Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 9

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.

April 9

Nisan and Nissan

The Jewish month Nisan should not be confused with the Japanese automobile brand Nissan. My question: Since when are Nissan automobiles sold in Israel? --84.62.204.235 (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone who comes to wikipedia is an exprt at spelin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nissan did not export cars during to Israel for many years (see [1]). Not sure when they began. --Soman (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The official web page of Nissan Israel: [2]. --84.62.204.235 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to be confused with nissan.com, which is, BTW, Jewish, and had serious legal trouble with Nissan, the car maker. 186.206.247.208 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Like the kind of problem Popeyes had for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Nisan article claims that "Nissan" is an alternate spelling, which if true could be the answer to the OP's question. Far as I know, the month is pronounced NYE-san, as opposed to the car company NEE-sahn, but I can't confirm that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nisan is also the name of a month in the Arabic and Turkish calendars, and is pronounced exactly like the automobile company in both cases.--Xuxl (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nisan-the-month is also pronounced, in Hebrew or by people familiar with Hebrew at least, as "nee-sahn". Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There may be people who pronounce the month /naɪsæn/, just as there are people who say /aɪræk/, but that's not how it's pronounced in Hebrew or any variety of English I'm familiar with. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is the page de:Nissan (Monat) protected from creation? --84.62.204.235 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, that page is salted due to "mischief". Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia has articles about all the Hebrew months, including de:Nisan (Monat). One would think that de:Nissan (Monat) would be a useful redirect. You would be best served to contact the German Wikipedia admin who most recently deleted the article in question and request that it be unsalted to become a redirect, but it is wholly up to them and we have no say about it. Edison (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What about Acura Mazda (Ahura Mazda)? --84.62.204.235 (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

North Korean satellite launch

North Korea is about to launch a rocket that they say will launch a peaceful satellite, but which Western countries claim is a disguised missile test. If North Korea says that they will just launch a peaceful satellite, why can't they prove it? Why can't they have talks with the West and show them some hard evidence? I'm not accusing North Korea of being at fault, but if they somehow prove that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, why can't they explain in detail in such a way that the West will no longer be suspicious? And why does North Korea frequently turn down Western demands (such as stopping their nuclear program) in the first place? Couldn't they have peaceful negotiations that would benefit both sides? I know they used to have talks, but they broke down. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

North Korea doesn't have an interest in proving their launch is peaceful. A large part of their foreign policy is in deliberately scaring the shit out of its perceived enemies, and part of that is remaining very mysterious. It is better if others literally don't know one way or the other, from the North Korea's point of view. --Jayron32 12:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 -- Even if the satellite itself is 100% peaceful, much of the same missile technology to launch a satellite is similar to the missile technology for an ICBM. There's also the unfortunate legacy of NKorea's previous so-called "satellite launch", where NKorea claimed to have launched a satellite, but no one else was able to provide any corroboration that there was any actual satellite (certainly not orbiting), and it was suspected that the whole thing was an excuse to fire a long-distance missile across Japan... AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that the launch has taken place, it seems that pretty much the same thing happened again... AnonMoos (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

North Korea has allowed foreign journalists to visit the launch site [3]. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Satellite rockets are dual-use technology. If you can put a small satellite into space, you can put an atomic bomb into another country. That's the issue — they are testing long-range rockets. It's not that people are afraid of the North Korean satellite by itself. The list of satellite launch-capable countries reflects this pretty well — there are a few exceptions (Japan, Iran) but basically every country that can launch a satellite either has or has had in the past nuclear weapons capability.

As for the North Korean strategy, they believe, probably rightly, that the end goal of cooperating with the West is the downfall of their regime, or, at the very least, a lack of "bargaining room" at the table. (If they gave up their nuclear program completely, it's not like the US would suddenly be happy with them. Then the issue would just change to something else about North Korea that the US is unhappy with.) Instead they play a game of cooperating a little to get things they want (e.g. food, supplies), then the talks "break down", they they do something "bad" (shell the border, detonate a nuclear bomb, drop out of the NPT, etc.), then the talks "resume" and they begin cooperating again, get more things they want, and they cycle repeats. It's a rational strategy for a state in their position to play, if they can get away with it, and it has worked very well for them over the past 30 years or so. The problem for the West is that while we may not want to play this game (and every diplomat involved in North Korea already knows it is a game), the alternatives are even worse — all-out war (which would likely be very costly for South Korea and perhaps Japan), or North Korea doing even "worse" things as part of its attempt to get the West to come back to the table and give it things it wants. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And why does North Korea frequently turn down Western demands (such as stopping their nuclear program) in the first place?

Because they quaintly believe in their right to self-defense. They observe the beneficence the West has recently showered on Iraq, Vietnam, Lebanon, Libya, Afghanistan and many others and perhaps soon enough, Syria and Iran. And of course they do not forget the enormous death and destruction of the Korean War. So they prefer not to be bombed. Having nuclear weapons is decent insurance against this.

Couldn't they have peaceful negotiations that would benefit both sides?

"The West" is not interested.John Z (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

North Korean behavior is a little bit more complicated than you let on. It is not a principled refusal to cooperate based on self-defense — it is a game of cooperating, reneging, cooperating, reneging. I think my description above is a bit closer to the truth in terms of the behavior and the likely motivation behind it. The North Koreans are desperately dependent on foreign aid, and this is why they keep coming "back to the table" and talking with the US et al. in the first place. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

An additional problem is one of trajectories. Most of the reasonable satellite launch trajectories from the Korean peninsula take the vehicle over Japan - many of them crossing Japanese territory while still below the Kármán line, and thus entering Japanese airspace. Given the unhappy history and frosty present between the two countries, the Japanese aren't enamoured of this prospect. In particular, it's difficult for Japanese radar to distinguish the early phase between a trajectory that puts a satellite into orbit and one that drops something on Tokyo; as a corollary of that, it's difficult for North Korea to definitively show that it isn't trying to drop stuff on Japan. The same issue seems to be part of the motivation for Russia locating the new Vostochny Cosmodrome in what seems like a sub-optimal position. If they'd put it in a coastal site east of Vladivostok they'd have nicer weather, a slightly more equatorial location, and proximity to the aviation centres around Vladivostok. But many launches from there would go over Hokkaido at a fairly low altitude, again risking misunderstandings with Japan. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

BNP and Amami League foreign policy

Which countries does Bangladesh have good and warm relationships with when Bangladesh Nationalist Party was in power, regardless which years it was? Which countries does Bangladesh have good and warm relationships with when Awami League was in power, regardless which years it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.37 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this issue is less relevant today than during the Cold War years. I wouldn't expect any major differences. --Soman (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The timing then does matter though. in the 70's before islamisation with secular govts and a schism wiht pak it was obviously not in that line. But theres an increasing Islamist element there that believes in some variation of the ulema, which is ironic as the partition of pakistan is reason enough that youll never hav a caliphate across the muslim world (then you add sudan/darfur and you get mre conifirmation). But see Foreign relations of Bangladesh and the relations pages templateLihaas (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Hong Kong 1941

Please can anyone find a reference for the number of British and Commonwealth troops that were captured at the end of the Battle of Hong Kong on 25 December 1941? I can only find this, which gives a figure of 6,500. There must be something more authoratative out there. Alansplodge (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

According to World War II Database and this official statement in the Canadian House of Commons the numbers of prisoners taken were: 5072 British, 1689 Canadian, 3829 Indian and 357 others. That adds up to 10947. --Antiquary (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfect! Many thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Jehovah's Witnesses

In what ways has the Jehovah's Witnesses contributed to American culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdk0770 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Jackson family were raised as Jehovah's Witnesses by their mother, Katherine Jackson. The Jacksons had a huge impact on American culture. Category:American Jehovah's Witnesses also has some links to follow. I suspect that category is somewhat underpopulated, but it will give you a start. --Jayron32 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, those are just people that contributed something and happen to be Jehovah's Witnesses. They aren't contributions of the faith. I'm not sure the faith itself has particularly contributed to American culture, other than in the form of jokes about them knocking on doors. --Tango (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What a confusing comment... If the people who are Jehovah's Witnessess don't count, then who does? Houseplants? Pets? I am quite confused as to how the faith itself can influence American culture if not through the people that practice it. Indeed, if there were not people who were Jehovah's Witnesses, then it wouldn't exist. I am baffled by this comment... --Jayron32 18:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the influence that the Jackson family has had on American culture is not directly related to the Jehovah's Witnesses' faith. Similarly, it would be strange to say that Christianity has influenced science by the invention of the reflecting telescope, just because Isaac Newton, its inventor, was a Christian. In fact, this telescope is not related to Christianity at all, so it really is Newton, not Christianity that contributed to science in this way. On the other hand, there are genuine influences of Christianity and Judaism on American culture, e.g. Christian holidays and the seven-day week. -- Lindert (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict: how interesting that both Lindert and I chose parallels from Astronomy) I am somewhat in agreement with Tango, but the OP's wording is grammatically a little ambiguous.

If the OP meant (as I read it) "What has/have the Jehovah's Witnesses contributed . . . ?" as a cultural or intellectual group from its particular beliefs and practices, then Tango may be broadly right, though there may well be factors originating from the movement that neither Tango nor I are aware of – perhaps now-common phrases or word usages that we don't realise originated in JW texts, for example.

If however the OP meant "What have Jehovah's Witnesses contributed . . . ?" referring merely to individuals who happen to be Jehovah's Witnesses, then your example of the Jacksons, and various others, would be valid, but the question itself would be less significant. Michael Jackson (for example) has indeed and obviously contributed a great deal to contemporary music and dance, but none of it appears to stem directly from him being a Jehovah's Witness, a fact that most people would probably be oblivious to. As a parallel, the astronomer Jocelyn Bell Burnell has made significant contributions to her academic discipline, but her personal religious background as a Quaker has not in itself contributed to those scientific achievements (though it is clearly significant to her activities within the Quaker movement itself). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.34 (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as that goes, Michael himself left the Witnesses in '87. I thought I remembered that he had been "disfellowshipped" (excommunicated), but our MJ article doesn't seem to mention that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In what ways is this not a homework question? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

One could say that their contribution to American culture has been to make a lot of other sects look mainstream. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not just sects. It's common for all sorts of weirdos, religious or otherise, to make themselves look mainstream by pointing at Jehovah's Witnesses and saying "Look at those weirdos." Someone has to be at the extreme on every issue. Jehovah's Witnesses are there more often than most others. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ya think? Compared to Scientology, say? The Witnesses are pretty gentle and reasonable in most situations. It's true that their beliefs occasionally have dramatic consequences for an adherent who needs a blood transfusion, but most people don't need blood transfusions. --Trovatore (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I happen to live near a school run by the Scientologists. Most of the people round here don't even know that to be the case, because it's not promoted as such, and the people involved seem so sensible and reasonable in most ways. I still think they're nutters though. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The JW's like the Scientologists because by comparison, the JW's themselves look mainstream. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

When talking about sects, bear in mind that all Christian religions are sects, not just the ones we typically like to point fingers at. Catholicism, Methodism, Anglicanism, Christadelphianism, Seventh-Day Adventism, and all the rest - they're all sects of Christianity. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In common usage, people often use "denomination" to refer to groups they more or less approve of, "sect" for groups that they feel more distant from, and "cult" for groups that they condemn... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Collectively and as a group, they served as the catalyst for the rather important and influential West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, but otherwise I don't know that they've been influential, as a group, on mainstream U.S. culture, and some of their practices -- such as banning blood transfusions, and their former penchant for publicly setting apocalyptic dates, and then elaborately explaining it away when nothing seemed to happen -- have been controversial. Speaking personally as a linguist who has done some work on Biblical Hebrew, I find it a little difficult to take too seriously a group which has a blatant Hebrew error in their name... AnonMoos (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean the little detail that there's no such word as "Jehovah"? Hush, don't tell them - they'll be very disappointed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that as a very deep criticism of their views, frankly. It's a little more telling than it might otherwise be, because of the fact that they make a big deal of God having a name and them using that name. But God has a name and we use it, except, OK, maybe our accent could use work is not so terribly different. --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not an "accent" problem, it's that the vowels of one word were inserted into the consonants of a completely different word, due to a fundamental misunderstanding (about 500 years ago) by Christians of the Jewish scribal practice of Q're Perpetuum. Already by the early 19th century, Christian Hebraists knew enough to correct this error, but due to inertia it has still continued on in some contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any fundamental difference. I wasn't using "accent" as a precise term, just saying, OK, they got the pronunciation a little wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding together the vowels of one word with the consonants of a different and unrelated word (analogous to combining the vowels of "yesterday" with the consonants of "tomorrow" to come up with a form like "temerray") goes some way beyond what is commonly called "getting the pronunciation a little wrong"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

From a linguistic point of view, maybe. I still don't think it's a very deep criticism of their views, which don't have much to do with linguistics. --Trovatore (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a profound criticism of the group as a whole, and it has nothing to say as to whether the group, or many of its members, have many positive sterling qualifies. Nevertheless, if you're a linguist who has done some work on Biblical Hebrew, it's a blatant flashing-neon warning sign that historical authenticity and/or devotion to sound Biblical scholarship are probably somewhat lacking... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Kdk0770, see Jehovah's Witnesses Official Media Web Site: Contributions to the Community.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Iran and nuclear weapons

The Wikipedia article Iran and weapons of mass destruction says that the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa that "production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons". Given this, why are the US and Israel so worried about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Because Iran has a pattern of evading and obstructing inspection by the IAEA, and possibly also because of intelligence from the CIA/Mossad. -- Lindert (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not entirely true. Whether Iran has or hasn't been fulfilling its NPT obligations depends on a rather legalistic question (whether they've acceded to the Additional Protocol). They are probably the most inspected country on the planet right now and their nuclear facilities are crawling with IAEA cameras. Sorting out the fact from spin with regards to Iran's compliance or non-compliance is a non-trivial effort made more difficult by the amount of completely ignorant spin that passes as news on the issue. (Incidentally, the CIA has concluded, repeatedly, that Iran is not actively working towards a nuclear weapon.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of their nuclear facilities that they've publicly declared (i.e. far from all of them) are crawling with cameras, and U.S. intelligence has concluded that the Iranian leadership hasn't made a decision to make a bomb, but that they have carefully structured their nuclear program to give themselves maximum future flexibility, so that if they do decide in future to build a bomb, many necessary preliminary steps will have already been completed... AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what the Additional Protocol hinges on — it defines when you have to declare something to the IAEA and puts it at a very early moment. Iran says, "we aren't parties to it, so we don't have to declare things until they are actually operating." Their uninspected plants are not yet operational. So it's not clear they violated anything at all. And setting up a flexible civilian program is not, again, against the NPT, which actually enshrines many dual-use technologies as long as they are inspected. Iran is not, in this sense, doing anything differently than Brazil has been doing for a long time. I'm not claiming that Iran is not hedging its bets (it would be stupid not to), but I'm pointing out that a huge amount of the coverage here is just politically convenient spin with quite a lot left out. Iran has been very careful to live within the letter of the law (as it sees it). --Mr.98 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I really couldn't say whether structuring their nuclear program so that the time needed to build a bomb would be minimized, if in future they do decide to build a bomb, is a technical violation of any legalistic document -- however, it has significantly contributed to creating international antagonism towards Iran. The difference between Brazil and Iran is that no-one thinks that Brazil wants to nuke the Jews. (If the Iranians don't actually want to nuke the Jews, then they should padlock Ahmadinajad's yap firmly shut, because every time Ahmadinajad opens and closes his jaws and flaps his gums, he manages to convince yet more people that his ambition is to nuke the Jews...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody who actually does intelligence analysis thinks that Ahmadinajad really has any plans to nuke Israel unprovoked. Most of Ahmadinajad's more inflammatory statements are poorly translated (his famous "wipe Israel off the map" is really a lot less exciting when correctly translated). The guy is a jerk, to be sure, but that's not a reason to turn off our own brains. Most countries with any kind of civilian nuclear program today have explored the possibility of developing nuclear arms and have set their enrichment/reprocessing systems up to be potentially dual-use (Brazil and Japan stick out as obvious culprits here). There is a world of difference between doing that and actually building a bomb. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Much of what you say has some degree of validity, but you seem to be avoiding dealing with the fairly obvious fact that in the case of Iran several aggravating factors coincide in a way which is not really true for any other country which has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israelis might not be all that reassured when they remember that Iran killed 85 Jews in Argentina unprovoked, apparently for no other reason than that they find killing Jews to be fun... AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that they can't remember that, because it is not known who did that bombing.John Z (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Because nuclear weapons are a huge issue. Iran has rockets that could reach Israel and break it in two with an atomic bomb, almost literally. 186.206.247.208 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, Israel has rockets that could reach Iran and break it in two with an atomic bomb, almost literally. But our policies on NPOV will always allow us to describe the situation fairly, I hope. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what governmental agencies would say about the point the OP raised, but maybe they don't think that Iran will completely obey the Supreme Ayatollah or that the fatwa might be overturned. --23:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Any given fatwa is not necessarily binding on Shia Muslims (in the case of Iran). Look at the opening of Fatwā. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The question of whether there are or aren't religious prohibitions against Iran producing or using nuclear weapons is one that has been dissected in some detail by intelligence analysts (the best overview is here). The short version is that it's not clear, and there are a lot of detailed technicalities where religious prohibitions are concerned. But in any case, realpolitik and/or history suggests that moral/religious reasons are usually trumped by larger political forces. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We simply do not believe anything the leadership of Iran says. Considering some of their absurd statements, like those questioning the existence of the Holocaust, this should come as no surprise. StuRat (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, yes iran is solely at fault for everything...most stuff here here is opinionated pov and this is not a forum for discussion, its for research. to give a balanced (as a few responders here have done) perspective there are also partisan lobby groups and the military-industrial complex Not to mention the IAEA that is politicised. Under the old leadership Iran were NOT moving in that direction (and the US national intelligence reports), under the new leadership which is backed by those who were peeved with el baradei, the report suddenly changes. Further, and we dont believe the words of israel's regime either, not to mention the absurd claim of not having nukes, where are the international monitors at natanz (As with pak and with india, not just israel). its pure politics ar work. Also not to forget the Vela incidentLihaas (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what questioning the Holocaust has to do with a possible nuclear program. Those are fairly different factual domains — it's somewhat akin to doubting anything the US says because many high-placed Americans in recent years (including all of the major presidential candidates of a given party) espouse a belief in Creationism (which is a political position as much as anything else — ditto Iranian leadership's position on the Holocaust). A critic might point out that American leadership, among its many absurd statements over the years, has actually been quite wrong about identifying foreign WMD programs, which is actually the factual domain in question. Nonetheless, I do disagree with the poster immediately above me — you cannot throw out all intelligence information. Sifting through what has been released, though, even by the Israelis, leads one to the conclusion that very little has changed in the Iranian nuclear outlook since 2003, and that much of the recent hype is just hype. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And we also have recent experience with NK and Pakistan, both of which swore they weren't developing nuclear weapons, when they were. The same is true of Israel, but, of course, they are in a very different position. Iran is not under threat of invasion from all it's neighbors, after all (Iraq was a threat under Saddam, but the US eliminated that threat). StuRat (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Iran probably rightly feels that it is under threat of invasion from the United States. The situations with North Korea and Pakistan are quite different from Iran's. North Korean had an on-again off-again nuclear program that went back quite a long time. Pakistan's is even older (it dates from the early 1970s) and nobody really believed they weren't trying to acquire nuclear weapons (the US "certified" them as being good non-proliferators but even at the time everyone knew that was just political). The thing is, StuRat, going by analogy to other states in an intellectually honest way means you have to include all of the times that states claimed they weren't doing something, and actually weren't (Iraq comes to mind). The fact that Iran says they aren't working towards a weapon is not evidence that they are working towards a weapon. That all states routinely lie is not evidence that any specific statement is a lie. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a reason we should ignore such statements from national leaders, which is what this question asked about. To paraphrase, they asked it we can just take their word for it that they aren't after a nuclear weapon. The answer, heck no. Iran couldn't possibly think there's any threat of invasion from the US, as it's a much larger nation than either Iraq and Afghanistan, and the US military and budget are seriously overtaxed (as are all but the rich US citizens). Bombing is another story, though, but working on nuclear weapons makes this more likely, not less. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, fair enough on the first part. As to whether they have reasons to fear US or US-led coalitions invading, I don't see why they wouldn't take the lesson from Iraq as being, "don't trust the US to not invade, even if it's not apparently in their own interest." (And I might note that there is no better way to guarantee Iran going for a covert nuclear program than bombing their declared, inspected program.) --Mr.98 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've purposely avoided this question but have to agree on the last point. Even for many non-American, non Iranians it's not uncommon to believe there's a risk some US leader may decide to invade Iran. It wasn't that long ago you had someone calling them the axis of evil and willing to go to war against another country based on the flimsiest of evidence (which everyone involved seemed to know). For the likely somewhat paranoid Iranian leadership, it's hard to imagine they don't think there's a risk. As for whether working on nuclear weapons makes bombing more or less likely, that's questionable. Once you are successful, you have a real deterret to such actions, justified or not. Even if you do make an attack more likely in the short term, you may consider it better in the long term. Nil Einne (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Economic theories as political views

I am always interested in discussing my political views and reading about other political views. When I am reading into them I am bombarded by terms like Austrian economics, neoliberalism, classialc liberalism, and others that I understand as being related to economic and social theories. Why do economic theories express the way things ought to be? They're theories, not political positions. Someone could think tha Keynesian economics is true in that a country will maximize its wealth by having some amount of regulation and then do a 180° and support a laissez-faire system because they want to have as much freedom as possible. Why do theories and philosophies imply political views? --Melab±1 ☎ 23:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Trovatore Melab, which countries support laissez-faire system? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me. In any case, as far as I know, there aren't any, though some get closer than others. --Trovatore (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I mistakenly typed your name. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't actually directly responsive to your question, but you've hit on a sore point with me on the classical liberalism article, which describes classical liberalism as a descriptive economic theory (and an extremely specific one, dating to about a 20-year period). I think that's a serious flaw in the article. My understanding of classical liberalism is that it's what used to be called just liberalism before T. H. Green and his cohort of "reform liberals" messed everything up. --Trovatore (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Austrian economics, which is really politics disguised as economics, Keynesian economics does not directly imply political views. It does predict that certain approaches will succeed and others will fail, so it can be used to support political views, but its direct aim is to predict the relationship between policy and the behavior of an economy, not to judge that relationship. Looie496 (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Keynsianism's descriptive function of the modern state is, when Keynsianism is instrumentalised by modern states, a justification of the state formation. Correspondingly with Keynsianism's instrumentalisation in relation to capital. Descriptive norms generally aren't. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Political economy --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The distribution of labour and sustenance, the organisation of production, and the control of the organisation of production are intensely political. Methods of analysing these relationships contain within them political declarations about potential orderings of such relationships. Claiming, for example, that the structure of value in a capitalist economy subsists on labour power is a very large political claim about whether those who supply labour power should tolerate capitalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think, however, that the solution to problems economists hypothetically try to provide should not, themselves, be political, at least in the abstract. In the concrete, however, economics is clearly a soft science and lots of things that happen in the world, economically, are not unlike the weather: small, unforseen perterbations to the system produce wildly unpredictable results. The problem is that economists make contradictory statements which each side maintains are The Gospel Truth. That provides easy fodder for politicians to subvert for their own personal gain. One political party finds an economist which says "A", and their opponents can easily find an economist which says "not-A". It becomes dogmatic and without actual evidenciary support in the form of actual reproducable results, something that real sciences kinda run on. Politicians can then use economic theories to merely maintain their own power, without actually improving the lives of their constituents. Economics is a study ready-made for political subversion, as clearly happened in cases like the Soviet Union, where a power-hungry dictatorial class convinced poor people that they had an economic plan to make their lives better, and then brutally oppressed them for over half a century while doing little except coalece power and privilege for their own personal gain. At least the capitalists are honest about their greed... --Jayron32 05:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As an aside: Austrian Economics is certainly highly politically charged, but I think calling it "politics disguised as economics" would be taking it a bit far. Block and Hoppe, et al. are purely economic about it for the most part. Rothbard and a few others put the political spin on it that basically represents its public face today. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Austrian economics is based on ethics. Economics is all about human beings, and it is ethics that determines exactly how human beings should act. Economics is not possible without analyzing the underlying ethics. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

All of these things about the humanities makes it so confusing to me. Before this year, I considered English/literature and philosophy or logic and philosophy to be separate disciplines. While reading a book and then discussing it in class will go over the philosophy that is transmitted through the theme, it always focused on how this was done (this is what I thought). Then social theories are thrown into the mix. Take Marxism. Before my junior year, I always saw it as a political position. Its Wikipedia article called it a social theory and I learned that it held that (in my own words) a tendency existed for the lower class to revolt and eventually settle into an ideal communist (ideal as in without a government, not to say that I support it). Hypothetically, Karl Marx could have thought that this was what societies tried (as if a society has intent) to evolve into and the same time he could have supported capitalism. Next, I learn that psychology is some how connected to philosophy. All this blurring started when my English was assigned one year to pick a fictional character and prove they were of a certain philosophy. An example was Patrick Jane from The Mentalist. He is a sophist because he constructed arguments to prove his point. I saw these as behaviors not philosophies. --Melab±1 ☎ 21:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I can think of a few ways economic theory and politics can be linked:

1) Your economic theory drives your politics. For example, if you believe free markets can solve any problem, then you will be against any regulation of those markets.

2) Your politics drives your economic theory. For example, if you are against any regulation (perhaps because you own a business), you will choose an economic theory that says free markets can solve any problem.

3) You invent whatever economic theory is needed to justify your politics. For example, if your goal is to take money from the poor and give it to the rich, then you come up with something like trickle-down economics to try to convince everyone that cutting taxes on the rich and benefits to the poor is really the best way to help the poor. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree in the sense that it is easy to come up with theories, and there is a natural draw to holding a consistent set of beliefs (to avoid [[cognitive dissonance), including in political economy. I'm not sure there's anything special about it though. Trickle-down economics, like any other theory, was hypothesised because someone thought it was true, no more, no less. In political economy, some theories rise, others fall, just as with any scientific theory. The difference with, say, the theory of gravity, is that the evidence is so compelling that virtually everyone comes round to believing in it soon enough. Evidence for or against political-economic arguments is far patchier by comparison, and hence mutually exclusive theories survive far longer than they otherwise might. To answer the OP then, I would argue that it's really just the amount of overlap between the axioms of economics and politics that results in the evident cross-pollination of ideas. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you know they really believed in it, versus just using it as a propaganda tool ? (I suppose it could be like communism in that respect, in that Marx appeared to be a true believer, but by the time we got to Stalin, it was just a tool of oppression.) StuRat (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Internal consciousness in these situations is a might bit more complicated than you make it out. Stalin's pet theorists derived a reading of Marx more hackneyed than even Lenin's reading to justify the oppression of man by man; but, they appeared to do this without requiring cognitive dissonance (any more than Reagan required in claiming that the market freed people). Partly this can be explained through class interest (obviously leaving Stalin as problematic for "stratum" type orthotrots). But we can go a little further. Stalin bothered to have two works commissioned under his name while he ruled, "Short Course" and "On Linguistics." Neither displays a dialectical understanding of social relationships, the second is relatively naked in its apologetics for Soviet nationalities policy. But yet Stalin bothered to have these commissioned. ……… In comparison, Soviet economics was heartily interesting. Input-output tables, throughput, feedback. The sociology of industry was relatively poor, but then again the holy-of-holies in the Soviet-style production process was the alienation and disempowerment of the class at plant levels. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)