Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 31

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.

August 31

Are Holocaust deniers Holocaust experts?

Are Holocust deniers Holocaust experts? I'm not sure if this is correct, but indoctrination may be a factor. L'Etoile D'Ours (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, they pretend they are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you go by the definition 'widely recognized by their peers as authorities' then many of them are. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's somewhat akin to a Creationist being an "expert" on evolution. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess there were small and even one or two larger factual points "deniers" were right to make, especially just after the war: there were no pure Extermination Camps in the West etc., the lamps-made-from-human-skin canard...I doubt that there is that much to doubt about the NS left. But there is a lot of Concentration Camp denying to do: the Concentration Camps for Japanese in the USA and even the Japanese ruled Internment Camps in Asia really cannot be compared with the Nazi KZs (Rudy Kousbroek says the same) and should perhaps not be called KZs even metaphorically.--Radh (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that there was any denial of the existence of the Japanese internment camps run by the U.S. Government, "for their own protection", at the time or later. It was certainly well-known on the west coast, where most of the Asian immigrants lived. Those were concentration camps, not extermination camps. Racially offensive vs. horrible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Those who maintain that U.S. Japanese were in "concentration" camps do a disservice to those who were in true concentration camps. Internment, no matter how offensive we find it today (or then) is something else. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That argument is plain silly. It is equivalent to saying "Saying Michael Jackson was murdered does a disservice to those who were murdered on 9/11." Murder is murder. Concentration camps are concentration camps. They are bad. Some are much worse. Some are beyond belief. -- kainaw™ 14:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese internment camps were not death camps. Being jailed and being murdered are NOT the same thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a contentious term, but the people who put ethnically-Japanese Americans in these places did indeed call them "concentration camps". The Nazis gave that term a bad name, of course, but that didn't come out until later. --Sean 19:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please look at any pictures from Japanese-American Internment camps and from any German KZ, even the more prison like laborcamps from 1933, '34. The Boer camps were called Concentration Camps, but the Nazis organized something else, they just stole the british name. And why do you think they did that? It is very strange how Nazi propaganda works like a song with the PC crowd. That 2 different things have 1 name is also not unheard of, but few people would think an "Luftschiff" (airship) was a ship, Or that 2 computer mouses are mice. Or that torture at Guantanamo equals torture even in Castro's Cuba. Or at the hands of the Gestapo. I do not think it would have been fun to die of starvation on the Trail of Tears. But a part of the NS elite organized a system hidden even from their pro-Nazi population as much as possible, that really was many times more deadly, if not many times more evil (perhaps evil is not quantifiable) than most such systems. It is by far the most successful "Holocaust" denial around to deny this with facile lazy comparisons--Radh (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese internment camps were concentration camps. What the Nazis had were also concentration camps, in addition to which they were death camps. An important distinction, ja? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I said they were different, and even the Nazi KZs that were no extermination camps were far worse than any US camps.--Radh (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Most if not all of them are amateurs, in the sense that they have no higher education on the subject, are not accredited by any sort of standard means, and are not recognized by the mainstream historical community as being experts. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that they are all amateurs, though many are. However, Baseball Bugs is essentially right to say that Holocaust deniers can no more be experts on the Holocaust than creationists can be experts on evolution. Real expertise on the Holocaust is inconsistent with denial of it. A number of Holocaust deniers, such as David Irving, are trained historians who did work at some time during their careers that earned the respect of other historians. Typically, their real expertise is in an area of history unrelated to or tangential to the history of the Holocaust, such as military history, narrowly defined. Some historians with tangential expertise have gone on to question evidence for the Holocaust. While isolated pieces of some accounts of the Holocaust may be open to question, evidence of the Holocaust is so overwhelming and widely accepted that any historian who seriously questions its historicity instantly loses the respect of all mainstream historians. Marco polo (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this here? It reads like a content dispute or a WP:RS dispute. It ought to be on the article pages. It is all also a month old. // BL \\ (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Like the month old take, it is all a question of semantics.--Radh (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A month old? Wow, is it September 30 already? How time flies when you're having fun in a concentration camp. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Polish Kings of Prussia

Which kings of Poland held the title King of Prussia? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Prussia + List of Polish monarchs + List_of_rulers_of_Prussia = 0, None

It the question more complicated than that?83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) None. King Casimir IV started using the title "Lord and Heir of Prussia" (Prussiae Dominus et Heres) after the Second Peace of Thorn in 1466, which gave Poland the territory of Royal Prussia (i.e., West Prussia). It was then used by all subsequent kings of Poland until Stanislaus Augustus, even after Poland lost Royal Prussia in the First Partition in 1772. Frederick I of Ducal Prussia adopted the title "King in Prussia" in 1701; it was changed to "King of Prussia" by his grandson, Frederick II in 1772. The title was hereditary within the house of Hohenzollern and was never used by Polish kings. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Little Spy, if you don't know this site already, you may find Titles of European hereditary rulers interesting. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Augustus III of Poland was Elector of Saxony, in case that's what you're thinking of. Johnbod (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

But even then, a prince-elector was not a king. In fact, a Polish-Saxon personal union existed on three occasions, but there was never a monarch who was simultaneously king of Poland and king of Saxony. Augustus II and Augustus III were both kings of Poland and prince-electors of Saxony. Frederick Augustus I was king of Saxony and duke of Warsaw. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fish roe

Slightly odd series of questions, here... what does fish roe taste like; does it taste like fish; would someone who doesn't like fish like the taste?

Thanks for humouring me!! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fish usually have two sorts of roe: hard roe, which is the eggs and consists of lots of little spheres, and soft roe, the sperm, which is paste-like. Of the two, the hard roe tastes more fishy. Salmon hard roe is a bit of an acquired taste (the eggs are about half a centimetre across and bright pink). Herring soft roe, fried in butter, is delicate and quite my favourite. Caviar is but the hard roe of the sturgeon. As to whether someone who doesn't like fish would like it, I'm afraid there's only one answer - get some and try it! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that in Britain, soft roe is the norm, if that helps at all... Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about soft roe in britain - boiled cod roe is common - I'm suprised to learn this is the sperm - I thought it was the eggs (sure you can see the eggs in it) - it the wikipedia article correct? Can someone clarify - a how to spot the difference?83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What you get at fish and chip shops in GB is hard roe, normally cod roe. You will find soft roe at fishmongers. The commonest soft roe is herring roe, still attached to the herring. Coated in flour and oatmeal, lightly fried in butter - bliss! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Salmon roe tastes like you're biting into the ocean; wonderful! Sea urchin roe -- uni -- tastes like a sweaty armpit; horrible! --Sean 19:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I found the taste of salmon roe to be a bit oily and bland, and sea urchin roe aproximately the same as what a drowning man's last sensation might be - like swalowing a bite full of sea water. None of the two were particularly pleasing, but then, I don't particularly like seafood, so... TomorrowTime (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be fair to describe it as more like prawns/shrimps in taste than 'fishy'?83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems disgusting, I'd avoid at all costs. 92.27.79.62 (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sea urchin roe has a texture like a dry paste, and likeSean said, tastes like an armpit. Caviar, on the other hand, is delicious and tastes like salty, slightly fishy tapioca pearls. Livewireo (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sea urchin roe is utterly delicious, and if yours was like dry paste, it probably was extract of armpit. Uni, when fresh (and when in season) is one of those acquired tastes, certainly; it has an odd aftertaste that is very well offset with the addition of a quail egg and some lemon. But if you don't like the taste of the sea, stay away from uni. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Single mom.dad family

Single moms and dad family is common after the marial times divorce. Which one is most common. Simgle moms or single dads? is childs single to live with dad or mom as main home?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Single-parent#Demographics should tell you what you want to know--Jac16888^Talk 19:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

legal question (hypothetical)

What would happen to all the people who are serving a jail term for possession of marijana if it was to be legalized today in the US? Would they be released, or do they still have to serve the remainder of their term? Googlemeister (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

They still have to serve, unless an amnesty is given. Both appear unlikely right now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How many people, really, are in US prisons solely for simple possession of marijuana? While drug prisoners do indeed comprise a hefty portion of the US prison population, surely most MJ-only prisoners were convicted of more serious crimes like being concerned in sale, distribution, or importation, or as an adjunct to another crime (WDI, as a 3-strikes offence, or breach of probation)? I'm genuinely asking (not just exclaiming rhetorically). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In New York State possession of more than 4 ounces of marijuana until recently carried a minimum sentence of 15 years and the penalty today is still very severe (see Rockefeller drug laws), so I wouldn't be surprised if the figure is high here. Rckrone (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat of an unfathomable number. In 2001 alone, 641,108 were charged with possession only, while 82,518 were charged with sale/manufacture.[1] Literally millions of people are in prison for possession alone. It's completely ridiculous. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The stats don't say anything about how many people are in jail. Presuming a 100% success rate, which is obviously impossible, that would be 641,108 people sentenced, but how many of them ended up in jail? Also per Finlay's point, I presume those charged with possession as part of a breach of probation would be included in the possession only category Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What you're really asking about is the retroactive application of a repeal of a criminal statute. I think there's a better name for this but I don't remember it offhand. It's the flip side of Ex post facto law. If I remember right (and I might not), there's nothing to say these laws must be applied to those charged, but it may, and in some cases congress may actually make it retroactive.

Those already convicted (and sentenced) would fit in a different category. This is actually a discussed area of criminal/constitutional law. I'm sorry I can't answer you better right now. Maybe if I can do some more research I can point in in a better direction. But I'm sure there is explicit law on this point, so keep looking. Shadowjams (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tandja Mamadou and 2009 elections

Since Tandja Mamadou use up his two terms, is the plan to eliminate the two term limit for leaders or the two term limit rule will stay? Or the plan is to cancel the 2009 election, or allow him to have one extra term. THE problem is voters want mamadou to stay, but the constitution won't alllow him. --209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the linked article suggests that not everyone wants him to stay. As for what his plans are, your guess is as good as ours, and that would be all we would be doing: guessing. We have no crystal ball. // BL \\ (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Appius Claudius Caecus

In the article it says,

“ He also published for the first time a list of legal procedures and the legal calendar, knowledge of which, until that time, had been reserved for the pontifices, the priests. ”

Where is there additional information on these "legal procedures" and "legal calendar?" Any details. What were they named or called?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The laws are the Twelve Tables; the calendar was just the normal religious calendar, with all the feast days and such. We have an article about that somewhere, I know I've seen it. Until then both these things were unpublished but part of the sacred knowledge held by the priests and other officials, and it was unfair for the plebeians who didn't know what they could and couldn't do and when the special religious days were, which would have affected the markets and everyday business. (Or at least, this is how later historians like Livy wanted to portray the earlier period.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, how could I forget, the Fasti. We also have Roman calendar, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I do believe you answered my question very well. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)