Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 7

Ockham's razor

Hi, sorry about double dipping but this was the question I was meaning to ask, and I just remembered. I'm told religion (in this context defined as the canonical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church) violates Ockham's razor somehow, but I cant quite pinpoint how. My problem is that I have trouble recognizing the assumptions amde by religion vs the assumptions made by science. WHat are the assumptions made in both cases, and which is less? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.154.44 (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your question as stated has a rather extreme scope. It's easier to answer if we focus on smaller facets of Roman Catholicism rather than the entire thing. For example, Ockham's Razor can be applied to any of the miracles. Take Mary and the conception of Jesus - it is accepted fact that Mary got pregnant and had a child, whom she named Jesus. Things diverge when you ask how she got pregnant. Roman Catholicism holds that she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and that she was a virgin. Ockham's Razor says it's much more likely that she had sex with Joseph than that a supernatural being entered her womb and fertilized an egg. 61.189.63.157 (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Except it's known that Mary never had sex. --138.110.206.99 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it known? I'm not aware of any contemporary source that say so and, even if they did, how could we know Mary wasn't just lying? Perhaps she had sex with some other man and made up the whole Holy Spirit thing as an excuse for being pregnant. It is well known that people sometimes have affairs and lie about them. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's very easy to answer your question. Let's look at the facts of the Universe: there are animals of various kinds, plants, whatever you want. Let's say the explanation is: "A supernatural being who rules the Universe wanted it that way." So far, so good. But Religion requires that your answer be "A supernatural being, who helped give birth to Himself in the form of a natural man who was at once Him, wanted to die for Humanity's sins and did so on the Cross." See what I mean? It's the difference between saying: "Quantum mechanics is rather tricky" and saying "Quantum mechanics is rather tricky, and was developed by a six-eyed mathematician in the Hyperverse, who was later diagnosed with cancer. Quantum Mechanics is his final work, and he tweaked the laws until his last days in the Hyperverse. His wife Selma and seventeen children weeped tears of blood at his passing. He is revered in the Hyperverse for creating Earth, which a precocious ten-year-old found when looking through our Universe. The ten-year-old would go on to be the Democratic President of the Hypergalactic universe, while remaining a stout devotee of science. She made many other scientific discoveries, but the discovery of Earth, which all inhabitants of the Hyperverse view on a daily basis, much like a reality show, remains her most renowned discovery." So, yes, sure, quantum mechanics is tricky. But the rest of that crap is getting less and less likely. So yeah, sure, some being outside of our Universe could have effected its becoming as it is. But the rest of the Christian dogma is just getting less and less likely. 84.153.186.86 (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ockham's Razor is a nice heuristic for many kinds of things, but shouldn't be relied upon as a dogma. Identifying the assumptions and which of them is "largest" is a tricky thing that, in my experience, often verges on the subjective. What looks like a terribly hack to one person looks like a perfectly natural assumption to another. And in any case, it might not actually be true, whatever the least assumption scenario is. The miracles described in the Bible is certainly not meant to be an argument for them being the least assumptions — the entire point of a true miracle is that it is miraculous, a one-off, unusual, impossible event. To try and tackle such a claim by looking for the least assumptions misses the entire point, and gets you really no closer to the truth. I say this as someone who does not believe in miracles in the slightest. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's consider two competing hypotheses for how the universe came to be: 1) It spontaneously came into being in a Big Bang and we don't know what caused the Big Bang. 2) It was created by a god and we don't know where the god came from. The latter includes an additional entity, the god, yet doesn't better explain our observations, so we reject it in favour of the former. That is an application of Occam's razor. It is better to assume something happen spontaneously and just admit we don't understand how it happened than to assume the existence of another entity we can't understand and say that that entity caused it to happen. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, but the spontaneous, natural, for-no-reason creation is kind of a big assumption too. I don't honestly (even as a non-believer) see that as really an unambiguously "simpler" scenario that postulating some kind of active force. I see no reason to assume it is "better" to assume that things happen for no reason than to think they happen for a reason. It certainly does not tell you that one idea is more true than the other — it's at best a crude heuristic. Even in determining between different scientific theories it is often quite wrong (sometimes what appears "simplest" just means you don't understand how the actual complexity works). I personally don't find Ockham's razor to be at all useful in theological discussions, because everybody sees their own assumptions as being the one that posits the fewest logical leaps. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Occam's razor. The section Occam's razor#Religion considers the argument that if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, God is irrelevant and should be cut away. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But the god hypothesis also has something happening for no reason - the existence of the god. You have a choice of a universe existing for no reason or a universe existing for a reason and a god existing for no reason. Occam's razor says the former should be preferred, assuming they fit observations equally well. --Tango (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, the great mass of people have never heard of O's R and are therefore unaffected by it, and those who have heard of it are still free to believe what they will about the universe and whether or not it had a maker. O's R has its uses, certainly, but to rely on it to determine one's personal belief in something as fundamental as this topic is to abrogate all responsibility as a human. Humanity didn't need it prior to Ockham coming along, and on this topic they still don't need it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What else have we got? We could just not try and choose between the two hypotheses, but most people would rather pick one or the other and Occam's razor is the only tool we have (other than just choosing the option we like most, but that's hardly a convincing argument). --Tango (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Relying on Ockham's Razor for this decision is no different from relying on what a religion teaches. But who in their right mind, apart from small children, just takes what either dogma says and accepts it unquestioningly? One might be rabidly anti-religionist but still come to the rational view that the universe could not have just spontaneously created itself out of nothing, and there must have been a guiding force behind it. Or one could be the Pope but still have no truck with literal interpretations of the Bible. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is different. Occam's razor is a general rule for assessing hypotheses that has, at the very least, good aesthetics. Arguably, it also has empirical evidence supporting it, but it's a little difficult to conclusively find examples where it has been proven right. Religion is arbitrary and has no reasons behind it. --Tango (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You say that as if reason is all that matters in the end. It's very important, but it's not everything. Religions do not claim to have reason underlying their teachings; they operate on faith. For example, the RC Church claims that in transubstantiation, the wafer held by the priest is actually, literally, physically turned into the body of Christ, and the wine is actually, literally, physically turned into his blood. It may not look like it, and scientific tests would strongly deny there's been any change - but millions of Catholics believe it, including many scientists, mathematicians, and others for whom, in all other areas of their life, reason and logic are the sine qua non of everything. They still have room in their lives to believe something that nobody could ever prove, and moreover defies all logic and reason. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That is why I gave up trying to convince religious people to accept science over religion years ago - you cannot use logic to dispel faith, the two are incompatible. Occam's razor is a tool used by scientists, though, not theologians. We're discussing why scientists reject hypotheses involving gods. --Tango (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The article says "In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models." This makes a great deal of sense. Attempting to use Occam's razor as an arbiter between philosophical models cuts out everything but the extreme form of metaphysical nihilism, which argues that nothing exists. To most people, this is unhelpful in the extreme, and they do not consider Occam's razor to rule out philosophical positions. Paul (Stansifer) 21:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Science replaced philosophy centuries ago. This isn't a discussion about history. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Science replaced philosophy centuries ago" - that gets an award for the Most Ridiculous Statement of the Month. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Science is based on philosophy. It wouldn't have a leg to stand on without it. Wrad (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Science is based on philosophy in a historical sense. Philosophy basically evolved into science through the incorporation of empiricism and mathematics. Philosophy (together with religion) was how people tried to explain the world around them. We've discovered that science provides us with better explanations, though, so we've stopped using philosophy. There are still a few philosophers around, but they don't actually do anything that has an impact outside of philosophy departments in universities. --Tango (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That is profoundly untrue. Recent philosophers such as Michel Foucault and others have had and continue to have a profound effect on everyday life. Philosophies such as those published by Judith Butler are very influential in debates concerning gay marriage. Wrad (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide some references for those claims? I've followed the debates over gay marriage quite closely and have never heard of Judith Butler. --Tango (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not too surprising, since philosophy often affects us in ways that are difficult to see unless you have read the philosophy the effect is coming from. Just type in "judith butler and the gay marriage debate" or "michel foucault's influence" into google for some basics. One profound way philosophers influence law, for instance, is this: philosophers say what they say, law students at Harvard listen, law students become prominent lawyers, judges, and politicians and apply these philosophies in their work. (see [1]) Of course, the news isn't going to tell you this, because most people would just get bored, but that doesn't mean the influence isn't there. Judith Butler argues for a looser categorization of sex and gender, which is taking hold, and Foucault has had a huge influence on law, postcolonialism, feminism, and just about any other "ism" you can think of. It's difficult to see many "isms" we have today even existing without him. Of course, the best thing you could do, if you're curious, would be to read some recent philosophical works and their prefaces. That would give you a very clear idea of the influence current philosophers still have. Wrad (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec with you adding to your comment - the link added is a step in the right direction, although I'd rather see some examples of the influence itself rather than watch a video of people talking about it.) Reading philosophical works won't tell me what influence they have had since the influence obviously comes after they are written. I'd rather not plough through the search results of your rather imprecise search terms. Please present a specific reference that shows the works of one of these philosophers having significant influence. For example, can you find the works of Judith Butler cited (and cited in some significant way, not just because she worded something in a particularly eloquent way that the person citing it thought of themselves by couldn't word as well) in some relevant court cases or debate in legislatures? --Tango (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a public computer and really don't have time to go into that kind of depth. I think you have enough to find some answers if you really want to. Wrad (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case, here's another tidbit in the right direction [2] Wrad (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be a book about what Foucault has said should happen in law rather than what does happen. I'd like references of the kinds I mentioned: court cases or debates in legislatures. Anything else is, at best, indirect influence. Of course, that is still influence, but I'd like to see direct influence if there is any. --Tango (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You made the claim, the burden is on your to find the references to back it up. --Tango (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the problem is not a lack of evidence, but your hard-headedness and lack of curiosity. I've provided you with several references, and you have decided they are simply too much for you to look through carefully. I see no evidence on your end for the claim that "Science replaced philosophy centuries ago" as of yet. If you want some real answers on philosophy to the degree you are demanding, you might want to pay some money and go somewhere other than a volunteer website. Unless I'm getting paid, I personally find no joy in trying to convince closed-minded people who have already made up their minds. Wrad (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think even Foucault would object to the idea that science replaced religion and philosophy as the way by which the Western world best understands itself. (He would see this as something of a problem, naturally.) Most academic philosophers have zero impact on anything outside of the academy, at least in the United States. At the moment the only academic philosophy who anybody outside of the university spends any time arguing about is Peter Singer, and even he is only well-known amongst the intelligentsia. Ask any professor who has ever tried to teach Foucault at law school how well he is taken up by most future lawyers. (Hint: not well.) I'm not arguing against reading Foucault, but to say he has had a large influence outside of the academy is probably an overstatement, especially when compared to even relatively minor scientific discoveries/arguments. There is a reason the NY Times has a "Science Times" section rather than one on "Philosophy Times". --Mr.98 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(Ironically, Occam's Razor, the idea of a medieval philosopher named William, is on its own a classic example of the importance and use of philosophy in the world today, even and especially in the world of science.) Wrad (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Medieval philosophy (well, some small part of it) is very important in the world today because it forms the basis of science. I'm saying that modern philosophers are, to use Steve Baker's phrase, a waste of quarks. --Tango (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is really ironic to hear from someone who doesn't even know who Foucault is. It would be like someone who has no idea who Einstein is claiming that he had no effect on society today. Absurd. Wrad (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to use logic in connection with religious beliefs is about as likely to succeed as trying to lasso a bolt of lightning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In studying the life of Saint Athanasius again to improve the article page, I met a book on Arian by Rowan Williams who researched the subject of the position of Arian. Rowan Williams affirms that Arius wanted a faith that was reasonable and not dependant on mystery. The Christian faith is dependant on these things. You cannot reason to the Christian faith, of Nicean Creed. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No matter how "reasonable" someone wants religion to be, religions generally require the existence of immortal, supernatural beings, whose actual existence cannot be proven or disproven. That "mystery" just doesn't go away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't violate a rule of thumb - what would that mean? If I said "The UPS guy usually comes on tuesdays" is that phrase violated if the UPS guy comes on a wednesday, instead?

Occam's razor is very simple: it tells you not to go out of your way trying to explain something with complex, unlikely arguments when simpler arguments explain it just as well. Thus, if your spouse calls and says s/he didn't come home last night because a herd of zebra escaped from a local zoo and blocked the roadway, Occam's razor will tell you that it's more likely that s/he got to drinking with some friends and lost track of time. Occam's razor won't tell you which actually happened, but the chain of events leading up to a herd of zebra blocking the road is (in most cases) complex and unlikely, whereas losing track of time in a bar explains the absence just as well and is hardly unheard of behavior.

and tango - really? again?? If you want to know what happens when 'science replaces philosophy', pick up the morning paper: global warming, senseless environmental catastrophes, nuclear and biological arsenals... as the running joke on the Onion News Network went: "Today leading scientists announced yet another cure for erectile dysfunction". Philosophy without science is rudderless, but science without philosophy is just plain stupid. but that's a lesson lost on most scientists... --Ludwigs2 07:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ludwigs, for bringing sense into this argument. I can show from the Gospels the relevance and contrast of the opposed positions in inter-play, here. Sometimes this argument was played out with professors of either dicipline. C.G. Jung in his publication "Answer to Job" got an immediate back-lash from Fr. Victor White (Dominican), and letters between the two escalated. Jung respected White and visa versa. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Winding up a failed state

In a post here a few days ago, someone commented that Somalia is still officially a state according to the UN. I was wondering if there's any recent precedent (say in the last 100 years) for "winding up" a failed state, even when at least some of its component parts disagree? At the moment the Somali "government" seems to exist in a vacuum, not really governing anything and with little prospect of changing that. Is the rest of the world likely to decide at some point that this is a charade, and allow a new Somali state or states to be formed de jure? 86.140.52.244 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two possible ways that the current Somali "state" could cease to be and be replaced by a new, functional state. A new de facto state could form and then be recognised by the international community (and thus become de jure) or the UN could intervene and impose a government on the country, probably under the administration of another nation or nations (like the British Mandate of Palestine, although that was the League of Nations rather than the UN). That other nation or nations would administer the country until they can they were able to create an environment there that allowed for free and fair elections. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, "free and fair elections" is a favourite claim of Western democracies but the UN is not an arbiter of democracy. It could not be so with member countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Historically the UN has championed human rights and decolonisation, and it has supported the new states that have arisen as a result of self-determination initiatives. Tango perhaps you are confusing UN functions with of the goals of US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

UN peacekeeping missions are mandated to bring stability to a country or region. If there is no government in particular country then bringing stability involves creating a government. If a UN peacekeeping force is going to create a government, it will be a democratic one. You seem to be confused about the situation in Afghanistan - that is a UN mission. --Tango (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's a NATO mission. Anyway, the UN is not any greater than its parts, which naturally have their own agendas. Somalia does have a couple of independent parts, Somaliland and Puntland, which are certainly functioning better than the "official" government that controls a street in Mogadishu. There are probably a few reasons that Somalia is still considered one country; one is that if the world admitted it was a failed state, what would happen to all the other states that have equally ridiculous borders, especially in Africa? What about, say, Nigeria, or Sudan? What about in Europe? Is Puntland any more or less real than Kosovo? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

NATO provides the troops, but it's a UN mission. Go and read ISAF: "The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan established by the United Nations Security Council" (emphasis mine). --Tango (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

An example that comes to mind is the Dominion of Newfoundland, which achieved self-government in 1907, but the effects of the Great Depression together with an inherently corrupt political culture lead to it becoming one of the few states to voluntarily renounce self-government, in 1934, and reverted to direct control from London until it eventually voted to become a province of Canada in 1949. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• International law finds it very, very disagreeable for there to exist a piece of land -- or, for that matter, a person -- that is not considered to belong to a nation. The system sort of falls apart if some person or place doesn't fit into a tidy box. Of course, since one of the side effects of this system is that it countenances abominations like Somalia, the legal system has its critics. --M@rēino 02:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Western Sahara seems to be a piece of land that doesn't belong to a nation. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever been to the western Sahara?

At any rate, the UN (and other international organizations) are primarily concerned with maintaining stability and consistency, and that leads to some conceptual problems. Somalia was a (relatively) stable state before its collapse, and in the absence of the international pressure it might have broken up into separate states after the collapse (or been annexed in whole or part by neighboring nations, or been taken over de facto by a warlord or an islamic movement) which would have eventually produced a new stability of some sort. But because the international community came to recognize somalia as a state, they have set up expectations that it will remain a state like it was and defend what they have decided is the 'legitimate' government, and so they end up preserving the anarchy in the region because the 'legitimate' government is effectively impotent and no 'illegitimate' governments are allowed to take over. basically it's catch-22: their identification as a state on paper is one of the major factors preventing a true state from establishing itself. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. I don't understand the question. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of whether or not you have been either... However, Western Sahara doesn't belong to no-one. Rather, who it belongs to is disputed. There is a difference. There are lots of disputed territories around the world, they don't cause existential dilemmas to our concept of statehood. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

lol, sorry. the question was meant to highlight the fact that there is (currently) absolutely nothing of interest in the western sahara to make it worth fighting over, so no one has bothered to settle the issue of its ownership. If they suddenly discovered (for instance) that there were huge deposits of oil, gold, uranium, or even (given the region) underground water in the western sahara, you would equally suddenly discover a whole lot of nations with decided interest in laying claim to the land, and the area would be annexed (by war and/or treaty) by one or more nations very rapidly. Same thing will happen to the moon if/when mining there becomes a profitable enterprise; till then, though, no one's going to bother. --Ludwigs2 00:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But there actually was a war over Western Sahara - and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic seems to think it is important land. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If that makes them happy <shrug>... people, the bit about the western sahara was an off-hand comment. I don't care to fuss over the actual legal status of the western sahara, since it's irrelevant to the original question. big picture, please, not the little one. --Ludwigs2 07:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Article on Comparative Geography

I swear I once saw am article that was a list of Geographic entities listed by size that included relative size of other entities, i.e. France ~size of texas,etc. It was a wikipedia list with sortable fields. Any clues? 24.83.104.67 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fourteen different pages are transcluded in List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area (all). Wavelength (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

August 8

Do humans have a natural language?

Is it possible to know what "language" a person would speak if they were left to develop it for themselves? For example, suppose two humans of normal intelligence were isolated at birth (from other humans, not from each other) so that any communication between them would have to be developed or arise naturally. Clearly it wouldn't be English or French or any other exisitng language. Is there any way to tell what it might be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.14.76 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

no. infants are capable of making all the phonemes of human speech (I think there's 80-some) and it's only by interaction with other language speakers that they narrow down their speech production to the sounds available in a given language, and start organizing them according to that language's structure. two infants left alone (assuming that all other needs are provided for somehow) would probably not learn any language beyond a simple guttural/gestural form of communication, and that would bear no necessary relation to any particular language. --Ludwigs2 00:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If they were truly isolated from language, then they wouldn't develop full language, as has been seen with "Genie" and other cases of abused children. Pharaoh Psammetichus supposedly ran basically the experiment you proposed, with the claimed result that reportedly the first word was bekos, Phrygian for "bread", but that's all extremely dubious... AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See Genie (feral child) (the "Genie" of whom AnonMoos speaks) and Victor of Aveyron, neither of whom really had any language at all. Your two isolated infants would never get old enough to learn to speak, anyway; without other humans, infants will soon die of starvation or thirst or something else similar. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Language deprivation experiments... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

These are the languages that humans would naturally speak. Why isn't English or French a natural language? Language is developed. It takes generations. We are still developing language. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"It takes generations" is the very reason that 2 babies left alone to their own devices could never come up with anything like French or English - not even the American version.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is the famous case of the spontaneously developed Nicaraguan Sign Language. Not quite, what you are asking, but related and quite interesting. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a kind of a "creolization" process... AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've linked Natural language.--Wetman (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And you linked it to an article which is not at all what the OP meant. In the sense of that article, almost all human languages are natural. I've unlinked it accordingly. Algebraist 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Adamic language would be more relevant (though there's no science there). AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Being isolated from birth does not clarify if the child was born to a mute mother. This article says babies cry and babble with distinctive marks of their mother's language. schyler (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

let's be clear about the problem. newborn children make a wide variety of noises (as well as smells...), and there may be some prenatal influences in the noises they make based on what they've heard in the womb. however, language involves taking a subset of that wide variety of noises and isolating them as significant (making up what are usually referred to as phonemes), and then learning rules for combining those phonemes into meaningful units (words), and then learning rules for combining those meaningful units into meaningful structures (grammar). Children raised in abusive situation (where there is little verbal contact with adults) never master grammar properly; Children with no societal interaction at all might never have a need to develop words for things, or if they do they may simply associate any random set of sounds to be the 'word'. I mean, it just doesn't matter what you call a dog, so long as you these sounds consistently refer to that object (which we call in English a dog), and the people you are talking to understand what you mean when you utter them. --Ludwigs2 23:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would not idioglossia be considered somewhat of a natural language, in that it develops without being taught? — Michael J 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No. idioglossia is always a product of a confused language environment, where children are exposed to (at least) two fully developed languages simultaneously, in such a way that they blend the languages into a patois that only they can decipher. it is not the development of a new independent (much less natural) language. the idea of a natural language died a meaningless death along with the concept of a universal grammar; current theory holds that while children certainly have a developmental zone which is optimal for language acquisition, they do not have anything resembling built-in linguistic tendencies, and will functionally adopt any linguistic environment they are exposed to in the proper developmental frame. --Ludwigs2 06:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading (in a magazine?) about a pair of identical-twin girls who developed their own language, that was incomprehensible to others. Unfortunately, I cannot remember their names. IIRC, the article said they were not feral children but were raised by their mother who suffered from her own psychological problems and that in later life they were studied by psychologists and linguists. Astronaut (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Here we are: June and Jennifer Gibbons. Astronaut (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

To go back to the original question: No, man does not have a natural language. One of the principles of Classical philosophy is that there is no inate ideas. If you say so, then you undermine the roots of Epistemology. It would be equivalent to saying that; energy can be lost, in Science circles. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

18th century Anglophone accents

In John Adams, most of the major (American) characters speak with an accent resembling that of a contemporary English yokel (for lack of a less pejorative term). Indeed, many of the British characters speak with the same accent. Even George III sounds like a farmer. Was this simply a bit of creative license, an impressionistic stab at something plausibly archaic and at the same time intermediate between "British" and "American", or is there evidence that the people of that time really spoke this way? It's something I've always wondered about, and popular culture is no help. Sometimes (as in The Simpsons), Colonial-era Americans are simply given upper-class British accents, which is odd. Other times (as in 1776) they're given completely modern American accents. One of the strangest things about the John Adams miniseries, accent-wise, is the complete lack of regional differences: Jefferson the Virginian sounds about the same as Franklin the Pennsylvanian, who sounds about the same as Hamilton the New Yorker, who sounds about the same as King George. The only really distinctive accents belong to peripheral Irish and Scottish characters. Everyone else has the same vaguely yokelish accent, with or without rhoticity. LANTZY^TALK 05:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well George III was known as "Farmer George"! Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of a general feature of language change. Language generally changes faster in cosmopolitan and populous regions than it does in rural areas. This means that after the passage of time rural dialects often preserve archaic features that have disappeared from the "standard" (i.e. metropolitan) language. (There are plenty of well-known examples. The second-person pronouns thee and thou disappeared from standard English a long time ago, but are preserved in handful of regional dialects. In French, many terminal consonants are silent in standard (i.e. Parisian) French, but are preserved in regional dialects.) So features of archaic English will appear to be rural to a modern speaker. Gdr 13:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The particular 20th-century type of upper-class British accent (Daniel Jones' Received Pronunciation) did not exist in the 18th century... AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Received Pronunciation is a middle-class accent, not an upper-class one. Did you mean RP, or a particular upper-class British accent (such as the "huntin', fishin' and shootin'" type)? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the series, but if the actors are Americans feigning English accents (as they are in The Simpsons), then it's hardly surprising that the accents aren't very precise. Most Americans' stab at what they invariably call a "British accent" (by which they mean, equally invariably, an English accent) is usually a hybrid of RP, Cockney and Mummerset. "Oi say, mate!" and that sort of thing. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the actors are British. LANTZY^TALK 03:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this womb envy?

The Orders of Big Sister - it reads like a case of womb envy to me. The fact that women have the authority to choose to create new life, and males do not. This is particularly amplified in modern Western society where the father of a child has no rights compared to the mother.--Pokemon Merchant (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's also worth considering this in terms of the book Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History which I haven't read but can see the description of.--Pokemon Merchant (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It reads like humour to me. Read into it whatever you want. Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC) (and p.s. - women have just as much trouble creating life without a man as men do without a woman. See sex.)

Well, it's a neo-Nazi website (essentially), and that particular article was written by Simon Sheppard, so there you go, it's just a bunch of crap. (He was probably trying to be funny, but these sorts of people are actually incapable of intentional humour.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War == US War of Independence?

A little while back, Trovatore and I (briefly) discussed the issue of whether the two are synonymous (varying only in the choice of words; normally done along national lines it seems to me) or whether there was a substantive difference. Unfortunately, no conclusion was reached. Does anyone have a source on one of the viewpoints? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Revolutionary War (or better, the American Revolution) is the 'normal' usage in modern US language. The 'War of Independence' wording has been bandied about occasionally because of confusions that arise over the American Civil War (aka War Between the States) which is sometimes referred to as a revolution or rebellion, particularly in southern regions.

I suppose, for whether or not they're synonymous, that I'd ask "what else would either one be?" -- I can't think of any reasonable conclusion that either name refers to another event. As noted above, though, the Lost Cause movement promoted some overly romanticized names for the US Civil War such as the "war for southern independence" or the "second revolutionary war". While these are (intentionally) similar to the two terms above, both are also clearly distinct. So, looping back: I don't have a source either way, but I'd think the burden of proof is to demonstrate that they're not the same thing. — Lomn 20:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Here in Texas I often hear The Civil War referred to as The War of Northern Aggression due to the fact that The South felt they had the constitutional right to nullify federal law and secede. In answer to the question: I would use "Revolutionary War" and "War of Independence" synonymously, yes (no clarification for the nation though). For insight I would look into the root of the words. Revolution <L. roll back, Independence <OF. not-hanging down. The two words clearly have different connotations which can possibly stir emotions. Revolt conjures airs of disagreement followed by violent overthrow of powers-that-are. One pictures the Virginian farm-boy taking up arms. Independence is much more romantic still and gives a less bloody mental picture, like the act of signing the Declaration and other diplomacy. schyler (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that elsewhere in the south, and I suspect they mostly trot that expression out when they're trying to rib us Yankees. Then we remind them who won, and that tends to cool their jets. Technically a "revolution" is more like what happened in France or Russia, where the leaders were overthrown and killed. Here, it was a war for independence. But we also kicked out the old local rulers, so it was also a revolution in that sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As our article notes, "American/US War of Independence" is the more common British (and Commonwealth) term. Gwinva (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suspect that's due to the connotations. Britons see Americans as simply having wanted independence from their mother country. Revolution wouldn't be used in those countries, because, well, what was there to revolt about? schyler (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the veracity of that note did come into question. Does anyone have any sources? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this help? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no distinction between the terms "American Revolutionary War" and "American War of Independence". It's been claimed that Americans prefer the first and Brits the second, but I've never seen any good evidence of that, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. British historians use "American Revolution" frequently, and American historians use "War of Independence" extensively, perhaps even more often than British historians. Examples available upon request.

The real distinction is between "American Revolution" and "War of Independence". Popular writers and the general public often conflate the American Revolution and the Revolutionary War, a tendency so old that John Adams and Benjamin Rush warned against it. The War of Independence, Adams argued, "was no part of the Revolution. It was only an effect and consequence of it." Historians took awhile to come around to Adams's point of view, but with the rise of alternate approaches to history in the 20th century, particularly social and economic history, it became clear that the American Revolution and the War of Independence were distinct (if related) topics. To avoid conflation, careful modern historians of any nationality seem to prefer the term "War of Independence" when talking exclusively about military matters. Indeed, a modern university course on the American Revolution might only barely mention the war. —Kevin Myers 04:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

wow. ok, you've gone over my head (and I know a good bit about this). what is the (technical, scholarly, academic) difference between the 'American Revolution' and the 'Revolutionary War' that you are pointing to? maybe it's my Americentric viewpoint (US schools are bad on European history), but what revolution are you referring to if not the revolution of the 13 states against the British commonwealth? --Ludwigs2 06:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I've made it sound more esoteric than intended. The "War of Independence" is just the military part of the American Revolution, and the military part no longer dominates scholarship on the Revolution. Most scholars now primarily focus on other changes that were taking place in the British American colonies at the time, i.e. social, economic, cultural, etc. The most prominent example might be Gordon S. Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1991), in which military matters are barely mentioned.

For historians like Wood, the central story of the American Revolution is not about battles; it's about the change from a deferential, monarchical society into a republican one. Once, in a review of a book purporting to explain the origins of the American Revolution (Theodore Draper's Struggle for Power, 1996), Wood argued that the author had traced the origins of the War of Independence, but not the origins of the Revolution. For John Adams, the Revolution was a change in American worldview that began and ended before the war that secured American independence was fought. Historians don't go that far; they see the whole era as the "American Revolution", and the War of Independence as one part of the puzzle. —Kevin Myers 17:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unnamed sculpture

I'd like to add a description of this sculpture to the United Nations Art Collection article (or if you feel like doing it, be bold!) but I don't know the name of it. So, what is it? It was a gift of Italy in 1996. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 23:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am betting it is one of the many Arnaldo Pomodoro sculptures that one finds in public spaces all around the United States for some reason. The article says one of them is outside the UN building in NYC, which I imagine is probably what you have there. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like it has to be his work! Any idea of the name? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Like the two similar sculptures pictured in our article, it appears to be named Sphere Within Sphere. See here and here. Deor (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And here's a photo from the official presentation of it to the U.N. Deor (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Separated at birth? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

August 9

time frame between Numbers 21 and 2 Kings 18?

The Bible tells in Numbers 21 of God instructing Moses to make a bronze serpent on a rod so that the children of Israel would live after being bitten by serpents - in 2 Kings 18 the Bible tells of King Hezekiah reigning and destroying the bronze serpent on the rod because the children of Israel had made it into an idol that they burned incense to; how many years are there between these two events? Approximately what year did the event of Numbers 21 take place, and approximately what year did did the event of 2 Kings 18 take place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.137.73 (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My table of chronology in the back of my Bible says Numbers was completed in 1473 BCE and covers 1512-1473. For 2 Kings it says it was completed in 580 BCE and covered 1040-580. To narrow the the dates down I did some fractions for Numbers: 21/36 chapters = x/40 years. So chapter 21, theoretically was written in 1489 BCE. Assuming this particular religious reform occurred during the era of sole reign by King Hezekiah (as opposed to co-rule, because Hezekiah ruled with his father from 729-716 and with Manasseh from 697-687) then it happened sometime between 716 and 697 BCE. So, to answer the question, at the most, it was 825 years, at the least 744 years, but 792 years may very well be a "more approximate" estimate of elapsed time. schyler (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Nehushtan has background information.—Wavelength (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Chronology of the Bible might be helpful.—Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all putative dates before "The Kings" subsection of that article are extremely problematic. AnonMoos (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions on the plot of the Literature text: Richard iii, Shakepeare.

Hey, im a 17yr old student taking literature and having exams next week. We're only tested on the first 2 Acts. Ive been looking online for many e-resources and notes, but could not find appropriate information to answer these few doubts, and i find it a little difficult to understand the play and interpret the language very well.

We are supposed to look out for instances of Dramatic Significance in act1-2. Could you help me cite a few important examples?

Also, I dont quite understand a few things in act 2 scn 1. Kindly help me out by answering the following doubts asap. Thanks:)

1) It is pretty obvious that all the apologies and declarations of love and forgiveness ordered by Kind Edward are fake and superficial. None of them even sound realistic and sincere. Then what is the significance of this activity? Is the King ignorant of the fact that they may be apologizing just for his sake?

2)"Why, so. Now have I done a good day’s work."- what work has King Edward done? what is he referring to?

3)"RIVERS(taking HASTINGS’s hand) By heaven, my soul is purged from grudging hate, And with my hand I seal my true heart’s love." why are Rivers and Hasting apologizing to each other? what was the hate present between them?

4)QUEEN ELIZABETH "There, Hastings, I will never more remember Our former hatred, so thrive I and mine." Likewise, what initial hatred did Queen Elizabeth bear against Hastings? what did he do to her?

5)KING EDWARD "Dorset, embrace him.—Hastings, love Lord Marquess." Once again, what is the issue between Doeset and Hastings? do they have a problem with each other as well? or are these simply a ritual for the satisfaction and assurance of King Edward?

6)Same question about the exchange between Buckingham and Queen Elizabeth, as requested by King Edward.

Lastly, is there any particular set of themes present in the first half of Act 2 scene 1? where is it evident?

Thank you very much for taking time to answer my questions.Pearl121.6.231.135 (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

oh no, no one answered my post :( Pearl220.255.127.52 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Having a look at this site [3] might help with some of these points. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Can a nation state aquire ownership by way of adverse possession?

Can a nation state aquire ownership over a property, either movable or immovable, by way of adverse possession? Is it correct that a nation state's acquisition of ownership by way of adverse possession can only take place in accordance with international law?

203.131.212.121 (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A state by definition has final control over all people and property in its domain. Many modern states provide guarantees that they will not exercise that control (basically, these are laws or constitutional structures which cause the state to limit its own potential behavior), but even highly democratized states have conditions in which they apply their power as states. the US, for instance, will sequester property related to drug activities - even cars, boats, and homes - and auction it off; it will also sequester individuals, freeze assets, and otherwise deprive people/groups of property and liberty on suspicion of terrorist activities. it is not what you mean by adverse possession, which is a conflict of separate guaranteed rights between different individuals. A state simply abrogates the rights of citizens where and as it feels justified in doing so (within the limits of its own legal self-limitations).

acquiring ownership of property (or people) not under the state's domain is a diplomatic incident, which can have effects ranging from mild rebukes or unilateral sanctions to cessation of diplomatic contact to outright warfare, depending on the relationships between the states and the seriousness of the act. --Ludwigs2 07:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What you're talking about sounds like eminent domain, which is not arbitrarily done but requires legal steps, as per the U.S. Constitutional amendment which states that you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property "without due process of law". So in addition to eminent domain, you have seizure of property from criminals, which also follows the law, presumably. Contained within that amendment, of course, is the implication that capital punishment can be perfectly legal under the Constitution, despite claims to the contrary by some; but that's another matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this, and eminent domain, is different Bugs. Check out the adverse possession article for one of the more surprising things first year law students learn in property. Shadowjams (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's called uti possidetis, but the re-application of "uti possidetis" to new military lines of control created in new wars is supposed to be banned by the UN Charter... AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If either Egypt or Sudan occupied Bir Tawil, I think it'd be all theirs. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China seems to have taken Tibet via adverse possession. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the PRC occupied Tibet after Tibet failed to obtain international recognition as a sovereign state. There was no legal issue to be resolved, only an ongoing separatist movement. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos's uti possidetis is probably what the OP wants, but if you read the question literally, there's another answer. Adverse possession cannot run against the state so it would follow that another state couldn't use the doctrine to acquire land against another. However, I do think that adverse possession law may be used in favor of the state, so the state could adversely possess land against a private landowner. Shadowjams (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What the OP wants is called "acquisition [of ownership] by prescription" in civil law system. "Adverse possession" is concept in common law system. See: usucaption and acquisition by prescription in international law — 203.131.212.36 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Perjury in court

This story was in the new recently: Mia Farrow Disputes Model's 'Blood Diamonds' Testimony. The long and short of the story is that the courtroom testimony of Naomi Campbell is diametrically opposed to that of Mia Farrow. So, this got me wondering. In almost all court cases, the witnesses on opposite sides tell diametrically different versions of the "truth". Ultimately, many of these witnesses are lying, I can only assume. And, this lying is not uncommon. Why, then, do we almost never hear about anyone ever being prosecuted for perjury. I mean, people lie left and right in courtrooms every day of the week, every hour of the day. But, we never see any news accounts of anyone ever getting charged with perjury. I am just curious why is this? Is it because prosecutors have bigger fish to fry? Is it because perjury is so hard to prove? I am just curious what the underlying factors are. I am referring to the United States, by the way. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

The typical description of such testimony is "He said / She said", except in this case it's "She said / She said." Trying saying that 3 or 4 times quickly. Regarding perjury, you would have to prove the witness was knowingly deceitful. But if it's "He said / She said", it can be hard to prove if there's no corroborating evidence. Juries might decide which one they think is telling the truth, but that's just their opinion, they could be wrong. Check the article, and I would expect there would be some examples. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You are really talking about two things here. One is whether perjury is prosecuted, the other is whether it is reported on. There have been prominent media reported cases of perjury — see, e.g. Lewis Libby, Bill Clinton, etc. However according to this article, the difficulty is that it requires proving that the witness was intentionally giving false information. There is nothing wrong with being "wrong" if it is unintentional, or even based on faulty memory, and intentionality is generally a hard thing to prove in court. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Two people can honestly believe (or appear to believe) conflicting or even opposite versions of something they witnessed. Now, if you catch them on tape stating their intention to deceive the jury, then you've got them, and anyone doing that should probably wear one of the white hats discussed in the next section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

He said/she said would refer to, say, a rape. Man: "Yes, we had sex, but it was consensual." Woman: "Yes, we had sex, but it was not consensual." There is a lot of room for "gray area" / perception there. I am talking more about, say, a murder or bank robbery or whatever. Prosecutor: "You killed Mr. Jones." Defendant: "Oh, no, I never killed anyone. In fact, I was in Hawaii on the day of the murder." People lie through their teeth all the time in courts. I just don't understand why they don't get punished or charged with perjury. I am seeking insights. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Also, I don't know that proving intent is so burdensome. Someone wanting to avoid 100 years in prison has great motivation to lie (perjure). That goes to his intent. No? (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

You have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, though, which is a very high burden. Motivation isn't enough. You need to prove they couldn't have been mistaken. --Tango (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Perjury has a list of famous people which were recently found guilty of perjury. Naomi may join them sooner than we think. Flamarande (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about the defendant perjuring themselves, then that's very different to a witness doing so. In some countries (eg. France, if memory serves), the defendant gives testimony without giving an oath, so they are allowed to lie. In others, pretty much anyone pleading not guilty and then being found guilty could be charged with perjury, but the authorities rarely bother. It's taken into account in the sentencing for the original crime instead - you usually get a greater sentence if you plead not guilty than if you plead guilty. It would be very inefficient to hold another trial after pretty much every guilty verdict to consider the crime of perjury. You might get charged with perjury if you committed some kind of elaborate deception, I suppose. You might be charged with perjury if you are found not guilty of the original crime but then new evidence is found that makes it clear you were lying (exactly how this would work will depend on the double jeopardy laws in the jurisdiction in question). --Tango (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As we've seen with the O.J. case, there are ways around the double jeopardy issue. But if a jury acquits for murder and then the guy admits to doing it, then criminal action against him is kind of limited to perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. And wrongful-death suits are also possible. O.J., of course, has never admitted it, although he's come close. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the situation in the US. As I said, the details will depend on the way it works in whatever jurisdiction it is taking place in. Laws about double jeopardy vary very widely. --Tango (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article from the San Francisco Chronicle from 2006 with a list of a few notable perjury convictions in the US and a few notes on why it's considered a difficult crime to prosecute: obstacles include the need to demonstrate, for example, that the question was clearly worded, that the answer was unequivocal and that the witness knew it was false. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also the possibility of a chilling effect on the willingness of witnesses to testify if they knew they'd be likely to be tried for perjury. Hypothetical - Person A hits Person B. Person C sees it. A is charged, but B refuses to give evidence. C testifies to attack, A denies. Jury believes A, A is acquitted. Imagine now the idea - "A has been acquitted and is innocent in the eyes of the law, therefore C must have been lying - charge him!" - you can see why the burden is so high. Exxolon (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the above input. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

Traditional Depictions of Witches and Wizards

Having just seen the new Shrek movie, which features them quite heavily, I got to wondering where the traditional depiction of witches comes from, specifically the brimmed pointed hat they wear. I've never seen it in scenes of everyday life in any period, but was it a customary garment at some point in time and in some particular place? Also the brimless conical hat that is a standard wizardly accessory. Was that a feature of academic wear once? Rojomoke (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My very vague recollection from that awful tourist trap known as the Salem Witch Museum is that the black hat witch is actually directly derived from the Wicked Witch of the West as depicted in the 1939 movie. That article itself shows earlier illustrations of non-black, but pointy hats. Guesses on my part: perhaps they are related to the dunce caps worn by heretics during the Inquisition, or the medieval Jewish caps, or pointed hats worn by scholars in the medieval period. This book seems to imply that the dunce hat is derived from the Jewish cap, but I don't know how good its own sources are. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Then there are some organizations that proudly wear the dunce cap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

True but irrelevant. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily irrelevant. I looked through the article for info on just why they wear the white dunce cap, but didn't see anything. But the Birth of a Nation poster shows someone wearing a hat or helmet that looks a lot like that "Jewish cap". So I suspect there's a connection between all of these things. Not that we necessarily have a complete answer to the OP's question, but he probably knows more now than when he asked it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The KKK hood derives (I know not why) from the capirote used in the Holy Week in Seville. There is some (but not much) more info at our inevitable article on "pointy hat". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This article postulates that Quakers wore pointed hats, "and the negative image of witches wearing conical hats in America became common about the same time anti-Quaker sentiment was at a peak. Quakers were thought by some to consort with demons and practice black magic, things also associated with the early American view of witches." Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That pointy hat is Welsh, whose very name signifies "foreign outsider".--Wetman (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Our article doesn't support that view - the Welsh hat had a flat top, and in any case didn't exist until the 1830s or so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the stereotype for the people in the North, East, West & South?

I was wondering what do people typically think when they hear of people from the South, West, North & East. Like what are they stereotyped as?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.72.93 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Where are you talking about? The United States? Great Britain? China? All countries have their own regional stereotypes. It's a bit odd that we don't have an article on regional stereotypes. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP is from Minnesota, US so I expect the OP is talking about the US. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, people with a southern accent are considered inherently dumb - which is heavily reinforced in movies. Need a dumb character? Just give him a southern accent. People with a northeast accent are considered dumb by choice - more ignorant than possessing a complete inability to learn. So, you want a stubborn idiot, just give him a Brooklyn or Boston accent. People from the north-Midwest are considered dumb by necessity. They are farmers and don't need to know a lot about trivial things. There are few examples of this in film - the most popular being Fargo. There is no heavily discernible western accent. If there was, it would likely be considered dumb by peer pressure, similar to the "Valley Girl" lingo of the 80's. -- kainaw™ 16:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kainaw has correctly nailed all of the "dumb" regional stereotypes. Another popular one will be "haughty" — the haughty Southerner is the racist plantation owner who is wealthy because his great-great-grandfather exploited lots and lots of slaves; the haughty Northeasterner is the Ivy League snobby WASP who works on Wall Street (see The Bonfire of the Vanities); the haughty Californian is an obscenely wealthy, clueless Hollywood movie studio executive (see The Player); and the haughty Midwesterner ... well, Midwesterners are supposed to have solid moral values, so none of them are haughty. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't say how many films highlight this stereotype or trait, but I can assure you there is no shortage of moralistic self-righteousness among midwesterners. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

...just smug and provincial. Northern Californians and Southern Californians stereotype each other, and stereotypes of the Pacific Northwest (the Green Liberal Hiker) and the Southwest (the Gun-totin' Racist) have little in common. Many states have an "upstate/downstate" stereotyped contrast: the hidebound farmer is Upstate New York and Downstate Illinois. So North, East, South, West aren't the best cubbyholes for confining American stereotypes, which invariably say more of the stereotyper than the stereotyped subject, of course.--Wetman (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

When I think of "Westerners" it is not "people from California," but cowboys. Imagine the movie personnas of John Wayne, Gary Cooper, or the cowboy quartet in Gershwin's Girl Crazy who sang "Bidin' My Time." Laconic, slow spoken men of action, not of words. Yup. Now Ah'll jest be moseyin' on. Edison (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There are only so many types of people in general. No matter where they are geographically, change their skin color and accent and they can live anywhere and find somebody like them. There are dumb people everywhere, as Kainaw pointed out. There are smart and smug and smooth and solitary and stand-outs in every society. If you are in high school, college, or in the buisness world, take a random sample of hundred people and you will be able to group them up, just as if you took a random sample o, say, 100,000 Americans from across the country, you could put them in groups. schyler (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There are military versions as well, for fictional purposes - generals are usually Southerners (particularly Texan), but lower ranking southerners are in the military to escape poverty. West-coast fictional military personnel are usually laidback and bend the rules wherever possible (if they're officers, they're likely incompetent). Mid-west fictional milfolk are grunts and cannon fodder who are there out of duty to Uncle Sam or to escape the farm. New Englanders are there out of duty and family tradition. Steewi (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The East Coast girls are hip (I really dig the styles they wear) and the Northern girls . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful, or the Beach Boys will sue you. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

geneology of king david

Was king david, son of Jessee a Levite? If not, how come that he was not killed when he entered the tabernacle in II samuel 7:18? 216.41.248.61 (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, David nominally was of the tribe of Judah. However, the bible and the old testament in general and the Books of Samuel in particular are heavily reworked collections of different sources. Neither the genealogy of David nor the definition of Levite are particularly certain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the detailed rules in the Torah about the design of the Holy of Holies, and about who can approach it and under what circumstances, are generally believed to be material created by the priests in the days of the First Temple. In adding that material to the Torah, the priests projected many of the rules from the Temple era back into the days of the Tabernacle, so it's possible that the rule about Levites didn't exist in David's time. (Source: My old Oxford Annotated Bible.) A. Parrot (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

David was from Judah, with his genealogy listed at the end of Ruth:

• Judah
• Peretz
• Chetzron
• Ram
• Aminadav
• Nachshon
• Salmon
• Boaz
• Oveid
• Yishai (Jesse)
• David

Moreover, it does not say that David entered the Tabernacle -- only that he went לפני השם (lifnei HaShem, "before God"). Such a phrase could also refer to the Temple (or in this case, Tabernacle) grounds, much like the biblical obligation to bring the Four Species on all the days of Sukkot only on the Temple grounds (לפני השם) -- otherwise, the biblical obligation is merely on day 1 of the festival. I will check the commentators on that verse tomorrow, though, to see what they say. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Il duce, Silvio

From "The Mussolini of Ass". GQ. June 2010.:

This winter, during a campaign rally in Milan, a mentally unstable man threw a plaster replica of the Duomo at the Presidente. It broke his nose and two teeth and lacerated his face. (It was when he was getting his teeth fixed that he met the leggy hygienist/soon-to-be regional councillor.) Immediately after he was hit by the statue, Berlusconi's bodyguards hustled him into his little blue Audi. Before they sped away, though, the Presidente reemerged and climbed on top of the car. He stood there, in the cold streets of Milan, for a long, melodramatic moment, his head tilted upward and a beautiful expression of pride on his face, bleeding from the mouth, among a crush of people and television cameras. After that, his numbers skyrocketed. Because he instinctively knows how to appeal to the soap-operatic sensibilities of the Italian public, like a character on one of his own shows.

I've searched and failed to find this image. Can anyone locate it? High-res obv preferred. Skomorokh 18:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This video should qualify: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GpymFZAMVE Also, there's this picture: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BWL0gMTWy1A/SyozXO9nv9I/AAAAAAAAAcY/E37P2hs6AK4/s400/berlusconi+ferito+tartaglia.jpg --151.51.156.20 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, since you use the name Berlusconi and the title Duce in the same sentence, did you know that Mussolini had at one point suffered a similar injury? [5] TomorrowTime (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, but they don't seem to show Silvio atop the car or, in the case of the video, a "long, melodramatic moment". Is it likely the journalist was exaggerating? That is interesting about Mussolini, TomorrowTime. Skomorokh 12:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems he is lifted and briefly sits on top of the car, but one can't be sure as clip doesn't show his lower half. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unknown territory

Between Lithuania and Poland, there is a segment of land that seems to belong to Russia or Belarus or somewhere. What is that area called? 87.112.158.100 (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kaliningrad Oblast. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

it's Kaliningrad, formerly Königsberg, and it is part of Russia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Kaliningrad, formerly Königsberg, is the city and administrative center of the entire Oblast which belongs to Russia, lies between Lithuania and Poland, and covers about 70 times the area of Kaliningrad itself. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

August 10

What is a city in which...

Hi all! I'm considering moving to a new city, for a change of scenery. THis city can be anywhere, since I'm a computer programmer and can work remotely if need be. What is/are the city/ies that:

1. . Have free public transportation?A
2. . Have free public Wi-Fi access
3. . Have the best quality tap water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.158.13 (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the last two, but we have an article about Free public transport. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. schyler (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And i forgot to mention the cities don't have ot be all of these ato once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.158.13 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are willing to have a job or go to college... I live in Charleston, SC. I ride the bus for free because everyone who works (or goes to school) at the local universities gets to ride the bus for free. WiFi is free around the universities, at the public library, and many other places around town. Drinking water is just fine - but the university provides free bottled water, so I rarely use the tap water. -- kainaw™ 03:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard (and briefly seen) good things about Portland OR. San Francisco CA is also nice, if you can handle the price tag (damned expensive city to live in). Atlanta, GA is a city I've considered moving to. but seriously, you just can't beat Boston MA - nothing's perfect there, but they consistently manage to get 3/4ths of the way on multiple dimensions. --Ludwigs2 06:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nova Gorica. Or did you have any particular geographic limitations in mind as well? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Invercargill offers some potential, also. Gwinva (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What I find odd is that you don't seem to care about the things that actually really seem to matter on a daily basis, like cost of living and climate. I live near Boston and we have reasonably priced public transportation that can get you pretty much wherever you need without any trouble (for $60/mo. you can basically have unlimited bus and subway access, and between the two can get almost anywhere you need); our tap water is fine by my standards; there are some areas of the region that have free WiFi (much of Cambridge does). But we also have very high cost of living, brutal winters (by my standards), and humid summers. In my mind, the latter three are what affect me the most day to day. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't mention which country you want your city to be in - I guess that means you must be American?  :) Gurumaister (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Milton Keynes, was supposed to be such. Otherwise, it is Heaven. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

... what? What in the world does this have to do with the topic? 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Streibel or Striebel?

After reading denaturalization cases of Nazis in America, I learned that many Eastern Europeans were trained as Nazi concentration camp guards and ghetto liquidators at Trawniki from 1941 to 1944. I also learned that after Soviet troops overran Trawniki in 1944, the Trawniki-trained men were reorganized into a battalion, which I'm not entirely sure of the spelling. Is it spelled Streibel or Striebel? 06:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.90.160 (talk)

German wikipedia spells it Streibel, here (named after Karl Streibel, I assume). 93.95.251.162 (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Martin.

The spelling Streibel is also used in English wikipedia: Trawniki concentration camp. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Martin again.

how did Jesus convince a billion people he's the messiah?

Could I convince a billion people that I'm the massiah? Say, a billion Chinese and Indians - 500 mil of each? How? Please be as detailed as possible, and also mention potential pitfalls to my plan. Unlike a certain someone, I don't want to end up crucified! 92.230.233.247 (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Same answer as: How did George W Bush convince the whole world he was the President of the United States? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't vote for messiahs...

Woman: Well, how'd you become messiah then? 92.230.233.247 (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(made <small> off-topic bits and bobs) – ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus convinced around twelve people he was the messiah (and even then, one of them sold him out), and he had to get crucified in the process (assuming you take the New Testament account to be literally true in this regard). It took some 300 years before it really started to catch on, and that was mainly because an incredibly powerful person converted and made it the state religion. It has taken some two thousand years to get to its current state. So I'm not sure Jesus is a great role model for your "get messiahed quick" scheme. Better examples might be Jim Jones, Joseph Stalin, or Sun Myung Moon (who I should say, I don't really think are all in quite the same category, but they are people who inspired various religious or near-religious following, for different reasons). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's rather reversed. In fact the emperor Constantine I officially recognized and legalized Christianity (though it didn't really become the "state religion" until later) because it had already spread very strongly among the lower classes and slaves of the cities of the Roman empire without any government support (and in fact in the face of sporadic government persecutions, from Nero to Diocletian). Constantine didn't have any strong interest in religion for the sake of religion; his insight or motivation was that he realized that persecuting Christians ultimately weakened the empire (while many of his predecessors had been of the opinion that it strengthened the empire). AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, did the opposite. Often referred to as the Messianic Secret. He asked his disciples who they thought He was. Do remember the Seventy-two Disciples. When Pilate asked, He said that "it is you who say it"! He did not try to convince anyone: "...are you also going to go away..."? MacOfJesus (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can start by raising yourself from the dead. A few other miracles scattered here and there would also be helpful to your cause. Googlemeister (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If he gets the Chicago Cubs to win the World Series, he'll have my vote. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, you don't vote for messiahs! So, basically, what we have is that I have to convince twelve people I died, but then come round again within three days? Can I stick around for a while more after that, or do I have to ascend immediately? Also, what other assorted miracles do you suggest I sprinkle about. Thank you. By the way, I will not forget you guys, you are definitely getting a piece of the action. 92.230.233.247 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Gospels, written by others and not Jesus give a number of cretitable points:

1. The Miracles.

2. The casting out of demons.

3. The witness of the demons.

4. The wisdom of Jesus in answering and conversing with those who attempted to trap Him, and others. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Number four is easy, I've been an eloquent member of the Flat Earth Society for years, and have sent people home in frustration. 92.230.233.247 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

From all acounts, Jesus was a terrific orator and very insightful. Remember the Seventy Weeks Prophecy from Daniel. It says:

“There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.

— Daniel 9:24

The Messiah had been prophesied and promised for millennia, and now the prophet Daniel, who had a very public role and thus responsibility to Jehovah, had been given the exact timeframe for, not only the appearance of The Messiah, but the rebuilding of Jurusalem, AND the Messiah's crucifixion.
Please see this article for a more in depth explanation.
It is an untruth that Jesus "convinced around twelve" he was the messiah. It is a half-truth that Jesus asked His disciples who they thought he was. It was soon after His baptism and his 40 days in the desert that Jesus was directed by His Father to The Twelve (See Matthew 4:18-25 for this account]. It was in a short amount of time that Christ's message of God's Kingdom spread all throughout the district of Judaea that Jesus held his Sermon on the Mount where there were "crowds (Matthew 5:1)" so many people had apparently been there before his arrival, even.
Jesus also had a great effect on individuals, such as the Samaritan Woman (John Chapter 4) who, despite centuries of ingrained racism knew she had just spoken to The Messiah, a Jew, and not a Samaritan. Very moving indeed.
Rather than only ask His disciples who they thought he was, Jesus made public declaration of His role even to the pharisees, a very dangerous act (John 7:25, 32, 37-52).
So, not only did Jesus convince an entire Roman Province of His role, but his teachings had, even before his death, spread to Rome and Asia Minor (the disciples baptized 3,000 very soon after His death (Acts chapter 2)).
It is a very sad fact that after the deaths of The Apostles Babylonish teachings infiltrated Christianity, like the Trinitarian Godhead, immortality of The Soul, and an everlasting torment in Hellfire.
Please feel free to contact me on my user page if you have any more questions, or post them here. schyler (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your second question: you could spread a great message and become a False Christ to many people. You would only be fulfilling prophecy, though. schyler (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Schyer, the person you speak to (no name, just a number) believes the earth is flat. I am not going to convince him/her to accept the Nicaen Creed or even be of "good will", Lk 2 v14. MacOfJesus (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just doing my job schyler (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hard to believe he's sent people home in frustration. Maybe only so because they thought he'd be funnier than he turned out to be. It's a little known fact that on his fifth voyage, Columbus did, in fact, sale off the edge of the earth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they just realized you can't fix stupid. Googlemeister (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Saint Brendan discovered America before him in a little leather boat, currach! Tim Severin shows. The historian now all accept as possible, factual! MacOfJesus (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Do they accept it as possible or factual? I mean it is possible that I drove to the store yesterday at 120 mph, but did I? Googlemeister (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Historian tend to be a very dis-believing lot. But look at the article page Saint Brendan and you will see the history books have been changed accepting this notion. Saint Brendan's logs describe what Tim Severin found on the way, and confirmed. In the little leather boat there was room for only five! The Irish Government insisted that they had to take on board the most sophisticated modern radio. When they reached New Foundland, the Canadian Navy went to greet them and could not find them. They were too small to see, in the sea! All this was telavised on Irish Television (RTV). They were so confident in proving the travel event of Saint Brendan, so long ago! MacOfJesus (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The recipe for becoming a messiah (or similar) is tried and true, if not sure-fire (lots of people have started down the path, but only a few have made it big-time). it goes as follows:

• Develop a deep insight about the world - there's no such thing as a dumb messiah
• Try to inspire that insight in others in the world - aim big, because the world really would be a better place if all people could see it through your eyes
• Talk to a lot of people, but only teach a few in depth - that's pretty much unavoidable, anyway.
• Die after you pass the inspiration on to a few, but before you've accomplished your main goal (whatever that might have been)
• Wait a couple of centuries for people to forget who you were, so they can focus on the idea instead of the man. Basically you have to become an icon for what you taught, rather than have what you teach be seen as a product of you (the way it is when you are alive).

Your original insight will have passed down from ear to ear - embellished, corrupted, misinterpreted, mixed with other ideas, and otherwise hidden under a growing mound of dogma - but it will still be there to inspire people. it helps if you try to teach in a strongly rather than weakly religious society (this is why Socrates never had a religion founded on his teachings); it also helps if you die horribly and unjustly since people (perversely) interpret that as a sign of good character. However, try to put off the horrible, unjust death until after you've made a basic reputation for yourself; a lot of people have made that mistake in the past. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Socrares said that is better to be killed than to kill, it is better to be robbed than to rob. Would our OP accept this? MacOfJesus (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dust. Wind. Dude. schyler (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

When starting your own religion, it probably helps to be humble. According to Robert Wright's The Evolution of God, Jesus likely never claimed to be the messiah or the son of God. Those stories evidently emerged later as a way to explain or understand the brutal end of his brief ministry. —Kevin Myers 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the titles 'Son of God' and 'Anointed One' (Christ/Messiah) were customary titles for kings in the ancient Near East. Jesus' followers may well have misinterpreted his references to 'the Son of Man' (in Greek, literally 'the Human One', 'ho ton anthropos') as being connected with this tradition, and their own aspirations for a kingly messiah to overthrow the tetrarchs and governors imposed on Judaea by the Romans. It's as though a modern preacher had said 'We must lead the world to freedom', and his followers misquoted him as saying 'I am the leader of the free world'. Not to say Jesus wasn't a tremendously influential, important, even revolutionary figure - I'm a follower myself - but the present state of Christian theology may well be very far from what any of the original community had in mind. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Study the article page Messianic Secret. "The Son of Man" reference was a reference to the prophacy of Daniel. The disciples had a very different expectation of the kingdom. They all ran off at the crucifixion. Even denied and betrayed Him! MacOfJesus (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think that Jesus is a poor model, if you plan to live out your messiah status. Why not broaden your religious horizons? Muhammad, for example, got to be a prophet and live out a full life, and didn't have to be anyone's divine son. He got to marry and wage war and all of that other fun stuff. Jesus is a pretty stiff board by comparison, up there with St. Francis of Assisi in the "being divine is not fun" category. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And Muhammad's descendants couldn't agree on who was the proper heir, and we ended up with two major branches of Islam. Kind of like with the Great Schism in the Christian church, except Jesus didn't cause that. Jesus was smart enough to avoid having kids. So to be a good Messiah, one thing you probably need to do is to be celibate. (There goes a lot of the fun right there, ja?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, all the major early schisms in Islam were about who had the right to rule the Muslim community, while all the major early schisms in Christianity were about semi-obscure doctrinal disputes (usually in the area of Christology). I guess it depends on which you think is sadder, religious disputes over 1000-year old political struggles or religious disputes "over a vowel" (as the homoousianist vs. homoiousianist controversy has been described)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer to the OP's question could be, "He had a lot of help." Someone said recently on one of the ref desks that "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy". It could also be said that "a religion is a cult with an army and a navy". The early Christians didn't have one, and their cult nearly died off. Constantine had one, though, as did Muhammad, and they each knew how to use it. Which is why there are lots of Christians and Muslims, and very few Flat Earthists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoever said that was quoting someone else: see A language is a dialect with an army and navy. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Once the Christian Church had the military power of the Roman Empire behind them, they went around and killed priests of other religions who would not convert, destroyed or converted the temples, and to the best of their ability banned alternative religions. Then they continued until modern times to use the coercive power of the state to kill "heretics" whenever possible. "Anointed" Kings enjoyed the endorsement of God as a basis for taking food from the mouths of peasants or conquering other lands. Edison (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You could try your hand at some swords stuck in stones. 68.104.175.130 (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In regard to Constantine and military power, please see Great Apostasy. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that rising from the dead is significantly more difficult now than it was back in the first century AD. Between EEG machines and modern embalming practices, your best bet is to adjust your 'get messianic quick' scheme to avoid this part all together. APL (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of reputable publications, including National Geographic, would seem to take a contrary view. Amazing how even death has become debased in modern parlance, and people are regularly reported as having died and returned to life. The term "clinically dead" appears to have no plausible meaning. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, Jack of Oz, that Jesus was just clinically dead in the tomb? MacOfJesus (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I neither accept nor reject the Church's position that he died and 3 days later returned from the dead, as I would not wish to offend the billions of people who have believed this over the past 2,000 years. I was commenting on the modern-day habit of describing the stopping of people's hearts on, say, the operating table shortly followed by a resumption of their heart beat, as "clinically dead but came back to life". I know there are more complex cases than these, some involving apparent temporary brain death, but the fact remains: death is inherently irreversible - which is why the claim made for Jesus is so extraordinary. He is the only person in history who is said to have died, really and truly died, and come back to life. If that sort of thing actually happens on a regular basis to ordinary and unremarkable people, there would be nothing unique about what supposedly happened to Jesus, and nothing for anyone to believe in. "Clinically dead" is in the same category as "dwarf planet". In neither case does the adjective properly qualify the noun: a dwarf planet is not any kind of planet, and people said to be clinically dead are not any kind of dead. There's only one kind of death - that is, death. "Clinical death" is a complete misnomer and it should be expunged from the lexicon forthwith. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be of intrest: In Ornithological Circles, we often speak of; "coming back from the dead", some from your neck-of-the-woods. How logical is that? A Pharmacist told me recently: "Take one tablet four times a day". How logical is that? MacOfJesus (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Creatures once thought to be extinct but now known not to be so" (good name for a band, btw) - yes, that reminds me of one of my early adventures in article writing, James Smith (ichthyologist), which, after almost 5 years, is still, sadly, at stub status. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it true, therefore, that as soon as Scientists get their practice correct they fall into the most illogical ideas and notions as the rest of us, humans? MacOfJesus (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The bit about Jesus and rising from the dead: have you forgotten about Lazarus, John 11(eleven), he was brought back to life from being in the tomb for so many days? (he did stink!). Whereas, Jesus rose to new life. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I remembered Lazarus, and deliberately chose not to mention him, because when Jesus supposedly raised him from the dead, he (Jesus) denied he (Lazarus) had ever been dead in the first place, but had been merely sleeping. But even if he had truly been dead, he did not raise himself from the dead, which is what Jesus is claimed to have done. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's convenient. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that could be taken a number of ways. To what were you referring, Tomorrow Time? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The best hermeneutic is the reaction of the people that were there at the time. The pharaisees went out and plotted the death of Lazarus too, many others became believers. Yes, He did raise Himself from the dead. Other accounts: The Father. "The Father and I are One". The original question; How did He convince a billion people...? Don't be the billion-and-one! MacOfJesus (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mhm. So let's play a little mind experiment, shall we? Let's say I had a time machine and decided to visit quaint old Palestine cca. 33 AD, Saturday afternoon, around tea time. I take with me a simple, everyday household item, say a lighter or maybe a battery light. I show this to the good people of Palestine, demonstrate its use, explaining the device in detail and what do they make of it? They think I'm a magician who can make fire out of nothing or bring cold white light into darkness without a torch. Before you know it, my miraculous deeds are written up in some holy scripture or other, and 2000 years and a couple of dodgy translations later, voila, I'm bloody Merlin. Well, at least according to "the best hermeneutic", that is the reaction of the people that were there at the time. I can only echo your sentiment in the last sentence: don't be the billion-and-first to be convinced! TomorrowTime (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have greater confidence in the Common Sence of ordinary people. The reaction of the listeners at the time is only one pointer. Please see the article page Biblical hermeneutics. Better still study The Jerome Biblical Commentary on Hermeneutics and Saint John's Gospel. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I am not a religious scholar and hence do not know the details, it seems to me there are four important stages: 1) Jesus, while alive, convinces some others that he is a person of note, 2) Others build on this after he dies/departs, 3) the bible gets written, 4) the bible acts as a sort of combined propaganda document, rule book, emblem, and manual, that keeps Christianity going over the centuries and allows its expansion. Other "false Messiahs" existed who did not get through all these stages and have been forgotten. All the other major religions I can think of also have a big body of religious writings, so perhaps they are essential for a religion to have. 92.24.190.46 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Social values as to respect to mother and father: Western vs. Eastern

As an Asian person, I wonder if in Western socials mother and father are very much respected by their children as in Eastern socials? My question is about filial piety / being grateful to mother and father / appreciating favours done by other perons /etc.

In Eastern cultures, murdering or injuring one's own parent is one of the most serious crimes proscribed by law (in some countries, such murder is punished with death).

In Buddhism, Gautama Buddha once said:

"O monks! I shall now state the characters of a moral person. Hearken!...What are the characters of an immoral person? An immoral person is an ingrate, he lacks of gratitude and never returns favours received. Immoral persons praise ungratefullness. And what are the characters of a moral person? A moral person is thankful for favours received and reciprocates them. Gratefulness and filial peity are sign of a moral person..."

As I have seen in Western media (I know so well that the media does not represent every aspect of socials), children regularly have conflict with their parents and act in a disrespectful manner towards their parents. This may be because of adolescent/teenaging nature; however, I think that Eastern teenagers have more calm nature than Western teenagers and are not as impetous as the latter. So, I wonder if Western socials would uphold such value as Eastern?

Thank you.

203.131.212.36 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two arenas here. Civil Law and Religious Beliefs and practices. The Christian Belief and is the Jewish Belief: The Fourth Commandment; Honour thy father and mother. It is in the positive active sense not the negative sense, i.e.: "Though shalt not...." MacOfJesus (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Asian kids do respect their parents more. My experience in my hometown (54% Asian) shows that Asian kids don't so much respect their parents as fear them. Plus, don't take media such as films and TV depicting Westerners as the truth. Aaronite (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

respect for parents is a near universal in social systems for purely pragmatic reasons: children have the urge for independence long before they have the maturity to be safely and successfully independent, and so there are a lot of social rules that try to keep them in line as long as possible to avoid the obvious tragedies. The rates of unnatural death and disfiguration from various causes, crime and property damage, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and etc., are disproportionately high among teens and young adults as it is; without societal pressure it would be through the roof. The differences between Asian and European in this regard mainly have to do with societal goals. western nations prize aggressive individualism and idealizes brash youth, and parent/child conflicts are a natural product of children experimenting with those social ideals within social constraints. Eastern societies are less arrogantly individualistic - more clan/group oriented - and so children tend to focus their urges for independence into peer aggression/competition. --Ludwigs2 16:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO children respect/fear their parents a bit more in Eastern societies (very vague) because they fear to embarrass themselves and their parents before other families ("don't do that or you will shame us and all your ancestors = all our neighbours will speak ill about us"). The children know that their actions can result in a loss of Face (sociological concept) not only of themselves but of their entire family, and fear the consequences. (all this is certainly incredibly vague)

Children in western societies (very vague) are a bit more free and rebellious and aren't constrained by shame to the same degree (many, but not all, care little what our neighbour speak about us - and most of our neighbours couldn't care less as long our actions don't disturb them). Western children certainly embarrass themselves but few blame the child's family for the actions of the child. You are responsible for your own actions. (this is also incredibly vague)

The first are a bit more repressed while second are a bit more rebellious. Personally I prefer the second, but then I'm a child of the West.

To beat, injure, or murder one parents (Parricide) is viewed with horror by both societies. It happens more than we think, but is seldom spoken of. Flamarande (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much light I can shed on this subject, but as an American living in Japan, I may have some insight. While living in Fukushima Prefecture, this happened. And more recently I witnessed some intense bullying by an older junior high school student who targeted a younger, smaller student from a different school whom he didn't even know, all of which took place on a public bus here in Kyoto in front of dozens of adults. Feel free to interpret these events any way you like, but it seems to me that the teenage bully on the bus was not at all concerned that he was shaming himself, his school or his family name - all of which were proudly displayed on his school bag and name tag. Nor was the Fukushima high school student worried what his family and neighbors might think as he marched his mother's head down to the police station, (granted it's safe to assume that kid had mental issues). The bullying incident could easily have taken place in America, as the student's behavior felt uncomfortably familiar to me. Food for thought I guess. Brian Adler 04:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAdler (talk • contribs)

<opinion> White people have no culture is a common refrain amongst non-whites. The issue of a strong cultural/religious identity and conforming to cultural norms vs a strong individualistic drive to be independent are probably what leads to question posted. The cultures and religions of the east place a great store in revering one's parents and elders (as do the Abrahamic faiths, perhaps it just isn't practiced in Western cultures as it was preached?). For example an Indian person (by the way all of you, by "Asian" did you mean Indian or Oriental? "Asian" should really be banned as an adjective) would NEVER call their parents, parents-in-law, elder siblings, uncles or aunts by their first name; it is seen as tremendously disrespectful. Yet in (almost) all the preceding cases it is perfectly normal for Western/white people to do so. There is a marked difference in social values placed on the respect for elders in Eastern and Western societies. There isn't even any ambiguity or difference of opinion; a Westerner coming across this behaviour would think the Easterner was being tremendously respectful; conversely the Easterner would think the Westerner tremendously DISrespectful.</opinion> Zunaid 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"a Westerner coming across this behaviour would think the Easterner was being tremendously respectful" I disagree that there is no difference of opinion here. A Westerner coming across someone who never called their elder siblings, or aunts and uncles, by their first names might just think it strange. There is nothing inherently respectful about it. Certainly there are traditions of respect for elders in the West: in my parents' childhoods in the UK, it was common to refer to aunts and uncles (including those who were not actually related to you, but rather family friends) as "Aunt ____" or "Uncle ____", and I still know people who do that. Note that the blank is their first name, and this was considered a respectful way of addressing them. Come to that, if my brother-in-law stopped referring to my dad by his first name, we would wonder what had happened to damage their relationship. We wouldn't consider it a sign of respect to stop calling him by his preferred name.

And I would strongly discourage you from treating the terms white people and Western people as describing the same thing. Reeeeeeally bad idea. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the problem with saying "white people have no culture" (apart from being a strange assumption that white people in all different countries and societies should share a single culture) is that is generally means "white people in America/Britain/Australia have no culture", since people rarely apply it to places like France where they can see the culture. And the mistake people are making is that the (average) culture of white people in America is the dominant culture in America, just as the (average) culture of white people in Britain is the dominant culture of Britain, and the (average) culture of white people in America is the dominant culture of Australia. Things that are normal standards of behaviour in America? That's the culture most white people have in America. Things that are normal standards of behaviour in Britain? That's the culture most white people have in Britain. Things that are the normal standards of behaviour in Australia? That's the culture most white people have in Australia. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

World Health Organization Structure

Why is North-Korea under SEARO and not WPRO. Does it have to do with development (SEARO being to highly developed compaired to WPRO) or is it a political question (something along the lines of: "we dont want North/South Korea in the same region as us, says the North/South Korean official.)--SelfQ (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Have no idea -- but one interesting fact that emerged during the bird flu is that the WHO refuses to help Taiwan without going through mainland Chinese bureaucracy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dream of Gerontius (poem)

I'm trying to understand which bits of The Dream of Gerontius Henry Newman wrote, and which bits are quotes and snatches of existing works. For example, the Litany of the Saints features, and all the Latin and Greek bits are from pre-existing stuff. I think, based on bits and pieces I've found online, that the part that is the hymn Firmly I believe and truly is his translation of an existing Latin hymn, which has since become the well-known hymn? The hymn Praise to the Holiest in the height also seems to be a snippet from the poem, being one of the variants of the hymn he has angels singing. Is this also based on an older text (apart from Gloria in Excelsis Deo)?

Generally, I'm having a hard time working out which bits are him quoting, which bits are him creating original translations, and which bits are him making up completely original phrases. Does he quote any pre-existing English prayers or poems? Almost everything I can find online talks about the Elgar music, with very little on where the words came from. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

August 11

Jeremy Bamber

The whole world knows Jeremy Bamber is innocent and he will be released, but how can UK repay him for 25 years of his life that he has lost? Is there a similiar case anywhere in the world, an innocent man spending 25 years in jail for the murder he didnt commit? And what does the state do to compensate for the lost years? Apology, money or both? Thanks --92.244.158.225 (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Steven Truscott (48 years in prison from conviction to acquittal), it was both. The payment was 6.5 million dollars (Canadian). Bielle (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the "whole world knows Jeremy Bamber is innocent". While Jeremy Bamber has always claimed he is innocent, he has twice lost appeals, most recently in 2009. That said, there is some suggestion of new evidence that could lead to another appeal - and that is a long, long way from everyone knowing he is innocent. Astronaut (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And an answer to your question about compensation: In the UK, Stefan Kiszko had his murder conviction overturned after spending 16 years in prison. The Home Office told him "he would receive £500,000 in compensation for the years he spent in prison". Astronaut (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Was that before or after hefty deductions for board and lodging? (Which, by the way, the Home Office has levied or attempted to levy in similar cases!) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

When the news broke yesterday tht Sion Jenkins had his compensation claim refused for 6 years of false imprisonment, the reason given was that the criteria was that it must have been proven in court that he did not commit the member. As he was finally acquitted because two juries could not agree on his guilt, he did not meet the criterion and so his claim was refused. Bamber would, unless evidence proving his innocence emerges in the meantime, therefore not be entitled to any form of compensation. See this report.--TammyMoet (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the whole world know that O. J. Simpson is innocent? Is there a person in the USA that thinks so? MacOfJesus (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It all depends if he is "innocent" or "not guilty" which are quite different beasts. In criminal law (in the UK and Commonwealth, at least) the burden of proof in a criminal trial lies on the prosecution's side: they must prove someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If there is doubt in the case, then someone should be deemed 'not guilty' (which, as noted above, is not at all the same as innocent); if reasons for doubt occur after conviction, this could result in the verdict being overturned and the person being released from prison, or possibly tried again Neither course automatically provides exoneration (ie. declaration of innocence). Since compensation is generally tied to innocence, then the burden of proof now shifts to the defence, who must prove that the individual in question IS innocent. Gwinva (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwinva, yours is the answer the OP is looking for, I think. My answer was merely to throw light on the reasonableness of the question. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Perpetual virginity of Mary

The "it's known that Mary never had sex" statement in the Ockham's razor discussion above led me to read the Perpetual virginity of Mary article which mentions her virginity "before, during and after giving birth". Why would it be necessary to consider the "during birth" part? Has it ever been a common practice for women in labor to engage in sex? Prostaglandin, which is used to induce childbirth, is present in seminal fluid. -- 119.31.121.87 (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's most likely rhetoric to emphasize the extent of her alleged virginity. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that "during birth" was added by a devout editor who might have pondered objections to the notion of a virgin giving birth. (Whatever the circumstances of Mary's labor and deliver, I'm pretty sure no one at Bethlehem Stable and Gynecological Hospital was administering prostaglandin. Fructose, also a component of seminal fluid, may have been around somewhere, though.) You could always boldly rework the article. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A rather crude way of explaining it is that little baby Jesus didn't break Mary's hymen on the way out. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If Mary's miraculous hymen survived giving birth then it could well have survived intercourse. -- 110.49.193.42 (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did this idea come from that Mary was a virgin forever? She produced a half-brother for Jesus, for one thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a great big article linked up there which might tell you all about that! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's based on the notion that sex is evil, therefore Mary remained a virgin. Never mind that there's nothing in the Bible to support those crazy theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, there is. Of course, there is also material supporting the opposite. And if you then get to chose your sequence of mistranslations from Sumerian to ancient Hebrew to Aramaic to Koine Greek to Vulgar Latin to English, you can support whatever you like. The whole virginity story first appeared in the Greek, of course, when someone translated "girl" with "virgin". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Prophets were originally written in Sumerian? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but I suggest that parts of the Pentateuch go back to to Sumerian roots. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions? Shazam! Well, the fact He had brothers pretty well wipes out the idea, even though the sex-hating Catholics wanted to keep her "pure" forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the girl/virgin mistranslation from Hebrew? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- (עלמה) almah means maiden, while (בתולה) betulah means virgin. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew words "בְּתוּלָה" ("betulah") and "עַלְמָה" ("almah") and the Greek word "παρθενος" ("parthenos") are discussed at Isaiah 7:14. See also http://www.multilingualbible.com/isaiah/7-14.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Start with the understanding that the hymen has nothing to do with medical virginity. Proceed from there. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Extreme Perpetual Virginity of Mary was attested (per [some Catholic sources) by a midwife who witnessed that even as Jesus was being delivered, Mary's hymen retained only a tiny opening, so it must have been similar to expanding foam sealant coming out of an aerosol can. Or it might have been "Birth By Teleportation" or a "Magical C Section." Edison (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Religionists are perfectly willing to cite non-canonical sources when it suits their purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

no surprise here 200.144.37.3 (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

? Catholics have never claimed to be sola scriptura: they hold that Holy Tradition is just as valid as the Bible, given that Christianity predates the Bible. When discussing a Catholic belief, if seems odd to expect them to only consider the Protestant canon as canonical. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Their retrofitting of Mary as being forever a virgin directly relates to their hatred of sex. They decided to keep her in a perpetual chastity belt, and they cherry-picked passages from scripture and elsewhere to support that theory, and ignored anything that contradicted it - including logic and reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

But that raises further questions: Where did this hatred of sex come from? Was there a pre-existing tradition of hatred of sex? It seems quite unnatural to hate something that is both intensely pleasurable and necessary for the continuation of the species. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It reflects a kind of quasi-"Gnostic" asceticism/dualism which was kind of "in the air" ca. 200 A.D., and widely influential on a number of differing religious movements and/or philosophical schools (which otherwise really didn't have much in common) in the middle east / Mediterranean region during that period. The various versions of Gnosticism ended up having no real influence on the actual theological doctrines of "mainstream" or traditionally-orthodox Christianity -- but Gnosticism or quasi-Gnosticism did have an impact on the attitudes of a number of early church fathers, who felt that marriage was a poor second-best to remaining a virgin, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it not go back further? After all, 1 Corinthians 7 has Paul discussing marriage as a necessary evil, given that people cannot control their sexual urges. He says that it would be better if everyone could be celibate, but that not everyone has the gift for it, so it's better that they get married! That's first century, and our article says it appears in the earliest canons, so it isn't even just a case of being included later when the mood matched. Or are you specifically referring to perpetual virginity of Mary? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul did not discuss marriage as a necessary evil, but he portrayed it as an extra challenge for Christians living in the current world. (1 Corinthians 7:29–35)—Wavelength (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems quite unnatural to hate something that is both intensely pleasurable and necessary for the continuation of the species. --That's quite a leap; preventing STD transmission and preventing overpopulation (given the scarcity of food) are two particularly righteous causes, especially during a time when humanity was so fragile. There are a lot of *very* practical downsides to sex. I would bet there is a PHD paper or two on the fitness of a society of prudes vs those that, ah, do "what comes naturally"... --144.191.148.3 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The downside of "no sex", on the other side, is that humanity dies out within one generation. That may not be that bad an idea, but I find the result somewhat boring. Of course, for early apocalyptic Christianity, that was not a problem - indeed, if you look at Paul's letters, you can see him flailing at an explanation why the apocalypse still has not happened, and what to do with granny, who died yesterday, thus just about missing the kingdom to come ("any second now, or maybe tomorrow, but no later than the day after that"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You can continue to say that (over and over again), but it doesn't change the fact that Catholic canon is broader than Protestant canon, and so this is a belief supported by (Catholic) canon. And since when were logic and reason supposed to dictate people's beliefs in an all-powerful God and his fully-human, fully-God son who rose from the dead? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bible does not promote hatred of sex, but it speaks of it respectfully. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-18.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-19.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-20.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Something like Netflix for books

Is there a site where one can enter authors and books he likes, and the site then recommends more authors and books the reader will likely enjoy, like Netflix does for movies, or like a kindly and knowledgeable librarian or bookseller might do? I seem to recall hearing of some site like "Visual library" or Virtual librarian" but could not find it via Google. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Amazon.com does that. You just click on books and add them to your shopping cart and it recommends other books that purchasers of the one you chose have also ordered. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

LibraryThing does that too. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazon does this but not very well. When buying books for my brother, from his own wishlist, Amazon will then recommend books for me based on what I bought for him. I haven't bothered looking at their recommendations in a while but they also used to recommend other books to me because I simply looked at the description of an initial book. Dismas|^(talk) 04:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazon is not unique with this problem. I've studied a lot of recommender systems. They tend to use singular value decomposition (SVD) to group users and products into similarity groups. Then, you are recommended products that are highly similar to products you bought (or viewed) as well as products users who are similar to you bought (or viewed). The biggest problem with SVD is that it has absolutely no sense of order. So, you purchase something like the 6th book in a series, it will suggest the first 5 books - even though most people won't purchase the 6th book without already having read the first 5 books. The reason they continue to use SVD is because the other common option is the hidden Markov model. That has a sense of order and is far more accurate. For order and accuracy, you end up trading a fast SVD calculation for an extremely time-consuming Markov model construction and traversal. So... what does Netflix use that makes it so good? According to their published work and the Netflix prize papers, they are using SVD and don't worry about order since a rather small percentage of movies need to be seen in order. -- kainaw™ 04:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note: Amazon allows you to exclude items you bought from being used for suggestions, and it allows you to indicate items you already own. It does, however, do a lousy job of distinguishing good bad science fiction from bad bad science fiction ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually buy The Eye of Argon from Amazon? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Amazon is, like, the Wikipedia of commerce. Paul (Stansifer) 19:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ranked 741,584th in the Amazon Bestseller List, I notice. I'm astonished it's that popular. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

But paying attention to order can cause overfitting in the cases (most of them) where order isn't relevant. Also, if I remember correctly from the one time that I've done this kind of stuff, SVD doesn't do clustering at all: it simplifies the huge lots-of-people-by-lots-of-books matrix into a lots-of-people-by-a-few-abstract-factors matrix so the clusters are easier to pick out (and clustering runs faster). Paul (Stansifer) 19:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that SVD is not itself used for clustering. They tend to use something like vector cosine to measure similarity. SVD makes the vector cosine calculation much faster and covers missing data. -- kainaw™ 20:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We have Online general-interest book databases... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Did Hiltler do anything good?

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime are rightly reviled for the murder of the Jews, their agressive warmongering and bestial treatment of subject peoples. However, did they do anything which could reasonably be regarded as good or worthwhile? For example, they were ahead of their time in promoting animal rights, for which legislation was introduced shortly after they came to power. Many people these days would see that as a positive - though little enough to set against the massive negatives, to be sure. Are there any other examples of good or worthwhile policy. I am not suggesting that any such policies would in any way alleviate or counterbalance the dreadful inhumanity of the regime but I am interested in peoples' opinion as to whether they were irredeemably 100% evil or whether there was some miniscule part of their makup which could be said to be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossdeep (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to do a project for Social Studies class in Grade 10 on exactly this. I found that it was ultimately not worth the hassle of defending myself against accusations any perceived sympathy for Hitler or the Nazis, given their rather obvious and overwhelming evil-ness. That said, see volkswagen and the autobahns. I personally believe that the only conceivable reason that they accomplished anything that could be remotely considered good was only because they were in government and had to do something to gain support of the German people in general at the time, and hating Jews and Catholics wasn't enough initially. So even the "good stuff" was done to serve their evil purposes. Aaronite (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

They built a nice stadium which is still in use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Along with the Autobahns they built rest stops along the way, just like we still have on big highways now. They had some nice architecture courtesy Albert Speer, although Speer was fond of using Jewish slave labour. Ah well. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The research behind the V-2 rocket was the basis of basically all 20th century rocket technology, which enabled both the US and USSR space programs. Staecker (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If mere technological advances count, the Messerschmitt Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter, and it was pretty effective, too. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of things that happened in Germany during the Hitler regime, that have had some benefit. Staecker notes the rocket technology. Methadone also came out of German research around 1937, originally as an analgesic. Its principal use in North America until recently, however, has been in drug addiction treatments. Whether the political regime can take credit is a matter for those more knowledgeable than I am. Bielle (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, unemployment was extremely low during Nazi rule. Dismas|^(talk) 04:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but on the whole the Nazi economy was not sound. They bankrupted the country in ten years, but the war tends to obscure that. They were basically financing their lavish public spending through conquest. It could not have gone on much longer. But it did buy them popularity.--Rallette (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he killed himself. A lot of people consider that a good thing. Astronaut (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unemployment was low because he created projects like building autobahns in order to employ people. They weren't particularly good jobs (in terms of pay and conditions - a lot of people would have rather stayed unemployed, but weren't allowed), but from an economics point of view it was certainly better than the people being unproductive. Hitler's other method of reducing unemployment wasn't so admirable, though: he crossed all the Jews off the list and threw those Jews that were working out of their jobs (and, towards the end, killed them) and gave them to non-Jewish Germans. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything Hitler did was good for Germany with the single exception of killing/interning etc people, where killing is to include his warfare in attempting to expand Germany. The German people who were not on Hitler's shit list never had it so good, before or in all the time since. His fatal flaw was that he was not ecumenical; firstly, he did not include the whole of his population within his vision, instead wishing to exterminate some. and secondly, he did not expand his region with oration and a talented interpreter, but by force. Germany could have been the leader and creator of the European Union nigh on seventy years ago. 92.230.232.58 (talk) Trace that IP. 92.230.232.58 (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, lavish public spending that bankrupted the country, financed by looting neighbouring countries and jews. It's easy to daydream that if not for the war, it could have been just sweet. Not so. If not for the early successes in the war, Germany would have had to shut down the Volks-welfare-state even sooner, for simple lack of cash. There are many people with fond memories of those happy days, but it could not last. The Nazis were a bunch of gangsters with a gangster's narrow and superficial understanding of economic matters.--Rallette (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, such happy, golden days! But what a price was paid, and is still being paid. It was not a good deal. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that "The German people who were not on Hitler's shit list never had it so good". He instituted a totalitarian one-party state ripe with neighbour spying on neighbours, informers and an over-all demand for 100% loyalty to the state no matter what. The average German would experience this as more of a nuisance that an advantage, but of course by then it was too late to go back. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

all right, you guys have me. I just posted that because I, too, see that some people have fond memories of that time (I'm just 29 and an American myself, living in Bavaria), and I wanted to know if that was a reasonable idea. Your responses prove that it isn't. Thanks, especially Rallette. 92.230.232.58 (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw a book recently that suggested the Nazis were ahead of the curve on cancer research, but I have no way of knowing if this is true. GreatManTheory (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He organized the first antismoking campaign: Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. German soldiers and civilians were discouraged from smoking, while the US sent large supplies of ciggies to the soldiers to get them hooked while they were young and in a stressful situation. Edison (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He also made the trains to the death camps run on time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically it was Adolf Eichmann who did that.--Saddhiyama (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Making the trains run on time was typically credited to Mussolini, but some amiable drudge long before Wikipedia or the internet checked actual paper records of train arrivals in Il Duce's Italy and found that his record was no improvement on the previous administration's. Eventually allied bombers made the trains run late or not at all (not soon enough, sadly, for many bound for the death camps). When the European Economic Community recently set up a system of chartered jumbo jets to hop from EUC country to country picking up captured illegal immigrants and delivering them back to their third world countries, ironically they put Germany in charge of organizing the transportation. Presumably they put the British in charge of policing and the French in charge of meals. Edison (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Unfortunately, as opposed to passenger trains, in Germany the trains to the extermination camps ran pretty much on schedual right up to the very end. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In WW1 and WW2, German submarines were excellent and served as a model for the next generation of non-German subs. Germany also made progress in television broadcasting during WW2. Germany developed high fidelity magnetic tape recording during WW2, appropriated and widely used worldwide after the war. Edison (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis had all sorts of nice qualities. They were pro-technology. They were pro-animal. They were environmentalists, and lovers of classical arts. They were anti-cigarette, pro-public health. Unfortunately nearly every one of these qualities came with a dark side. They were anti-science when it didn't conform to "German" standards (and when it wasn't done by "true" Germans), and many of their great technological advances were done in the service of their conquest plans. They considered dogs to have more dignity than most sub-groups of humans. They managed human populations with the same fervor that they managed insect populations — even with the same chemicals. They loved certain arts and persecuted those which didn't fit their ideological stripes. Their public health zeal was applied equally to genetic cleansing. So, sure, there were some good things, I suppose. But nearly every one of them came with some sort of horror. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is valid to point out that without A. Hitler none of us (well, those who are less than 65 or so) would be alive. History would have followed a different course, our parents may not have met, there would have been a different sperm coming first, etc. For all practical purposes the vast majority of Europeans, US Americans, Japanese, etc owe their existence to the late Führer. The thought seems rather revolting. If you consider it to be "good" is a personal evaluation. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe we do owe everything to Hitler, but fundamentally no more so than to Chaos Butterfly. Someone, and I forget who, once pointed out that people do indeed have a curious tendency to feel somehow glad history turned out the way it did. History before them, that is, not of course their own lives.--Rallette (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler kept out communism. It is well known there were some sympathies for Hitler in Britain during the early years (certainly not for the Holocaust) mainly for this reason. I've got a copy of The Times from November 11, 1917, echoing this message: "Red Flag Flies Over Berlin" (worries of a Russian-style takeover). Of course, it's a matter of opinion whether first-stage commumism is a good thing or not, but I think it would be fair to say that the majority of people in the west see keeping out communism as a good thing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly the single most embarrassing discussion that I have ever come across anywhere in Wikipedia. Have you guys ever thought for a second about the intention that may lie behind this question? Nazi Germany was a brutal and inhumane totalitarian regime and everything that anyone has had the naivety to call "good qualities" of the Nazis has to do with the efficiency of planned action that is possible in a totalitarian regime. Are you tired of living in a democracy? --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Only the Sith deal in absolutes ;) Pretending that absolutely everything about everything done by a given government in a given country was evil, helps nobody. We need to be able to talk about it as a system made up of people, many of them idealistic, which had among its goals many that sounded noble or sensible to people at the time. Pretending that there was nothing good there at all, or that it was just about evil people doing evil things, renders it inhuman and impossible to learn from. It encourages the view that we would never be caught up in such a thing, we would never let such things happen, that it was a unique aberration. And that is dangerous. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

England's National Day?

What is the English equivalent of the American Independence Day in terms of celebration? I was told by an English friend of mine that St. George's Day is the official one but that it's not really celebrated. Rather the Last Night of the Proms is the most nationalist celebration atmosphere he could think of. Is this really the case or is there a holiday I'm unaware of? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, as an Englishman born and bred, St. George's day is celebrated a little, but not very much. In terms of regular occasions, the Last Night of the Proms is certainly a very patriotic (I wouldn't say "nationalist", per se) event for those there / who watch and listen to it; equally one could argue that there are similar outbursts at Royal events (jubilees, deaths, coronations), some events related to the military, and England football matches. But in terms of regular patriotic days we are a little lacking in my experience. (I'm fairly young, it may be that I've simply forgotten / never noticed other such outpourings.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that Americans tend to associate fireworks with the Fourth of July, it's also worth noting that our pyrotechnic counterpart is the Fifth of November. It's not equivalent in any other way, however. 87.112.158.100 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, "Bonfire Night". To clarify for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the event, it doesn't carry (in my experience, again) any patriotic overtones, even though it sounds (from the article) like it might. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm astonished that our article on Guy Fawkes Night does not mention its relationship to the old pagan ceremony of Samhain, held around the same time of year, which long predates 1605. The supposed difference of a few days between the two is easily accounted by past calendar changes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And neither does the article about Samhain mention such a link. Possibly this is because Samhain is Hallowe'en, not Guy Fawkes night. Or are you suggesting that Fawkes and his co-conspirators attempted to blow up Parliament in order to celebrate a pagan festival? 87.112.158.100 (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Several pre/non-Christian cultures had/have a celebration or ceremony around this time of year involving fireworks or other manifestations of light, perhaps because of the approaching darkest season of the year. The assumption in neo-Pagan circles (Heh!) is that with Samhain and related folk celebrations suppressed, the adjacent 5th of November commemoration provided an agreeable emotional substitute, though it has no direct doctrinal connection. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No "national" celebration day, as such, exists. There is no equivalent - perhaps because England never had to fight to acquire its independence from anyone, or to overthrow a dictatorial monarchy or regime. The relationships between "English nationalism" (such as it is), the other parts of the UK, and "Britishness", are hugely complex matters (and, incidentally, the subject of much discussion between WP editors on other pages). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of Hastings is the last time (other than the Cromwell situation) where an English king was overthrown. Is anything done in reference to 1066? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we be celebrating a victory or mourning a defeat? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, and you're wrong anyway about 1066. Have a look at the Battle of Bosworth Field and the Glorious Revolution, for example. 87.112.158.100 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So maybe the British "independence day" should be the day the Romans left, whenever that was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In any discussion about this, please try not to confuse "English" and "British". They are very different concepts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no specific day for that. There is a traditional year (410), but even that is not exactly accurate. (Would you believe we have a whole article about this?) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, the Fifth of November is also celebrated in New Zealand. Alansplodge (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither Britain nor England existed then :)

ALR (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In sum, then, there isn't one. Moves to promote St George's day do include proposals that come around every so often to make it a bank holiday. I'm not holding my breath. Apparently, England has fewer bank holidays than most of our European partners. It's also tied into the English nationalism issue - particularly agitation by a few regarding the apparent inequity - no English parliament, versus the West Lothian question. There's no huge English agitation on any of these matters, just a few grumbles. How very English. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. None of the four Saints days really get much recognition. Mind you there is a ocmpletely different rationale, none of the four constituents have really had that clear point in history that justifies that level of recognition. ALR (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is no English equivalent of the US Independence Day. There have been various proposals for an English, British or United Kingdom national day holiday - see British Day - but none of these proposals has widespread acceptance, and all of them generate significant opposition from different quarters. Maybe national days are the equivalent of birthdays - an important celebration when you are young, but less significant when you are older and more mature (as a person or as a country). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest May Day as the nearest we get? In some parts of the country pagan fertility rituals are still observed (maypoles, morris dancing and the like). I'd also put forwards the idea that the English don't go in for overt displays of emotion and affection, and so celebrating a "national day" is somehow infra dig. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the Queen's Official Birthday is closer to the mark. That's when knighthoods and other honours are dished out, and the Trooping the Colour takes place. Plus, it's in keeping with the National Anthem being God Save the Queen. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A Jubilee Street Party, 1977

Yes but unlike some parts of the Commonwealth, we don't get a day off, and there's no general celebrations apart from those who go and cheer in The Mall. We do have Coronations, Jubilees and Royal Weddings, when people decorate their houses, put out the flags and sit down to a party tea in the middle of the road with their neighbours, but these are not annual events. As Ghmyrtle says, these are British celebrations rather than English ones, but we English embrace them a bit more enthusiastically than our fellow Brits from the "Celtic Fringe". Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a minor additional thought - we don't tend to do 'flag-waving' and being obviously nationalistic. It just isn't in our makeup. 194.223.35.225 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I England we have a tendency to be just a little bit ashamed of being English. The st Georges cross is rarely used and even the union flag is fairly rare in comparison to the welsh or Scottish (and even Cornish). I would suggest that possibly there's just a little hereditary guilt over the empire. Abergabe (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Scotland and Wales (and to some extent Cornwall) essentially define themselves in terms of being "not England". England doesn't really define itself in contradistinction to another area in quite the same way (except, sometimes, "not Germany"). And, it is, both historically and now, a very diverse area which in many ways lacks a clear sense of its own identity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the flag waving. When we do do flag waving, we do (at events named above). It's just that it's not an all-day, every day thing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We wave flags at sporting events. That's about it. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a big part of it is the age of the country. England has been around in its present form since 1066, pretty much (things like Magna Carta and the Act of Union 1707 changed things a bit, but not to anywhere the extent that it could be considered a new country - even when we became part of the United Kingdom, it was really just Scotland becoming part of England for most purposes). That means we have built up lots of (now very obscure) traditions that we are very attached to (eg. the use of Norman French in the Royal Assent) but we've got used to the country being here so don't make a big deal about it in any direct way. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Last Night of the Proms and sporting events tend to be the only shows of patriotism, and many of us look on these shows with amusement rather than any feelings of patriotism. The "nationalistic" cause I would support most fervently would be Home rule for Yorkshire! (Why don't we have an article?) Dbfirs 09:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Freedom for Tooting! Abergabe (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sculpture identification

Near the UN Headquarters in New York, there is a sculpture with several stone columns. One of the columns has a gleaming blue ball on top of it. I read the plaque on it but now can't recall who it's dedicated to. Can anyone help? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 22:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you know exactly where it is perhaps you could find it on Google Street View to help with identification. --Sean 15:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that too, but funnily enough I tried looking at UN HQ once on Street View and it didn't come up, perhaps for security reasons which is a bit odd as thousands of people walk past it every day. I haven't tried it lately though. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's in a park, it might be on this page[6]. I've never been to NY so it needs a more expert eye. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not in a park. It's in the middle of 1st Ave. just north of the intersection of 1st and 46th. If you look on Google Maps, you'll see the shadows of the pillars. Maybe I'll just upload my picture of it. That might help with identification. Then I can get that image deleted and upload it again with a better file name... Dismas|^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a picture of it: http://i.imgur.com/T7YDZ.jpg --Sean 18:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we are: Raoul Wallenberg, article about sculpture. Found answer on Google Earth. --Sean 18:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

August 12

Faith

According to Wikipedia's own article faith is:

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. The word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general.

For a period of several years I called myself an Atheist, saying words like logic and reason a lot. Because of my liberal political leanings I was disgusted with the state of The Earth and how Man has been destroying it. It came to pass that I noticed the growth in intensity and frequency of Natural Disasters was in line with Bible Prophecy. On top of that disbelief in God in general would be a sign of The Last Days.

Before I picked up a Bible, though, I thought about what I thought. I pondered, 'why do I accept so easily what a man who went to school for a long time says?'

So, in a round-about way, I have arrived at the question... How much faith (keeping in mind the definition from this project) does it take to trust science? Is science becoming a religion? And, for bonus points, what is truth? schyler (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cop out alert: Take a look at Truth which, the article tells us, "can have a variety of meanings". My bonus points, please? Buddy431 (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but there are criteria to receive bonus points (answer the other questions). schyler (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are asking specifically about trusting your science professors, well, they know more than you, that's why they're the professors. If it is also your goal to be a professional scientist, then you too will someday know a lot more and can teach others who don't know as much yet. You may also discover new things and challenge the older research of the people who taught you. That's the fun part about science. It's not that something is true because your teachers say so, and you don't have to trust them, you can go do your own research and see if they're right. But at certain levels of education it's just easier to teach things as if they are absolutely true; the class isn't directed specifically at you and not every student may go on to become a professional scientist, but those who do will eventually understand their subject in greater detail and with greater subtlety. And if you're just a student taking a class for fun or to fulfill credit requirements, then yes, you do sort of have to take your professors at their word, assuming you want to get good grades. Hopefully that makes sense. Basically, you easily accept things that are taught to you because, well, what do you know? You don't know anything. But before you go pick up your Bible again, shouldn't you also ask why you would so easily accept anything it says. With science, you may not know anything, but you could if you spent enough time learning. Is that true for the Bible? Is it true that natural disasters are increasing? If so, what does that mean? Is this the only time in history that has happened? Why would the Bible prophecy refer specifically to disasters happening now and not at some other time, past or future? Is disbelief in God really any greater now than at any other time? How do you know that prophecy refers to this period of time? And so forth...if you didn't believe your physics professors' descriptions of the shape of an atom, for example, you could go do your own experiments to see if they are right. If you think these are the Last Days, how could you possibly test that, aside from waiting for your whole life? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as you haven't done any of the research yourself, you must trust the scientist to have done their jobs reasonably well. That requires a certain amount of faith. To me, the difference between religion and science is that, with enough effort, you can perform the experiments in science to see for yourself (which is what the scientific method is.) With religion, you can't do the same thing, and faith is required. I support religion, too, but the type and degree of faith required is different. Aaronite (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And, I will add, I have come to the opposite conclusion as you: I think life is better now than it has ever been for most of the world. Life expectancy is longer, indicating better health overall. That's just one example I can think of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronite (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Schyler, as we have already explored, faith cannot be fully reasoned to, (in question: how did Jesus convince....). Faith must indeed stand up to scrutiny but cannot be fully reasoned to. The prophets of the Bible, warn about putting ones trust in man. That should be in God alone, as He will not disappoint. Theology is the study that explores faith and studies its logic in so far as this allows. We are urged by God to study the "sign of the times". However, we do know that having a clear conscience is a good starting point to explore personal faith. Being a person of "good will" would be an important starting point. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In science, assuming you are not a scientist yourself, you put your trust in the community of practitioners. (And even if you are a scientist, you usually can only "confirm" things within a pretty narrow field of study.) You put your trust in a system — "this must be true, because if it wasn't true, there would be lots of people happy to say so." Now, it is a system of human beings. It is naturally going to make mistakes and suffer from all of the logical fallacies that humans suffer from — groupthink, Matthew effect, popularity contests, etc. But it is a system which has three nice things going for it: 1. it is dynamic and does change over time (even if it is sometimes slow); 2. there are practical fruits of its being reasonably correct (if quantum mechanics were not a pretty good description of how the world works, your USB drives would not work); and lastly, and perhaps most importantly, 3. it is a system that recognizes explicitly the only likelihood of its being wrong.

It's pretty hard for me to find a religious system that does any of those three things, and they seem pretty important, a priori to any system of knowledge creation that does not involve simply believing that truth was written down perfectly some many thousands of years ago and hasn't changed since then. With science, the "faith" you are putting is in something that has little faith in itself in the long term. With religion, the "faith" you are putting in is with something that is utterly confident of its need to be correct.

Now this is an exaggeration of both science and religion, to be sure. You will have your dogmatists and your skeptics in both. (Those who do not believe there are skeptics in religion should hang out with more Unitarians!) But it is, I think, a good framework for thinking about what knowledge systems make sense to put one's faith in, and what you get out of each. Scientists certainly overstep the boundaries of what they really know all of the time — they love to extrapolate, and some certainly do get a lot out of being a "new priesthood." One must retain one's skepticism with them, to be sure. I find most evolutionary psychology to be pretty unlikely, for example — 1950s cultural values dressed up in Darwinian language. But that doesn't mean I don't find natural selection as a whole to be a far more compelling model than instances of special creation.

I certainly don't think it is very logical to put your faith in matching up events to the descriptions of the End Times, which has been a losing game for two thousand years, and is a clear example of a pattern recognition error. Everybody always thinks that their current time matches up with the End Times. It's the oldest trick in the book, religion-wise — vague prophecies that fit just about anything in a world where there are lots of natural disasters. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr 98, While point #3 is unique to science, point 1 also occurs in religion. Are you telling me that Christianity has not changed in 2000 years? I suggest you compare a Southern Baptist with a Catholic and a Greek Orthodox and then tell me that that religion is not dynamic. Googlemeister (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Point 3 isn't unique to science, and Mr 98 never said any of the points were. He said he was exaggerating both science and religion. I mean, we can play the game with any of the points: one of the complaints that Evangelicals often have of Catholicism, for example, is that it doesn't offer enough certainty. I don't know what they think of Anglicans! And ask a Catholic who was practicing both before and after Vatican II whether their religion changes. You could even fudge about with the phrase 'practical fruits of being reasonably correct' to discuss societal and personal affects of living by certain rules. But that doesn't invalidate what Mr 98 is saying, which is a general point about the general characters of science and religion. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I do thank you Wikipedians for your participation. schyler (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

no one gets to click this because no one got bonus points schyler (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Scientism may be of interest. It has a section "Relevance to the science and religion debate", but I want to voice some caution about that. The article opens by mentioning Popper and Hayek, who were both interested in the misapplication of natural science to the social sciences, that is to say, they were interested in opposing Hegel: they were interested in a diverse society where knowledge can grow, as opposed to tyrannies, mightiness, historical inevitability, etc., which something that looks like science (and incorrectly views people like machines) can be used to advocate for. So far so good; and now we have Dawkins and Dennett, who want (rightly if you ask me) to break "the conviction that religion is off-limits to scientific inquiry". My point is that this is not at all the same thing as the Hegelism debate; it's not the same thing as social sciences versus natural sciences. Quite a lot of The God Delusion addresses the question of whether science can be applied to religion. For instance there is a section of chapter 2 titled "NOMA", which is an acronym coined by Stephen Jay Gould for "non-overlapping magesteria", meaning that science can't question religion. Dawkins says: "This sounds terrific - right up until you give it a moment's thought. What are these ultimate questions in whose presence religion is an honoured guest and science must respectfully slink away?" ... in the case of Popper's objection to, say, historicism, he's not opposed to rationality, but rather to thinking of things which are not machines (that is, people) as if they were machines. I think this criticism of the ideology of science is meaningful, but the concept of "NOMA" is vacuous. Sorry for being longwinded. 213.122.51.251 (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed The Selfish Gene but found The God Delusion irritating and couldn't even make it to the awesomely named chapter, "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I would dispute the basic premise, namely that there are any more natural disasters than there ever were in the past. The earth is "alive", in a sense, and always has been. We're just better at keeping records now. I expect when Mount Mazama blew its top thousands of years ago, the Native not-yet-Americans might have thought the world was coming to an end. And what about the similar incident at Santorini that probably gave rise to the Atlantis legend? Or the volcanoes of Italy smothering Roman cities? Those were significant events, hence they stayed in historical memory. Less significant events would have been considered "not notable". Religionists often fall into the "recentism" trap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC) This relates to the evolution debate also. Strict-constructionist religionists will argue that evolution as science thinks of it could not possibly have happened "by accident". Certainly it couldn't have in just six thousand years. But it could certainly happen in millions of years, which is a quantity we really cannot comprehend. But if there's anything God has plenty of, it's time. We might be in a rush, but He's not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And as regards "truth", there are two kinds: what you think it is, and what it really is. Say there was an auto accident. Two witnesses might see it differently, so there are two different "truths" right there. But there was only one reality. That's where security cameras come in. But even security cameras could be misleading. So the tricky part about "truth" is that there is in reality only one "truth", but that doesn't mean we know, or even can know, what that truth actually is. Science and religion both seek "the truth". It's fair to say that their methods for doing so are quite different. But they do have one thing in common: Once they think they've got it figured out, they stick with it, often despite any new and contradictory evidence. That's where science and religion become hard to distinguish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

science - excuse me, science done well - limits itself to things that can be systematically observed. There's always an element of faith in it, as in all human thought - induction is essentially faith that observed regularities will continue to be regularities - but the entire raison d'etre of scientific investigation is to insist that belief-claims about the universe are substantiated by replicable empirical evidence. the two mistakes that people always make with science are (1) to assume that science has some authority beyond its ability to back up a claim with empirical evidence (it doesn't), and (2) to assume that science is just mere beliefs, when in fact science produces beliefs that can be practically demonstrated (and that last phrase makes all the difference: one would be a fool to believe that unicorns exist unless someone trotted one out on a leash, in which case one who be a fool to believe they don't exist). --Ludwigs2 18:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

To go back to the original question: about truth. Where do you find it? I refer you to the words of Jesus to Pilate: "...to bear witness to the truth and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice." Pilate: "Truth what is that?" (John Ch 18 vrs: 33-40). I therefore give you the words of Jesus, the truth. Read them with an open mind and heart. (P.S. I don't look for Brownie points). MacOfJesus (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Err... that was the bonus question. but as someone once said: truth is beauty that speaks to the mind rather than the soul. and I don't think you'd find a physicist or a mathematician who'd disagree. --Ludwigs2 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's someone's personal, poetic opinion of what "truth" is. I insist that "truth" equates to "reality", and that at least part of our lives is a quest to try and figure out what that reality is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

except 'reality' is just a synonym for 'perceptual truth', and so that definition is entirely circular. really, poetry may be the only functional approach to ontology. --Ludwigs2 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking factual reality. As with the car accident, two people might see it in different ways, but it only has one reality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

and which reality is that? the one described by an interaction of particles at the quantum level? no, wait, that probabilistic... I understand the urge to cast the world as having 'one reality', and I don't even disagree with it, but it is about as tangible as a reference to god. we have no access to that. --Ludwigs2 22:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Except that the observers will never agree about what actually, factually happened, and there is no Final Arbiter. Facts are things about which there is general agreement. That general agreement does not necessarily mean those things are actually true; we can never know what is actually true in the world external to ourselves, all we have is our perceptions. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

[7]... I'd like to hear some more from y'all about science requiring faith. schyler (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I just give you the words of Jesus. "I am the way, the truth and the life..." All these other things will fall into place then. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

When you speak of truth as physical reality and mention a car accident/tragedy; consider, The Father asked His Son to take up the cross and die the death he did at age 33 for us! MacOfJesus (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark 6:11

What is the point of this question, anyway? If Schyler just wants to hear about science requiring faith, he is obviously not looking to be enlightened about anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he/she, Schyler, is trying to enlighten us? However, I do not see the relevance of Mk 6:11 about the mission of the twevle? I didn't place it in. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought you'd know that bit. Jesus himself said that if you are preaching to people, and they don't listen or buy it, you're supposed to shake the dust off your feet and leave. You're not supposed to stick around, repeating yourself and trying to convince people who really aren't going to be convinced. Otherwise you're just making people think of christianity as annoying and repetitive. (That last sentence is my interpretation, not something Jesus actually said. Although it does make me think of the parable about the man who annoyed his neighbour into giving him bread.) 82.24.248.137 (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jack of Oz, you preceive truth as a reality of preseption of things/events outside yourself, this makes you leaning towards phenomenology. I lean towards existentialism, that states the only thing you know is that you are because you think! Truth is more thought than things. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is the reference desk, can we please stick to reference-providing? This is not a place for discussing your particular beliefs. --Lgriot (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You are taking what I've said out of context. This point I've made is relevant, as the OP asked about truth. Jack of Oz sees truth as definite things and reality that is preceivable. And so we will never be able to agree on truth if we define it differently. This is relevant to the question posed. All of what I've said is relevant to the questions asked. I have given references where relevant. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bible quotes aren't exactly references. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To understand, what, where, truth resides anything that is a definitive reference is a true citation as is with phenomenology and existentialism, whoes article pages I assume you have studied by now. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Western attempts to "destabilise" USSR

Is there in evidence of any Western (US/UK or Nazi Germany) attempts to "destabilise" USSR during the reign of Stalin? Is there any article (here) that covers this topic? 180.149.48.245 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You could start at Truman Doctrine. schyler (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a two way street. Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was, but that isn't what he's asking about. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. You have anything to add? Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I do. it's questionable if the Berlin war was a USSR attempt to destablise the west. In fact haven't we just established that the west was happy about the wall because it meant the USSR wasn't going to take Berlin and/or wouldn't use the loss of their citizens as a reason for war. It's also questionable how much the cuban missile crisis was an attempt to destablise the west. Arguably it was far more about the USSR wanting to protect themselves and what they regarded as their terroritory and equalise a fairly unlevel playing field created partially by the US installing nukes in their allies territories which were a similar distance to the USSR as the Cuban ones were to the US (but seemingly thinking it was okay for them, but not the USSR). The fact the US went nuts and nearly cause a war wasn't really the USSRs intention and was somewhat reflective of the fact leaders on both sides were a bunch of idiots but thankfully the ones in the USSR weren't stupid enough to accept the US's plans to go to war. Nil Einne (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am interested whether there is any evidence to Western attempts during Stalin's reign; in particular anything before the Great Purge.180.149.48.245 (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

...and it started much earlier - the Soviet Union was in part the outcome of Germany destabilising Tsarist Russia by smuggling Lenin in. After the Soviet take-over, the Entente intervened in the Russian civil war. Stalin was a paranoid asshole, but the Russians had good reasons for being paranoid. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in evidences; declassified documents, etc. 180.149.48.245 (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you know, during WWII the US and the USSR were Allies. The closest one finds there to "destabilization" from the US is in trying to edge out Stalin's postwar plans and to get US-UK superiority (e.g. by "keeping" the bomb from Stalin). During the interwar years I'm not sure the US had too much to do in trying to destabilize the USSR. From 1917 until 1933 the US basically had a total diplomatic blackout of the USSR. An odd exception to this was the US giving the USSR significant aid in 1921 as a result of a famine in the Volga region. At that point Roosevelt went out of his way to try and help the USSR pay back its war debts and normalize relations. And of course by that point you are starting to edge into WWII territory. (Source: Benjamin Rhodes, United States foreign policy in the interwar period, 1918-1941). As for the postwar and Cold War, there are all of the classic foreign policy gambits of the 1940s and early 1950s, though I don't think anyone in the US really thought these would do anything more than "contain" the Soviets at best. (But there are perhaps things I am not recalling.) I don't know about German attempts other than the obvious ones. We do have an article on Soviet–German relations before 1941. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe started when Stalin was still around and broadcast propaganda into the USSR, presumably to destabilize it, or at least rattle its chain. --Sean 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

SAT vs ACT

Hi everyone. Firstofall I get that these are two totally unrelated tests (except for their very general content coverage) and any attempt to convert between them would only be a very rough estimate. I have recently taken the ACT. Assuming minimal guesswork/luck was involved, what is a rough estimate of what score the skills represented by composite score of 32-33 on the ACT (with a full score in writing) would equate to on the SAT? Thanks. 68.76.157.132 (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Steph

Each of these tests should give a percentile "at or below" as well so you can compare those. We have a chart in our article: ACT (test)#Score cumulative percentages and comparison with SAT. Rmhermen (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you Google "act to sat conversion", you'll get a number of results. The first is for the official ACT website, which lists a range of 1400-1480 (Sum of SAT Critical Reading and Mathematics Scores) for the score range of 32-33. A 36 in English/Writing, not surprisingly, corresponds to 800 for SAT Writing. If you need an SAT equivalent for a particular purpose (e.g. applying to scholarships), most who allow for conversions specify what conversion table to use. If they don't, you probably want to contact those in charge and ask. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

school

Do president's children go to public school or private school?75.73.152.238 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the President of the United States:

• In the immediate case, the children attend a private school.
• In the general case, there is no requirement that they attend private school. Amy Carter, for instance, attended D.C. public schools. — Lomn 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes private schools could be more secure, I suppose. Chevymontecarlo - alt 06:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

inception

would inception possible in the next 50 years? Has there any technology that allow we create the dream to people's head?75.73.152.238 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Inception of what, exactly? Edison (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Inception, presumably. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't say what will be possible in 50 years. Present-day technology, while capable of crudely altering dreams, does not approach the movie in any meaningful way. — Lomn 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean base on our technology right now. Could it be possible in the next 50 years?75.73.152.238 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See the answer above. — Lomn 20:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK how about this question. Could we create the dream in people's head now?75.73.152.238 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's only been fairly crude wiring to the brain's vision center, so a ways to go before your 3D HDTV glasses are replaced by a brain implant. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer to the OP's question is that we might be able to, but then again we might not. If the technology existed now, we would already be doing it! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not a lot of reason to suspect, based on current technology, that we'll be able to do this, I don't think. But making guesses about future technology is a rube's game — you can't win. If you are successful, it is dismissed as obvious. If you are wrong, you are laughed at for your efforts. Our understanding of the brain (or dreams) is nowhere near being able to insert ourselves into people's dreams. But understanding can change pretty rapidly, so who knows, in 50 years. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of a "rube's game" before, and we have no article on it. Is unwinnability the essence of the phrase, or does it mean something more than that? Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A rube is a fool, and connotes somebody who's easily taken advantage of. So a "rube's game" would be unwinnable and foolish to play (I've never heard the phrase either). Staecker (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Rubes" and "marks" are carny terms for suckers, more or less. I'm probably mixing up my terms as usual, though. The term seems to have been pretty rarely used which probably means that I (and others) are mixing up our idioms somewhere. More common is a "fool's game," though I do like the carny overtones. But yes, the point is that it is unwinnable, rigged. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To this one need only add that 50 years is a lot more than 20.--Rallette (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

difference between medieval SURCOAT AND TABARD?

File:Surcoat and mantle.jpg

Am i right if i say this is a Surcoat outside his armor and a mantle hanging over his shoulders?

File:Tabard1.jpg

And this is a tabard?

Despite reading wikipedia pages about it and checking in wordbooks, I am still unsure sometimes what can be called a tabard and what can be called a surcoat, as these garments seem to vary a little. Am I right if i say a surcoat is what we usually saw a knight templar wear, the white one with the red cross, like seen on the picture of the templar? I've tried to upload a few pictures to make it easier. I'd appreciate if someone could help me understand what is what.

thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This says the difference is that the tabard has sleeves. The book Medieval Heraldry seems to agree, forsooth. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

August 13

St. John of the Cross

What's the origin of "of the Cross"? Our article says nothing about it, and the Catholic Encyclopedia article in the external links says that he adopted that name himself, but it doesn't explain anything about his motives or his source for the name. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It would have ben a scandal at the time to propose Jesus died on a torture stake and not a cross, or that the symbol had been adopted from False Religion, and it still is today. The Catholic Encyclopedia you mention says he prayed constantly "to suffer and to be despised." He wanted, probably, to mark himself with the suffering Jesus experienced at his execution. schyler (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that this surname is simply his devotion, similar to that of St. Theresa of the Infant Jesus, so named because she was devoted specifically to the Child Jesus? I don't see how your first sentence is relevant here, however. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a Jehovah's Witness thing. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Religions without written texts

1) Are there any current major religions without written texts? Do they all have a corpus of writing such as for example the christian bible? 2) Did all religions which have now died out - for example Norse mythology or the Greek or Roman gods - not have a corpus of texts? 92.24.190.46 (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You could argue to an extent that Shinto has no written texts. Of course, the Kojiki and the Nihongi are said to be Shinto's sacred texts, but really, they mainly cover how the Japanese Imperial family is connected to the gods, while there is a myriad of smaller gods of local importance that get little to no coverage in either. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think Norse mythology and the Greek and Roman gods did not have any written texts? How do you think we know about them now? Or did you mean a corpus of texts which are regarded as sacred in themselves? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)