the title. I assume it is a biblical reference, probably from the Protestant New Testament, but cannot find it. The title is obviously a metaphor but to what biblical text does it refer? mcruss 14.137.92.225 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Ashkelon, and also an article The Streets of Ashkelon. The place is mentioned in the King James Bible in Judges 14:18 (where Joshua slew 30 men) and in Jeremiah 14:5 (Ashkelon is cut off with the remnant of their valley) and in Zephaniah 2:4 (Gaza shall be forsaken, and Ashkelon a desolation) and  several other places, but the most likely reference is the second book of Samuel 1 verses 19&20: "The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen!  Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.").  [ I read lots of Harry Harrison's stories many years ago, and recall looking this up, but couldn't remember the answer until I looked it up again. ]   D b f i r s   22:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ashkelon is not exactly unheardof to us atheist Catholics. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was surprised that the OP wrote Protestant New Testament because that version tends to be smaller than some other versions, and the last mention of Ashkelon is in Zechariah at the end of the Old Testament, and the place is never mentioned in any version of the New Testament as far as I know (though I haven't read them all).   D b f i r s   08:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the 'Protestant' New Testament is not any smaller than the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox versions. The New Testament apocrypha you linked to are not accepted by any major Christian denomination. Unlike with the Old Testament there is virtual unanimity about the New Testament canon among Christians. - Lindert (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which seems to imply that the second sentence of the lead of the article (New Testament apocrypha) is incorrect. Contact Basemetal   here  09:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, or at the very least misleading. I will try to improve that paragraph; thanks for pointing that out. - Lindert (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that correction. I wasn't intending to imply that the Roman Catholic New testament version was different, but I wasn't sure about other denominations or sects.  There is, of course, some disagreement, even within Protestant denominations, over some of the other books.    D b f i r s   12:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dbfirs had it. According to the book of Joshua, it was one of the five main Philistine cities, along with Ashdod, Gath, Ekron and Gaza. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Armenian constitutional referendum, 2015
Is there a reason that it was a referendum and not a plebecite? Is it merely that the former term is more common in today's English-speaking sources, or a WP:ENGVAR situation, or something else? Our referendum article notes that certain countries distinguish between them, but Armenia not being a primarily English-speaking country, I doubt that either term would get much local usage. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Armenian but in some languages (e.g. Romance languages) there is a difference between a referendum and a plebiscite, the latter being a referendum used specifically to render legal after the fact an act of the executive that was originally illegal, e.g. a coup, e.g. French_constitutional_referendum,_1851. Contact Basemetal   here  01:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

1996 U.S Presidential Election
Why did Bob Dole lose to Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S election? --Röladix (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * See United States presidential election, 1996. Note that Clinton was the incumbent, and defeating a President in office is an uphill battle (although Clinton managed to beat incumbent Bush Senior, just 4 years before, probably for violating his "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge).  Dole's age may have also played a role, with a similarly aged Reagan having Alzheimer's disease shortly after leaving office, and perhaps while still in.  StuRat (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Another factor is that people just liked Clinton more than Dole. Bob Dole is not Mr. Personality. He even parodied that aspect of himself on TV. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ross Perot is sometimes cited as a spoiler candidate – his party appealed primarily to Republican voters and took about 8% of the vote which would otherwise mostly have gone to Dole (or not gone out at all). However, that was a big drop from his 18% in 1992 (where he had a bigger impact), and I don't know whether Dole would have carried many more states without Perot's intervention. Smurrayinchester 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (Just checked. If Perot had dropped out, and every single Perot voter had then voted Dole, he would have won Ohio, Wisconsin (by 0.1%), Missouri, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Oregon, Kentucky, Arizona and Tennessee. That's 21 + 11 + 11 + 23 + 4 + 7 + 8 + 8 + 11 = 104 electoral college votes, which would give Clinton 275 and Dole 263. Still not quite enough to give Dole victory, but a much closer battle (especially if Dole managed to snag the now razor-thin marginal of New Hampshire), which would almost certainly end with months of chad-checking in Wisconsin.) Smurrayinchester 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (It's also worth noting that Clinton was a Southerner, which probably helped him in the Republican heartland – Clinton took more southern states than any Democrat since. That got him quite a few electoral college votes, including 25 from Florida, 11 from Tennessee and 9 from Louisiana) Smurrayinchester 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * StuRat, Why should a president be blamed for taxes, and area in which (s)he has practically zero authority? I thought taxation was purely the domain of congress? What was Bush Snr supposed to do, use his presidential veto powers? 101.188.33.181 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * He had in fact promised to do just that. --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, 101, you seem to geolocate to Australia. You may or may not be aware that the veto is viewed rather differently in the United States than it is in countries that have supposedly-apolitical heads of state.  In Australia or the United Kingdom, the royal veto is a reserve power, theoretically possible but not considered justifiable except in rather extreme circumstances.  In Italy, there is a middle position; the president of Italy is expected to serve as garante della costituzione and veto legislation if it is unconstitutional, but is not supposed to veto legislation just because he/she disagrees with it as policy.


 * In the United States, however, the veto is a genuine political tool. For the most part a president is unembarrassed to veto legislation on pure policy grounds.  To be sure, the side that supported the legislation will often try to spin it differently, but it has little effect.  --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that in the early American republic, the president typically only used the veto when he believed that the legislation was unconstitutional (along the lines of the current Italian model). The first six presidents used the veto power only ten times - it was not until Andrew Jackson and John Tyler that presidents started to use the veto for political/policy reasons. Neutralitytalk 17:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Neutrality. I had some vague notions that something along those lines might be true but I didn't know details.
 * Indulging in a personal reflection here, for the most part I despise Jackson for his invention of the Imperial Presidency, but in this one area I have to give him a little credit. It's a good thing to have more hurdles to passing legislation; most legislation is bad.  (The flip side is that it sometimes encourages legislators to pass bills for show, knowing they will be vetoed, so they don't have to worry about the details too much.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The President is blamed for everything, including the weather. Although, as discussed above, he could have vetoed tax increases (whether doing so would have been wise is another matter). A substantial part of the modern Republican Party views any tax increase ever as an unpardonable sin, and although this sentiment wasn't quite as strong back then it definitely existed (for instance Grover Norquist has been pushing this dogma since the '80s). --71.119.131.184 (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point. GHWB promised to veto any tax increase, and then he didn't.  Here's what he said, from our read my lips, no new taxes article:
 * And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, "Read my lips: no new taxes."
 * Now, that is absolutely a direct promise to veto any tax increase. It's true that he doesn't use the word "veto", but there's nothing else it can mean.  He made an explicit promise and unequivocally broke it.  There is no question that that cost him a huge number of votes in 1992. --Trovatore (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it was the broken promise that was the problem, not the actual tax increase. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)