Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 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.

December 3

Taiwan (ROC) presidential debate

Hello, i understand there will be a televised debate between the three major candidates for the upcoming elections in january 2012 and all i know from the news it is will be today (December 03), but it doesn't tell the time nor the networks which will broadcast it. Anyone has the schedule and what time will be shown up or anything?. Will it be on TVBS or CTi-Tv? Thanks in advance.

Update: As far as i know according to UDN [1] the debate will be at 2PM, Taiwan time. Still no clue which network will broadcast it.? HappyApple (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The debate was broadcasted on the networks mentioned. Either TVBS News or CTi news --200.121.214.244 (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Black people of Pacific

Is this true that people of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and other independent nations of Pacific Ocean are considered as Black people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.111 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

These islands are known form a region known as Melanesia, and the main ethnic group of these islands are Melanesians. The term does indeed mean "black islands", and was given by the European explorer Jules Dumont d'Urville to differentiate them from Micronesia and Polynesia, whose inhabitants are largely Polynesians, who indeed do look somewhat different. The pre-history of pacific islands people is somewhat complicated, and not without some disagreements. See Austronesian peoples - the leading theory is that about 5000 years ago, people from what is now Taiwan began to spread through the Pacific Islands. It is possible, and perhaps likely, that they also intermixed with pre-Austronesian people of the region. I haven't found any genetic studies of Melanesian people, which would be interesting. Buddy431 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) See Black people#Melanesia. Sometimes for some people in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, yes. Vanuatu maybe. Kiribati and Tuvalu, no—they are inhabited mainly by Polynesians. Pfly (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Geographic range of the Austronesian peoples

Superficially, yes. Melanesians, Native Australians, and Negritos share the same phenotype of dark skin and curly hair with African populations that early European explorers have historically viewed them as such.

Genetically, no. In fact, Melanesians, Native Australians, and Negritos were one of the earliest waves of modern humans migrating out of Africa. In contrast to other modern human populations which came from later migrations, they are actually the most distantly related of all human populations to modern Africans. They have unique characteristics that make this quite obvious - like the propensity for blond hair.

And as mentioned above, the other peoples of the Pacific: Polynesia (Hawaii, Easter Island, New Zealand, etc.), Micronesia (Guam, Palau, etc.), Maritime Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines), and Madagascar, are Austronesian peoples, genetically and linguistically interrelated to each other and descendants of the aboriginal inhabitants of Taiwan (Ami peoples, etc.). Austronesians are readily identifiable in that they were primarily sea-faring peoples and more closely related to East Asians.

However these two groups have lived and interacted with each other for a very long time that there is quite a large degree of cultural intermixing as well as some degree of intermarriage, particularly in Melanesia.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And some of the languages spoken by Melanesians are generally considered Austronesian languages, while others are of the Papuan family, further indicating a high degree of cultural, and likely genetic interaction. Buddy431 (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Israeli fighter pilots tested when young?

Greetings, I've just read that the Israeli Air Force is among the most efficient and well-trained air forces in the world. The author of the book from which I got this claims that this is partly attributed to checks performed on the pilots when they were younger than 13, or "pre-teens". With the level of professionalism of their pilots, I think this is very well true; can anyone concur this? Thanks --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Section 2 of our article Israeli Air Force flight academy may partially address your question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.31 (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That description, including the gibush process, is true for all IDF elite units. There is a longstanding mythos* about fighter pilot training taking the most highly qualified candidates, in the Israeli Hebrew phrase "HA-toVEEm le-TAI-yis" (The best [go] to flight [i.e. pilot's training course]), and as that page states, Air Force service, including, pilot's training, is indeed offered to 12th grade students with the top qualifications, whether or not they've expressed interest. They have first refusal, after which they won't be asked again and proceed onto other tracks, and the draft goes on seeking candidates. (* I can attest that in the early and mid-1990s all preschoolers were given comprehensive health screenings; when my kindergartner scored off the charts for visual acuity, the (female) pediatric ophthalmologist beamed at her and announced that she could go to taiyis). -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Brideshead Revisited reference

In chapter two of the Evelyn Waugh novel Brideshead Revisited, Anthony Blanche says to Charles Ryder, "Tell me candidly, have you ever heard Sebastian say anything you have remembered for more than five minutes? You know, when I hear him talk, I am reminded of that in some ways nauseating picture of "Bubbles"."

What picture is he referring to? There is an article on this site, Bubbles (painting), which would seem to fit in with what Anthony is saying, but I'd like to be sure. Is there any other picture it could be? 58.109.16.49 (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done for identifying the answer within your question! That painting (an ad for Pears' soap) was what immediately sprung to mind. I would be surprised if Blanche/Waugh is referring to anything else. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you... I had never heard of the picture before and wasn't sure how popular it was. 58.109.16.49 (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; it's very well known in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Contribution of Eating to Cholesterol Levels

I was told some time ago, by a nurse at a heart clinic, that only about 5% of our body's cholesterol comes from what we eat. Can someone verify (or correct) this please? Gurumaister (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Our article onCholesterol#Biosynthesis is slightly misleading. Most is produced in the liver but the amount goes down as the amount eaten goes up. It oxidised cholesterol that is the main problem. --Aspro (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Protestants and the Great Famine

What was the attitude of Ulster Protestants/unionists during the 1845 Irish famine? Did they suffer it like the Catholics did or did it mostly spare them? According to the Great Famine's article, the province of Ulster had a similarly catastrophic population drop, so for the latter to be true the Famine had had to be extremely deadly for the Catholic minority, which seems unlikely. --Cerlomin (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No one? :-( --Cerlomin (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of details on the situation in Belfast in this book, which suggests that Protestants were similarly affected, although there is insufficent data to be sure of this. Belfast itself saw a population rise, as people left the countryside, hoping for more opportunities in the province's main town. Warofdreams talk 16:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Cerlomin (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it must be pointed out that in Ulster the Protestants owned the best land on which they cultivated a variety of crops whereas the Catholics ended up with unproductive little patchs that were only suitable for the cultivation of the potato. Ireland in the mid-19th century had a surplus of people most of whom relied on just the single crop. This was why millions of people were affected all over Ireland when the blight struck. Then there was the added misery of absentee landlords.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Greater Toronto Area politicians of visible minority background

I was reading this article [[2]] and it said in the last paragraph in fourth sentence and it said that both federal and provincial parties "selected a candidate whose ethnic background matched the largest visible minority subgroup in the riding to run in those races". It is true because for federal government so far, Rathika Sitsabaesan a tamil sri lankan selected for the riding of Scarborough-Rouge River because it has significant numbers of Tamil-Canadians and for provincial government so far Reza Moridi an Iranian was selected for Richmond Hill because of the riding's significant Iranian population. Is there any other politicians for GTA in both federal and provincial governments who were selected for the riding's significant visible minority population? or I have to do this by myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.31 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded the header to make it clear we are talking about the Greater Toronto Area. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

LGBT adoption and lack of male/female role model

How do opponents of LGBT adoption who cite lack of either a male or a female "role model" as detrimental for a child justify leaving orphaned children without any "role model" whatsoever (i.e. unadopted)? I am asking because someone must have pointed out that having only female or only male "role models" is better than having no "role models" whatsoever. Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That is only an issue if there is a shortage of adoptive parents. In the UK, at least, I believe there are plenty of people wanting to adopt babies and it's just older children that are difficult to place. I don't follow the debates over LGBT adoption very closely - are they usually discussing the adoption of babies or of older children? --Tango (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say those opponents' main concern is the existence of two homosexual male/female "role models". --Cerlomin (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't make an attempt to introduce reason into an argument that is not based on reason. It is a waste of your time. Just accept that whatever the argument claims is not the real argument and you can safely ignore it. -- kainaw™ 21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that this is usually more of an excuse than an argument - OR, but I think in most cases, the objections people have are of the religious / moralistic kind: it has become less acceptable to vocalise those ideas, so they substitute others. The same thing happens with same-sex marriage: one of the most common arguments against is that the government should not be involved in marriage at all - but if you were sincere in that belief, you would oppose any legally recognised marriage, and would certainly not support banning same-sex marriage - and many who use this argument do seem to support that. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The very same lack-of-role-model argument could be made against single parents raising their kids by themselves, but somehow they are seen as "heroic" in some sense. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

International law - military action against Iran

What are the international laws applicable to possible military action against Iran in response to its nuclear program? I think such action would be legal if supported by a United Nations Security Council resolution, but are there other ways to legally justify military action? --Tango (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel bombed Iraq's first nuclear power plant in 1981 while it was under construction.
Sleigh (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

But was it legal? That's the important part of the question. Falconus^{p t c} 01:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Try to track down a copy of Andrew Blick's How to Go to War (Politico, 2005); I have not managed to read it yet, but I believe it attempts to answer just this question (from a British perspective, at least) in the context of post-Iraq developments. Shimgray | talk | 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Iran sign an agreement not to build nuclear weapons? See Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which says Iran pledged not to build nuclear weapons. They have not taken the defined step of "leaving the treaty" with 3 months notice that "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." Such noncompliance is the only basis I can imagine to justify going to war against them (such as by bombing or sabotage or invasion) to punish them for or prevent them from building nuclear weapons, or forcing them to renounce the treaty. Without that, they would be as free as any other country to build nukes like the US, Russia, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa and North Korea, or to invent and build whatever weapons they thought necessary for national defense, whether they be nukes, or Disintegrator ray guns. In the early 20th centuries, various nations squandered their wealth building battleships, until the 1919 Treaty of Versailles or the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty established limitations among signatory nations. If they haven't signed on to such a limitation,or if they have renounced it, national sovereignty gives a nation freedom to build whatever armaments or weapons it deems advisable and affordable. Edison (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with anything said so far, and perhaps everyone knows this, but I think Article 51 of the UN Charter is the main key to everyone's international obligations on this issue. Article 52 allows for regional action, but then Article 53 says:

"But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state"

Then it defines an enemy state as "any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter." You could play around with that last one, but it might look funny. I'd be curious to know from anyone else if international law works differently, but I thought the UN Charter was meant to be the main source of rules for military engagement between states. IBE (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, they are just the kind of thing I was looking for. The wording of Article 51 seems to exclude pre-emptive action - it says "if an armed attack occurs". I think that military action against Iran would only be permitted under Article 51 if they actually used their nuclear weapons, rather than just developed them. Is there anything else that does authorise pre-emptive action? --Tango (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Law of Armed Conflict is complicated, and subject to interpretation leading to some debate about whether an extant resolution might be sufficient.

As articulated above if it could be demonstrated that Iran is not acting in compliance with its own treaty obligations there could be a potential argument for punitive or enforcement action.

As we saw from the invasion of Iraq there is quite a lot of scope for disagreement over what the existing treaty obligations and resolutions allow for. That debacle has also placed some question over the integrity of the information used by policy makers to reach their decisions.

That said, there is also the question of whether states that may decide to act against Iran are themselves prepared to act outside the provisions of their own obligations. As already indicated Israel has some track record in unilateral action in breach of their obligations.

ALR (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any provision in the non-proliferation treaty for action to be taking against states that disregard it? There is no mention of such in our article. Are there other relevant treaty obligations? It is certainly true that international law doesn't really mean much, since it can't be enforced - countries can and will do whatever they think they can get away with. My question is really only of academic interest. --Tango (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

IANAL.

I don' know the detail of the treaties and the various interpretations to be able to answer that to be honest.

ALR (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Who did Poe read?

I can find a thousand and one people who were influenced by Poe, but can't find who he was influenced by. 129.3.151.202 (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This page lists some of his influences. He was certainly influenced strongly by romantic poets such as Byron. He was also pretty clearly influenced by gothic novels -- you can find an overview of that genre in Lovecraft's essay Supernatural Horror in Literature (freely available here. Looie496 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Our page Edgar Allan Poe, despite being a featured article, is strangely silent on the question of influences. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This 1896 Atlantic Monthly article says Samuel Taylor Coleridge was a big influence. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply of the Sultan to the Zaporozhians

One detail in the story of the Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks is blatantly missing: How did the Sultan react? — Sebastian 20:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is the United States Constitution so short?

--Cerlomin (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Short as compared to what? --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. constitution is rather short compared to the constitutions of some other countries (e.g. Germany) and of some U.S. states (e.g. Texas). AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The basic concept was that the Constitution should only cover the absolute essentials, with all the details to be decided either by the Congress or the states. Looie496 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution isn't like other laws. Its main purpose is to describe how the Federal Government is to operate (how it is constituted), rather than to outline things like personal behavior, crimes, regulations, etc. The part of the U.S. laws which do that is called the United States Code and is intentionally distinct from the Constitution. The Constitution defines what the U.S. Government does, the Code is the product of what they do. --Jayron32 00:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

From Constitution, "The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world, containing 444 articles, 12 schedules and 94 amendments, with 117,369 words in its English language version, while the United States Constitution is the shortest written constitution, at 7 articles and 27 amendments." I would guess one reason for the short length of the US constitution is its federal nature (though India and many other states are federations), meaning that some decisions that could have been codified in the constitution were left to state governments. Another guess is that more modern constitutions are likely to be more detailed due to legal and political systems becoming more complex and well-understood over time. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, we have a discrepancy between Constitution of India and the statement you quote from Constitution — the former article says 448 articles. I'm sure that 81.98.43.107 is right in the first statement — when the federal government only exists to do things that the states can't do by themselves, and when the states are quite capable of administering issues such as education by themselves, there's no need to mention it in the federal constitution. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the founding fathers were mindful of WP:CREEP. : ) Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Such was not a concern when the Stalin Constitution was written; among its many articles was one detailing some operating procedures for the Ministry of Medium-Machine Building. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't matter how long it gets, if you have no intention of following any of it. StuRat (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the note in constituion of India gives a big clue: "Although the last article of the Constitution is Article 395, the total number, as of March 2011 is 448. New articles added through amendments have been inserted in the relevant location in the original constitution. In order not to disturb the original numbering, the new articles are inserted with alphanumberic enumerations. For example, Article 21A pertaining to Right to Education was inserted by the 86th Amendment Act." I'm guessing there were 444 articles when the 444 bit was written and there is probably 448 now. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I would just point out that much of the discussion here is about the federal vs. state aspects. But there are libraries of federal codes as well, and for every federal code, further libraries of federal regulations explaining how the code is to be practically implemented. The idea that the US federal government is somehow less codified than others is ludicrous. That codification does not take place in the Constitution itself, which is equal parts very specific and very vague, but explicitly shifts the burden of making the details of it to other places. I'm not sure there is a compelling "why" answer here except that the Constitution was meant to be at most a skeleton, and is very hard to change, and so most of the things that require changing are put elsewhere. It's also worth noting that it is an old Constitution, and was craft at a time when the country was still very small and the functions of government fairly limited. Any 20th century Constitution is likely to be considerably more complicated, because our ideas of what government ought to be (and how codified that needs to be), and what government does, has changed quite a bit since 1787. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Some of us don't think government ought to do very much, either then or now. --Trovatore (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

One who ignores whatever governments say ought not be overly concerned with their doings either. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately their doings are backed with guns. --Trovatore (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ought and is are two different considerations. And one can be nice and idealistic about the small size of government when one actually has little say in the matter. Even the great "small government reformers" quickly find that they have a hard time figuring out what currently-appreciated functions of government (appreciated perhaps not by them, but by large masses of people) should end up on the chopping block. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the US Constitution states that itself plus the federal laws are "the supreme law of the land". In effect, the federal code is an "extension" of the Constitution. And of course has to be compatible with the Constitution, hence the occasional legal challenges to the federal code. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the brevity of the US Constitution, in addition to making it more flexible, also made it more palatable to the various states. Getting it ratified was no small challenge. In fact, as noted in United States Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments had to be tacked on to ensure ratification. The Bill of Rights were essentially "Article VIII" of the Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. The ratification vote was very close in several states, and Rhode Island only ratified when everyone else did and they were threatened with being left out of the U.S. Also remember that the US Constitution was arguably the first modern constitution, and a lot of the stuff that goes into newer constitutions hadn't been thought of yet. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a major reason is simply that the US constitution was one of the first written constitutions, and was written at the heydays of the Age of Reason. The authors had no experience or modern precedence to look at, but did believe in the reasonableness of the average human. We all know how that ended... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, they had difficulty achieving a consensus on what little there was. Some people thought it would be impossible to come up with a document that everyone would agree to. They probably felt that it was better to finish a document that everyone could agree to rather than get bogged down in details. APL (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

They did have one precedent — they knew they didn't want it to be the same thing as the Articles of Confederation. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)