Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 January 21

= January 21 =

Carpet bombing
Not sure if this is the right section but wutevs

If the US were to do a WWII/Vietnam style carpet bombing today, what would they use for it? B-52 planes or something else? Obviously this is speculative so a logical, backed up guess will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs)


 * See List of active United States military aircraft and look for bombers. Interestingly, there are still more B-52s in active service than any other bomber, so it would still be the B-52, not bad for an aircraft still in service since the 1950s.  The articles about them (see Boeing B-52 Stratofortress) indicates that the are planned to stay in active service until the the 2040s, which would indicate a 90+ year lifespan.  Not too bad.  There are other strategic bombers in service, but there are still more B-52s than any other bomber.  -- Jayron 32 02:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall that limited carpet bombing was used by the US fairly recently, was it the First Gulf War ? The difference, of course, was that it was used on strictly military targets. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. This critical article about the Gulf War, U.S. Bombing: The Myth of Surgical Bombing in the Gulf War says; "The use of B-52s and carpet bombing violates Article 51 of Geneva Protocol I which prohibits area bombing. Any bombardment that treats a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located within a city as a single military objective is prohibited". This recent article; The B-52 bomber: Long-standing symbol of US strength (BBC June 2014)"...while the B-52 was once used to conduct "carpet bombing" now it is more likely to carry cruise missiles and Laser Guided Bombs." Alansplodge (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What was the justification for morality in antinomianism?
According to antinomianism, the term refers to the belief that Christians were saved and obeyed the law, even though they did not really have to obey the law. It might be an extreme interpretation of Martin Luther's soteriology. Margaret Atwood said in an interview on Youtube that antinomianism was the belief of some heretical Puritans that God saved them, and thus they could do whatever they wanted. In that sense, is there a sense of morality in antinomianism? What is the justification for morality then? How do you put this doctrine into practice? Please help me visualize this. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to add that I have checked out The A to Z of Lutheranism from my public library, and honestly and surprisingly, it does not mention antinomianism at all! Is this even a Lutheran concept or a Puritan concept? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's appeared in a number of different Christian circles, though I think it's more associated with the early church, certain medieval heresies, and with Puritanism. Probably a bit WP:OR for me to say this (and I'm probably thinking of Kierkegaard more than the Puritans), but an antinomian would probably say that the law is a human imitation of divine grace.  That is, the law is only playing at being Christian, just as a child might play at being a doctor, cook, or mother.  The child and adult might carry out the same actions, but the child's actions have no real effect (no sickness is healed, no food is prepared, no baby is cared for).  Likewise, a person who performs charitable works but does not love others is only playing at being a Christian.
 * Then there's "Love, and do what thou wilt." Before it was hijacked by Aleister Crowley, that saying was expressed by none other than Augustine of Hippo in an unusually antinomian moment (though I would have to guess is the context is that if one truly loves God and their neighbor, their actions will not violate any law that's worth observing).  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. So, that's what it means! I think a deeper meaning may be drawn from this: that sincerity and genuine concern for others are a lot better than affectations and artificiality. I believe that is something everybody, regardless of creed, can understand. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to read some fiction that explores the implications of an extreme antinomianism (along the lines of the Atwood statement you referred to), I highly recommend The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner. Deor (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * People's ability to appreciate it is (in part) a result of increasing disillusion with divine authority following the world wars, and the democratic revolutions/reformations of the 18th through 20th centuries. From a practical perspective, it does imply that any action one can rationalize as being done out of love must be moral, regardless of what it is.  This isn't merely like Dietrich Bonhoeffer deciding that pacifism means you have to kill Hitler, it's more along the lines of trying to kill your son because a voice only you here asks you to (it would be an understatement to say that Kierkegaard was rather fond of that topic). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What evidence do/did they have that they had been "saved"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just yesterday, I found a Theopedia article on antinomianism. Salvation in antinomianism means that a person has faith in Christ, and that faith in Christ guarantees salvation. Hence, taking Martin Luther's sola fide to the extreme. On the Theopedia article, it mentions that many denominations and persons in the past accused other denominations or persons of antinomianism as a serious anathema; and this accusation came to mean that the accused was guilty of being too licentious. The article concluded that even though Anabaptists and Calvinists were accused of being antinomian, their conspicuously austere lifestyle contrasted the kind of licentiousness that would go with being antinomian. However, one must be aware that Theopedia writes from a Protestant perspective, so obviously they may deny the Calvinist and Anabaptist tradition as being antinomian. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "faith in Christ" encompass obeying His commands? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The antinomian would probably say that by obeying the two commandments, they would naturally follow any truly divine commands, even if they are not following human codification thereof. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not according to historic Protestant doctrine. See Sola fide. Salvation by faith alone explicitly excludes any type of works. Rather, love and obedience are said to be a necessary result of true faith. Hence the saying "we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone". - Lindert (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe they only thought they had been "saved". It still goes back to my question: How did they "know"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said "knowing" in the epistemological sense, and this topic has never been about that until you brought it up. In Christianity, an antinomian is one who denies the fixed meaning and applicability of moral law and believes that salvation is attained solely through faith and divine grace. Many antinomians, however, believe that Christians will obey moral law despite being free from it. Antinomianism does not say anything about knowing or acquiring knowledge in the epistemologial sense that you are thinking of or whatever epistemological approach that satisfies you. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I get the rather OR impression from what I've seen that the word "antinomian" and its variations is one that has rarely if ever been used by a group itself, but rather a prejorative used against them by others. That being the case, it might be hard to identify what antinomians say about anything, because they might not call themselves that. Having said that, I find quite a few encyclopedias here have articles on the topic, including maybe one of the most highly regarded of the lot early in the list here. But, to answer the question, I would think that those few who really did adhere to real "antinomianism" (if there were any, and not just a lot of people prejudicially accused of it) they would also think that "being saved" was not necessarily the only goal. To paraphrase Jesus, my father's house has many mansions, and some of them aren't mansions, but cramped little outhouses with maybe inadequate ventilation near the heavenly cesspit. Yeah, if you get there, you're "saved," and you ain't in any way really suffering, but you might also think that mebbe you could have done better by earning a few more points in the physical life. And, in general, people who really spend a lot of time thinking about the afterlife do tend to draw distinctions between the various options in heaven and elsewhere, so, even if those who are saved are guaranteed to get through the gate into heaven, there are still places there one might be more or less fond of, and you could work on that. There is also the possibility that, even if you are saved but do something that might carry a serious penalty, and everything did back then, you would still be suffering the penalty. And not living up to your own apparent standards will get you ridiculed and sneered at by others, so someone with a healthy ego would want to appear to be saved for personal ego reasons. Getting into heaven is one thing, consciously swinging from a gibbet for several hours, or suffering the sneering condescension of your neighbours, are entirely different, and the former won't preclude the latter if you do something to earn them. Also, honestly, particularly in the old days, pardon me for maybe being a bit recentist here, most laypeople and others weren't really trained in logic or philosophy, and most of them, at the time, probably wouldn't have been able to answer this question, other than maybe repeating the specific statements of their leaders. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The varying "rewards" of the afterlife implies a works-based faith that goes rather against antinomianism's emphasis that proof of salvation is inward faith, not outward lifestyle (The Encyclopedia of Protestantism connects antinomianism to libertinism), and is more in line with (then) mainstream Calvinism (those who are predestined to be saved are predestined to do good works; as opposed to antinomianism's claim that the works of those who are saved become good regardless of how others perceive them). The bit about being saved and appearing saved is probably the historical dividing line between antinomianism and mainstream Calvinism and Lutheranism: most folks who made such distinctions were (per Enc. of Prot.) called antinomian for doing so.
 * Outside of the Divine Comedy and those influenced by it, most of the Christian works I've seen that divided the heavens were more focused on the astrological implications than the theological ones (indeed, Dante's heaven is also a crash course in Ptolomaic astrology). Mystical works, such as Meister Eckhart, tended to rend the veils of heaven (some even creating only a perceptual distinction between heaven and hell).  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Tracking down a cite to "The Consensus Opinion" artwork
My google-foo has failed me. Hoping the follow might jog someone else's memory.

Within the past couple of years, I caught a lecture on BBC World Service on the topic of judging quality in art. The lecture was given by a well-known contemporary artist whose name I have no hope of remembering. He advanced the thesis that quality was simply the consensus of the people who judged art. He then described creating a bowl (?) on which he inscribed the names of the fifty most active collectors. He called the work "The Consensus Opinion" (or something similar, can't swear to that either). He then related how one of the folks whose name was inscribed thereon noticed the work at a gallery and, on seeing their name, promptly paid the five-figure price to buy the work.

I'd love to be able to use this anecdote in a talk I'm giving, but I do need to get the details right. I'd appreciate any pointers to the lecture, the artist, and/or the work itself.

Thanks,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My google-foo has returned. The artist (I'm nearly certain) is Grayson Perry, and the link to the BBC Reith lectures is here. This series began on Oct 8, 2013. Thank you all for putting up with a bit of confessional debugging.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gah, I just spent the last 15 mins tracking this down, and now when I come back you've already found it. The lecture you're talking about is this one (pdf). The anecdote about the pot is on page 7. --Viennese Waltz 10:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Viennese Waltz Ah, damn, sorry about that. Let me know if you need anything that happens to be paywalled (or in the University of California system) and I'll try to return the favor.  And nice work tracking that down in fifteen minutes based on the sketchy description I gave&mdash;I'm impressed!  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Book Reviews, Ex-Inmate In Exile
I am looking for any reviews written about the self-published autobiography, Ex-Inmate In Exile, ISBN 1-55212-227-1.70.17.200.100 (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * An "official" review or just people's opinions? If the latter, this might be worth a read.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Henryk Dobrzański - Confirmation in respect of his son
Henryk Dobrzański

Hello, I am hoping someone may be able to assist with the following (I have been redirected to you). With respect to the entry under the heading Death and legacy 'In 1949, Dobrzański's son, Ludwik, emigrated to England and became a property developer. He died in 1990 (December 15), in the town of Bedford'. Is anyone able to provide proof or verification that this is 100% factual please, i.e. was Ludwik indeed Hubal's son? Many Thanks 82.21.214.45 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You'd be better off asking this question at the reference desk, since Editor Assistance is for advice on how to edit the encyclopedia whereas the reference desk is for seeking information about the subjects the encyclopedia covers. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the steer in the right direction TransporterMan. 82.21.214.45 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.214.45 (talk)
 * This entry in the London Gazette confirms that _a_ Ludwik Dobrzanski lived in Bedford in 1964, and worked as a building contractor. I can't confirm whether or not he's Henryk's son, and 15 years seems like rather a long time between his (purported) immigration and his naturalization. Tevildo (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, I do know the dates to be correct a case of better late than never I guess. Would I need to contact the Polish Wikipedia maybe? to establish the father son connection or what would you suggest? 82.21.214.45 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the biographies referenced in the Henryk Dobrzański article should contain the basic facts (such as his son's name and date of birth). Confirmation of Ludwik's death is probably available from one of the many genealogy sites on the internet, so someone with an account on such a site could look it up.  See WP:RS for the range of sources that are acceptable. Tevildo (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ludwik Dobzanski is/was my Father, he never spoke of his Father (not to me anyway), so seeing reference to my Father being the son of Hubal has intrigued me and I wish to establish its validity. Someone obviously knows/knew something to put it onto Wikipedia? Anything I have read only makes reference to Hubals daughter, born after my Father, (my Father was born in 1922). I will keep looking, thank you for your responses. 82.21.214.45 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a subscriber to the British genealogy site Genes Reunited, which gives me access to the index of births, marriages and deaths for England and Wales up to 2006. There is a record of a Ludwik Dobrzanski's death in Bedford in the fourth quarter of 1990, with a birth year of 1922. There is also a record of his marriage to Beryl J. Wharton in Bedford in the first quarter of 1952. You should be able to get copies of the marriage and death certificates from Central Bedfordshire Council. Marriage certificates usually include the names of the bride and groom's parents, so that would confirm the name of Ludwik's father. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference in the Brundtland Report
On a scanned page of the Bruntland report, which I Transcribed at Wikisource, there is a reference to a US govt report, dated in that report as 1987. The reference states it was incorporated into a public law. The question is finding the number of the Public law concerned as the actual number appears to have been mangled in the scan or typesetting. For purposes of being able to potentially link the relevant item on Wikisource or more widely, Does anyone here know which Public Law is actually being mentioned? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you repeat the relevant text here ? StuRat (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The right link is wikisource:Page:Brundtland Report.djvu/335. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The text of the reference reads "7/ 'List of Projects with Possible Environmental Issues' transmitted to Congress by U.S. Agency for International Development. 1987, as included in Public Law -?91." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen"
A quote from Richard J. Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics :


 * ''"A distinguished historian has said that one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen."

Does anyone know who the 'distinguished historian' Hofstadter refers to was? Sadly Google isn't much help, as it merely finds quotes from Hofstadter, who was presumably paraphrasing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe he himself said it. It's been known to happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Somebody named Joe Scarborough? Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Hofstadter got the quote from a one-year-old Joe Scarborough when he wrote his 1964 essay? Astonishing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops. Perhaps Joe Scarborough was prescient and precocious. Bus stop (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, we don't know whether Scarborough actually claimed to have come up with it, or whether he attributed the quote, and goodreads.com then miss-attributed it. Either way, assuming that Hofstadter actually wrote it first (or at least, before Scarborough) we are no nearer finding out who the distinguished historian was - though Bug's suggestion is I suppose plausible enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another fairly plausible possibility is that Hofstadter himself didn't know who said it, and it may not have ever even appeared in print. A common source might be a conversation over dinner at a conference or some such. The author may well remember hearing the phrase from a distinguished historian, but could not remember who (perhaps there were several distinguished historians present, perhaps there was wine involved, etc). Not that helpful, but that's the kind of sloppy "attribution" that I hear in casual science discussions (though it wouldn't fly in print). I have uttered similar phrases myself, based on exactly the type of situation I've described :) SemanticMantis (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L. B. Namier's your man. In his Avenues of History (1952) he wrote, "The crowning attainment of historical study is a historical sense — an intuitive understanding of how things do not happen." --Antiquary (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Antiquary. That would have to be it. Namier seems to have been quoted directly by amongst others, David Aaronovitch in his Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History, with Aaronovitch evidently making the same point that Hofstadter did regarding the lack of historical understanding evident in the conspiracist mindset. A useful point to remember when faced with more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)