Humanities desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

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.

June 18[edit]

Assassination or murder[edit]

An earlier question got me thinking... how insignificant does one have to be before your assassination becomes simply a murder? Astronaut (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the term "assassination" is reserved for public figures. Thus, John Lennon was assassinated, but Natalee Holloway was murdered. --Jayron32 04:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of John Lennon's murder, I was living in England, and I don't remember the British media calling his killing an assassination. I always believed that term belonged to political figures. For instance when actress Sharon Tate was murdered by Manson's gang, the papers referred to the incident as the Manson Murders. Assassination was never used for William Desmond Taylor, Sal Mineo, Bob Crane, and other celebrities who were murdered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination used to be a term used for politically-motivated murder. Over time, it has been misused. Now, the distinction between assassinate and murder is pretty much whatever you want it to be. You can even claim that your cat assassinated a mouse in your kitchen and nobody will think you are misusing the term. -- kainaw ™ 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A useful distinction I've heard (and used) is that assassins are targeting the office while murderers are targeting the person. More specifically, the assailant is either trying to remove a political obstacle (and killing the person as an expedience) or is deriving personal satisfaction from the killing itself. Lincoln was assassinated; Lennon was murdered. Grey areas are always possible, though. Matt Deres (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, a distinction also exists because once upon a time, assassination referred to unsuccessful attempts as well as successful. I read this in a book that I cannot reference to at the moment, however, so take this comment with a grain of salt. Aaronite (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Martin Luther King might be one of the "grey areas" that Matt refers to. He was not an office holder per se, but he was killed as much for what he stood for as who he was. — Michael J 21:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that political is the operative term. The murder of civil rights leaders, Medgar Evers for example, are certainly assassinations in the American vernacular. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what makes MLK and Lennon's murders "assassinations" is that their fame led to their deaths. Their deaths were not the results of personal disputes between acquaintances, and they weren't random acts of violence like a spree shooting. If Maria Shriver were to kill her husband (the governor of California) over a marital dispute, it wouldn't quite fit the profile of an "assassination." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, although a kind of bizarre, point. I should clarify. The motivation needs to be political, and perhaps the victim should be a political figure (so as to exclude politically motivated killings of non-political figures). But we're just making up terms at this point. Does anybody have any good dictionary or legal definitions? Shadowjams (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster: 1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously. 2 : to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

history of flag[edit]

I was looking at some Yazoo City, Mississippi, tornado aftermath videos on YouTube. A couple of them have this flag. The flag is mainly white. It has a blue canton in upper left hand corner. A red Christian cross is inside the canton. What is that flag's history?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the flag? --->

If so, the description page says it's the flag to represent protestants of all denominations. Dismas|^(talk) 07:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found it by using Google's image search using the keywords "flag cross blue canton". Dismas|^(talk) 07:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's page: Christian Flag. Pfly (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one.24.90.204.234 (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SLight clarification (from article): "flag designed...to represent all of Christianity...but it has been adopted mainly by Protestant churches". It isn't a flag just for Protestants, its just that nobody else is using it yet! 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember pledging allegiance to it every day at church camp. Thanks for reviving my childhood trauma. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a flag that you think represents everyone in a group, and a pretty large, distinct group says that it doesn't represent them, and a lot of the people who do think the flag represents them also think the flag doesn't represent the large, distinct group, in what sense can the flag be said to represent everyone in that group? And pledging allegiance to it? Good God! 86.164.66.4 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you had to go through all that. But I was really needing information, to tell you the truth.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BP's >=$20bn fund[edit]

I read that BP is setting up a >=$20bn fund for various people / businesses. Was a similar fund created for the Bhopal victims? And what other major disasters created by American companies have had a fund set up? Kittybrewster ☎ 07:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer for Bhopal, infamously the company 'responsible' never accepted any blame and paid out little if any compensation. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No signs of companies setting up large funds in the Niger Delta, which routinely seems to be drenched by millions of gallons of oil from poorly maintained infrastructure. From The Guardian: Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it. One rule for them; another for us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's no surprise: the government of Nigeria is weak, incompetent, and, most of all, corrupt. No company likes to pay and most companies won't pay if no one (public pressure and/or courts of law) forces them to pay. The international media has no interest in showing us Nigeria's ecological problems because most of us (in the "civilized world") simply don't care. Flamarande (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, UCC reached almost $500 million victims settlement with the court some 5 years after the disaster (including being required to to fund a hospital, donate to the Red Cross, etc.) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so it does. From the stories I've read of Bhopal I only recalled UCC's claims that they were not responsible for UCIL's actions. I'm amazed such newspaper stories don't mention the settlement more prominently. There were a lot of victims, but $500 million is a huge chunk of change. 58.147.53.173 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Halliburton was supposed to make a fund for asbestos damage, and the tobacco industry was supposed to pay into a fund for cancer victims (because the industry had covered up evidence that smoking causes cancer). Both of those ended up wriggling out of some or all of those obligations, I think. FWIW, the financial community seems to be looking at the BP agreement quite favorably, since it gives reason to expect BP to stay around and pay the money. BP shares are up about 7% in the past few days after taking a huge beating in the days before. There were real concerns that BP might be wiped out like Arthur Anderson was. 75.57.243.88 (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halliburton paid $2.66 billion in cash and 11% of its company stock (worth another $2.6 billion) just to stop the asbestos litigation. The American tobacco industry is paying over $200 billion (over 25 years) in the Master Settlement Agreement. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Hazard is why government likes to hire contractors and companies. Something goes wrong and they are to blame and then the icing on the cake for government is that it can turn around and provide the scorn. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOHSA[edit]

Is Jones Act=Merchant Marine Act of 1920 the same as Death on the High Seas Act 1920? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death on the High Seas Act 1920 (DOHSA) is 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 761–768). Jones Act is 46 U.S.C. § 688. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn to identify[edit]

Hiya! I've had this tune buzzing around my head for a couple of days and I think it's a Christian hymn. Can anyone help me out? :) ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 07:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tune that I know, but it's started going round in my head now! If no-one else recognises it, I could ask one or two organists here in Northern England. Dbfirs 08:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd be amazing if you could, it's too catchy to not know what it is!! ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 15:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I knew the hymn repertory pretty well, but don't recognize it, and it's not in a big collection of (Protestant) hymns I've got. One thing that suggests it's not a hymn is its range -- an octave and a fifth (from F below middle C to C an octave above -- the same range as the Star-Spangled Banner -- hard for reg'lar folks in a congregation to sing). Most hymns keep the melody within an octave to an octave and a third. I'd guess folk song, but I could certainly be wrong. The melodic pattern in the last phrase outlining the subdominant and dominant triads, with the descending major thirds, and implied structural parallel fifths, suggests English or American to me. Just a hunch though. Antandrus (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got any updates? It's really bugging me ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 11:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's got lots of bits that sound like lots of bits in various UK Catholic hymns that I know, but overall doesn't seem to be one I specifically know. The range is (sadly) not that unusual in fairly popular hymns I've known. If I were forced to guess, I'd say it was a fairly modern (20th century) hymn, and not one of the extremely popular ones. When it runs through your head, can you catch any words at all? 86.164.66.4 (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma bombing and Northern Ireland Troubles.[edit]

Is there any truth in or support for my pet theory that the troubles in Northern Ireland largly came to an end because the Oklahoma bombings made Americans realise that terrorism was a bad thing, and as a consequence they stopped funding the IRA. The IRA, with its income drying up, had to re-evaluate its policy and activity. 92.15.14.87 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Northern Ireland peace process had begun with the IRA ceasefire in 1994, the year before the Oklahoma City bombings which occurred in 1995. I really don't see the connection, to be honest. You should read these articles for more information: Northern Ireland Peace Process, Good Friday Agreement, Irish Republican Army, The Troubles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article in The New York Sun discussing the evolution of Peter T. King's views on the (P)IRA places the Rubicon at 9/11. In practice, as in many cases, the progression of peace in Northern Ireland, and the US understanding of the situation, was moved over time by an accumulation of events. If any single event is responsible for eroding the perception of PIRA as a legitimate freedom fighter group, it's probably the Remembrance Day bombing. I'm sure Oklahoma City and 9/11 clarified the realities of terrorism in the mind of many Americans, but the peace process was slouching toward Stormont before Oklahoma. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From this side of the pond, the turning point seemed to be the Warrington bomb attacks. It was difficult for the IRA to justify blowing-up children shopping for Mothers Day cards[1]. It also gave a nudge to the UK politicians that something needed to be done. Overtures had I believe been made beforehand, but the bombings may have just focussed everybody's minds. The 2nd Warrington attack was in March 1993 and the Downing Street Declaration was in December 1993. The Wikipedia page Northern Ireland peace process doesn't quote any one event as a catalyst - there may have been many. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, the much larger 9-11 attack and follow-ups may indeed have had an effect of discouraging terrorism from unrelated organizations, as they would now be associated with terrorists rather than being thought of as a "liberation organization". Stricter anti-terrorism laws and enforcement also dealt a blow. The ETA (a Basque independence movement) may be one such case. StuRat (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Good Friday agreement had already been signed 4 months earlier, the final death knell to the IRA was the Omagh Bombing on 15 August 1998.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although Omagh was the work of a splinter group, the Real IRA. Alansplodge (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The support and any money from the US was of little importance. Basically Britain saying it was up to them to solve their own problems rather than treating it as a colony was the road to peace, and I believe its compliance with the Human Rights court in the treatment of prisoners greatly helped to defuse the situation. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did it say this? I've never heard of that before. And do you have any evidence that it was treated as a "colony" in the late 20th. century please? 92.15.14.87 (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is for instance shown by John Major an Tony Blair. John Major rejected the Mitchell proposals, he didn't leave it up to Northern Ireland politicians to reject them. Tony Blair helped them come to their own agreement. Dmcq (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they send in non-Irish troops ? That's the type of thing a colonial power does. 68.248.75.49 (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least initially, the use of Irish regiments was avoided because the troops would have affiliations to one side or the other in the conflict. Unlike the US where the National Guard is used for internal security, the UK avoids the use of local volunteers after some bad experiences in the early 19th Century. Alansplodge (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I don't know how widespread this was, but my grandfather left Ireland for England largely for reasons to do with recriminations against him, based on him being a policeman. I've never got the full story. I kind of get the impression that arming large groups of local volunteers would have been very bad for everyone involved. 86.164.66.4 (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill wartime speeches BBC broadcasts[edit]

On several occasions, Winston Churchill rebroadcast speeches he had delivered to Parliament over the BBC the same day. I had heard, but can find no reference, that because of the press of war business, some of these speeches were delivered by an actor imitating him.

Is this true, or just an "urban legend"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klantry01 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Norman Shelley. Ka renjc 18:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Found another source confirming same at "An actor read Churchill's wartime speeches over the wireless. ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klantry01 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic Modern Media Initiative[edit]

I saw a lot of people on the internet criticizing the IMMI because they claim it would be ineffective. These people said that publication occurs every time a person downloads a page, rather than when you actually publish the page, citing Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick. But wouldn't that case only apply to Australia? Have there been similar cases in the United States or other countries? --76.77.139.243 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breastfeeding in public[edit]

Are there records of European women in any century breastfeeding in public? If there are, what did they do to avoid exposing their breasts to men who were not their husbands?—Wavelength (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are reports of plenty of European women breastfeeding in public in the 20th and 21st centuries. Some use a thing like a short apron that covers the breasts and baby, others just allow the baby's head to cover the breast and leave it at that. --Tango (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably what the woman in Gin Lane was doing before the baby fell. Lower-class women in cities couldn't always be fastidious... AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This UK article[2] states "breastfeeding is now an acceptable part of modern day life". See also Breastfeeding in public - Wikipedia has an article about (justabout) everything. Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may interest you to know that (at least according to the article Toplessness) the prohibition against showing female breasts in public is relatively recent, even in European traditions. "During the sixteenth century, women's fashions displaying their breasts were common in society." It was only during the Victorian era that an exposed female breast became taboo. (And when euphemisms such as "white meat" and "piano limb" were used so as not to utter the words "breast" and "leg". I'm surprised we don't have the article Victorian euphemisms.) - 174.24.195.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

There is an article on Victorian morality, though, which mentions the subject; I suggest that Victorian euphemism and Victorian euphemisms should be created as redirects to that. (As an unregistered user I can't do it myself.) --Anonymous, 04:20 UTC, June 19, 2010.

Redirect now done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Anon, 02:40, June 20/10.

This 1684 portrait of a queen of Poland and her family suggests it was not seen as indecent then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC) ===>>[reply]

I wouldn't use that as a useful guide to the norms of everyday public dress. Wanton nudity (shock, horror) was almost the sine qua non of portraiture of the 18th and earlier centuries, yet the very opposite was expected of people in public. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I am revising both of my questions and asking two new questions. The second one looks like the second old question, but it is different because of its allusion to the answer to the first new question.)
Are there records of women breastfeeding in public before 1900 in any society in which exposure of the breasts was considered to be improper? If there are, what did they do to avoid exposing their breasts to men who were not their husbands?—Wavelength (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was considered improper, women would most likely not breastfeed in public. However one must also take into account the difference of norms in the various social ranks. For example in most of Europe prior to 1900 a poor woman or a nanny breastfeeding in public would likely be considered less improper than a woman of high social rank doing the same. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many scattered references to breastfeeding in earlier texts, here's one: "Let me perish, Belford, if I would not forego the brightest diadem in the world, for the pleasure of seeing a twin Lovelace at each charming breast, drawing from it his first sustenance; the pious task, for physical reasons, continued for one month and no more!" But your questions are difficult to answer not least because "society in which exposure of the breast is improper" still refers to current society, but the degree of impropriety waxes and wanes. Previously, one of the most scandalous aspects of breastfeeding in public was probably the implication that you cannot afford a wet nurse, and confinement of mother and baby usually meant child birth and the early years of child rearing was much more hidden anyway. As said, this probably was less strict for the sluttish poor but then it was rarely polite to refer to the ghastly things the poor did. meltBanana 12:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read a reminiscence that indicated that it was normal to breastfeed in public, for example on an omnibus. It makes sense to me. It was seen as necessary. The woman would be as discreet as she practically could and people avoided staring. While the rule was not to expose body parts, the breasts weren't sexualised as they would be in the 20th century (notably as a result of Hollywood). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breast fetishism#History (yes, WP:WHAAOE) seems to disagree with you. --Tango (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]