Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 January 17

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.

January 17

"Glorifying UNESCO"

One of the claims of this anticommunist piece from the 1950s, setting out the reasons for the Hollywood blacklist is that:

RIGHT NOW, films are being made to craftily glorify MARXISM, UNESCO and ONE-WORLDISM

I understand why McCarthyites wouldn't want films to glorify Marxism or global government, but UNESCO? What was their problem with that? Smurrayinchester 08:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope & folly: the United States and Unesco, 1945-1985 by William Preston, Edward S. Herman, Herbert I. Schiller (pp67-8, on Google Books) has some details. In 1950 Joseph McCarthy attacked various Americans working with the UN and UNESCO as being communists. UNESCO's education programs were criticised as indoctrinating children with "daily doses of Communism, Socialism and New Idealism". There was widespread suspicion of internationalist movements (due partly to the start of the Cold War, which made taking sides seem necessary), and concerns about UNESCO promoting issues from birth control to world government to atheism. The American Legion, Daughters of the American Revolution, the US Chambers of Commerce, and many other patriotic or right-wing organizations joined in the criticisms. Through the 1950s Eisenhower appointed various committees which found no truth in the complaints.

At the same time, some more liberal people in the US (e.g. William Benton, Dean Acheson) saw UNESCO as a tool to spread anti-communist messages, for instance involving it in Korea. This led to UNESCO being regarded with deep suspicion in the Soviet Bloc too. (pp59-60)

Wikipedia doesn't seem to mention the earlier criticisms: there's nothing in that timeframe for UNESCO#Controversy and reform, Criticism of the United Nations, or United States and the United Nations. They do say that in the 70s and 80s UNESCO was still regarded by some in the USA as a communist front "calling for democratization of the media and more egalitarian access to information" which threatened existing media institutions and allegedly freedom of the press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

UNESCO was a hotbed of liberal activism in the late 1940s and early 1950s. They espoused things like the fact that racism had no scientific merit, and other causes that were considered subversive by the anti-Communist right in the 1950s. See e.g. The Race Question, Ashley Montagu. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

High quality answers, so I can only add a side comment. Some long time ago I read much of Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism by M.O'Callaghan (ed.) and published by UNESCO. I was constantly surprised by how much it owed to Marx, even to the point (in some articles) of saying that a theory was at least partially justified because Marx would have thought similarly if he had been alive today. Perhaps this is exaggerated, because it is based on memory, but sometimes it did seem to be making a point that depended at least on showing that Marx may have disagreed, but only because he didn't have the same information. As a result, the point appeared to be, a true Marxist need not disagree on the sole grounds that Marx didn't say it. But I don't know what the role of UNESCO is as a publisher (ie. their degree of control over ideology), so I just thought I'd share it. I was pretty far to the left at the time, and even I was a bit knocked out. IBE (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Marx isn't quite as controversial amongst the international milieu as he is in the United States. Anyway, it's an international organization — even if you just chose articles at random from scholars in the top 15 nations at the time (1980), you'll probably end up with a pretty lefty bent to things, especially if you're choosing from sociologists. (And since one of the few Americans on there I recognize is Troy Duster, even your US chapter was probably pretty lefty). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

As a "social scientist" who uses (a little bit of) Marx, and a lot of theory and concrete work inspired by Marxists—sociologists don't look Marx-y enough to me. You've got American instrumentalism, Mass Observation, Durkheim, Bourdieu and Weber as alternate conceptions of the basis of sociology. Now history, there's hardly a historian alive who hasn't had to react and incorporate major findings developed by Marxist historians... oh E.P. Thompson, you're so dreamy. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your answers, everyone. Smurrayinchester 19:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Many delegates to the newly-created Unesco were convinced that they had an historical role in setting up a "world governement", based on an "universal culture", an "universal civilisation", etc. Many thought that, as world-level intellectuals, their first task was to discuss and draft a world constitution - 1786-1787 again, but on a world scale (a fascinating story, by the way). This would have implied the end of dominant role of the U.S. By the mid-50s they had shifted into the opposite direction and were promoting "cultural diversity" and the like. I don't have ready references in English, but you may glance through Chloé Maurel "L’UNESCO de 1945 à 1974" (html or "Le rêve d’un “gouvernement mondial” des années 1920 aux années 1950. L’exemple de l’Unesco", Histoire@Politique. Politique, culture, société, n°10, janvier-avril 2010, 20 pp. Touchatou (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Query on the booklet 'Reiterfestspiel das Dragoner Regiments "Konig" '

Hi, I have reviewed and searched not only Wikipedia but other webs sites as well to find out more about the above Centenary celebration of the above mentioned booklet which celebrated the 100 years of the "Dragoner Regiments "Konig" 1805-1905. I have a copy of the original book given to my Great Grandfather who was in the Regiment. Do you have any further information on this? My Great Great Grandfather, Franz Anton Stiglitz (who was born in Augsburg) is said to have been a Major in the (probably) Prussian army. But I can find no source to verify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.227.178 (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate what kind of information it is you are seeking? You seem to have much information already, that it is a booklet published in connection with the centenary celebration of the dragoon regiment König December 6 1905. Regarding the regiment itself, this page has some information and the German Wikipedia actually has an article on it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How many times has wikipedia engaged in political activity

I was curious about this banner accross wikipedia today declaring that wikipedia is shutting down to protest American legislation. I was wondering how many times has wikipedia officially sanctioned other protests, donated funds to political organizations, or engaged in other American political activity? Gx872op (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Slightly OT as I don't know the answer (though I suspect it's "never before"), but if proposed US legislation threatened, albeit unintentionally, to make your world-wide (though US headquartered) web-based activities effectively impossible, would you consider your reaction to be "political activity"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81;230.195} 90.197.66.252 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the 'letter' linked from the black banner "This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature...". Make of that what you will. The letter is hazy on many details. --jjron (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the WMF can't legally donate funds to any political organisations (see Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative#Wikimedia is legally a charity - are such political acts allowed?) presuming you mean an organisation which is campaigning on behalf of or against candidates. The recent Italian blackout was made by the community, apparently without the WMF really knowing but was post-hoc sanctioned by the WMF. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WMF is not allowed to partake in political matters as a 501(c)(3). This blackout is clearly illegal and they should lose the 501(c)(3) status. Will they? No, of course not. -- kainaw™ 17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that, or are you just going to accuse people of lawbreaking without any evidence? --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The IRS has the following to say: "In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates" ([1], emphasis mine), and points to a paper that cites case law determining that spending 5% of overall expenditure on lobbying does not constitute "a substantial part", but that ~20% does. I seriously doubt that the blackout will consume even 1% of Wikipedia's budget for the year. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well to be blunt, if it comes down to the opinion of some random pissed off internet user and a lawyer specifically hired to represent and advise the foundation in all matters, including this one, I know who's opinion I consider more trustworthy. P.S. I added this part "(see Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative#Wikimedia is legally a charity - are such political acts allowed?) presuming you mean an organisation which is campaigning on behalf of or against candidates" after Kainaw's reply Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also one more thing, you do know the WMF hired an organisation to advise them on the process behind the bill, and initially to develop contacts with those involved in SOPA/PIPA right (Wikipedia:SOPA initiative#"Lobbying" and Government Affairs)? If blacking out wikipedia is forbidden, it would seem this hiring is far worse. (EC with above) Incidentally, even if you don't trust the WMF's lawyer, you could try reading the links he provided [2]. As it turns out the IRS's website isn't full of lawyer gobblygook. In fact, it seems to make a clear cut distinction between the prohibited political activities, where it specifically and only mentions supporting or opposing a candidate in some way [3]. And legislative activities which it says is 'attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)' and isn't forbidden but can't be a substanial part of its activities [4]. So I guess not only is our lawyer wrong, but the IRS have provided highly misleading advice. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, every single edit on Wikipedia is an act of political activism for free knowledge. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though WMF is relatively small in terms of budget and number of staff, Wikipedia has a huge impact on the culture. For a non-profit 501(c)3 organization, particularly one with the influence of WMF to work to influence legislation that is relevant to its mission - either through hiring a lobbyist or becoming a paid member of a trade group - is completely normal. Usually they do it behind the scenes, and often its to secure grants but there are plenty of non-profits that launch campaigns for or against a particular piece of legislation. GabrielF (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that we poor non-US citizens are going to be left in the dark by the blackout, don't leave us in the dark by using ridiculous US-centric jargon, too. What the hell is 501(c)3 supposed to mean? 31.185.35.82 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Um this is Wikipedia, we have an article on (almost) everything: 501(c) organization 'Colloquially, a 501(c) organization or simply "a 501(c)" is an American tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation or association'.. It even tells you what the '3' stands for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't explain how it is pronounced though. Is it "five-oh-one-see-three" or "five-hundred-and-one-see-three"? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, it doesn't, does it? We'll have to shut Wikipedia down for 24 hours to fix it ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've always heard it pronounced "five oh one see three". GabrielF (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We can presume it's pronounced the same as 401(k). Realisticly you can't watch much US TV without hearing that at least once. Nil Einne (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be "four-o-wank"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is the first time. It is highly controversial, editors such as myself do not like it because even though SOPA is a terrible piece of legislation it risks politicizing Wikipedia and establishes a precedent for future such action.AerobicFox (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

501(c)3 organizations engage in lobbying legislators and the public all the time. What they can't do is, for example, tell members to vote for a particular candidate, from what I understand. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the "risk of politicization" argument is weak. Wikipedia ought to be politicized when it comes to legal or technical restrictions that would inhibit its own functioning. That's its only legitimate area for overt political activity. I see no inclination that this is a slippery slope. I voted for the blackout, but I wouldn't vote for any other political activity that wasn't somehow directly related to Wikipedia's mission, even if it was something I agreed with. I suspect most of the voters feel similar. It's clearly making a big statement, in any case — it's been covered in every major news source since it was announced. I'm impressed by that and proud of the Wikipedians and the WMF. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not really "impressive" for Wikipedia to get a lot of coverage when ever it does something on a large scale, it's really just what you would expect considering the size and influence it's grown to. The argument that we shouldn't worry about politicizing Wikipedia on matters that directly affect us takes for granted the image of impartiality that Wikipedia tries to maintain, and which is ultimately far more important to Wikipedia than the vast majority of political issues which may affect it.AerobicFox (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's impressive when a free, non-profit, volunteer-based project gets front page, above-the-fold coverage in the New York Times when they make a political statement of that sort. There are a million web petitions and whatnot per year; rarely do they amount to anything. Anyway, I think we can agree to disagree on the last part. I think defending one's own existence is worth being a little impartial about, from time to time. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a waste of time arguing over whether something is "impressive" or not. Person A was impressed by an event, Person B wasn't - end of story. Same for "interesting", "beautiful", "attractive", "remarkable" and most any other subjective adjective. My recommendation is to have as little to do with adjectives as possible when talking about subjective impressions of events in the real world. Talk about what you experience, not about what the thing "is". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. I would just note, as a final point of mine, that one of the major objections voiced on the vote page was that it wouldn't matter, nobody would change anything, why be inconvenient for no reason, etc. That seems to have been thoroughly found to be false. The pro-SOPA lobbyists have all gone on the record saying they were blown out of the water by the backlash. I think that's significant. Everything looks inevitable once it works. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Circle of politics

Please can anyone point me at (preferably non-US centric) references to support the idea that politics is not a straight line, but a circle where the extreme left and the extreme right actually meet? I learnt about this over 30 years ago when I studied politics at University, but because I wasn't very interested then, I can't remember where I found it.--TammyMoet (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a page on the very similar Horseshoe theory, the model of politics in which the far left and far right resemble each other but are not identical; also one on the political spectrum which is worth reading as a guide to other models. --Antiquary (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd found political spectrum and the Horseshoe theory seems similar to what I was taught. But not the same! I wonder if there's anything else out there? (at least I don't think I dreamt it, or that it was the result of what I'd had to drink in the bar before the lecture...) --TammyMoet (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That circle diagram was pretty common when I was a kid, but I haven't seen it in a long time. Basically the point where they met on the circle was labeled "totalitarianism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's the one Bugs. I found a similar one but the language used was very US-centric, whereas the one I remember was UK. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There's also the left and right branches of Hegelianism, where the two extremes are considered to be variations on a single theory of the coming perfect state, and how is it going to be created. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This[5] isn't exactly the one, but it's the same general idea. I googled [circle communism fascism totalitarianism] and this was the first thing that came up. The circle I recal was inverted, and said "totalitarianism" instead of "lunatic fringe". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Law - what would this soldier be charged with?

So let's say we have a soldier (enlisted, not officer) who committed the following offenses on the battlefield / in a wartime situation:

1. directly disobeyed the orders of his superior officer;
2. shared classified intelligence with unauthorized persons;
3. used military funds without authorization from the chain of command;
4. deserted his post after battle -- i.e. went AWOL.

So these actions are obviously asking for a court martial. What would be the specific charges? And what would be the likely penalties or punishments? Anyone know? --Brasswatchman (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Which country? HiLo48 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Japan (the self-defense forces), though I'll also take information on US military law (which I presume is similar). --Brasswatchman (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For the US, it's basically as you said it for 1) and 4). I imagine that the Espionage Act of 1917 or the UCMJ-equivalent might apply for 2. Not sure about 3. NW (Talk) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In very generalized terms, the offenses are 1) insubordination/sedition/mutiny, 2) treason/espionage, 3) misappropriation/embezzlement, and 4) desertion.

If you need more specific charges though, it varies by country. #3 in the Philippines for example would be called "Plunder". Anyway for the US, they're listed at Uniform Code of Military Justice#Punitive Articles-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Capital punishment by the United States military says you can be executed for espionage or "aiding the enemy", either of which might fit count 2. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. I missed this (uncited) bit on the Japanese Self-Defense Forces article:

All SDF personnel are technically civilians: those in uniform are classified as special civil servants and are subordinate to the ordinary civil servants who run the Ministry of Defense. There are no military secrets, military laws, or offenses committed by military personnel; whether on-base or off-base, on-duty or off-duty, of a military or non-military nature, are all adjudicated under normal procedures by civil courts in appropriate jurisdictions.

Guess that answers my question there. Thanks for your help, everyone. --Brasswatchman (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Countries without police or armed police

Which countries do not have a police force or only an unarmed police force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by size of police forces suggests that there are no countries that don't have a police force (even the Vatican has police). Likewise, there don't appear to be any countries with no armed police; our Law enforcement by country claims Norway is one, but by the looks of it they just don't carry guns routinely; they still have them locked in their cars for emergencies. New Zealand, Ireland and the UK (to a lesser extent) do something similar - uniformed officers aren't armed, and if guns are needed the firearms squad is called in. Smurrayinchester 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In England officers mostly don't carry guns (Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom). I guess the North Pole, though slighty inhabited and not an official country doesn't have police. I think you have to dig deep into history for countries not to have a police-like agency. You might like this article about the situation in the "Wild West" with hardly any official law enforcement. Joepnl (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Good lord, there's even a Somali Police Force, though I shudder to think how they manage to operate. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The article you link covers this. Essentially they don't operate outside parts of Mogadishu (where there's been a small force since 2005), the main forces having been disbanded in 1991. Probably the more established Islamist areas have some form of Mutaween. There's also the Puntland Maritime Police Force, and the article on Somaliland says they have a police force too. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As for armed police forces, let me note that Erich Kästner's Die Konferenz der Tiere talks about an utopic fiction when all firearms are destroyed, and police forces are armed with bows and arrows only. (Hey, this is the humanties desk, so literature in on topic?) – b_jonas 11:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How to learn Sri Lanka Tamil?

Hi,

I'd like be able to read newspapers or webpages about Sri Lanka in Tamil. It's unclear to me whether the books or the learning material available online is useful for this task (i.e. how close oral and written variants of Tamil are, or if there are significant differences between Sri Lanka and India). Are usual Tamil language resources (like Teach Yourself, the Colloquial series, Assimil...) suitable for this task or is this a waste of time and should I rather concentrate on Sri Lanka-specific manuals or grammars (which ones?).

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess the written part does not differ much. You can read. However, the accent is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.149.10 (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Statistics of Atheist Comedians

It seems to me that a large percentage of comedians are atheists. Is it just psychological, or have researchers found a real, statistically-significant correlation between atheism and comicalness? thanks, 46.116.213.73 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A theory: for whatever cultural reasons, a disproportionate number of late 20th century comedians in the United States have been Jewish. A disproportionate number of late 20th century people of Jewish descent are somewhere on the atheist/agnostic spectrum. Ergo you could imagine some correlation there. But this is just a theory based on the intersection of two general cultural tropes. I don't think there's likely any link between atheism and "comicalness", but I do think there are cultural contexts (specifically American Judaism) that produces both. (I say this as a quasi-Jewish atheist with a reasonably good sense of humor.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

According to happiness studies, believers in whatever religion are happier than atheists & agnostics (at least, they state higher life satisfaction). Any link with "comicalness" ? By the way, I have never heard of a statistical mesure of "comicalness". Touchatou (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Pure OR, but it is possibly due to a positive correlation between intelligence and atheism. (Yeah, I know, citation needed - I'm sure I've seen it somewhere...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

My guess is you can find a positive correlation between intelligence and almost any non-mainstream intellectual movement, just because more intelligent people are more likely to think about such things in the first place, and find a wide variety of answers.

So for example I would expect the correlation between intelligence and neopaganism to be positive as well. --Trovatore (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a real answer to this question. But is it possible that comedy is correlated to 'outsider' status? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We have an article: Religiosity and intelligence. --Tango (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As a rule, comedy works by poking fun at social conventions. as a rule, religious people are strongly conventional. It's not impossible - I've seen a few good Christian comedians, for instance - but it's not an easy line to walk. --Ludwigs2 18:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the things people like in a good comedy act is "irreverence". Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious people believe that there is a purpose to life, in terms of reaching standards set by some outside entity, and ultimately feel that they should live up to those standards. That, often, constrains their behaviour. Irreligious people don't have those constraints - though they may have different constraints, which they set themselves. Often, irreligious people feel that life is here for us all to make the best of, ourselves - and believe that laughing at ourselves and at each other, at the ridiculousness of life, is an important part of that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)