Humanities desk
< January 11	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 13 >

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.

January 12[edit]

Rob Fisk[edit]

Rob Fisk says in his book that Saddam Hussein was an evil man who oppressed the Iraqs, but he says he doesnt support the iraq war that toppled him. Are there any sources that say before 2003 that he says an invasion to depose Saddam is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.90.192.231 (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those who want to research this but need some basic info, our article is at Robert Fisk but I don't know which book OP might be talking about. Fisk has apparently written several. Dismas|^(talk) 07:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the question; I very much doubt that Fisk ever called for an invasion to remove Saddam. That - in my estimation - would be a most un-Fisk-like thing to call for. If I hve you wrong, please clarify the question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is almost certainly The Great War for Civilisation, against which the American right wing has long held a grudge that elevates it way above its actual importance. As Tagishsimon almost says, even if you can find a source for Fisk calling for an invasion it's almost certain that your source is wrong - Fisk has always been a hard-line pacifist. Mogism (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) If this is a more general "how do pacifists respond to the charge that war is sometimes necessary to prevent a greater loss of life" question, see Just war theory and the links it contains for the various viewpoints on the matter. Mogism (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What i mean is, the only reason saddm would have been removed is through war. The west couldnt have just said ″could you please step down from power and stop oppressing your people please?″ So if robert fisk says that saddamm is so bad, why doesn't he support the invasion that toppled him.? 49.226.193.133 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you rightly, you think that Fisk's opposition to Hussein should mean that he would want to see him actively removed, and that he'd support war because there was no other way. Are you familiar with the concept of "the ends justify the means"? Many people hold the opposite perspective, i.e. the final result doesn't necessarily justify the way of getting there; it's entirely possible to say "It would be wonderful if this thing were to happen, but we mustn't accomplish it by doing X, since X is wrong/not the best/an outright bad idea". Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thank you I do see what you mean. Its just the vibe that i always got when reading Gret War for Civilisation was that he wanted something to be done about sdaam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.227.200.98 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

image of Muhammad[edit]

It is supposedly taboo to draw am image of Muhammad. But as far as I know, there are no contemporaneous images of Muhammad. So if someone draws something, how do you know it is Muhammad? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually because of the context, and maybe the caption (if any). These are caricatures. They don't actually have to be a perfect representation of the person they are drawing. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 07:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In medieval Persian miniatures, Muhammad's face is never shown, but he's generally the center of focus of the piece, sometimes shown with a flame-like halo, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any "contemporaneous images" of Jesus, but everybody knows what he looks like. See Depiction of Jesus. Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was definitely a white European 1960s hippy-style, despite being from the Middle East. We all know this, because God speaks English and he's his son. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite; he has an appearance derived from convention rather than authenticity. I believe that he only acquired a beard in the 4th Century (rather than the 1960s). However, take a look at this Chinese Jesus! "The head of every man is Christ" (First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch.11: V.3). We digress. Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take 400 years to grow a beard - I can do that in a week - that's no miracle (it's more of a miracle getting rid of it, with my cheap ASDA blunt blades). I was talking about his long hair and his travelling lifestyle, occasionally attracting huge crowds to say 'blessed are the [whoever]' (blessed by whom? and what's that going to do for them?), whilst singing 'American Pie' or something. Come on, a child who 'turns water into wine' must be an alcoholic. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be contemporeous images of Muhammad, but there are detailed descriptions of his appearance in Muslim sources. Look for example at this website. Now I cannot say if these sources are authentic or reliably transmitted, but it's definitely plausible that one might attempt to draw Muhammad based on the best information we have. Whether cartoonists actually bother to look for that information is another matter, of course. - Lindert (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our own Depictions of Muhammad article has images of him (not just cartoons). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there are no accurate representations of Muhammad from his era, nor of anyone else for that matter. It's not a question of whether it looks like Muhammad - it's that merely the attempt at depicting him is now considered blasphemous, regardless of the artist's motivations for doing so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So trying to depict this specific prophet is blasphemous? Or is it all prophets? Is blasphemy considered a crime? If so, since when? And if so, shouldn't then death penalty be reconsidered back? Akseli9 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might well be a crime under strict Islamic law. And in places where strict Islamic law is observed, there is no hesitation to apply the death penalty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) According to the "Depictions of Muhammad" article linked above; "there is disagreement about visual depictions. The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures." Like Christianity, there are many strands of Islam and some have different standpoints to others on this point. A Bangladeshi restaurant in East London that I used to frequent, had its walls decorated with images of Muslim saints. Alansplodge (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the commandment Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image covers this. Not that it ever stopped Christians from making likenesses of Jesus, Mary, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lots of Christians thought it should do - see Iconoclasm. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is blasphemy considered a crime? It depends on the jurisdiction. See Blasphemy law in the United States for the fact that some states retain prohibitions on blasphemy, although they seem to violate the Constitution. Not a crime in the United Kingdom since 2008. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, a law which violates the Constitution is still as legit as any other. It only becomes unconstitutional after a judicial review says so. Many laws never even start the process. The Netherlands' constitution has a part that says "The court shall not enter into the assessment of the constitutionality of laws and treaties" (in Dutch, of course). I guess it prefers to somehow stand up for itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, many traditions which consider depictions of Muhammad as generally unwelcome (as has been said, this isn't all traditions), also consider depictions of other prophets unwelcome (also God/Allah which is actually AFAIK the one most forbidden). Some movies and other media depicting Moses, Noah and other prophets in Islam (from a Christian or Judeo-Christian POV) have been banned in various countries at least partially for this reason, see e.g. [1]. Jesus seems to be one exception, in that many allow Christian depictions at least for Christian usage. Of course, as our Aniconism in Islam mentions, some go as far to consider all depictions of humans or other sentient beings as unwelcome, although as that article mentions given the proliferation of TV and cameras nowadays that part seems largely ignored. That article also mentions how Muhammad seemed to allow some depictions of Jesus (and Mary), perhaps another reason why depictions of Jesus tend to be ignored. Depictions of Muhammad do tend to cause the most controversy by far, as their final prophet and also one not recognised as a religious figure in any way by most religions, I guess there's greater concern over potrayals of him. (And realisticly most depictions are at least partially thinking of Islam, whereas this is often not the case with depictions of the other prophets of Islam.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction of the Prophet Muhammad[edit]

This Guardian newspaper report includes the statement that the "Charlie Hebdo" cover published today "depicts the prophet Muhammad' The link also includes an image of that magazine cover so if the image might offend you, please do not follow that link.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/13/charlie-hebdo-cover-magazine-prophet-muhammad

With that background information, here is my question. What if anything in the image makes it specifically a depiction of the Prophet rather than simply an image of a male in Middle Eastern looking garb? Thank you, CBHA (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the image, only in the context, and in the description of the image by the cartoonist who drew it. Keep in mind that at least one person is currently in jail for threats against cartoonists who drew a man completely covered head to toe in a large bear costume and said it was Muhammad... - Nunh-huh 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the frequently ambiguous status of Islamic iconography, there's no "conventional" representation of Muhammad; even in Western art, he's rare enough that he didn't acquire a standard representation. Absolutely nothing of the artwork itself (as opposed to the captions) suggests that File:Giovanni da Modena - The Inferno, detail (Machomet).jpg, File:Mahomet.jpg, and File:La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg all depict the same person. It's radically different from Christian iconography of Christ (who, being God, naturally gets depicted as ruling everything/everyone), or even from Christian iconography of the saints, who routinely appeared with the same items to help the illiterate know who the depictee was. Saint George pretty much always wears armor and is generally sitting on his horse while spearing the dragon, and the text of our article on Saint Lucy notes that she routinely holds a plate with two eyeballs on it. There was no comparable need for Westerners to know about Muhammad (he was just another non-Christian foreigner), so Westerners didn't have a reason to develop a routine way of depicting him. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well, Christians eventually decided he was a non-Christian foreigner, but initially conceived of him as a Christian heretic... - Nunh-huh 00:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but he wasn't popping up in the artwork at the time. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's good reasons from customs of the time there to think Jesus was clean shaven and early images were of him with short curly hair and no beard - nor any halo. Dmcq (talk)

Dmcq -- In Jesus' time and place, if you wanted to be perceived as a mature responsible adult male (as opposed to a callow youth) and as someone who identified himself with the Jewish community and its traditions (as opposed to someone who assimilated to the surrounding Greco-Roman culture), then you were highly likely to grow a beard. To me, a clean-shaven Jesus suggests more a gentile interpretation than a historically-accurate interpretation of someone who claimed authority as a Jewish religious leader. AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right but it looks to me like at that time they thought the bit in Leviticus was an injunction to not shave off sideburns - not beards. Dmcq (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the end, all portraiture is just some splodges of colour that happen to look a bit like a certain person from a particular angle. The question is one of the artist's intent. Of course we have no idea at all what Muhammad looked like; so you can draw any person who looks vaguely Arabic and you're fine, until you communicate in some way that it's meant to be him. Draw an Arab sitting next to an oasis and you're fine; draw an angel speaking to him and title it, 'Muhammad receives his revelation' and you've got a very different kettle of fish. GoldenRing (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draw an obvious Jerry Falwell screwing the unmistakable Porky Pig in what is clearly a Walmart parking lot, you're untouchable. Call either of the unbearded Caucasian swine "Muhammad" in the caption, suddenly you're holding a "depiction of Muhammad", instead of a thing that could not be understood as factual. It doesn't even have to be a sentient being or the least obscene. Say a drawing of a kettle or mailbox is of the Prophet, that's as valid a depiction as any, though a poor illustration. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 year employment and capital stock projections[edit]

The new dynamic scoring rules that the US House of Representatives adopted last Tuesday require 20 year projections of changes in economic output, employment, and capital stock (definition, details, graph.) Does anyone know of examples of 20 year projections for employment or capital stock in reliable sources, either as baseline or changes due to some proposal? EllenCT (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's utterly absurd to think you can accurately predict the state of the economy that far in advance. Think about what happened in the last 20 years. We had the Internet boom, housing bubble collapse, several wars, the rise of China, etc. All of this affected the economy. So any prediction of the current state of our economy 20 years ago would have been way off. This requirement is a purely political ploy so Republicans can tweak the numbers and say anything they want is good for the economy and anything Democrats want is bad (since Republicans are the majority now, they will ensure that the people chosen to come up with these "projections" will do as they are told, by Republicans). StuRat (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to rule out the possibility that in many cases we can get some idea of what a legislative change will do to economic situations a decade out. I'm probably with you on two decades though. But I'm sure people must have tried, somewhere. Any idea where? EllenCT (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that the business cycle has a variable length, so 20 years from now we could be at the height of a boom or in the depths of a recession, and there's no way to tell that now. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, trickle down is not dead yet? They found another name for it and even made it seem like a new level of economic scientificness? But isn't it weird that 2011, 2001, 1991, 1981, 1971 and 1961 were all bad economies? Also 1941, 1931 and 1921. (or was the hyperinflation 1922?). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say (1) this will not give them trickle-down, (2) it will force Republicans to support Keynesian stimulus, but they won't call it that, (3) the Republican leadership is well aware of this and they know exactly what they're doing, (4) because decades of kowtowing to Grover Norquist has painted them into a corner and they don't want to shoot off their feet for 2016, (5) as evidenced by their need for populism in an off-term election with more gerrymandering than ever.[2] EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said it, but I'll remain a bit skeptical regarding your idea of a Keynesian stimulus; it shouldn't be that much difficult to draw a 20 years projection starting with the current figures regarding oil production, what's your opinion ? --Askedonty (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It seems like only a few years ago peak oil was a serious thing showing up in all the Fortune 500 annual reports, and fracking was just some weird experiment that people who liked to fish with dynamite were trying because their wells had dried up. With fracking and renewables price and production trends, I think the Saudis might be right about oil never going over $100 again. EllenCT (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We've gotten a reprieve, but we are still using up petroleum far faster than it is being produced, and that will inevitably lead to shortages. As for renewables, the low petroleum prices will stop development in those areas, since they can't compete with cheap oil. StuRat (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also works with music. c. 2010: dubstep, electro, dance. c. 2000: trance, I'm Blue by Eiffel 65, Vengabus, dance. c. 1990: "I've Got the Power! [bzz bzz bzz]"-type music (called techno at time), In a Dream (Rockell) type stuff (a remix of something 1989), dance. c. 1980: Funkytown, dance came a bit early (disco). c. 1970: Popcorn by Hot Butter, ~~Plugged-In~~ Switched-On Bach, rock with new effects like that (Johnny Cash?) buzz thing played in Apollo 13. Top 40 suddenly has a fad of the most high-tech sounding electronic pop they could think of at the time and it dies out after a few years. They all sounded futuristic at the time and dated after 2 cycles. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to subscribe to your newsletter. EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I would've put Daft Punk for 2000 if I'd remembered them. And Moog synthesizers goes under 1970. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of 20 years ago, it was in the early-to-mid 90s that a bunch of books on the Japanese threat or Japanese challenge or Japan as the incipient new #1 world power came out in the wake of The Japan That Can Say No incident, as well as the "Rising Sun" movie with Sean Connery. Yet that period actually turned out to be the beginning of Japan's major economic problems... AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't projections of absolute conditions, they are scores for proposals based on their relative effects, "all else being equal." (Which brings up the issue of proposals which would both be expected to work by themselves, but not together, for instance if they depend on the same scarce inputs. For example, if you have one bill to use all the excess capacity for an employment program, that's okay, but if you have two laws that depend on the same amount of excess capacity, they are both likely to come up short. Proposals do not exist in a vacuum.) EllenCT (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that "all things being equal" assumption is a bit like the spherical cow model. Over a 20 year period, you can be certain that all things will not be equal. For example, an economic policy that makes sense during peace may be a disaster during a major war. StuRat (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

okay, then, explain Japan's trajectory change in 1970. EllenCT (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why so many believed the Japan dominance thing. Japan's population was barely 100 million, the US's 200 million and growing faster with no end anywhere near. Japan grew at a snail's pace by the mid-90s, dropped below -0% soon after and started within a few million of 125 million till now. This should be a demographic slam dunk to predict back then. The Japanese to American ratio increases every day. Were economists seriously believing the average Japanese was going to be over 2 1/2 times richer than the average American? The American model of a country with a continent of resources + more people = #1 GDP and the Asian model of each product being Made In ever poorer/faster growing (population/economy) Asian countries until full industrialization should be a clue. >2 billion Africans dominant economy 2200s, yo! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just human nature to see a skyrocketing GDP in Japan and think that would continue forever. I'm sure China's GDP will also level off, but the population size there means that they might very well dominate the Earth economically, politically, and militarily by then. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]