Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 March 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.

March 18

Category:Criticism of monotheism

The concept of "criticism of monotheism", as I see it, is either criticism from religious perspectives that are non-monotheist (polytheist, there's-a-nonpersonal-higher-power, or something else) or atheist/agnostic criticism that focuses specifically on the beliefs of monotheists and, presumably, criticises the actions of monotheists that specifically grow out of their monotheism; if you're criticising monotheists for a merely for belief in the divine, it seems to be more criticism of religion in general, or perhaps you're criticising monotheists of one or two religions, in which case you're more criticising that/those religion(s). The criticism of monotheism article seems to hold a perspective similar to mine — it's talking specifically about criticism of monotheism for things such as intolerance that grows out of there being one god running everything, as opposed to religions that teach multiple gods that might have multiple perspectives.

There are four articles in this category:

• The God Delusion
• God: The Failed Hypothesis
• The Grand Design (book)
• Alan Moore

Here's the actual question for this thread: Are all four primarily critics of monotheism, or are some of them basically just critics of religion? All three books seem to be much more of criticism-of-religion; judging by their articles, these books seem to say that the concept of the divine can't withstand modern science, a teaching that could also be applied to polytheism, for example. This leaves only Moore, with his "Monotheism is, to me, a great simplification..." quote, as the only one of the four criticising monotheism. But since I'm not familiar with any of the three books, I could easily be misunderstanding them. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:COATRACK, but I'm not clear why you bring that in. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Because these articles claim to be criticism of monotheism, when most of them are actually criticism of religion in general - as you said. True criticism of monotheism as such would be arguments in favor of polytheism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree, you might as well have a category "criticisms of the NY Yankees" which includes Mets fans and baseball haters. Where's the category for deletion page? μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Category. The only problem is with the contents. Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Meaning what? I am an atheist who has read The God Delusion (as well as Dennett, and God is not Great) and who thinks they all woefully failly the "if you have not presented your opponents argument in its strongest form you have not defeated it" premise as quoted by Hitchens and originated by others. Please say why the category is coherehent, and not a hodgepodge. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that in theory there could be a Category:Criticism of monotheism, but if there is nothing to put in it, it may be pointless to have the Category. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I too am confident that such a category could exist reasonably. Surely there are plenty of Hindus who have criticised both Christianity and Islam, and plenty of ancient Roman pagans who criticised Judaism and Christianity, on polytheistic grounds, and the criticism mentioned in the criticism-of-monotheism article, and from atheists saying "unlike polytheism, monotheism is problematic because its narrowmindedness leads followers to be intolerant". Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that Nyttend makes the obvious point here. Contrary to what BB said, criticism of monotheism doesn't have to mean you are supporting polytheism. It's easily possible to argue monotheism has special problems while not supporting or arguing in favour of polytheism, e.g. an atheist. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you're both wrong. You've got an implicit double negative here. A category "reasons for polytheism or atheism" would be a coatrack and that's exactly what this means. We don't need to have a category for every utterable bit of nonsense. μηδείς (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

No one said anything about reasons for polytheism or atheism. What we're saying is that something could criticise monotheism without clearly supporting any thing else in particular. As I pointed out the CFD, by the same token someone can criticise Islam or Christianity without supporting Christanity or Islam or religion or atheism. Or someone can criticise communism without supporting facism. Etc etc. The fact is we have an article Criticism of monotheism which isn't the best but I'm confident will either survive AFD or be merged with some other article while keeping the contents mentioning criticism of monotheism precisely because some people criticise monotheism without necessarily supporting polytheism or religion or atheism. Technically some of the criticism may be seen as a reason for atheism or polytheism, just as some criticism of Islam may be seen as a reason for other religions or atheism or some criticism or communism may be seen as reasons for facism but it's clearly going to get complicated and the ultimate point is someone is saying these are the problems with X rather than necessarily saying this means Y is better. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem of evil seems like it should be added. After all, equal good and evil dieties battling for control better explains it than one god. StuRat (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Bad dieties? Is that something like this page, perhaps? Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "diet-ease" would have been a good replacement for the name Ayds. 04:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm I'd like to push the pun up to the un-eased area the sale of Campana to Purex in that article does not in fact target its link right. --Askedonty (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, then there was the unfortunate merger of Genetech and Ameritel. μηδείς (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, everyon​e, I've created a CFD for this category; please go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 18. As I've said at CFD, a delete vote should be stated as "soft delete", i.e. delete now because it's too small, but restore in the future if there are more articles to put into it, or are "hard delete", delete now and don't restore because it's not appropriate to have a category for this subject. Nyttend (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Northern and Southern Court

What happen to the descendants of the Daikakuji (Southern Court) line of Imperial Japan between the abdication of Emperor Go-Kameyama in 1392 and the claimant Kumazawa Hiromichi in 1946-1947? Presumably, believing that the imperial system would return to alternation between the lines in peacetime as promised in the treaty that ended the wars of the Northern and Southern Court period, the Emperor Go-Kameyama's sons must have been expecting to succeed Emperor Go-Komatsu (from the Northern Court Jimoyin line) until he reneged on his promise in 1412. What happen to the Go-Kameyama's immediate descendants (his sons and grandsons, etc)? How about his later descendants? The Northern line set up plenty of junior lines (shinnoke and oke lines) with their own status in society, so were they allow to exist as parallel noble lines or were they demoted to commoner status? Kumazawa Hiromich claimed he had a koseki which explained his claim of descent as the 19th generation descendant of Go-Kameyama, do we have any idea who the individuals were on that line of descent? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

See Samurai: The World of the Warrior by Stephen Turnbull (p.40: The Last Flourish). To cut a long story short, supporters of the Southern Court didn't give in easily. There was a revolt in 1413 in support of Prince Ogura (the son of Go-Kameyama) which was quickly crushed by the government. A further plot in 1428 to assassinate the Shogun Ashikaga Yoshinori was discovered before it could be executed. In 1443, Kusunoki Masahide attacked the imperial palace and carried off the Three Sacred Treasures and the Southern pretender, Prince Manjuji. Seeking sanctuary with the warrior-monks of Enryaku-ji at Mount Hiei, they were defeated by government forces resulting in the suicide of Manjuji. Masahide escaped with Mjuji's two sons and part of the regalia, and established a secret court in the mountains near Yoshino, Nara until 1457, when their hideaway was compromised by their enemies masquerading as supporters.

If you would like to be confused a bit more, see this genealogy of Oguranomiya Seisho (date of birth unknown - June 13, 1443), the grandson of Emperor Go-Kameyama, which has some details of the line which disappears at some unspecified time after the Ōnin War (1467 to 1477). Other English language sources seem to have eluded the internet. Alansplodge (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Karl von den Steinen

This paper mentioned Karl von den Steinen "collected a megalithic sculptured stonehead with two quadrupeds each placed at each corner of the mouth. The stone sculpture is presently located in the Museum für Völkerkunde, Berlin." Any idea how to find out what that sculpture looks like at the museum, short of me emailing the museum and asking them directly(Not possible, they are closed permanently it seems)? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Could be the one shown here and here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

And on the cover of his volume II on sculptures. There is a category c:Category:Opferkopf Manuiotaa for this sculpture. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Vol. I and vol. II are online, unfortunately vol. III with the figures is not online. The sculpture found in Puamau (Hiva-Oa) is described in vol. II, pp. 82-84, 8. Manuiotaa. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pp.paul.4: The image is the title image vol 2 though. What figures are you referring to in vol 3. Is there a non-title figure of the statue in vol 3?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are images in vol. III, referred to in vol. II, p. 82. I have no access, however, to vol. III. Here the museum's plaque. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

When were the exact dates that Karl von den Steinen was on the Marquesas? I have one source saying he was there in 1896 and stayed for six months without giving months or dates and the wiki article claims 1897. Can someone possibly give me an exact range down to the months at least so I know to either say 1896 or 1896-97 or 1897-98 as claimed on Wikipedia, Basically if his stay started near the end of one year spilled into the next year either 1897 or 1898.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The German WP article states that the voyage took place from August 1897 through February 1898, see de:Karl von den Steinen#1897–1898: Expedition zu den Marquesas. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Book questions

Hi,

I'm looking to do some reading in order to (hopefully) write more articles, and I was wondering which would be some good books on:

• Proxy wars generally, particularly in the Cold War (Angola, for example)
• The Cold War in the Third World
• Authoritarian anti-communist regimes and Communist guerrilla movements in Southeast Asia
• The Lebanese Civil War
• The Cambodian Genocide
• Counterinsurgency history, particularly in Southeast Asia and Central America
• The Iran-Iraq War
• Central Asia during the Cold War
• The Mongolian purges
• The 1965 Indonesia coup/massacres
• Reliable accounts/histories of espionage and counterintelligence activities in the Cold War (any nationality)

Thanks so much for your help! GAB^gab 19:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not Cold War espionage but well known Operation Olympic Games, a joint United States and Israeli cyber attack from 2006 on Iranian uranium centrifuges. Stuxnet targets Windows then Siemens Step7 software on programmable logic controllers. Stuxnet reportedly ruined 20% of Iran's centrifuges (not the hardware but years' worth of enrichment).
Sleigh (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Communist guerrilla movements in Southeast Asia: Communist insurgency in Thailand and in the Philippines CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion.
Sleigh (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

In Malaysia Communist insurgency in Sarawak.
Sleigh (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Communist Party of Indonesia.
Sleigh (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

More in the Philippines Moro conflict.
Sleigh (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

For the Cambodian genocide the works of Ben Kiernan are so detailed as to be unavoidable. As it is such an emotive topic he is not without his critics, but he is also in the academic mainstream as the editor of a scholarly journal on genocide. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

As somebody who works is trained in and works on this area, I would say Kiernan is NOT "mainstream" when it comes to the Cambodian Genocide. Yes he has been prolific, but he was a Khmer Rouge supporter in the 70s and although he now is critical of the Khmer Rouge, all of his work is tinged with apologism; he is not by any means neutral and many of his "facts" are unsupported or cherry-picked in order to support his skewed analysis (search Google Scholar for critiques of his work). That said, if you can read his works for the history content and maintain a wariness regarding his analysis, they are well worth the read. For more complete, neutral coverage of the Cambodian Civil War and the genocide, read: David P. Chandler, William Shawcross, Philip Short, etc. Michael Vickery has also written a lot and is worth reading, but he too has been described as a "Marxist" and worked with the Khmer Rouge defense team during the Khmer Rouge Tribunals so his work must be read with that in mind. If you want first-hand accounts from Cambodians, Haing S. Ngor's A Cambodian Odyssey and Survival in the Killing Fields are both good. Chanrithy Him's memoir is also good. Loung Ung has been accused of sensationalizing to the point of writing fiction in her books, so I wouldn't recommend those. There are also several books by Cambodian scholars that focus more on Cambodian social, political and historical factors instead of the foreign involvement that we get in books from the West.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 23:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Outcome of Canadian TB suit?

What was the outcome of the lawsuit described here (relating to the 2007 tuberculosis scare)? I can find nothing in English on the outcome, but there may be sources in French, since the lawsuit was filed in a court in Montreal, Quebec. Neutrality^talk 22:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The English-language home page for the Quebec Superior Court links to a page that says their decisions since 2000 are searchable at www.jugements.qc.ca, which redirects to http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/. A search for "Speaker" as one of the parties to the case (Type de recherche = nom des parties) produces zero hits. One obvious possibility is that the case was settled out of court. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't there a widespread/popular movement for the abolition of the Electoral College?

Jayron is right, we don't do debates per top of page.174.88.10.107 (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given how the system has led to a number of controversial results throughout United States history, and the fact that the system is the only one of its kind in the world, I'm surprised there isn't a strong movement from either party (or even both) to have the electoral college abolished. I'm aware of the proposed Every Vote Counts Amendment, but that hasn't gained traction at all. As I mentioned in a similar question years ago, Hong Kong and Macau's Electoral Committees are perhaps the closest analogues, although as far as I know neither actually take into account any sort of popular vote. France, India and Pakistan have electoral colleges, although they work differently in that they're more similar to Germany's Federal Convention than the US electoral college, and in France's case it only elects the Senate and no longer the president. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Eliminating the Electoral College may not be a good idea. If the Electoral College is eliminated, then a slight majority will elect the president. The slight majority may be caused by the fact that at that point in time there just happens to be that many people. If one party keeps winning elections, then the losing party members will think that the losing party is just not worth voting for. Then, there will be one party controlling everything. I think political conservatives are actually for the Electoral College. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC) One party dominating US politics isn't unheard of, though: Republicans dominated the US presidency after the Civil War until the Great Depression. And the electoral college already existed back then. Also, slight majorities electing the president/ruling party as far as I understand is the norm around the world: presidents around the world are usually elected in a two-round system where the winning candidate needs to be voted in by a simple majority of voters. In essence, the electoral college is no different (the winner still needs a majority of votes), the difference is that the electoral college is indirect whereas other presidential elections (particularly in presidential systems) are generally direct. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC) The Electoral College was designed to prevent the votes of the more populous states from rendering the opinions of citizens in smaller states irrelevant. Since it can only be changed by constitutional amendment (requiring those same small states to vote for and ratify the amendment) it's unlikely to be changed. And a movement to change the unchangable isn't going to pick up a lot of followers, especially since the Electoral College only becomes an issue right after your candidate loses. - Nunh-huh 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Precisely. There's a reason it was set up the way it was, and that reason will quash any attempt at abolishing it. Sometimes the electoral vote doesn't quite reflect the popular vote, but most often it does. Clinton's huge popular win but electoral college loss is an anomaly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC) The reason it was set up the way it was was to prevent populist demagogues from coming to power; the hope was that the Electoral College, as a deliberative body, would of course put the interests of their country first. Federalist No. 68 is pretty good. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC) One correction: the Electoral College was never supposed to be a deliberative body. It was supposed to be 13 deliberative bodies, one in each state. See the section "Rules on the Electors" in the above-linked article. Today there are 51 separate meetings of parts of the Electoral College; it never meets as a whole. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Indeed, thank you for the correction. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 02:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC) (EC) It's not clear you need a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College to change the way the president is elected though. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact claims you don't. And it already has over half of the EC vote it needs although progress has slowed. Note that if you think small states are the barrier, the compact only requires 4 more states to sign up to get the needed 270 if our article's numbers are correct. Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio although that would only just give it the 270 so is very vulnerable to future changes. But Mississippi or Georgia would give it a decent majority if you aren't worried about states pulling out. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC) This question is exactly the sort of question the ref desks is poorly designed to handle. It is in essence a question of the form "I have a belief that the world isn't working like I want. Prove my belief wrong, so I can argue with you." There's no meaningful reference that can possibly suffice the OP. They've already linked to one of the two answers to their own question, the other article being the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which was linked in the article the OP already linked. There is literally nothing worthwhile this desk can do to answer this question except get into a dead-end useless political debate. People who have been here a while should stop asking questions that begin with "Why isn't..." or "Why doesn't..." because they cannot be answered with simple references, and people who respond to these questions should either leave them alone to die or provide some links without commentary and then let the thread die. This entire thread is a debate not worth having on this forum. Please stop. --Jayron32 02:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Nobody thought the video I linked to was helpful? If anybody had watched the video, then it would give Prager University's take on the importance of the electoral college. I currently do not really know what is Prager University exactly, but from its own website, it reports itself as an unaccredited institution. Watching a couple of videos on YouTube suggests that the university is fiscally and socially conservative. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC) I've collapsed this after others closed it to save space; no need to scroll past this repeatedly. μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)