Humanities desk
< February 16	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 17[edit]

What is the meaning of the term "methodology" in "political theory and methodology"?[edit]

Does methodology refer to mathematics? If not, what does it mean with political theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 01:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article stub Political methodology, which I quote here in its entirety, Political methodology is a subfield of Political Science that studies the quantitative methods used to study politics. It combines statistics, mathematics, empirical techniques, and formal theory. Political methodology is often used for positive research, in contrast to normative research. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term methodology shouldn't really be limited to quantitative methods, even if those are the ones most frequently used. It refers to the study of all research methods. Marco polo (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books for modern political theory[edit]

I need a book about political theory, aside from the book great political theories, which includes a number of modern theorists. Can you recommend any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How modern? Political Ideologies by Andrew Heywood is the one I used when I did a Pol Sci unit. It was the textbook for a different unit to the one I did. I did a second year unit, and the book was for the first year unit. The book was fantastic at filling in the gaps, without my having to even do the unit. It has such "modern" theorists as Karl Marx, if that helps, but it also mentions more recent Marxists, feminists, and many others. IBE (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi secret weapons[edit]

During World War 2, were any of the Nazi wonder weapons privately funded to any significant extent? Or was all the funding provided by the government, as was the general practice in the Soviet Union? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on "nazi weapon funding" shows a lot of hits on something I already knew: there were many American companies, or 'industrialists', who financed the Nazi war machine and the development of weapons. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP stipulated during World War II. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I expected anyone reading this thread to read the links provided before commenting. Here are some more. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any links there that are remotely reliable, and that claim what you say it claims. In addition to spreading propaganda, you are fraudulently misrepresenting your own sources. Of course, there are plenty of sources that show industrial collaboration between American companies and German companies. That's hardly surprising, considering that Germany was a superpower with the most advanced industries in the world. That doesn't mean any American company funded a German superweapon during WWII, and I've seen no references that make such a claim. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on when you think the war started. Fur the UK, it started in 1939, whereas the Americans joined in a few years later. They were not at war with Germany for the first few years. During that time, they were financing the Germans (as well as the Brits, and the Russians, and just basically everyone else). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the original question, I can't think of any nation seeking or getting private funding for weapons research. The military likes to keep its secrets secret. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet in the USA during World War 2, there was quite a bit of private funding for weapons development -- the P-38 Lightning and the P-51 Mustang, for example, were privately funded to a large extent. Same thing in Britain -- or have you forgot the story of Frank Whittle and the jet engine? But then again, in English-speaking countries (and ESPECIALLY in the USA), there's a long tradition of having private companies do everything by themselves -- the same might not have been true in Germany. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I forget Frank Whittle when I never heard of him before? But that example doesn't work for me at least. He developed it on his own, not as part of a government programme. As for the fighters, it seems (from the articles at least) that the P-51 was ordered by the British government, while the P-38 was produced to compete for a US contract, not quite what I think of as private funding exactly. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm reading your comments correctly Clarityfiend, but they seem to be contradictory. Whittle's Power Jets Ltd doesn't count because it wasn't part of a government programme and the Mustang doesn't count because it was.

However, a project that was privately developed in the design stage despite a lack of government interest until quite late in the day was the de Havilland Mosquito. Alansplodge (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, these aircraft aren't super-secret "wonder weapons", just run-of-the-mill incremental improvements rather than radical breakthroughs like jets. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, any corresponding examples from Nazi Germany? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the private funding thing, most "secret projects" in the US are basically the government telling one (or more) company(s) "Hey, we want something that does X." The company(s) spend their own money for initial design (and sometimes building a prototype), with the intent that the government will be buying lots of them if they win the contract. So, the initial funding is private, on the assumption the government will fund the rest & order lots of the production models. See Advanced Tactical Fighter & Joint Strike Fighter program#JSF competition for a modern versions of how that works (though these weren't really much of a secret). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's more-or-less how it works in our country. BTW, the F-117 stealth fighter is a better example -- it was initially funded entirely by Lockheed like the other two you mentioned, but unlike your examples, they kept it secret for TEN YEARS! Sometimes private companies really ARE better at keeping secrets than the government... 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But let's go back to the original question: Was weapons research in Germany mostly privately funded as in the USA, or was it mostly government funded as in the USSR? Or was it somewhere in between? And if it was mostly government funded, then could you give me at least one or two projects that were exceptions to the rule? (They don't necessarily have to be Wunderwaffe, but they do have to be wartime projects.) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind -- I've done some looking of my own, and I found that in fact many Nazi secret weapons were in fact privately funded at least during their initial development. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

historical growth and development of administrative law England[edit]

historical growth and development of administrative law England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.45.114 (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with our article English administrative law, which at least gives you some headings, even though it doesn't cover the history. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Robertian dynasty[edit]

Why are the dukes of Brittany listed as members of the Robertian dynasty? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there was an intermarriage at some point (possibly through Ermengarde-Gerberga of Anjou?) It doesn't make any sense to list them as "Robertians" though. (I'm not sure it makes any sense to list anyone as "Robertian"; Wikipedia is filled with non-sensical made-up dynasties...) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese hat[edit]

im looking for the name of the traditional hats, that the Portuguese where. i was looking at a picture of our lady of Fatima, and the boy, blessed Francisco, is wearing one. when i lived there, back in the 70's, the shepherds were the only ones that still wore them. i was hoping you had a picture of it, and the name, maybe some history on it. wish i had an extra million for all that you do. thanks so much. sincerely . Stephen j. Mansfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.166.245 (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it either of the hats shown here: [1] or any shown here: [2] ? StuRat (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a Barretina? Hat Guide - Barretina: Popular hat across Mediterranean Europe I was led there via our rather amusing article called Caganer ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider looking through our Culture of Portugal article --Senra (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A portrait by George Frederic Watts[edit]

I am looking for "Miss Mary Fox with Spanish Pointer", a portrait of Lord Holland's adopted daughter painted by George Frederic Watts. The internet is full of paintings by Watts but I cannot find this one no matter how hard I try. Is there an art website where I should look? Any tips on finding it? Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you were thinking of [3] ? It's a different Mary Fox, and by artist Pompeo Batoni. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, StuRat, but I am afraid that is not it. The painting is that of a three-year-old child hugging a dog that is much larger than her. The Mary Fox painted by Batoni is the great-grandmother of this "Miss Mary Fox". Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's reproduced in Barbara Bryant's catalogue of the Watts portraits. It may be in Veronica Gould's biography too. I'll have a look at my copy (which will have to be tomorrow morning). If you can't find it, I will happily scan it for you and upload it. BTW, her name was Marie Fox. However, the title you give is indeed how the name is inscribed on the ~~back~~ front. Paul B (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Barbara Bryant's catalogue is precisely where I learned about the existence of the paintng. Her name was indeed Marie Fox, but she appears to have been called Mary quite frequently. This name complication suits her complicated life; she was a foundling found at a French orphanage who was adopted by a British nobleman and who eventually became an Austrian princess. She wrote an extensive account on Holland House and its art collection. I've been thinking of creating an article about her and nominating it for DYK. If you would be so kind to scan it and upload (which would be the most helpful thing a Wikipedian has done for me), I would make sure that you receive DYK credit. I am already very grateful. Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the book already and uploaded it for you File:Watts marie fox.jpg. Paul B (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what to say or how to express my gratitude. I certainly did not expect a response so helpful. I will notify you about the article when it's ready. Surtsicna (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good luck with the article. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mark this Q resolved. Please remove the tag, if you disagree. StuRat (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Empire City Repository[edit]

I have a horse drawn sleigh that has a metal plate on the back reading "Empire City Repository 20, 22, 24,&26 Wooster St. NY". I live on the West Coast of U.S. and would love to know more about the sleigh's origin. Can you help me? Sweisskennewick (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing byline?[edit]

Hello. I was doing some research and found that this TIME article had no byline (i.e. no information on the article's author). I am primarily interested in who the author might be. Thanks, 72.128.82.131 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view that without a Time subscription. However, here are some general reasons why they don't list an author:

A) They may have gotten the story from a press service. If so, they should list the name of the wire service, like AP, UPI, or Rueters.

B) They sometimes just say "Staff", meaning it was a collaboration of many authors on their staff. This practice seems to be spreading, recently, where, to write a story about topic X, they just grab paragraphs from every story on topic X they've written in the last year or so, resulting in a Frankenstein of a piece which is redundant and unreadable, especially if they are stealing from earlier Frankensteins.

C) If the author fears retaliation for the story, they may choose to remain anonymous (different papers have different policies on this). StuRat (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can view this article since I am a TIME Magazine subscriber. There is no author listed, and the reason for this is probably one or more of the ones that StuRat previously mentioned. I think that it might have been more common for Time Magazine to write more articles without the author(s) being listed several decades ago than it is today. Futurist110 (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's just a blanket policy to not give author credit on articles -- for example The Economist never does so, not even for recurring columns always written by the same (unidentified) writer. Other magazines may give author credit for recurring columns but not for general news articles. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a heresy[edit]

I was reading a document entitled "An Outline of the Faith" the other day - I'm not sure where it originates, but based on its contents I would suppose it's some sort of dissident sedevacantist Catholic organization. However, my question is about one line in the document: "By God's own act, his divine Son received our human nature from the Virgin Mary, his mother." Now, this is probably expressing a conventional hypostatic union view of Jesus' nature, but it reads as though they believe that Jesus was a biological hybrid of God and Man, like Heracles or Giglamesh or Lúthien. Does this belief have a name, and has any Christian church seriously entertained it? Tevildo (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that any possible combination has a name, there were so many of these things that were condemned as heresies...maybe Consubstantiality? Christology has a handy chart, does that help? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... It's whatever the _opposite_ of "consubstantial" is, probably dyophysitism, although our article on that subject doesn't explicitly cover the view that Jesus' divine nature is _specifically_ from God, and His human nature _specifically_ from Mary. I'll do some more reading. Tevildo (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that "document" is a section of the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church, arguably a dissident Catholic organization but generally viewed as a mainline Protestant church in the United States.--Cam (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see that the sentence you quote appears in other books as well. I'll try to find its origin.--Cam (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the Catechism and you can read the whole document here. This is a considerable elaboration on the original 1662 Catechism. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent in Common Worship, the current prayer book used by the Church of England. Alansplodge (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of Googling, it seems that the Anglican Communion generally adheres to the principles laid down in the seven Ecumenical councils of the early Church, and thus ought to have the same view as the Roman Catholics on this issue. See Ecumenical_council#Anglican_Communion. The Americans seem to have gone out on a limb here, but I'm not a theologian. Alansplodge (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the information, and my apologies to the ECUSA if I mischaracterized their beliefs. However, it's a long way from the 39 Articles - I didn't know they had a formal "sacramental rite" of confession, which I've only ever associated with Catholicism. But, neither am I a theologian. Tevildo (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a perfectly orthodox Catholic belief. It's actually part of the reasoning behind the Immaculate Conception: if Christ inherited his human nature from Mary, then he would also have inherited Original Sin from her; therefore, either Christ had to save himself, or Mary or some earlier ancestor had to have been saved from Original Sin by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, before Christ was conceived. It doesn't make Jesus a 'hybrid', because he isn't considered to be part human and part God (as I'm sure you know, given you referenced the hypostatic union), but wholy human and wholy God. It's just that his human nature is considered to have come completely from Mary, just as his godhood came wholy from God. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]