Humanities desk
< March 1	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 3 >

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

March 2

highest % British Muslims

I read that London Borough of Newham has the 2nd highest % of British Muslims. Which place has the highest % of British Muslims?--Donmust90 (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

According to an unsourced section of our article, Islam in London, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets had (at some unspecified date) 110,200 Muslims against 86,900 in Newham. Tower Hamlets had an estimated population of 256,000 in 2011, so if the figures quoted are correct, that makes the proportion 43.05%. Using the same figures, Newham (Total pop 310,500) has 27.99%. All you need to do now is source the figures used in our article and confirm that Newham does indeed have the second highest percentage (sorry, it's bed time, but I'll have a go tomorrow if nobody else has found them). Alansplodge (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this page from the ONS, and download the "Religion, local authorities in England and Wales" spreadsheet. Tower Hamlets it is. Tevildo (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Papal elections

Seeing as the Pope has resigned, has the process to select a new one begun yet? If not, when will it begin?

I did try searching Wikipedia and google for the answer, I couldn't find anything. Much appreciated ★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cardinals need to give everyone a chance to get there before the Papal conclave can start, and will set a date for it to start in a General Congregation. According to this article, they'll be meeting on Monday to do that. You'd probably also find this FAQ from a Catholic source helpful. 86.129.248.199 (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response

Resolved

★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Papal conclave, 2013, and several related articles (Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI etc). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International help to Syrian rebels - a question

The US long delayed arms supply to Syrian rebels, making rebel victory delayed. If they were already getting arms, the time-span of the war would have been short and many lives would have been saved. Increasing the time-span will only increase loss of lives. But ultimately US has offered non-lethal aids and some EU countries has offered arms. I'm curious why these countries made so much delay in offering the assistance, while they could have easily prevented large casualties by early intervention. Why did they do this delay? I mean what are the diplomatic, political reasons. --PlanetEditor (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian civil war should give some idea of the multiple issues in this conflict. Rmhermen (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fear is that all these weapons in the hands of the rebels will then find their way into the hands of Islamist terrorists, and be turned against the West, once the rebels achieve victory in Syria, similarly to how al-Qaeda betrayed the US and attacked it, after the US helped them push the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. The al-Nusra Front, for example, is designated as a terrorist organization by the US, so the US government couldn't give them arms even if it wanted to.

However, there's also the thought that by arming the secular rebels in Syria, we may be able to give them enough power both to defeat the Syrian government and the Islamist rebels who they will then have to fight. So far, the first argument has dominated. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat -- al-Qaeda did not "push the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan", nor did the U.S. help it do so. Unfortunately, your statement contains several anachronisms and inaccuracies. The U.S. helped the Afghan Mujahideen push the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda did not exist at that time. Osama bin Laden was involved in Maktab al-Khidamat, which was a semi-obscure Afghan Mujahideen support organization (it mostly funneled donations from wealthy Arabs). AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, al-Qaeda's predecessor then. StuRat (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda's predecessor (Maktab al-Khidamat) played only a minor role in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and the U.S. played only a minor role in helping it. If you want to bring up dubious U.S. efforts and affiliations in Afghanistan during the 1980s, then Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is far more important and relevant than Maktab al-Khidamat, while al-Qaeda is a nonsensical red herring. AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original question implies there is no one other than the countries cited who might under any possible circumstances provide arms to Syrian rebels. It further implies that if such support had been offered at an earlier date, the number of casualties would be lower. Neither position is supported, and yet there is an underlying sense of blame for the (in)action of the countries cited. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about not meddling in other countries' internal affairs and respecting their sovereignty?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If such restraint had been applied in Libya, then there would have been a huge bloody massacre in Benghazi towards the end of March, 2011. The reason why "western" nations started military actions in Libya was to prevent a huge bloody massacre in Benghazi... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You speak about the Benghazi massacre like about an actual fact, and give the only reason why it did not happen is "democratic" bombing of other also Libyan but still "bad" civilians.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source that says civilians were targeted. --140.180.251.41 (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Любослов Езыкин -- Gaddhafi was pretty much openly promising and boasting about what would happen to any enemies he could get his hands on. AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, always preventing bloody massacres in problematic nations...that's just ridiculous. It seem to me like western nations replaces regimes by others that actually support their interests, all that using the really wasted human right term and preventing massacres carried out by authoritary regimes. The way for preventing civilian casualties is the peace, and the peace cannot be reached giving weapons to rebels-quite terrorist organizations(every one that put a car bomb in a middle of a city is a terrorist to me, don't matter which side is defending, so USA and EU are supporting terrorism and they're using terrorism to meet political objetives in Syria).CubanEkoMember (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice -- first-world nations are criticized for not intervening to prevent a big bloody massacre in Rwanda, and are also criticized when they do intervene to prevent a big bloody massacre in Benghazi. Sounds like a "you can't win for losing" situation... AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there just weren't any Western-backed "rebels" in Rwanda to have the reasons for intervention? Indeed, who cares about Tutsis if they are not for some "good guys" in the Western governments?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US interests and human rights were often at odds during the Cold War, where backing a bloody dictator could be justified in that it was necessary for the greater good, by preventing the Soviet Union from enslaving the world. However, since the end of the Cold War, US interests and human rights correspond much more closely. This is because supporting authoritarian regimes tends to foster resentment which turns into anti-American terrorism. In the case of Syria, there are terrorists on both sides, with Hezbollah supporting the Syrian government, when not blowing up Israeli civilians. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those that the Syrian government now claims are "international terrorists" are only in Syria in the first place because the Syrian government imported them, whether for use in Iraq, or on general principles because the Assad regime has traditionally loved terrorism which wasn't directed at itself... AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The Syrian government was glad to sponsor the Shi'a terrorist group Hezbollah, but they don't call them terrorists. On the other hand, they didn't support Sunni terrorists groups, which are the ones they do call terrorists. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's incorrect. The Hamas external leadership was based in Syria until quite recently, and Syria played a significant role in funneling Sunni extremists into Iraq after 2003, in addition to hosting various terrorist detritus from the 1970s/1980s (George Habash etc. etc.). The Assad dynasty loved terrorism for decades, but now that some of the same people that they brought into the country have turned against them, they're howling and moaning and wailing about how unfair all this nasty terrorism is. Guess why I'm not sympathetic. AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether this question might be answered with references at all, without entering too much in discussions. As a matter of fact, the US has several options - deliver weapons, deliver weapons through a proxy, intervene, negotiate with others an intervention, intervene through the UN. Whatever the US is going to do in the future, is pure speculation. And BTW, it is not sure that the US has not intervened yet, through a discreet channel, that wasn't reported in the press. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll summarize what's been said so far, and add a few points of my own.

The Syrian opposition is disorganized and includes Islamist terror groups, not just secular democracy advocates. It's hard to prevent arms from falling into the wrong hands.
It's far from clear that the Syrian opposition has a chance of winning. They haven't been able to control any substantial territory for a long period of time, unlike their Libyan counterparts.
Western countries do not want to give the impression of acting unilaterally, and the UN Security Council has not approved military actions against Syria. This is due to the opposition of Russia, who considers its alliance with Syria more important than the lives of Syrians, and China, who has obvious reasons to prevent global enforcement of human rights.
The US has already involved itself in two costly wars: Iraq and Afghanistan. Although supplying arms to Syrian rebels isn't as costly, there's political opposition to further spending due to the recent recession and persistent budget fights.
Generally speaking, protecting human rights has rarely been a sufficient motivation to get involved in war. There have been plenty of examples where the US supported dictatorships or practiced torture for its political purposes, and plenty of examples where human rights definitely improved after US intervention, but improving them was not the main motivation (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq).
There is also a very large political group whose attitude seems to be "I don't give a damn if foreigners get massacred". They usually phrase their position as non-interventionism, i.e. "the US should mind its own business". --140.180.251.41 (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the serious risk that Syria would devolve into an inter-communal and inter-ethnic civil war, much in the way that Iraq did. The current war is already something of an Alawi vs Sunni affair[1], and as Demographics of Syria shows, there's a fair amount of diversity of creed and ethnicity. And the destabilising effects of another ethnic blood bath on Syria's neighbours makes everyone nervous. Lebanon is rather precarious and the Arab Spring is still unfinished business in Jordan. Turkey is determined not to allow the instability to spill over its border, and really wants to stem the tide of refugees. Turkey and Iraq are both perpetually nervous about the formation of an independent Kurdistan, a possibility made more credible if Syria disintegrates. Western countries clearly aren't fans of the previous state of affairs, but there are many more bad outcomes than good ones, and it's difficult to tailor aid in such a way that it helps to solidify Syria rather than explode it. If nothing else, the blame you get for doing nothing is usually less than the blame you get for doing something wrong. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a splintered Syria is all that bad for the West. If we end up with a Kurdistan, and an Alawistan breaking off of Syria, that may eventually lead to more stability in the region. Presumably this will stop the weapons supply route from Iran to Hezbollah, which destabilized Lebanon and threatens Israel. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

juanito barrientos and delfin tresnado

what is the history of juanito barrientos and delfin tresnado? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.38.234 (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site (which may not satisfy WP:RS), they were among a group of people awarded the "Bagong Bayani Award" by Joseph Estrada in the year 2000. We don't have an article on the award, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Power of senators and representatives

(Referring to the USA) What powers/control does senators and representatives (as well as other government positions such as mayors) have over different branches of government, in particular the police, FBI, Special Forces etc. In TV dramas, I often see important politicians giving orders to the police/FBI/Special forces; do these politicians have direct command over them (I think not)? If not, is what is on TV not a true representation? Furthermore, do they need to request these powers from the United States Department of Defense?

In your answer, please give me where you got this information from. Many thanks! Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 18:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on TV is a true representation. Start from that axiom, and the answers to your questions should become evident. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American political bureaucracy generally works by creating quasi-autonomous agencies whose budgets and heads are set by external, elected entities. There are exceptions to this, in the sense that the heads are sometimes elected as well, but the budget issue is always there. What this means in practice is that in general, no elected political figure usually has the direct authority to direct or command operations of anything, except in the sense that they can often throw out whomever is in charge or they can manipulate their budgets in a punitive fashion. (The President, as Commander in Chief, is a quasi exception to this rule, and has an often unclarified amount of direct power over military operations.) So, for example, the President can go to the FBI Director and say, "I want you to focus on X." The FBI Director serves "at the pleasure of the President," but is not required legally to do what he or she is told to do by the President. The President can, at their desire, toss the FBI Director out, so that's a pretty powerful incentive for them to do what they ask. But not always power enough — J. Edgar Hoover was famous for being considered more powerful than many Presidents, because of his ability to cause scandal and his voluminous "dir" files, and at times willfully violated the requests of Attorney Generals and Presidents, knowing he could get away with it.

Congressional representatives (Senators and Representatives) have no individual direct power over anything except their own offices. Congress as a whole holds the pursestrings, so they do have broad influence over major programs, but they have no direct power. (So the Senate can say to the Department of Defense, "we want you to change how you do things, or we'll cut funding for your favorite programs," but that's not the same thing as saying, "I have the power to give you an order.") They can pass laws that require new types of behavior, but they don't have direct control. A Senator cannot in any official capacity go up to a police captain and give them orders. In practice, of course, Congressmen can have a lot of de facto political power, so if they are unhappy with something, the FBI or the DOD or whomever might listen.

Local power varies quite a bit, though. Mayors have much more power over police departments than Congressmen do — because the Chief of police is often a position appointed by the mayor, and so often is the District attorney, who is in charge of local legal prosecutions. (Sometimes these positions are elected, which lessens the power of the mayor, though there is still quite a lot of de facto and official power with regards to funding, influence, and so on.) So in a sense a mayor has a lot of direct political power over the police in their city, even though they are not really authorized to go up to a police officer on the street and say, "do this, it is an order."

TV dramas often are trying to convey indirect, de facto power — the shady Senator says to the FBI director, "you'll do as I say," and he does, not because the Senator has the power to really direct them, but because the Senator is generally politically powerful and can make the FBI director's life very difficult, or something along those lines. I don't think they are generally trying to represent such figures as actually having direct political power over these people. In terms of actual political responsibilities, The Wire's fourth and fifth seasons have pretty accurate depictions of how mayors and chiefs of police interact. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - do any ministers (or whatever is the equivalent) have any special powers over their areas? In Australia (I think) a minister will have some kind of line authority over some heads of departments, eg. I think the Attorney General has line authority over his office, as suggested by the organisational chart [2]. That would seem to imply a fair amount of power, including ultimate authority over planning groups and so forth. IBE (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that, in general, a head of an executive branch agency has total authority over that agency, and everyone employed by it. Of course, as mentioned previously, the President can fire them, and Congress can deny them money, so they'd be wise not to piss either of them off. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Congress can pass laws that require part of the executive branch to do something or prohibit it from doing something; none of them are established by the Constitution, so all are creatures of Congress and subject to laws that it passes. Of course, it's often not practical for Congress to do something: it might be political suicide, or it might be too small of a matter to warrant the time of both houses, or it might require a congressional supermajority to override the veto of a president who disagrees with Congress on the matter. Nyttend (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American legality of interfaith marriage

I read somewhere that interfaith marriages were illegal in the U.S.A. (and then legalised in the 20th century). Is that true? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that some individual states might have attempted to do that, but not the federal government, as they had/have no constitutional authority to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making something illegal is no guarantee it won't happen. It's not unknown for legislatures to create laws that exceed their constitutional powers and then find themselves brought to heel by their superior courts. The possibility of this happening is why checks and balances are built into fair systems. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious prohibition in America was against mixed-race marriage, particularly white and black (American Indians frequently intermarried with whites). Mixed-faith marriages would be almost impossible to prohibit, from a practical standpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't quite what you were asking but many churches would refuse to marry two people who were of different faiths. It wasn't illegal according to the government though. Dismas|^(talk) 20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would answer the OP's question with a definitive: "No... it isn't true". As several people have already noted, the US Constitution explicitly states that the Federal Government has no authority over such religious issues. The individual States might have had the authority to do so under the Constitution, but I seriously doubt any State actually did so (most had their own "Separation of Church and State" clauses in their State Constitutions).

That said, Dismas is correct in noting that most religious denominations had (and many still have) restrictions on marriage outside of their denomination. Marrying someone outside your denomination can be grounds being formally expelled from the denomination. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration (1995 film) -> Purcell -> Taize

I read that the main theme in the 1995 film Restoration (starring Robert Downey Jr) was based on a theme from Purcell's The Fairy Queen. To my ears, it (assuming what I think counts as the "main theme" is so) sounds just about identical to the Taize chant Laudate Dominum, which I have long found a haunting chant. Is the Taize song known to be based on the Purcell theme? 86.129.248.199 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "main title" music isn't linked to any Purcell music and doesn't sound much like the Taize piece that you specify. I also listened to a number of the pieces from the Fairy Queen that are listed in the film score and couldn't hear any similarity there either. Perhaps you could be a little more specific. I suspect that it's unlikely since, aside from some hymns, Anglican music seems to be little used in Catholic liturgy, let alone music derived from the Restoration theatre. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Taize music isn't music from the Catholic liturgy. It's possible that what I assumed was the main theme in the film was not, but the theme I meant was so close to the Taize that I and some others were able to sing the various parts of the chant along with it. Perhaps this is one of the themes that wasn't based on Purcell? It's this Taize chant [3], just in case there are others. So, you think this theme probably isn't based on anything by Purcell? Thanks. 86.140.54.54 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wise Men

Has anyone read/ owns a copy of Wise Men? I am working on the plot section and I cannot expand it anymore without reading the ending of the novel. I would also like to ensure what the plot section says matches up with the book's plot. Thanks. Albacore (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advice you to post here also, although I am not sure if people will have the book or not. Good luck! Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 23:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]