Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 18

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.

April 18

Prince of the Land of Loud tale

I'm thinking of a story about a land where everything was loud. The doors didn't close; they slammed. The people didn't speak; they yelled. Etc. Then, for his sixteenth birthday, the prince of the land decided to get all the citizens into one room and have them scream at the top of their lungs. Each individual or married couple independently decided that he/she/they would be silent while everyone else screamed, but since everyone else was screaming, no one would notice that he/she/they was/were being silent. Then, when the moment came, the prince heard only silence. It was so beautiful that the people of the land decided they would be quiet from then on. What story is this? Wiwaxia (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Christians who reject the Sermon on the mount?

I was reading John F. MacArthur's gospel according to jesus, where he referred to certain extreme Dispensationalism teachers who claimed that the Sermon on the Mount does not apply to Christians since it is Law instead of Grace and thus still part of the old covenant. The statements of the Sermon on the Mount "have no application to the Christian, but only to those who are under the Law, and therefore must apply to another Dispensation than this. Does anyone have any info about specific individuals or sects who accepted this interpretation? --Gary123 (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Such theology is not prominent in any "mainline" christian denomenation, either protestant, catholic, or orthodox. I do not doubt that some people hold such theology; if one person can imagine it someone earlier started a religion about it. But it is not likely a widespread belief. --Jayron32 00:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an interesting essay here about varying Christian attitudes to the Sermon. I quote;

"Dispensationalism, first developed by the Plymouth Brethren, divides human history into a series of ages or dispensations. Today we live in the period of grace where living up to the teachings of the sermon is impossible, but in the future, the Millennium will see a period where it is possible to live up to the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, and where following them will be a prerequisite to salvation." Alansplodge (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

More here; "One of the most significant threats to the central role of the Sermon on the Mount in Mennonite thought and practice has been the influence of dispensational theology, especially in North America but also to a considerable degree among the Russian Mennonites at the beginning of the 20th century... God was seen as working in different ways in each dispensation. The age of the law preceded the age of grace, which was the age of the New Testament church. Characteristically the dividing point between the two ages was seen as coming with the crucifixion. Christ, at the beginning of his ministry, offered the kingdom of God to the Jews until they rejected it, and Matthew 11 was often viewed as marking the point of rejection. Christ's earlier ministry, including the Sermon on the Mount, was therefore still kingdom preaching with an emphasis on the law rather than on gospel." Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Can historians point to a specific period when NATO surpassed WarPac for the final time?

I've seen it mentioned in various places that when the Iron Curtain fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO(primarily American) military strategists were rather shocked to see that many of their estimates of Soviet technical level and ability were wildly off the mark. Specifically that what they really had/could do was inferior (in some places vastly so) to what NATO believed they had/could do.

But things weren't always this way, as evidenced by Sputnik. So, looking back from the 21st century, can historians now clearly identify a period when the balance of power shifted conclusively to the West? The Masked Booby (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an extraordinarily complex question. The section on stagnation and declining growth in our article on the Eastern Bloc economies outlines some of the Soviet bloc's decline relative to the West: From the end of the World War II to the mid-1970s, the economy of the Eastern Bloc steadily increased at the same rate as the economy in Western Europe, with the least none-reforming communist nations of the Eastern Bloc having a stronger economy then the reformist-communist states.[ While most western European economies essentially began to approach the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) levels of the United States during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Eastern Bloc countries did not, with per capita GDPs falling significantly below their comparable western European counterparts."

See also Era of Stagnation. There are also many more detailed scholarly examinations of the Soviet decline: Easterly and Fischer 1994; Odom 2000; Ellman and Kontorovich 1998; and Stayer 1998 are a few. Hope this helps! Neutrality^talk 01:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

When they retreated from Afghanistan, that to me was evidence that their military was not as powerful as it once had been. (Under Stalin they would have just massacred any town that showed any signs of resistance, and won in that way.) StuRat (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As for why the economic decline was delayed, I believe that the long term problem with communism offering no incentive to work was at first offset by communism being able to educate masses who were all illiterate peasants in previous generations, and the ability to force rapid industrialization. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would contend that Sputnik did not indicate that the balance of power had shifted to the East. It indicated that the East was further ahead in at least one particular scientific and technological area. (And not that much ahead — in a few months the US was scheduled to do the same thing.) The Soviet technological infrastructure was generally behind the US even in that period; they just beat them to one milestone. It was an important one, because it showed that the USSR was not so "backwards" that it could not catch up with concerted effort (as did their "early" detonation of an atomic bomb) in specific domains, but it didn't indicate that Russia had the upper hand generally, or with actual, in-field military technology. The reason the US was behind on Sputnik was not that they couldn't do it, but because they had spent far more of their research and development money and effort on long range bombers. The Soviets wisely reasoned they could not catch up with the US in this regard and invested vigorously in rockets from 1949 onward. (The decision of the US was also heavily influenced by inter-service politics.)

It was only much, much later — e.g. the 1970s and 1980s — that the Soviet Union actually matched the West in terms of its technological weaponry. This chart, while not everything (raw warhead counts are less important than delivery vehicles, for example), is a nice indicator of this. The West was really, really, really ahead of the USSR for quite a long time in really every important measure. The idea that the USSR was ready to take on NATO for most of the Cold War is a myth perpetuated by the people who were in charge of the defense budget. (Which is not to say that the USSR was defenseless or good intentioned or anything like that — just to say that the risk of American loss of superiority was highly exaggerated by people wanting to err very much on the side of caution, not coincidentally because their budgets depended on such estimates. The only thing the Soviets had to their advantage was raw numbers of mediocre-technology conventional military, but it's not at all clear what benefit that confers in an age of nuclear weapons.) --Mr.98 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Both Eric Hobsbawm (The Age of Extremes) and Tony Judt (Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945) suggests that the Soviet Union never even came close to matching the West economically or militarily, but that they did succeed to some extent in the 1950's and early 1960's to make it seem like they were to outside observers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There was also some suggestion that the US space program was intentionally delayed (by picking the less advanced rocket project to fund), so that Congress would then fully fund the space race, and the Soviet Union, having already flown a spacecraft over US territory, would have no basis to object to US flights over their territory. StuRat (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Space Race notes that Eisenhower desired a civilian satellite booster, but Project Vanguard was not sucessful; Vanguard TV3 failed spectacularly resulting in a loss of prestige. Explorer 1 launched using the Juno I booster based on the PGM-11 Redstone missile. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I haven't read this, and find it very unlikely as a theory. It requires far too much prescience on the part of policymakers and even scientists, too much knowledge about what would happen and what the results would be. The fact is that most US scientific advisors (e.g. Vannevar Bush and Robert Oppenheimer) were pessimistic about rocket development well into the early 1950s — there were too many unknown unknowns, whereas long-range bombers were things where the US had verifiable and reliable experience (and an edge above the rest of the world due to their herculean efforts on the B-29 during WWII, which cost more than the Manhattan Project). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

General Sir John Hackett, a former commander of the British Army on the Rhine, wrote a book in 1978 called The Third World War: The Untold Story. In it, he postulated that the Soviets would calculate that after 1985, their large numerical advantage in terms of troops, armour and combat aircraft would be nulified by NATO's introduction of new high tec weapons like Cruise and Patriot. They therefore found an excuse to launch a huge armoured assault against West Germany in that year. Presumably, his book reflected at least some of the scenarios that NATO had planned for. In the event, the First Gulf War showed that the best equipment that the Soviets could produce wasn't up to much. However, it doesn't do to underestimate your enemy; assuming that Japan was backward militarily cost us all dear in 1941/42. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

True. From a military standpoint it wouldn't do to underestimate your enemy, which is at least part of the explanation that Western (mainly US of course) generals vastly overestimated the capability of the Soviet Union, at least in terms of overall technological development and economic capability. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the Warsaw Pact did have a HUGE numerical superiority in armoured vehicles. See Tank formations during the Cold War. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The common fantasy of the Cold War is the USSR rolling across Europe using just brute force. This is one of the reasons the US arsenal got so huge in the 1950s and 1960s — a large number of those weapons are tactical nukes meant for leveraging that difference (so that the US could take out entire tank formations with one plane). Now things obviously get more complicated once Russia has an ability to retaliate in kind. But just having large numbers of troops does not make one "ahead". North Korea has a military that is approximately the size of the current United States', but does anyone think that this means that the DPRK are at parity, military or otherwise, with the USA? And I would further postulate that erring so far on the side of caution as to be ridiculous is not a prudent strategy; the US had pretty good indications at various points that the Soviets were more bluff than reality (even during the missile gap, US intel was aware that it was nonexistent), but our policies were always about more, more, more. I do think that the amount of money spent on new high tech gadgets (most of which were never, ever used, thank goodness) was a poor use of our own capital. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to add one important quibble about Mr.98's claim, "The West was really, really, really ahead of the USSR for quite a long time in really every important measure." Right after Nazi Germany fell, Stalin, if he felt like it, certainly could have ordered his armies to continue to roll west, defeating the Americans and British and the French, who were hugely outnumbered, and could have established the Warsaw Pact across all of continental Europe. I'm having trouble finding a quick Wikipedia citation; our origins of the Cold War article doesn't really mention this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that's strictly true. The USSR was stretched just as thin as the west, both militarily and economically. After marching a few thousand miles on boots stuffed with newspaper and old rags, I'm not sure that the Soviet military would have appreciated fighting on much farther than where they got to. While Stalin may have wanted to have done so, there's a certain pragmatic limit when even monomaniacal dictators take an honest assessment of their military assets and say "Maybe now is a good time to take a breather". Stalin may have not cared two shits about the welfare of his troops, but that's quite different from recognizing a military at its breaking point, which the Soviet Army clearly was by the end of the war. --Jayron32 20:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalin certainly realized that he was about at the limits of his empire building. There is no indication in the historical archives that Stalin seriously thought about taking Europe after WWII — he wanted "breathing space" from his enemies, he wanted politically-friendly states nearby and under his control, but he didn't actually want total control over the world, run from Moscow. (Or, at least, he wasn't actually willing to try and take the steps to get there.) Stalin's goals — security and prosperity — were the same ones the US had; it was his means of getting them that distinguished the two states (the US was pretty nasty in some instances towards those goals — coups, assassinations, propped up dictators, giving RPGs to jihadists, etc., but it's pretty hard to match Stalin for unpleasantness). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalin had large but largely decrepit conventional forces. They won in the East by essentially throwing everyone they had at the Germans, losing two of their own men for every German on the aggregate (but far higher percentages in some battles). It's unclear what a post-WWII confrontation between US, UK, and France would have looked like against the USSR, but it wouldn't necessarily have been a walk in the park, especially given the US superiority in new weapons systems (long-range bombing, firebombs, nuclear weapons, radar). Again, it depends how you track "ahead" or "behind" but I don't put raw numbers as de facto "ahead." The Soviet economy was in tatters, the Soviet homeland was burnt to a crisp with massive civilian dead, and the Soviet Army was exhausted and stretched thin. The US by contrast had essentially zero damage on the home front. I would count immediate postwar US as being significantly better off militarily and economically than the USSR, by quite a long stretch. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think nuclear weapons probably stopped Stalin from considering an attack on Western Europe. It's true that early on the US had no immediate nuclear weapons they were capable of delivering to the Soviet Union, but Stalin didn't know that. And US stockpiles quickly started to grow, so that soon the threat was real. So, the only way I see Stalin attacking was before Hiroshima. Yes, the US had hinted at having nuclear weapons before then, but Stalin might have taken this to be a bluff. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a big historical question regarding whether Stalin really wanted to invade, whether the nukes deterred him. There isn't much evidence that he wanted to invade. Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project long before even Truman did; he didn't need hints from the US to know that they were building nukes, he had boffo spies. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not realistic to describe Stalin's conventional forces in Europe in May 1945 as decrepit, exhausted, or thinly-stretched. You have to remember that the next thing they did was travel several thousand miles to the east and effortlessly defeat a Japanese army nearly one and a half million strong. Before the advent of well developed jet fighters, nuclear weapons, attack helicopters and wire-guided anti-tank missiles, the state of the art was armoured forces backed by copious close air support. That's exactly what the Soviet military had, and exactly what their economy (relocated east of the Urals and not at all "in tatters") was optimised at churning out. Their heavy losses in personnel were the result of incompetent handling of the early months of the war, a total disregard for casualties, and spending significant parts of the later stages of the war using inexperienced troops of their own against veteran German troops in defensive positions.

The vast majority of the Western allies' tank strength in 1945 was the Sherman M4. This was significantly outmatched by the German Panther, Tiger, and even Panzer IV, but the Allies had overcome this by outnumbering the German tanks by at least 4 to 1 (both at theatre level and at the immediate tactical level) - around 50,000 Shermans against only about 6000 Panthers and less than 9000 Panzer IV, when many of the German tanks were deployed against the Russians anyway. The Western allies also had the advantage of total air superiority, and the Germans had the disadvantage of severe shortages of oil.

By contrast the Russians built a total of close on 60,000 T-34 tanks during the war. The T-34 outclasses the Sherman in every way except crew comfort, such that the Western allies would have had to rely on the British Sherman Firefly (about 2000 built) and the American M36 tank destroyer (1,400) as the only vehicles available in significant numbers that could take on the T-34 on almost equal terms. (All T-34s had markedly superior armour protection to the Firefly and the M36, and the upgunned T-34-85 built from 1944 onwards would have been a significantly greater challenge.) But these vehicles would be outnumbered more than ten to one!

What's more, the Russians had been building heavy tanks as well. The German King Tiger had been produced in tiny numbers (less than 500) such that the Allies had been well able to wait for them to run out of fuel, break down, be destroyed from the air or fall victim to a lucky shot from a 17 pounder tank gun or anti-tank gun. But the Soviet IS-2 tank and ISU-152 assault gun were every bit as dangerous as a King Tiger, and production of the two together totalled nearly 6000.

Air superiority would have been more evenly contested, but the Soviet airforce did at least boast vast numbers of ground attack aircraft. And the Soviets had absolutely no lack of oil or other raw materials. Strategic bombing cannot halt an offensive when the required forces are already in the field and have an overwhelming superiority in firepower. So yes, it seems almost certain that the Soviets could have rolled right across Western Europe as far as the English Channel - the distance from Berlin to Paris is tiny compared to the distance from Moscow to Berlin. The first nuclear weapon wouldn't be ready for several months.

So why didn't Stalin do it? Probably because there was no end game in such a scenario. Hitler had failed to invade the United Kingdom even when the USA had not yet joined the war. Stalin's air force was even less well suited to a strategic bombing campaign against the UK than Hitler's air force had been in 1940, and Stalin didn't have a submarine fleet, nor pocket battleships to act as surface raiders, to try to enforce a blockade. British and U.S. heavy bombers flying from England, northern Italy and Iran would be able to hit targets across vast swathes of the newly expanded empire. Hitler's conquest of France had neutralised the French navy and army, and gained him ports on the French Atlantic coast as bases and refuges for his U-boats and surface raiders. Stalin did not need to do either - all he would get from conquering France would be a photo opportunity at the Eiffel Tower to remind him that Hitler had done just the same five years earlier but come to a bad end anyway. There are no strategic resources in France, unlike the oil reserves that Hitler wanted from the Caucasus and the Japanese wanted from south-east Asia. (There's coal in West Germany, but the Soviets weren't short of coal.)

Thus there was no point in taking on the other new superpower and its allies, for no strategic gain. Instead Stalin joined in against the losing side as he had originally agreed to do, and secured more geographically limited gains in the Far East, but without the colossal risk. His conquest of Manchuria also facilitated his backing of the Communist side in the Chinese civil war, bringing a significant new power onto the Communist side of things, albeit not under Soviet control. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that "strategic bombing cannot halt an offensive when the required forces are already in the field and have an overwhelming superiority in firepower", I agree, but only with conventional weapons. Once nuclear weapons became widely available to the US, I believe they could halt, and then roll back, the offensive. And I do believe they would have been used, in this scenario. StuRat (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's defeat of the Japanese in Manchuria was a combination of overwhelming forces, surprise, and the fact that Japan was on its last legs anyway. I don't think one can take that as evidence for Soviet supremacy. In any case, all of this again depends on what you are gauging "supremacy" to be. They had incurred 40 million deaths; lost 1/4 of their capital resources; and required their satellite states to send them resources to prop things up in the immediate aftermath. There were certainly better off on some metrics than other European states, but they were still quite behind the US in these respects. In a wartime scenario the US could have had another atomic bomb by the end of August, and produced a few bombs a month thereafter. (The US bomb production fizzled out in the mid-1940s because of manpower shortages caused by people going home after the war, and because of confusion over the postwar atomic organization, which didn't get resolved until sometime after the Atomic Energy Act went into effect in 1947.) The US still had the largest scientific/technological infrastructure on the planet — Stalin's was still limited to sharashka labor camps. I'm just not seeing the parity there. Yes, large conventional forces. No doubt. But that's it. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood; I've actually drifted off the original question. I am not suggesting Soviet supremacy whether in economic, technological or overall strategic terms. What I am suggesting is that it is nonsensical to describe the Soviet armies as on the brink of collapse in May 1945, and I am suggesting that an offensive against the Western Allies in May 1945 would have produced a second Fall of France. But, as I've said, it wouldn't need nuclear weapons to stop that Soviet offensive; it would be stopped by the English Channel well before the nuclear weapons were ready. Stalin decided against such an offensive before he knew much if anything about the nuclear weapons program, so he must have been reasonably sure that the risks outweighed the advantages even on the basis of a conventional war.

The Soviets had no interest in strategic bombing, but the Western Allies had been using the strategic bombing campaign as their excuse for not opening a Second Front in France for quite some time. So Stalin would have been well aware of the claims made for its effectiveness, the technological developments underpinning it, and the substantial forces built up by the Western Allies to achieve it (specifically, the Avro Lancaster and B-29 Superfortress bombers, and the P-51 Mustang long-range fighter to escort the day bombers.) The U.S. in particular had also built up industrial production in areas where the Soviets had no involvement; so while key naval battles earlier in the war like Midway and Operation Pedestal had been carried out by as few as four aircraft carriers, by the end of the war the Americans were able to deploy dozens of carriers. Stalin would certainly be well aware of this.

A Soviet offensive in May would also bring up other interesting possibilities. The Western Allies might re-arm some of the defeated German forces to fight the Soviets. The scientists and technical data originally obtained from Germany by the Western Allies might end up in Soviet hands instead, so the Soviets might have had ICBMs considerably before the Americans did, but initially with no nukes to mount on them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

On the side-issue of the state of Soviet forces in 1945: The British were rather more aware of the potential for cold war than the US, and in June 1945 prepared a plan in case the disputes over the future of Europe turned violent. Operation Unthinkable makes very grim reading. The military planners in London had a high opinion of the Soviet armed forces. I've also read the British military plans for the defence of Europe in 1947-48, i.e. after the West demobilized, and before the creation of NATO. They're even worse: the British Army of the Rhine would run from Germany to Gibraltar as fast as they could, and try to hang on in Gib, to avoid repeating Dunkirk and D-Day. IIRC nuclear weapons would be used in Germany as necessary. However, the English Channel was regarded as an effective barrier. Matt's talk 15:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Trifles Susan Glaspell and The Cask of Amontillado

(1) Trifles Susan Glaspell - In the play, which characters are round? Which characters are flat? Which characters are stock? What is/are the theme(s)? What type of irony is used in the play? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.147 (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(2) The Cask of Amontillado - What is the main theme in this short story? Which character is dynamic, which character is static, which character is round and which character is flat? What is the symbolism? What type of irony is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.147 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You will have to do your own homework, but I invite you to read our articles on Trifles, "The Cask of Amontillado," literary character, character arc, stock character, irony, literary theme, and so forth. Neutrality^talk 01:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You asked the same set of questions a few weeks ago, and I'll give you the same piece of advice I did before: Ask your teacher. If you go to your teacher after class, during his/her office hours, and say "Can you try to explain to me again the meaning of "round/flat" and "dynamic/static" characters. I really want to understand these concepts, but I am not sure I am getting it." The teacher should be willing to spend a few minutes trying to help you work through your troubles. --Jayron32 02:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What's up with the History of Communism article?

(History of Communism) It has headers, but no content, for 1957 to 1993, most of which deals with China. Shenanigans? The Masked Booby (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No shenanigans. Believe it or not, vast swathes of important topics remain unwritten about by Wikipedia editors; sometimes people put in headers to encourage them. You can check the history of the article to see its development.

P.S. For future reference, questions about problems with Wikipedia will get a better response at the help desk. Best, Skomorokh 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm expanding, this time with uncited stubs, for some areas of expertise I have. Citations can be gleaned out of the Main Articles of the organisations I note. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Had there been an assassination on Hu Jintao in 2006?

I see several controversial reports on epochtimes.com, which say there was an attempt to assassinate Hu Jintao, but there is no more information. Could anyone please help me verify it?--Inspector (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

According to The Trend magazine (November 2006), Hu nearly died in an attempted assassination when he secretly visited a navy base in Qingdao, Shangdong Province in May 2006. It has been difficult to verify the report, but circumstantial evidence continues to surface supporting the speculation; such as Hu's removal of almost all officials in Qingdao, sacking Deputy Navy General Commander Wang Shouye, and releasing Jiang's deadly enemy Chen Xitong from jail. China issue experts also believe the unsuccessful assassination triggered Hu to strike out at Chen Liangyu, which revealed the deepening factional war between Hu and Jiang Zemin.

— http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-1-28/51058.html

The Epoch Times is just about as unreliable a source as you can get when it comes to Chinese politics. They have been claiming for years that the Chinese government is about to fall apart, and the list of people they have published as having quit the Communist Party in China now outnumbers the entire membership of the Communist Party. Other interesting reports I've read in that paper includes an imminent invasion of the earth by space aliens armed with super lasers and a guide to levitation and travelling in time through practising Falun Gong.

The Trend magazine (I presume this is 动向 magazine) is slightly more reliable but they've also come up with lots of highly inaccurate reports over the years. I would suggest treating it as just an unverified rumour until a more reputable source verifies and publishes the story. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with PalaceGuard008. EpochTimes makes Fox News look “fair and balanced,” even to Democrats! DOR (HK) (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cat friendships

Do cats sometimes have friendships with other cats? Rarely, I've seen cats going for walks in pairs. The two I saw recently did not appear to be related, and did not appear to be doing any kind of mating or fighting. Thanks 92.24.176.164 (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. I have seen several examples of my cats being friendly and playing with the cat of one of my neighbours, not being territorial or anything, sharing each others gardens, but regarding the cat of my other neighbour it was very hostile and territorial with a clear "border" being the hedge between the gardens, conflict ensuing if either was caught by the other on each others territory. Purely anecdotal evidence, of course, but it has made me sure that cats are able to form relationships outside of mating and household. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what the gender was of the cats involved please? 92.28.241.233 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Gender? Maybe you mean sex. We still have animal sexers, but have not yet "transitioned" (ugh) to "animal genderers". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing that confuses us bipedal apes is that although cats are territorial, recognising their own territory, those of other cats, and extensive neutral territories between them, the boundaries of those territories have no particular correlation with our human notions. Consequently part of my garden, say, may be recognised as "my" cat's exclusive territory, part as a common area or thruway where all cats may socialise, and part as some other cat's exclusive territory. By contrast, dogs quickly learn the human-recognised boundaries of their owner's territory. Desmond Morris goes into this in Catwatching. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tsk. This obviously does not belong in Humanities. —Tamfang (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

About 3 of them ganged together and mobbed our chickens last year. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Cats which are raised together seem to develop a sibling relationship, regardless of whether they are related, just like humans. Also like humans, some sibling relationships are friendly, while some are not. Cats introduced as adults are less likely to become "friends", but it is still possible, depending on their "personalities". If both cats want to be dominant, then expect constant fighting. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a cat in college who was let out during the day, and in summer we would keep the house completely open to the air as it was rather pleasant. She (spayed, btw) found a friend in the neighborhood and would have her over to share food and water inside our house! It was pretty awesome to come home from class and see our cat "with guests over for tea" :-) The Masked Booby (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As a confirmed dog lover, I assume that any "friendships" we may see between cats are merely temporary alliances, of the type that form in any group of co-conspirators. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you may assume that if you like, but you'd be quite wrong of course. I know cats that clearly love each other deeply, and get upset if the other one is missing.

Probably you've been influenced by the rampant anti-cat bias in animated films. Something really needs to be done about that. One good remedy is to read the works of Robert A. Heinlein, a man who understood cats. The best one for this particular issue is The Door into Summer. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The older of our two cats who have shared a house for 12 years died recently. Out vet warned us that the surviving one would miss the deceased one and show many predictable signs of stress. The vet was right. Obviously a well documented fact. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes... it can be stressful when a co-conspirator dies... the evil plan depended on the co-conspirator doing his part... now the surviving cat must start over! (and for all you cat lovers out there... of course I'm not being serious... well... mostly not.) Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously disinformation put out by the Brain. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that animals are capable of "love" in the human sense. Be that as it may, the stereotype is that dogs are pack animals and cats are loners. However, cats do display some traits of pack animals, just not anywhere near the extent of dogs' behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is OR, but I can tell you that in addition to the sibling-type relationship mentioned by StuRat, I have seen my neighbour's kitten following my older cat (he's 5) around EVERYWHERE. They're both ginger toms, so I wonder if the kitten thinks he's his Dad? Who knows? Anyway, not only are they friends, my cat does appear to be a role-model to the kitten and, in some respects, a mentor. --Rixxin (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullfighting

I think I heard somewhere that historically in bullfighting, it was traditional for the victorious matador, after having plunged the sword into the bull's neck, to (symbolically, at least) drink the bull's blood or lick it off his hands. Is this true? How widespread was it? Is it still practised today? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither our Spanish bullfighting article or this page mention it; but who knows? This sort of unpleasantness was banned in England by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 - IMHO it's time that Spain caught up with the rest of civilisation. Alansplodge (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lucky you UK folks have finally done away with fox hunting, then.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fox hunting wasnt cruel IMHO. The things are now flooding the cities. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Where we are co-existing quite well it seems. Recent hysteria notwithstanding, there are precisely TWO verified fox attacks in the last ten years on humans - compared to the number of dog attacks in the same period which run into many thousands. Exxolon (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I grant you that. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Exxolon, I'm not sure your argument holds water. How many foxes are there, and what are their natural habitats? The answer: several orders of magnitude less than domesticated dogs, and not in people's homes. You cannot compare such things by a simple tally. It does seem that we are living well together, although if you put a wild fox in everyone's house that currently has a pet dog and then did a tally I'm sure there'd be far more attacks; foxes are wild animals! That's not to say that I condone them being chased by men, horses and dogs, and then ripped apart by a pack of dogs. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If Fox hunting involved putting a fox into a confined space and poking it with metal spikes for half an hour until it died, then the two things might be comparable. Also see Fox Hunting#Australia. Otherwise, please accept my apologies for the rant. Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many similarities. Both the bull and the fox and put under immense stress, they both face a fight they can almost never win, they are pushed to the point of physical exhaustion, and they they are murdered. Bull fighting is sick, and so is fox hunting. The final death of the bull is (often) more humane than the death of the fox. I would rather be stabbed through the heart than get ripped apart by a pack of dogs. Having said that, that's no excuse for the pre-kill torture of a bull fight. For the record, I'm English, and all blood sports have always sickened me. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the fox often wins[1]. Not supporting fox hunting - just saying it's not in the same league as bullfighting. Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable reference. In no way does it support the claim "Actually the fox often wins". Besides the obvious linguistic error (the fox does not "win" s/he mealy escapes with their life), it is factually questionable. It was the experience of a single journalist who was told the outcome of the hunt by the huntsmen, at a very sensitive time. Even if it was all reported correctly; is the experience of a single journalist accompanying a single hunt really representative? It still says that around the year 1999 the official, i.e. legally registered, hunts accounted for around 16,000 foxes per year. I'm sure you'll try to say that "Spain kills far more bulls", but would you say that a murderer with three victims was less reprehensible than a mass murdered? I hope not. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea about fox hunting in Australia. It never gets any publicity that I've ever seen. Far removed from the huge hullabaloo that happens every year over duck shooting. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand the perspective of people who oppose fox hunting (or the other things for that matter). After all, packs of dogs and coyotes have torn up animals in the wild for time immemorial - is that a crime that has to be stopped? What makes it wrong for dogs to tear up their prey only when someone is following the dogs? Wnt (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course they both create many jobs; the one supresses a pest however which the other does not. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

People generally expect different standards of behaviour from humans and other animals, as humans are expected to have a greater understanding of the consequences of their actions. For example, animals killing other members of their own species in the wild is tolerated; the killing of humans by other humans is not. In foxhunting, the foxes are generally killed by the hounds (though I believe they are sometimes shot), but only because the hunters have bred and trained them for this purpose. You could argue that, in effect, the hunters are killing the foxes, using the hounds as weapons. (I am not making any claims about the morality of foxhunting, only explaining why it makes sense to see it as morally different from hunting by wild dogs) 130.88.134.103 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

However one trains a pack of dogs to run down and devour a target, surely it is not something out of their general character. I could picture someone arguing that it is inhumane to keep a dog without allowing it to hunt down and kill prey, because you've denied it its nature. (Actually, I would infer that the universal principle of animal use 'ethics' is that whatever is done frequently is acceptable, and whatever is done rarely is evil) Wnt (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This kind of argument gets a little messy when you take into account the role that humans have played in the development of domesticated dogs. Presumably foxhounds wouldn't even exist if humans hadn't required them for hunting. Some dog breeds might have had the desire to hunt prey (if there is such a thing) bred out of them. Others might have retained this part of their 'nature', but are not physically capable of hunting. Even if a dog hunts animals when given the opportunity, I imagine it would be difficult to find evidence that their wellbeing is harmed if they are prevented from doing so. 130.88.134.103 (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer the actual question asked, Bullfighting: art, technique & Spanish society by John McCormick says that in Mexico: "crowds of boys and young men throw themselves upon the animal with paper cups and soft drink bottles to catch and drink some of the blood." I don't doubt some matadors might do this after a fight, probably down to the individual matador's own style as they are showmen above all. meltBanana 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have watched many bullfights in Spain and I have never seen or heard of matadors drinking the blood of the bull. I have also read a number of books both narrative and encyclopaedic about bullfighting and have never seen a reference to this practice in Peninsular Spain. What they do in the 'colonies' is another thing. The reference to the book above is slightly odd and is possibly referring to years past. Nowadays for reasons of safety bullfights in licensed arenas have barriers separating the bulls and participants from the audience, it strikes me as very strange that the audience should have access to the dead bull. Possibly it is a reference to rural plazas de toros in Mexico where safety is often a lower consideration and the organisation is less restrictive. Richard Avery (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Religious Gestures in Danger

I've often seen in movies where Christians will cross themselves when dealing with dangerous events. I am curious if any other religions have similar gestures that they perform in similar circumstances? ^Avic_ennasis @ 19:12, 14 Nisan 5771 / 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside: The crossing that people do in movies is more often than not a pale shadow of how it's actually done. It usually looks like a rushed vague waving of the hand around the face and upper torso, rather than a deliberate touching of first the forehead, then the breast, then the left shoulder, then the right (or right first if you're Orthodox). I've often wondered why actors can't be coached in how to do it properly if they're going to do it at all. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I don't think I've ever seen anyone do it as... pedantically... as you describe - and that includes ten years in a church choir. General waving is about as far as I've seen anyone go (and, of course, this discounts that by far the most people I know would never think of making a gesture like that, it's only the devout who'd even do the 'arm-down-arm-across' general wave) (disclaimer: this anecdotal evidence applies to a small island off the Belgian coast) For OP, the Sign of the Cross is the only religious entry we have in List of gestures, although that list is certainly incomplete--Saalstin (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with pedantry. Would you say that actually touching the floor with your knee when you genuflect is "pedantic"? Would you say that actually eating the host at communion is "pedantic"? Would you say that actually saying the words "Our Father, ..." instead of "Hey, Dad ...", is pedantic? Anyway, the Irish might have something to say about whether the UK is an island. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been to lots of Catholic churches around England, and Saalstin's description doesn't match any congregation I've met. Perhaps the Welsh or the Scots take it less seriously? The sign of the cross features a few times in the Mass, and the congregation in my experience nearly universally performs it as they were taught during catechesis: as Jack describes. It's nothing to do with pedantry or being 'more devout', any more than kneeling during the kneeling parts, or going up for communion. The gesture is basic practice: why would you even do it if you weren't actually going to make a sign of a cross? Perhaps Saalstin is in fact Anglican, which would explain it? 86.164.75.102 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are all this written in small fonts? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it's an aside that doesn't answer the question, so we set it apart. It might add to the sum of undertanding, it might help contributors to remain motivated, but it should not be confused with actual answers. This is why the part of Saalstin's contribution which did answer the question is not small. 86.164.75.102 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Err, technically Anglican, yes (OP just said 'Christian', I didn't even think to categorise), although for most of us that's really more a cultural default than actual observance. Sorry, didn't mean to offend--Saalstin (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I on the other hand did assume Christian = Catholic, because people crossing themselves in movies are usually either known to be Catholics or are of an ethnicity that's much more likely to be Catholic than not (Italian, Irish, Hispanic ...). I can't say I've ever seen an anglophone character of Anglo-Saxon (= non-Celtic) background cross themselves in the movies unless their specifically Catholic religion was a story feature. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure ... I have read that Wiccans have a sign to avert evil, but I don't know whether what I read is reliable or not. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Karana Mudra? Which is (apparently) similar to the common western folk sign corna to ward off the evil eye. Whether these count, since I'm not sure they're used in actual danger, I don't know. 86.164.75.102 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

True but these mudras are not really used in real life (these days), they are more often used in icons and statues and other visual representations as a visual cue about what the statue or icon is "all about". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I once saw a Hindu acquaintance do some hand gestures that reminded me a lot of the Catholic crossing gesture. I wish I had asked him about it now, but I was on vacation in Nepal then and there were so many new experiences I didn't get to investigate them all, sadly. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some Muslims would say the Ta'awwudh... AnonMoos (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish thing to do would also be to pray. I read (present tense) that the Hashkiveinu prayer from the daily morning service is a good one for dangerous situations, and the Tefilat HaDerech, or traveler's prayer, might work as well. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)