Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< January 26 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 28 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


January 27[edit]

The New Bohemia[edit]

Author John Gruen published an article titled "The New Bohemia" in the Nov. 29, 1964 issue of New York Herald Tribune. The way I understand it, the author reworked the article into a book by the same name published in 1966 and changed the material, so it is essential that we find the original article to resolve a dispute about etymology in the Hippie article. The reason I came to this conclusion is because one expert on the subject (Michael Doyle) uses the original article to make an assertion while another expert (Timothy Miller) uses the book to contradict the assertion. Doyle's assertion is that the article uses the term "hippie", although Doyle may be speaking in figurative terms. Miller notes that the book doesn't. I just searched the book on Gbooks and it appears to support the latter,[1] but also shows the use of the word "hip". So the question is this: is the word "hippie" used in either the article or the book? Unfortunately, I do not know where to find the original article as I'm fairly isolated in Hawaii. Help of any kind is appreciated. If I was on the mainland, I'm assuming there would be reprints, microfilm or microfiche sitting in a dusty corner of a library somewhere. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the earliest appearance in the popular press of the word “hippie” occurred in late 1964 in a New York magazine article which described and extolled “The New Bohemia” of Manhattan's Lower East Side. John Gruen, art critic for the Herald Tribune... Farber, D. R., & Bailey, B. L. (2001). The Columbia guide to America in the 1960s. p. 143. OCLC 45439839

a few quotes from the article, but none contain the word in question.—eric 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. Just to be clear, that's not the article I requested. That's an article by Michael Doyle that makes the claim. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Gruen uses the word "hippie" at all, so Doyle must be referring to Gruen's use of the word "hip". This is the reason I need someone to check the original article by Gruen. Doyle is the only author who makes this claim, and Timothy Miller, an expert on the hippie subculture, states the opposite. My guess is that Doyle was speaking of Gruen's use of the word "hip" but referred to it as "hippie" because Gruen was referring to people who were very similar. The context of Doyle's article lends credence to this idea. However, this is still unresolved. Does the original 1964 article use the word "hippie"? —Viriditas | Talk 08:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I know this doesn't directly respond to the question, but I'd always heard that the term Hippie was coined by San Fransisco area Beatniks as a derogatory term to refer to the youngsters who were trying to emulate the older Beatniks, but were considered to be too green and unexperienced to really pull it off. Instead of being called "hip", they were given the dimunitive term "hippie" as a put-down label. -- Saukkomies 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for Christianity as the One True Religion?[edit]

‘’’Please reply to this edit only if you are not a Christian. Please reply to this edit especially if you believe in a religion other than Christianity.’’’

I’ve heard Christians claim that there are “proofs” and “evidences” for Christainity to be the “one true religion”. Those proofs and evidences include evidences against evolution, evidences that God exists, evidences that what the Bible says is true, and evidences that Jesus Christ is God and the son of God. See the articles Proofs Of Christ And the Bible, Fulfilled Prophecy As Proof Of The Bible, Science as Proof Of The Bible, Proofs Of The Existence Of God, Reasons For the Bible, Heaven, Deity, Resurrection, Creation, Baptism, Evolution: Evidence For Creation In 6 Days, and Ten Proofs That Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Are those evidences for Christianity to be the one true religion really evidences for it to be the one true religion? Do they really mean, tell, show, and prove that Christainity is the one true religion? If not, then why? What do you think about all those evidences for Christianity to be the one true religion? Do you think they are really evidences for Christianity to be the one true religion? Do you think they really mean, tell, show, and prove that Christainity is the one true religion? If not, then why?

If you believe in a religion other than Christianity, then what do you, a believer of that other religion, as a believer of that other religion, think about all those evidences for Christianity to be the one true religion? Do you think they are really evidences for Christianity to be the one true religion? Do you think they really mean, tell, show, and prove that Christainity is the one true religion? If not, then why?

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Maybe there is something wrong with my Internet connection, but I found every one of the external links you provided to be nonfunctional. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This reads like a set-up for a debate, or a need to get users to go to the linked documents (operational links or not). Asking users to defend or explain their belief systems, or to challenge the beliefs of others, is not, I think, what the Ref Desk is about. Bielle (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The links are to a sales site for a book by Keith Piper which claims to have "The Answers". Perhaps the questioner has some connection to the author or the site. This Keith Piper is unlikely to be either Keith Piper or Keith Piper (artist).Bielle (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Erm, if you're asking for responses from people who believe in religions other than Christianity, they obviously don't believe there's evidence that Christianity is the one true religion...or else they'd be Christians. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as the website is run by a man in Cherrybrook, Sydney, New South Wales and the IP address came out of a service provider a short distance away in North Ryde, NSW, I feel it is safe to say that this is just a feeble attempt to get Google to rank the OP's website higher by having a bunch of links on Wikipedia. -- kainaw 04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If that's the goal, it won't work, since Wikipedia uses rel=nofollow in its links now. Google ignores external links on Wikipedia and has for a while now. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Keith Piper is the pastor and head of Liberty Baptist Church, an independent Baptist church in North Rocks, Sydney, New South Wales, the church I go to.

I'm asking if you, and believers of other religions, are convinced that those evidences really mean that Christainity is true. I'm asking if you agree that they really mean that Christianity is true. If not, then why?

Do other religions also have, or claim to have, proofs or evidences that their religion is the one true religion? Don't tell me if the evidences for those religions are right or wrong, true or false. If there are, then are there any websites about them?

Are there any articles or sections of articles in Wikipedia about any evidences there are claimed to be for Christianity or any other religion? If so, then what are they?

Bowei Huang (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, most religions have reasons that they think their religion is the "one true religion." It'd be easier to enumerate those which don't take such a view. Is it convincing to me, as a non-religious person? Not at all. Cherry-picking facts and single-mindedly searching out anything that supports your argument, while systematically ignoring everything that might contradict it, is pretty obvious in such literature. It is not a disinterested study of the question, it is overly propagandistic. It is easy to disregard. It sections on Evolution and Science display a profound ignorance of how a scientifically minded person would view such an argument, to say nothing of ignorance of the science itself.
I mean, read the one on "Science" and the Bible—he seems to think that the line, "Behold the height of the stars, how high they are" in a statement on par with Bessel's measuring of the parallax. That's ridiculous, and shows no discrimination between poetic description and scientific precision. He also bungles the idea of Mitochondrial Eve -- it's obvious he's never read any of the research on it other than what has appeared in Creationist journals (it does not imply there was only one woman). It is Biblical verse wrapped in the language of science, but transparently not science or even scientifically informed. Many of the things he cites as being known in the Bible are just "folk knowledge". They aren't scientific.
He claims the Bible has no scientific inaccuracies, but he means that only in a very limited sense, since he reads all science through the lens of the Bible anyways. He's a Young Earth Creationist who believes the entire universe was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago, for Pete's sake. He cites exclusively Creationist sources. This sort of stuff is going to stand out as a big untrustworthy flag to anyone not already taken in by the nonsense that is Creationism. He doesn't give a real discussion of the Creation of the Earth, he just parrots old Creationist saws with no attention to whether they have been long since disproven.
Even the "10 Proofs that Jesus Christ is the Messiah" suffers from logical problems, even though it is wholly textual in content (that is, it only seeks to prove it within the confines of the Old Testament). For example, reason #4 is that the Old Testament claims the Messiah will come from Betheleham; he concludes that because Christ was from Bethleham, that is proof that Christ was the Messiah. But what of all the other people from Betheleham? Being from Betheleham is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being the Messiah. It is not, by itself, indicative of any individual as being the Messiah, it only demonstrates who can not be the Messiah. And none of this, of course, takes as a serious possibility that the New Testament could have been written deliberately to make Christ look like the Messiah according to the Old Testament—he takes for granted that the Bible is infallible and properly interpreted. That is not a true spirit of inquiry.
So no, it's not convincing in the slightest, sorry. It's unoriginal and unambitious in its goals—the same old Creationist and Christian saws I have been hearing for years. To his credit, it is transparently not an attempt to communicate with non-Christians or non-believers, it is obviously an attempt to buoy the beliefs of those already believing such a thing, and speaks only to them. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, what would Philip Pullman, the author of His Dark Materials, think about all those evidences? Would he be convinced? Has he ever heard about them before? I wonder, what would the angel Xaphania think about them? Bowei Huang (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you said not to, but as a Christian I'm going to reply. If you want to believe, then there is enough evidence. If you don't want to, then all the evidence in the world won't suffice. Say an ancient manuscript, which was conclusively dated to around 30 AD, was found in Capernaum stating "I am Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Christianity is the only true religion." A sceptic would be quite justified in saying that anyone could write something like that, and that all it means is that a Nazarene by the name of Jesus decided he was the Christ and that his religion in the only true one. That is where faith comes into play for a Christian. Does that answer your question? AllenHansen (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Jesus wrote? That's the first time I've heard even Christians argue that. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles Manson and popular culture[edit]

Can anyone give me or point me in the direction of any information regarding the cultural implications of the Manson family murders? There's the suggestion in this article, linked to in the Charles Manson article, as well as in Wikipedia's hippie, that the murders marked the end of the counterculture zeitgeist. I'd like to know more about how Manson affected popular culture; also, does anyone know if the Beatles ever commented on how Manson used their work? Thank you for your time. --Brasswatchman (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As I am the co-author of some of this material, I'm taking this to the users talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 10:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Convention Conventions[edit]

Hypothetical situation: If Edwards drops out of the race post 2/5, what happens to the proportional delegates he's picked up before then? Do they drift one way or another to Obama or HRC? AlmostCrimes (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • There may be variations based on state laws and party rules, but my understanding is that if Edwards drops out and releases his delegates from their commitments, those delegates will go to the Democratic convention and be free to vote for whoever they choose, and if the nominee is a foregone conclusion by then, they will probably vote for that person. They don't have to commit to either Obama or Clinton now, and even if Edwards asked all his delegates to vote for one of those candidates, they wouldn't have to follow his instructions. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a source to prove this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You get a contested convention. The rules have changed since the last ones, which were in the days of the smoke-filled rooms in which Truman and Adlai Stevenson were selected. Here's an article by two public affairs profs putting it in perspective. Relata refero (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

how does this relate to the menorah?[edit]

I was reading Exodus, and got to the bit where Moses was told how to make (what became known as) a menorah. I was lost trying to work out how on earth some of that stuff relates to the typical design. From the wiki article, here is the passage in the bible (KJV I think), with the cryptic stuff in italics:

Exodus 25:31-40 lists the instructions for the construction of the menorah used in the temple:
31 And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made, even its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knops, and its flowers, shall be of one piece with it. 32 And there shall be six branches going out of the sides thereof: three branches of the candlestick out of the one side thereof, and three branches of the candle-stick out of the other side thereof; 33 three cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower; and three cups made like almond-blossoms in the other branch, a knop and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 34 And in the candlestick four cups made like almond-blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof. 35 And a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 36 Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it; the whole of it one beaten work of pure gold. 37 And thou shalt make the lamps thereof, seven; and they shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it. 38 And the tongs thereof, and the snuffdishes thereof, shall be of pure gold. 39 Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels. 40 And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount.

Other translations are no more illuminating. Can someone tell me where those "four cups" (v34) and those extra knops (v35) can be found on any existing menorah? Thanks in advance (since I prob won't return in time to thank you afterwards) 130.95.106.128 (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No one today knows exactly what the Temple menorah looked like. (The one on the Arch of Titus was almost undoubtedly not the original from Moses' time.) Any menorah today is symbolic and not intended to be an exact replica. Thus, it can look like just about anything as long as it's got seven branches. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Great response, Mwalcoff. I wanted to provide a little more info. There is a very wonderful searchable online site called the "Blue Letter Bible" that provides a lot of information about the entire Bible, including the original Hebrew or Greek, translations, commentaries on the translations, and concordances. According to the Blue Letter Bible, the word "knop" is the Middle English translation of the Biblical Hebrew word "kaphtor". Here is the entry for kaphtor in that site. What they say about it seems to me to sound like it might be almost like professional jargon for goldsmiths to provide them detailed instructions about how to construct a Menorah. The knop seems to be a way for a goldsmith to attach different parts of the Menorah together - a particular type of joint to attach two pieces of hammered gold tubes together. At least that's my take on it. The same goes with the word "cup" - which in some translations is "bowl". The original Hebrew word is gĕbiya` and its translation commentary can be found here. This also sounds like it's some kind of professional jargon for ancient goldsmiths who would have known precisely what those words meant in terms of their craft, even if those precise meanings have been lost over time. Hope that provides some more "illumination", as you put it. -- Saukkomies 12:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
A common interpretation seems to be that the cups and nobs were the flower-like decorations (or, perhaps, joints) on the menora. If you look closely at the arch, you can sort of see that. AllenHansen (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those interesting answers. From reading Saukkomies' links, I can see why he might suggest it is professional jargon, though any specific interpretation like "joints" sounds like a personal (though educated) guess. 134.115.68.21 (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Man of Tahitian culture[edit]

In light of the most recent current event surrounding the Brando family, I checked out Dag Drollet on the Find A Grave website. I saw his picture, and he had such a handsome smile. He also seemed athletic. Recently, I wondered if he was a good swimmer.72.229.136.18 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't imagine a Tahitian being a poor swimmer. If you like to swoon, his son Tuki Brando is the face of Versace [4]. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw Tuki's pictures. It seems he has more of his maternal grandfather's traits, than of his father's. Are there any more pictures of Dag Drollet out there, other than on Find A Grave?72.229.136.18 (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The press are creating his legend along those lines. His mother's looks come into it, and there's been a tiny dispute about whether she was the older Brando's daughter or not. When you say "out there" I guess you mean google only gets you that one, that's probably it then unless you dig into a (hard copy) biography. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Military rules, discipline[edit]

I am searching for some basic military discipline rules. Like: how to make a bed, fold clothes, clean shoes, etc. Any links at hand?217.168.4.225 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The US Army published a massive amount of information on these subjects. The results are available from the United States Government Printing Office (GPO). The information is in the public domain. Much of the information was published in U.S. Army Field Manuals with names like FM-2201. -Arch dude (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming[edit]

Individually, there is a lot people can do to stop global warming, but does anyone know of effective solutions that can be be used at the national and international levels? Are there things countries can do as a whole to stop global warming?

-Carlos

Yes. Thousands of things. At a national level they could have a Green Tax, or introduce environmental legislation. They could introduce national limits on personal carbon use, or carbon-trading schemes. They could promote greener living through initiatives, education. They can help move funding into potentially greener solutions to existing processes such as power-production, transport etc. At an international level they could introduce international standards, developed nations could help the developing nations go straight to greener-technology rather than working their way through the same technological advancements we have. The possibilities are really pretty much endless but the debate is in its infancy at public-level - there is a fixation on 'the science' at the moment, and too many radicals are trying to use the debate as an ends to try remove modern capitalism/globalization and reject any ideas that don't involve sacrifice of that system. In reality the solution is most likely going to involve keeping the lifestyles we have now, but adapting them where it is possible to make the biggest impact at the smallest 'cost' (financially and socially). ny156uk (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
For hype-free info about global warming, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is quite good. They have at least one recent essay about government approaches to global warming; you'll find more in the archives. Gwinva (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing you can do at an individual level. You can get the false impression that you are saving energy, but in a national economy there is no way of saving energy - you can just choose to consume or invest energy. You can be better off if you drive an small car, but there is no difference for the environment between driving 100km on 6 liter or 200km on 3 liter. That explains also why in some many years of improved efficiency since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the consume of energy is actually exploding. AT a national or international level, the only thing you can do is to limit production. Regulation of consume or investment will produce no effect.217.168.4.225 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Governments can encourage building of nuclear power plants. Nuclear power (including the entire fuel cycle) introduces almost no greenhouse gasses. Any country that uses fossil fuel to generate electricity can create a major reductin in global warming using this strategy. Encouragement is mostly in the form of removing the current regulatory barrires and replacing them with rational provisions based on science. Governments can also use tax policy to raise the cost of activities that produce greenhouse gasses. This will raise the cost of driving a gasoline-powered car, which in turn will drive the development of electric-powered vehicles. At the extreme, all electricity is nuclear, and all vehicles are electric, at which point global warming goes away. -Arch dude (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuclear energy only solves the Co2 problem. Co2 is not the only greenhouse gas that we produce and energy can still be used to destroy all resources.217.168.4.225 (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Global warming and global cooling are to some extent natural and unavoidable. We could no more stop either of them than King Canute could order the tide to go back. The present debate should be (but generally isn't) about the costs and benefits in economic and human terms of the dramatic policies being sold to the world very effectively by the 'green' lobby. By and large, it's a great deal easier (though still difficult) for the developed world to face up to the consequences of them than it is for the developing world. I suspect we are all being sold a huge pig in a poke, but only time will tell whether the climatologists (a notoriously unreliable set of forecasters) are on the right track at long last. To me, it seems unlikely, but I offer no predictions myself. Xn4 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

world bank[edit]

what is the real sevices or role of world bank?any link with national reserv banks???can u wikipedians any reference?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.0.83 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at World bank and also here (http://digitalmedia.worldbank.org/tenthings/en/intro.php) this gives a flavour of the type of role the bank plays. Also here (http://www.seerecon.org/gen/wbrole.htm) ny156uk (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Animals of Kenya[edit]

how can i find info. on kenya's animals without all the adds and spam , and pop-ups ? jamielee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.249.240 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Without at all meaning to be facetious, you could go to a library. Perhaps someone else knows of a guaranteed-ad-and-spam-free site, other than this one, of course, but I don't. Bielle (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If you use Mozilla Firefox, you can install an adblocking add-on. Here's a list you can look at. I haven't tried any myself, but I've heard Adblock Plus is good. bibliomaniac15 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential Election this year[edit]

Is it possible for someone to vote as a Republican in the closed primary on the 5th of February primary election in the state of California and later vote as a Democrat in the general election in November? --71.105.253.97 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's anything like Florida, you can contact your elections office for whatever form they have that allows you to change your party before the cutoff for changes, then change back afterwards. I know that in my area at least that happens quite often, and the locall news media usually announces how many people are changing parties and when the cutoff is, ours has already passed as our primary is this week. SunshineStateOfMind (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One actually votes as a party member in closed primaries, but in general elections, you don't vote as a Democrat or as a Republican, you vote as a citizen. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Voila. I now fully comprehend this. Thanks.--71.105.253.97 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To vote in the Republian presidential primary in Virginia this year, you have to pledge to vote Republican in November: [5] -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that's 100% unenforceable. —Nricardo (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unpopular King?[edit]

Why does George II of England attract much less attention than say Henry VIII or Charles II? Is it because he was a bad king, or is he just unpopular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie Barker (talkcontribs) 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have heard that George I and George II had trouble with the English language. That would obviously make debating with the legislators and other public officials difficult. --71.105.253.97 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
One factor might be that he didn't "lose the American colonies" as his father son did. Nor was he "mad". Failing magnificently is just as newsworthy as succeeding magnificently; doing neither is a recipe for relative indifference. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"[Lo]se the American colonies" as his son did.--71.105.253.97 (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I must be operating on the antipodean laws of nature, where we hang upside down and time goes backwards. Fixed. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean The World Turned Upside Down? Relata refero (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Like this? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear old German Geordie, in many ways the architect of his own unpopularity: rude, opinionated, lacking in any of the social graces, boastful and insufferably pompous! But he was not, by any measure a bad king, and his reign was one of the most successful, perhaps the most successful, in all of British history. You have to remember, Julie, that the early Hanoverian period was a time when constitutional power was shifting away from the monarch towards the prime minister, so George was never destined to be cast in the same central role as either Henry VIII or Charles II. Even so, he showed good judgement in his steady support for Robert Walpole and Henry Pelham, two of the most competent ministers ever to serve the crown. Contrast the reign, moreover, with the upheavals of Henry's and the foreign policy disasters of Charles'. By 1760 Britain stood high in the world, as high as it ever had, replacing France as the premier power. In 1759, the last full year of George's reign, the church bells were said to be worn out with ringing for victory: Robert Clive in India, James Wolfe in Quebec, Edward Hawke at Quiberon Bay. George deserves to be remembered with greater affection.

Oh, and finally, on a point of information, George III was the grandson of George II, not the son. Sorry Jack! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

**sighs in deflated resignation** Oh, dearie dearie me. What is happening to me! I blame it on ever-encroaching Alzheimers. Thanks as always, Clio.
(Thinks: Hmm, that makes 2 fantastically unbelievable excuses I've made on this short thread alone. I'd better lift my game or they'll all start seeing through me. Or maybe I could just shut up when it comes to things I know little about. Different internal voice: You know, Jack, that's so crazy, it might just work ...) -- JackofOz (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

books on how cult members are recruited[edit]

I'm looking for books on how cult members are recruited. Ideally a book that focuses on the early stages of cult development. How the leader start out. And how the initial approaching of possible cult recruits takes place. --Alxcgn7 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Too broad. Cults aren't all identical. Do you have a specific one in mind? AllenHansen (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  I'm not the original user.  My brother became a Maoist.  I would appreciate information.75Janice (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)75Janice