Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 March 4

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.

March 4

Georgia

How was the area of Georgia divided when Stalin was born?Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? Are you asking about its political subdivisions, or are you simply asking about what country it was in? If the latter, see our Georgia within the Russian Empire article, including its useful map from when young Iosif Vissarionovich was four years old. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking about political subdivisions.2602:306:C541:CC60:51D:B38D:18D2:A14C (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

According to this map and this article in the Russian Wikipedia, what is now Georgia was divided into the governorates of Tbilisi and Kutaisi, the latter including the Sukhumi okrug, the oblast of Batumi, and perhaps a sliver of the oblast of Kars. Marco polo (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about ISIS videos: Why do some ISIS members hide their faces, while others do not?

I don't understand this about ISIS and their videos. Why is it that some of the guys carefully hide their faces (with masks and coverings and such) to maintain anonymity, while others freely allow their faces to be seen (and photographed and videotaped, to boot)? I don't get it. What could be the possible reason for this distinction, which often occurs even within the same video? ISIS seems like a very structured and organized group, where members are expected to follow orders and do as told. So, when they make a video, I can't imagine that the leaders say something like "Well, if you feel like it, you can cover your face. But, if you don't feel like it, then you can reveal your face." What gives? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A good bet is that those covering their faces come from a Western nation, and would like to be able to return some day, perhaps to launch an attack there. They might also fear reprisals against their families still in those nations. StuRat (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they aren't as well-organized as they would like us to think. Also, they're not very careful. "Jihadi John" has been identified, and even his own mother confirmed that's his voice. The "fear of reprisal against relatives" is part of their paranoia. But it's a good bet that "Jihadi John" won't be returning home, unless it's in a body bag. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Organized or not, I think that hiding versus revealing one's face is a pretty important piece of their videos. I doubt they just leave it up to the random whim of each member. Their videos are very carefully orchestrated and choreographed. I am sure that hiding/revealing the face is part of the equation that they consider when making a video. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You are probably right, in which case the decision in each case is a tactical one. But what they are doing is new, so they are not experienced at it. In the case of Jihadi John, they might have thought mistakenly that concealing his face would have allowed them to send him back to Britain to do something like attack Beefeaters with a machete. If we are right about this, then, based on this new knowledge, either faces will stop being concealed, or some faces will remain concealed while a different person delivers a voice-over. Marco polo (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for giving them ideas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

They are obviously more than capable of coming up with ghastly ideas on their own. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. I guess that I assumed that it was an "all or nothing" proposition. That is: "Hiding our faces is important, so we all have to do it." Or: "Hiding our faces is not that important, so none of us has to do it." And I can see the individual who "goes against the grain" would suffer reprisal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell , they have no Borg implants, so they are probably just as individualistic as, say, American truckers or French chefs. More seriously, it's a sad and dangerous mistake to assume they are more equal than any other group of semi-organised people gathering around any one particular aspect of their lives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

They don't seem well-organized to me. Early on they appeared to be planning to allow "nonbelievers" to continue to live in the area, provided they paid an extra tax. There is such a provision in Muslim law for this, and, while unfair discrimination from a Western POV, probably nobody would have gone to war over this. But instead of sticking with this policy, they started massacring religious minorities, guaranteeing that they would be attacked. Even then many nations might only launch token attacks against them. However, then ISIS had to do things like burning the Jordanian pilot alive and posting executions of civilians online, ensuring that the attackers would actually do what it takes to win. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The "extra tax" is usually the Jizya, and in less radical islamic societies it is supposed to compensate for the fact that non-muslims don't have to pay Zakat. It's anachronistic, but at least historically it is not particularly unfair. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No less fair than favouring married people. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In America you can try to get your Congressman and Senators to propose taking away the tax advantage for marrieds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And in countries that aren't America, it's acceptable to negotiate with terrorists. Changing either consensus is very hard, though. Easier to just teach other terrorists to kill them. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We can't help what foolishness other countries decide to get into. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If we chose to, we could declare war on ISIS and throw everything we've got at them. But they're not sitting there in isolation, so a lot of groundwork would have to be laid. And if the Islamic states in the region decide to take of ISIS, all the better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I see where ISIS is dealing with gays by throwing them off buildings. As bad as that is, almost anything is better than being roasted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The groundwork is being laid. Like I said, it's hard to convince Senators. Especially when you're essentially asking for permission to roast people. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's better to be prepared and hope we don't need it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's a fairly significant mistake to assume that Daesh is working towards only one aim at a time (and also to assume that they doesn't care about the proclivities of their members - you can bet your ass they factor who wants to return to their homelands for nefarious purposes or even just who is worried about retribution. Enthusiastic, active jihadis will be more effective at achieving Daesh's goals than a bunch of bummed out ones, so generally speaking they will factor member sentiment in to decisions, even though that obviously won't be the only factor.)

Daesh didn't initially want Christians to pay the jizya and live in peace and then suddenly shift towards deciding to kill them all. At the same time throughout their existence depending on the needs of the organization and local and member sentiments, multiple methods of dealing with Christians have existed throughout their territory. Some Christians have been utterly left alone - and some fraction will likely continue to be until/unless Daesh actually fully takes over the world (and possibly even then.) Some have been forced to pay the jizya. Some have been killed. And some have been beheaded in propaganda films with incredibly high production values for the whole world to see. Each method serves its purpose, and each will likely to continue. As Daesh has discovered, high production value brutality can be incredibly effective at manipulating foreign opinion (as well as internal morale) and the actions of governments - so when need for manipulation that can be achieved through these means arises, they will likely continue to use them. At the same time, in areas that need funding (or where brutality towards Christians serves no internal or external purpose,) the jizya - Daesh's version is much more confiscatory than the historical jizya - can be a valuable tool. And in an area where the assistance of Christians is needed for whatever reason (or an area where Daesh doesn't yet have the ability to control the population if they brutalize Christians,) some have been left to live without paying the jizya. I would be quite surprised if any of these treatments or the in between gradients disappears, although it's notable that (at least before the rising strength of Daesh - I'm not sure about now,) Al-Nusra - aka al-qaeda in Syria - decided that killing civilians of any stripe was bad for the success of their group, and made significant efforts to minimize both the number of civilian casualties and how much popular attention was paid to them. (This white paper from the Quilliam Foundation gives a very interesting overview of the doctrine and evolution of al-nusra.) I do intentionally keep specifying Christians - Daesh's treatment of Jews, Shiite Muslims, and people not of the book tends to be very different.

Treatment of Christians isn't the only area where Daesh doesn't follow a uniform policy - in some areas and at some times civilians who try to protect cultural artifacts are summarily executed and the artifacts subsequently destroyed, but in Mosul a large group of civilians formed a human chain around and successfully prevented Daesh from destroying the famed leaning minaret of the Great Mosque of Nur al-Din (and if retribution was taken against them later, it wasn't publicized as such.) Though in some areas Christians have been able to live relatively unmolested, in Raqqa many houses and parts of houses have been seized from Sunnis who had not given particular offense to Daesh - the number of foreign fighters housed in the city combined with Daesh's practice of giving fairly roomy accomodations to most Western fighters presumably made them need a greater housing supply in the area. (Of course, most legitimate governments also hold widely inconsistent practices with regard to at least some things throughout their territories - we just have an idea that consistency should be expected. As an example, just because it's in the news so much lately - in some areas of California some open growers and sellers of marijuana are held in great respect by their local governments (the city governments of Berkeley and Oakland are both engaged in expensive legal disputes with the feds to protect local dispensaries,) and police in the US's capital city have started returning seized marijuana to arrestees, though some Californians are serving long jail terms for selling marijuana - and at least a couple dozen people are serving life sentences in the US for nonviolent marijuana offenses.)

About Marco's suggestion that eventually we'd see different people doing voiceovers than actually doing the beheading - interestingly, this has probably always been the case for reasons that haven't been fully drawn out. Most people who have done careful analysis of the videos suggest that Jihadi John - despite holding a knife leading up to the beheadings and returning immediately after they have been completed - is not the person performing the actual act. There's evidence that most (or all) of the videos have significant cuts (in the context, I wish I could think of another word) immediately before the actual beheading that suggest that a different militant steps in to perform the actual act or that the actual beheading is performed by another militant only at a different time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you made many very good points there. To add or re-enforce some of them... While they may have a Caliph and many trappings of a state, it would be foolish to think of them as a monolithic dictorial state where everything that happens is largely at the whims and fancies of one person, not least because they were very few recognised states which even come close to that. Notably, it would be foolish to assume the responses to their videos were necessarily unexpected. Firstly, not everyone has responded by stepping up their attacks. More importantly, if you aren't likely to be killed in any attacks, then you may not mind such stepping up of attacks, if it serves a wider purpose such as keeping your name in the news, drawing more people to fight for your cause or supporting your message (e.g. of being in a fight against crusaders and their un-Islamic allies who are more interested in killing Muslims than in any humanitarian goal). Definitely there are a number of comentators who suggest ISIS wants to draw Western countries, particularly their ground forces, back in to Iraq [1] [2] [3] [4]. Even a temporary loss of some territory may not matter if you feel it fits your wider goals. It's perhaps also notable how discussing surrounding wider problems can either largely go by the way side (e.g. the Iraqi government and the Sunni-Shia divide, or the hellhole and lack of any obvious solution from the Western POV of Syria) or even basically be completely rejected (e.g. the so called "jobs for ISIS"), another thing likely useful to ISIS. And of course people can be wrong about what the ultimate outcome may be, it doesn't mean they didn't achieve their initial goals. Specifically about Jihadi John, while it's impossible to say what the intentions may have been, is possible it was always expected his identity would be revealed. In many ways the recent revealation after speculation etc has probably given more focus than if his identity had been known early on, not a bad thing if that's what you want. Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Jihadi John worked like a superhero or supervillain that way. You never want to give an origin story away before the catchy name is established. Americans adore alliteration. Probably why Abu Hammam al-Shami is redlinked. Jabhat al-Whatra? Which viral video was he in again? To ensure the legend, you must live up to the name. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That Atlantic piece you linked is quite good - it's one of few western sources that aren't incredibly jargon heavy that goes in to much depth on Daesh's actual religious beliefs. There have been some good radio pieces (and some good specialized stuff,) but most of it hasn't touched as heavily as the atlantic on the apocalyptic side of stuff. Tangentially, although I've never gotten my hands on enough information to make an altogether satisfying case for it, I've always kind of suspected that although a lot of their provocations are intentional (ex: they want US ground interention,) they weren't expecting Jordan's reaction. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Stock Market Traders - How many Globally?

How many people/traders/investors buy and sell shares around the World? Total and breakdown by country/region or continent would be great!

JBL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.25.72 (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gets the message

When was the expression "gets the message" first used?-Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You might be better asking on the Wiktionary tearoom (helpdesk) which is here. The related gets the picture has a quote from 1910, but it may well be older. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an odd phrase. Your related example is almost always metaphorical, so we might well expect the metaphor to have a first use in print. But "gets the message" can also just be standard use of English - "When he gets the message, he'll know when to expect me" - sentences like that are probably as old as their constituent words. But for the metaphorical use of "get the message", i.e. not in regards to an actual literal message being sent or received, OED.com gives a usage from 1959

“ Jrnl. Negro Educ. 28 142 The..Negroes..huddled together in urban neighbourhoods and border and southern city councils promptly passed ordinances designed to keep them there. The courts got the message and asserted their power to enforce private racial covenants by judicial decree ”

- emphasis mine. This is not necessarily the first ever usage, but it is likely the oldest in print that OED is aware of that illustrates the metaphorical concept. For some reason I can't get a direct link to work, just go to OED.com and type "get the message" in to the search box. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Google ngram viewer shows a sharp rise in the late 1950s, suggesting that 1959 usage may be correct for the use of the words as an idiom (once that group of words enters the language as an idiom, expect its usage to rise). When I searched the individual date ranges for books earlier for that, all I could find were literal uses of getting a message. Antandrus (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

German stay permit

I am monirul islam, I am writing this letter to inform an unjustified,unprofessional and one sided handling about my German stay permit case as well as my right of residence permit was unlawfully cancelled from Bavarian Administrative court (Bayerisches Verwaltungs gericht wursburg), case no. W 7 K 12.860, Germany. This court has rejected my Legitimate claim all though i had enough evidences as prove. I am still looking for proper justice, please advice me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.113.82 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no connection to any court systems. You will need to find an attorney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We cannot give legal (or medical) advice, in part because its illegal in some countries, and incase it's incorrect. As Bugs said, you need to find a German (or Bavarian) immigration lawyer. If there is Pakistani (assuming that is the your country-of-origin) community association near you, they may be able to advise you which one to chose. LongHairedFop (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone who knows, or knows how to find it, could help the OP by linking to web sites for offices that deal with German stay permits, or any WP:RS pages that describe an appeals process, e.g. a page from the Bavarian Administrative court, etc. Here's a FAQ page I found that discusses German visas [5]. Obviously we cannot give professional advice, but we can link to pages that discuss German visa issues. OP might also ask this question at stackexchange. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all you need to understand what the law is. The law is all about procedures and evidence. The law is not about what you believe. If you have all the evidence and you have presented all your evidence in the proper timing and your evidence is clear and unambiguous then you have presented your legitimate case. This is why keeping proper records are so important in cases of law. 175.45.116.65 (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)