Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 3

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.

August 3

whos responsible for bridges

whos responsible for interstate highway bridges like the I-35W Mississippi River bridge? is it the state or the federal goverment? i have read many comments on youtube(i know those people can be total artards) that say the I-35W Mississippi River bridge and all bridges crossing water are federal responsibility? so which is it?

Highways are almost always under state, county or local jurisdiction. In this case, it was the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Because the Mississippi is a navigable river, MnDOT may need United States Army Corps of Engineers approval to build or modify a bridge over it. -- Mwalcoff 05:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If I can be allowed a reflection which isn't an answer -

"Think: after the great destruction, everyone will prove that he was innocent."

- Günter Eich

Xn4 05:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ha ha great quote and thanks for the answer

In the U.S., the federal government has little (if any) direct control over highways and bridges. However, much of the money that local and state government spend on transportation infrastructure comes from the federal government. So I guess you could say the feds have indirect control. ... You mention bridges crossing water. When the body of water is also a state border, there is usually a multi-state agency that operates and maintains the bridges. For example, the bridges over the Delaware River between New Jersey and Pennsylvania are operated by the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission, which has officials appointed by the governments of both states. — Michael J 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was the Delaware River Port Authority. Also note the counties get involved: The Burlington Bristol Bridge is run by the Burlington County Bridge Commission of recent infamy. 68.39.174.238 02:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Arsuf

This was the most important battle of the Third Crusade, not properly reflected, I think, in the rather brief Wikipedia article. Could someone please indulge an old pedant and enthusiast for the small details of military history by giving me some more on background, movements, tactics, dispositions, outcomes and so on? A bore, I know, but I love this kind of thing! General joffe 09:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean the article about Third Crusade or Battle of Arsuf? Sadly, the latter's pretty good for an article on an individual battle. --Dweller 10:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Dweller, I meant the article on Arsuf. I disagree with your assessment. Some of the battle reports here are very good. That on Cannae is excellent. General joffe 12:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, some of them are excellent. I suppose it's a microcosm of Wikipedia itself, there's a selection of outstanding work at or close to FA/GA standard... and a mass of stubs. --Dweller 12:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi General joffe, don't worry, it's not a bore at all! Arsuf is a very interesting battle, although it was short and not very decisive, so not as much has been written about it as, say, Cannae. Unfortunately the Third Crusade is poorly covered so far (although the Siege of Acre article is alright). I and the other crusade enthusiasts got the First and Second Crusade articles up to featured status, but I guess no one has had time to work on the Third! Crusading Warfare, 1097-1193 was the first place I thought to look. It has a brief description of it (pp 162-165), and points to a number of other sources in the footnote: the Itinerarium Peregrinorum, the Estoire d'Eracles (i.e. the Old French continuation of William of Tyre), Baha ad-Din's Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, Abu Shama, Ibn al-Athir, and recent (well, recent as of 1954) histories by Rohricht, Grousset, Delpech, Kohler, Oman, Delbruck, and Lot. Runciman's history has very little about it (but points to Ambroise in addition to the other primary sources), as does Lyons and Jackson's biography of Saladin, and God's War by Christopher Tyerman has even less. Maybe David Nicolle's short book about the crusade in the Osprey series has more info (I don't have that one!). Adam Bishop 14:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Lane-Poole's Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem has a chapter on the coast march and battle, and quotes liberally from the narrative in the Itinerary. Since it was published in 1898 i suppose the copyright has expired and i could paste a copy in your userspace if you'd like.—eric 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a very good article on Arsuf by Mark Evans in the August 2001 edition of Military History, a publication based in Lynchburg, Virginia. He pays particular attention to the generalship of Richard the Lionheart, and his great skill in managing and deploying his army. I'll try to work this information into the article in the next day or two, General joffe, so keep looking. Anyway, for once I have a question. Can someone please tell me where the information on the relative strength of the armies shown in the 'battle box' in the Arsuf page comes from? They are absurdly high. More than that, the contention that Richard commanded as many as 50,000 men is truly ridiculous. Just think of the logistical problems in trying to move an army of that size through arid countryside. Think of the supply problems. Philip Augustus had gone home and the army of Frederick Barbarossa had largely melted away after his drowning in Asia Minor. Richard only had the forces he brought from Europe, and what was left of the local forces, military orders and the like, after the disaster at the Horns of Hattin. From what I have read, the Crusader Army at Arsuf amounted to no more than 14000 men, 1200 of whom were knights. Saladin, though his army outnumbered that of Richard, is thought to have commanded at the most some 20000 men, the majority of whom were mounted tawashiya. Clio the Muse 02:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about Evans' article, that's very useful. (I wish real life did not prevent me from accessing anything more than my own middling library.) Anyway, numbers were added anonymously in 2005, and increased more recently. (I am somewhat relieved that they did not come from me :)) Adam Bishop 03:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Adam; I know that you would never have made such a silly and unsupported claim! Clio the Muse 07:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Vichy question question

What's the record for the most questions this desk has received about Vichy in a week? --Dweller 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an easy one [1]. Lanfear's Bane

And that is the record! Clio the Muse 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A justification for times zones

Hello, I was wondering what the actual motives for the implementation of time zones were. For sure, it's helpful that the same hour always corresponds to (about) the same time of day (2am is always night-time, for example), but wouldn't it be better without time zones ? It would give some sort of absolute time for all people on earth, the only disadvantage would be that some people would be getting up at hours like 2am on a regular basis as it would be (possibly) sunrise. Even for travelers, instead of changing their watches' times, they'd keep the same, but have to get used to getting up at different hours. So why do time zones actually exist ? Is it just because people are used to them, and that it's nice that anywhere on Earth, the times mean the same.

I think it's quite the same thing than the months system : actually, months are the same everywhere, and have different meanings in different places (August is summer for some, Winter for others), and it gives the advantage of not having to "change" months when traveling, for example. Wouldn't it be more practical if it were the same for time zones ?

--Xedi 15:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Before time zones, each locality had their own time - based on the sun. Noon is when the sun is the highest. Midnight is 12 hours before/after that. Time zones were implemented to normalize times somewhat. Without them, one city could easily be 5-10 minutes off compared to a nearby city. Getting rid of timezones would benefit world travelers, but not much. It doesn't take much effort to change a watch. Computers/phones can change automatically. On the other hand, it would cause problems for people who are not traveling. For example, if you call me and I complain that it is noon, you may not realize that with the world-time, noon happens to be the middle of the night where I live. With time zones, if I complain that is 2am, you know it is the middle of the night. -- Kainaw^(what?) 15:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In one of Arthur C. Clarke's science fiction books, there are only four timezones left in the world, and there's discussion about eliminating them... AnonMoos 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the sun never sets on Wikipedia, so we can all enjoy UTC, which for practical purposes is GMT. Xn4 18:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well ok, thanks for the answers. Then basically there aren't real justifications today, except it being more practical, as it would be quite a hassle to change times everywhere. Either way, it doesn't really affect much. --Xedi 23:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Its an interesting idea. Who would have the one spot where 12pm corresponded with local noon? Airstrip One perhaps, for nostalgic GMT reasons?

Nobody mentions 'internet' time (or was it originally 'Swatch' time?) ... with a 10 hour day, 100 minutes to the hour, and its the same time everywhere in the world? I always thought that was a brilliant idea, though it would, of course, take some getting used to, there would be advantages and disadvantages. When they're ready, I'm ready, for metric/internet/global time.

I think this is maybe going a bit too far - this would mean we would have to getting used to going to be at a different time every night. We do live on Earth where a days lasts 1 440 minutes, I think there is no need to overcomplicate with a 1 000 minute day. It would just be to cumbersome to know what time of day it is somewhere else, as saying "It's nine o clock" (everywhere in the world) isn't much of an indication at all as nine o clock could be anything, whereas with a 1 440 minute system, we would get used to "Nine o clock in America = late evening" (or whatever). --Xedi 13:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Vichyssoise

Why's Vichyssoise called Vichysoisse? --Dweller 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The article says that Vichy is a town not far from Louis Diat's home town of Montmarault, which was not yet tainted by ignominy.--Wetman 16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This question reminds me of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's drawing of an elephant swallowed by a boa, in The Little Prince. The answer, of course, is that most of the people of the world have trouble spelling and pronouncing French words. Xn4 22:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dweller, you have now broken the Vichy record! Why not go one better and lodge a question about Vichy water? Clio the Muse 00:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Austria after the anschluss

Someone asked a question recently about the reunification of Austria after the war. This got me thinking about the union with Germany in the first place and the attitudes of ordinary austrians. Did any resent their loss of independence or were they just proud to have been 'returned' to the reich by their fellow countrymen? Did attitudes change as the war turned against hitler and was their an austrian resistance movement? Not to tall an order I hope! Irishbard 16:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In the range of responses you seem to expect, are you taking it for granted that Jews were not "ordinary" Austrians?--Wetman 18:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And, I might add, the range of other groups surpressed by Hitler - Eastern Europeans and homosexuals, for example. I thin this is whad Irishbard means.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a topic that might in itsely justify an encyclopedia article! We have a lot of information on the changing attitudes of people in Austria to the Nazi union, information which takes one down to the micro-level of popular opinion. And where does this come from? Why, from the Nazis themselves, who from 1938 onwards started, under the auspices of the Sicherheitsdienst, to collect 'mass obeservation' reports in Austria and elsewhere. All the material assembled was collated in Vienna, before being passed on to Berlin. It was a good way for senior policemen and civil servants to obtain a true view of opinion at the street level, that was not to be had from the controlled state media.

So, what does it tell us about the Austrians? To begin with reaction to the Anschluss was quite favourable, which is hardly much of a surprise. What is a surprise is that it passed away relatively quickly, as people were subject, amongst other things, to the higher rates of German taxation, and the promised economic benefits of union failed to appear. Before the end of the summer of 1938 the old Communist strongholds in 'Red Vienna' were begining to show some life, with graffiti and flysheets everwhere. In the worker's bars the Internationale was openly sung. Matters were so bad that Berlin ordered the SS to eradicate the Communist underground.

Moans and groans about Hitler himself became more prevalent, his Austrian origins notwithstanding, so much so that the Gestapo opened a new category, which they called Führerbeleidigung, something along the lines of lese-majesté. A favourite Gestapo tactic was to send snoops into the bars to eavesdrop on the regulars. Hitler was found to be the focus of age-old Austrian bigotry, which, amazingly, included frequent accusations that he was a 'Jew.' He was also, on occasions, accused of being 'Queer'. One nightwatchman was arrested by the Gestapo for claiming that he had once slept with the Führer, and for commenting on the deficiencies of his genitals! The expression 'Hitler can kiss my arse' also became so frequent that another special category of report was opened, to be known as the 'Götz quotation', a reference to the usage by Goethe's Götz von Berlichingen.

Even in Upper Austria, the area where Hitler spent his boyhood, dissatisfaction began to spread. In September 1940 a woman in Fischlham, who claimed to have known Hitler as a boy, was heard to remark "Don't talk to me about Hitler...I went to school with him. He was always a crook, even as a ten-year-old. And more than anything he liked torturing animals." For that she spent six months in prison. In the offical media the abortive attempt on Hitler's life in Munich in November 1939 was a cause of universal anger. But in Austria a number of people were arrested for expressing approval of the attack, one man saying that the perpetrator 'deserved the iron cross', and another that he would go and 'finish the job'.

There was no great enthusiasm for the war, even after the victory over Poland. Absenteeism from work became a serious problem, as did falling productivity and outright sabotage. But the real turning point came with the defeat at Stalingrad. Media reports were now openly disbelieved. A particularly damaging rumour gained ground that Austrian regiments had suffered disproportionately at the battle, sacrificed as cannon-fodder by the 'Prussians.' In Vienna cries of 'Heil Stalin' and 'Up with Moscow' became noticably more frequent. More generally, people began to rediscover their unique national identity. "We Austrians are second class Germans" was the most frequent complaint in the final months of the war.

Of course, it would be dangerous to read too much into all of this, a good bit of which was no more than the kind of grumbling against authority that one finds anywhere and everywhere. Approval and discontent tended to rise and fall with particular measures or events. There was no significant resistance to Hitler; but neither, after the first weeks of the Anschluss, was there a very high degree of approval. Clio the Muse 01:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• This question is about Austria after the Anschluss. By going further back you can understand the situation better. The articles on the Austrian chancellors Engelbert Dollfuss and Kurt Schuschnigg are helpful. Dolfuss suspended parliamentary democracy in March 1933 and banned the Austrian Nazi party in June 1933, ruling as an autocrat until the Nazis assassinated him in July 1934. During that time, it was believed that the local Nazi party could win a general election, if there were one, and its stated policy was union with Germany. In August 1933, Mussolini gave Dolfuss guarantees of Austria's independence, but after Dolfuss's death, Mussolini was less supportive of the new chancellor, Schuschnigg, who came under increasing pressure from Hitler to accept union as inevitable. He tried to outflank this by holding a referendum on union with Germany, which was planned for 13 March 1938. Both Schuschnigg and Hitler expected a 'No' vote, and on 11 March a Nazi coup took place in Vienna, supported by a German military invasion. The referendum did go ahead a month later, under the control of the Nazi party, and the outcome of a 'Yes' vote to union well over 99 per cent was greeted with derision everywhere. Xn4 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Finding books that cite a specific book

I was able to use Amazon.com to find a list of books that cited a specific book, but this was not available for another book. I was wondering if there are other websites out there in which you can find out what books have cited a specific book title? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There are citation indices, but they are usually specific in their coverage, e.g. "books cited by articles in the field of sociology," or something like that. The one which I believe is most well-known and used is ISI Web of Knowledge but I don't know if that will help you much, it might depend on what type of book you are look for citations of and the sorts of sources that you would accept citations of it in.

Of course, you can also get a lot just by putting the full title of a book plus author into Amazon or or Google Books or JSTOR or whatever. --24.147.86.187 22:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do people hate mimes?

I'm from Russia, and for me, mimes were always these cool artistes who performed on stage, such as famous Marcel Marceau. When I came to America, I noticed that there is this meme that everyone hates mimes. I remember when I told my classmates that I'm about to go to see Marcel Marceau (he was touring in America), they snickered. Where did this come from? I'm not so much looking to understand why you, a particular responder, hate mimes, as much as where did this whole cultural meme come from? I mean, there are plenty of people who hate dogs, but there is no such cultural meme.Knyazhna 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my own personal take on it. IANAMHE (I-Am-Not-A-Mime-Hate-Expert).

Part of it is just a cultural trope — it is a common joke to hate mimes in American humor, for example, and so a lot of people who have never seen a mime suddenly decide that they hate them.

Part of it is the fact that American culture is, on the whole, very anti-intellectual. A silent French performance artist in clown make-up and a beret (typical mime stereotype) is not something most Americans are going to be inclined to take seriously, in part because they are wary of performance art in general, they are not used to taking clowns seriously as an art form (same thing with puppetry, as an aside), and the whole French beret thing conjurs up all sorts of stereotypes about people who don't want to "work an honest day's work", etc. (On this point, there is no more entertaining and informative work than Richard Hofstadter's classic, Anti-intellectualism in American Life.) It embodies pretty much the opposite of the American ideal for males, anyway. Americans are highly suspicious of people like academics, who actually have obvious social value, and so something like a mime is going to be completely off the scale.

Lastly, and this is part of the last bit — there is no rich tradition of clowning as an art form in American culture that most Americans would be aware of. On the whole Americans consider clowns, puppets, and cartoons to be exclusively for children; those who have attempted to suggest otherwise have fought an uphill battle, and often are forced to market much of their work to children anyway (anime, manga, Jim Henson) while at the same time attempting to appeal to adult audiences.

That's my analysis of it, anyway. I think the combination of those things is responsible for most responses towards mimes: sheer ignorance + anti-intellectualism + no strong traditions of it as a respected art form here. (I don't know enough about mimes to have an opinion. I saw Mummenschanz on the Muppets, that's about as close to mimes as I get, and I'm pretty sure they count as puppeteers, not mimes. I thought they were pretty cool, though.) --24.147.86.187 23:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What a shame. A mime is a terrible thing to waste. Delmlsfan 01:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Americans are anti-intellectual, but they're far more anti-effete than anti-intellectual. Mimes are ridiculed not by the hoi poloi as much as by the artistic and cultural workers in America. Part of this is that mimes came to America with far too much build-up. Any time "next great cultural event" is shouted from the rooftops, a certain backlash is inevitable (think of the poor Segway Scooter). Additionally, mime was too delicate and obvious, and so this "intellectual" humor turned out to be, to the phlegmatic American intellectual and Joe Sixpack alike, to be "Some guy in funny makeup." In other words, it wasn't sophisticated. Instead it was mannered, and that's the kind of thing that strikes at American self-image. Finally, and not to be ignored, there is American anti-Gallicism. Mime came to the US from France and was presented with an air of superiority. So, combine all of those things, and you get a cultural import that the high, middle, and low brows can all despise.

That said, recall that America did have a flirtation with mime. Shields and Yarnell were a prime time television show, after all. Geogre 03:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We like to save our anti-intellectualism for public policy and other more important things. Wow, good thorough answer Geogre. So, in other words, we dislike mime because it's over-hyped, girlie, French, and prententious yet ultimately shallow? I'm starting to wonder what I've been missing. In all seriousness though; If you have a way to, Knyazhna, you should watch the 4th episode of Season 10 of King of the Hill: "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Clown". I felt it was a rather astute portrayal of "average" American antipathy towards mimes. It might help you understand America's seemingly idiosyncratic, but which I now understand as practically inevitable, relationship to the mime. 24.19.234.96 08:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that's it, yes. One can succeed with one of the segments of American culture and fail with the others (real beer, "latte," and Volvos) or with another and miss the first (anime, rap (which is an import in the sense that it was a NYC-out thing)), but mime had something that all of the segments disliked. It wasn't Soduku, and it wasn't Yu Gi Oh. Instead, it came pre-loaded with pretense and then didn't deliver the sort of overly gnarled meaning that intellectuals like (with guide book) nor the "you can do this at home" sing-along fun that the consumer-grade like, so everyone had a reason to pelt the mime, and the fact that it came from France only acted like a focal point. At least that's what I remember. I was college age at the time, and it seemed to go the way of disco music. Geogre 13:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I read this earlier and I've been trying to figure out in my own mind the reasons that I hate mimes. But I simply can't articulate it because I keep giggling at the thought of one falling down a manhole. --JayHenry 19:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, interesting answers to consider.Knyazhna 19:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there very popular anywhere (except perhaps France?). After all, what's so good about a man in a beret pretending to touch an invisible wall? There may be more too it but that's all we see in Britain. They just seem too much like circus/street performers, like those people who pretend to be states, but they are meant to be art. I quite fancy the approach of Terry Pratchett's Discworld character, the Patrician who puts mimes in scorpion pits with a sign reading 'learn the words' Cyta 14:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)