Humanities desk
< May 29	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 31 >

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

May 30[edit]

Not a cheese-eating surrender monkey[edit]

I am in awe of Henri Giraud, who successfully escaped from the Germans in both world wars, the second time as a general. Does anyone know of other POWs who escaped in more than one war? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For those curious about the title: cheese-eating surrender monkeys (WHAAOE, of course). Matt Deres (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to a category search, old Henri is the only person categorized in both "Category:World War II prisoners of war held by Germany" and "Category:World War I prisoners of war held by Germany". That he really was the only person to be incarcerated by Germany during both wars seems unlikely to me, but that seems to be the extent of WP coverage. Matt Deres (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scenic Route, Dalkey to dublin[edit]

Assuming a route with trees, lakes, and castles would be the most scenic route from Dalkey to Dublin's international airport, can a local or one familiar with the terrain give a google maps route from Dalkey to Dublin that passes at least two tourist attractions, and name the attractions? Given the proximity, a non-direct route is quite preferable to one with shanties and scrub. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to work out a route for you, but what are your parameters? Would you have your own transport or are you using public transport? Do you want to drive/ride straight there or are stops for sightseeing acceptable? And how long do you have to spare? The drive takes about 30 minutes, and the direct bus about an hour, but if you have 2 hours or more to spare there's plenty to see on or near the route.

I can probably work out a route with a few sights to see, but if you add some more information I might be able to tune it better for what you need. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add: What time of year (some attractions are season-dependent) and what time of day (the traffic can dramatically lengthen journey times during rush hour)? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's a suggestion with a mix of coastal scenery, urban architecture and 20th Century Irish history: https://goo.gl/maps/yH3hu. Head north out of Dalkey via Sandycove, passing the James Joyce Tower and Museum - a Martello tower where Joyce spent some time, inspiring part of Ulysses. Then take the coast road through Dún Laoghaire, passing the harbour and enjoying views across Dublin Bay towards Howth. Pass Booterstown marsh nature reserve and then head inland along Merrion Road through Ballsbridge to Merrion Square. This is the heart of Georgian Dublin. A detour can be taken here to St Stephen's Green - Dublin's inner city park, and a key location in the Easter Rising, or the National Museum. Next head around Trinity College (the one-way system takes you round the back, but you can do a full lap to see the famous gates, or stop a while for a tour including the Book of Kells) and then onto the quays. You'll pass by Temple Bar before crossing the river and heading north again through Phibsborough (this part is rather gritty-urban-ish, but stick with it) and into Glasnevin. The Glasnevin Cemetery contains the graves of many of Ireland's most famous names, including Éamon de Valera, Brendan Behan and Michael Collins. From here it's straight up the dual carriageway, then onto the M50 motorway to the airport. Total journey time (without stops) is around 45 minutes, but allow double that during the day. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without yet taking a look at Mike's good long answer, the point here is that the questioner (for whom I posted this) is writing a story about a teenage daughter whose mother in this scene is driving her from Dalkey to Dublin to take a plane to meet her father on the Continent. The coastal route is the obvious one to me from Google, but I suspected the more scenic might be an inland route-the difference in time won't matter for such a short trip and construction or an accident can be given as an excuse for a roundabout path. The author wants to have authentic (and not treeless1) scenery to describe, and an estate that will remind her of the one she lived on as a child before her parents separated. So there won't be any stopping or actual sightseeing, but there should be some sobbing from the daughters as the countryside evokes emotions. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if youv e got trinity (ugh), don't forget Belfield..Lihaas (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Process of becoming a church member[edit]

When people become church members, do they typically believe in the doctrines first before they apply for membership, or show proof that they believe in the doctrines before they apply for membership, or show proof of Christian behavior? Are they ever allowed to become members before they ever believe in the doctrines? Maybe they may engage in praying the rosary, because they like the discipline it takes to recite the whole thing. Or maybe they may give alms or attend weekly service. And then the behavior may lead them to believe in God? Which comes first - belief or behavior? Do churches require you to believe before you become a member, or are you allowed to act like a Christian, become a Christian, and then believe in the doctrines? 69.174.58.108 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which denomination? The specifics will, of course, vary, as to what formal membership requires you to do for each specific denomination. Religions generally always expect you to hold their beliefs in earnest before they accept you as one of their own, just in very general terms. Of course, no person is a mind reader, and if you want to be a complete asshole, you can lie to the faces of the people you intend to be worshiping with every day, and just fake that you are genuine. I question your motives for doing so, but ultimately if your goal is to lie to otherwise good-intentioned people into whose community you are seeking acceptance, you do whatever you want. But earnest belief in the core tenets of that religion are generally expected before full acceptance into said community. I'm not sure why you would want to join the community and be accepted by such people, but intend to lie to them. Seems like a strange way to carry on a long-term relationship with people. --Jayron32 18:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just meant by establishing a family religion or raising your future children in a church setting, so that they may grow up to be full-fledged Christians, because they may be partly raised by the church group at birth, while the adults, the said children's parents, are merely converts. 140.254.226.181 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, almost all Christian denominations (at least the educated and/or unbigoted folks in them) don't see a spiritual difference between those "raised" in the religion and those who convert. Christianity isn't an ethnic religion, so being "born" into it really doesn't matter. Technically, all Christians are converts. Even Catholicism, which practices infant baptism and seems to be gunning for raised-in-the-religion numbers, treats infant baptism as a promise to look after the kid until they're old enough to choose on their own to be confirmed. A new convert might have less familiarity with and practice following the doctrines of their given church, but someone they're still more of a member than an apostate who was raised in and completely understands the religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small point of clarification there, Ian. The idea that Confirmation (Sacrament) is about the child deciding for themselves to be a Christian is actually Anglican theology, not Catholic theology. While Catholicism absolutely believes that a child has to decide to take responsibility for their own faith and make their own choices as they grow up, the Sacrament of Confirmation is not an act of deciding that: it's part of the Sacraments of Initiation and can be offered at any age, including infancy. It is a Sacrament, not a pivotal declaration, and adults who were Baptised but never Confirmed are considered just as much Catholics as those who were Confirmed. Catholicism tends to take a more gradualist view, rather than a "this is the moment" view, when it come to conversion and things like that: so, a child who grows up in a practicing Catholic household will have lots of little moments of taking on responsibility for their faith, past the age of reason, from Sacraments, to joining in with creeds and affirmations of faith, to contributing to the life of their parish, to assisting at Mass, to prayer or voluntary work, etc. It is a similar process that adult converts go through, although in my experience adult converts take fewer years to pass through it. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may all be true, but it does bear emphasizing that the Roman Catholic Church, like (nearly) all Christian denominations (and I say nearly as a hedge; as with all of these things, I don't expect to find any disagreement on this point, but neither would I be surprised if some tiny little sect of an insignificant number of people worked differently) requires earnest belief in their core tenets to consider you to be in full communion with them as an individual. Catholics would not recognize a person as a Christian who went through any number of formal sacraments along their life, but openly repudiated a core belief of Catholicism, such as the existence of God or the divinity of Christ. If you don't believe those things, you aren't a valid member of that religion regardless of what ceremonies you have attended. I can think of no religion that would disagree with that, excepting maybe groups like the Unitarian Universalists, which openly reject any core beliefs. --Jayron32 23:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The United Church of Christ does not require you to believe anything in particular. It describes itself as a "covenant church"; membership is based on a covenant rather than a creed. The version I remember is we covenant one with another, and do bind ourselves in the presence of God, to walk together in all his ways, according as he is pleased to reveal himself.

It has probably been gender-neutralized or something by now. Anyway, while it would be strange to take that covenant if you don't believe, at least, that there is a God, you are not required to believe that, or anything else in particular. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they would. That's what the phrase "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" is about. Catholicism teaches that the Sacraments actually do something supernatural, as sources of God's grace: they aren't just symbols, or just a way to think nice thoughts. Catholicism teaches that the Sacraments leave permanent marks in your soul, that if you have been validly Baptised you will never stop being a Christian, because you have been permanently adopted as a child of God. Where this leads to confusion with some Protestant groups is that, despite being a Christian, Catholicism teaches you can still end up in Hell: being a Christian doesn't guarantee you make it to Heaven. I only feel the need to add that, because I know that there are some Protestant groups who use the word "Christian" to essentially mean "a saint who will go to Heaven", and I didn't want to risk confusion. But you're right, they wouldn't be in "full Communion" with the Church if they disagreed with core teachings. But they would still be a member of the Church. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some "I believe in christian god" religions allow you to go to their church and pray. Some guys of the religion may even call you to go there.

Just to be clear, are you asking about become a member of a particular local church community (that group of people who meet in a particular place), or are you asking about attending and joining in with prayers and worship services and such like, or are you asking about joining a broader denomination which might have lots of little church communities around the world?

As Jayron says, it will vary by group, but it would help if you explained what sort of things you mean. For example, most Christian groups are happy for you to attend services, including prayer services, without formally joining them at all, although many will have some restrictions on which things you can join in with during that service. They also generally encourage you to spend time learning about their faith before you join, although at what point they expect you to join will vary from a few hours to years. These expectations and others will also play a part in how comfortable it is to show up as a curious stranger at that church, and whether you get love bombed. There is also a difference between registering as a member of a church, and going through something like Baptism.

Does this help clarify your questions? 86.146.28.105 (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid love bombing, perhaps it would be safer to join a more mainstream church or churches that are more than 500 years old and thus pretty much settled into the wider society. 140.254.226.181 (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Many (most?) denominations and congregations will welcome anyone who shows an interest in Christianity to attend and to become part of the community. If you are genuinely seeking answers, then don't be put off by the fact that you may not fully subscribe to doctrines; you will probably be welcomed warmly. I agree with Jayron that formal membership usually requires some form of assent to doctrines, but there are many, many Christians who have become so by following the path you suggest: "act like a Christian, become a Christian, and then believe in the doctrines", and there is at least one denomination that doesn't really have any doctrines. Dbfirs 19:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, it varies from denomination to denomination. Older denominations are a bit more likely to make you take a couple of classes or something before or as you join, while some newer churches will just go on ahead and sign you up the second you ask even if you completely disagree with every single belief they hold. (Some go a little further: the past two churches I was a member of were both split between the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Southern Baptist Convention. I've sent donations to the CBF and declared myself a member for a while, and there was pretty much no process for me to just lapse back into being an independent Baptist. But when the SBC wants to brag about their numbers, I'm included in the headcount even though I've never given them any of my allegiance, money, or time beyond some rather vehement arguments over women ministers, gay rights, and public school.) Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised no one has mentioned the word "catechism" so far... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which Christian groups would that affect membership of? 86.146.28.105 (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Originally the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church, then the Anglican Communion churches to varying extents. Other denominations have also followed the practice of using a short catechism to a limited extent, but this varies considerably.

Presbyterianism has used the Westminster Catechisms quite extensively. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Was this generally responding to the conversation near the top, about conversion? Catechesis seems more generally useful, since the use of catechisms is so variable even within any one denomination (such as Catholicism). I thought you were responding to the original question. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, responding to the question above the reply. AnonMoos had already linked to the fuller article. Dbfirs 15:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Music notation question[edit]

Why in 12 tones equal tuning, the symbols are c c# d d# e f f# g g# a a# b, instead of c c# c## c### c#### d e f g a b b# OR c c# d d# e e# f f# g g# a b, OR any other thing?

There are 7 tones in the diatonic scale because that's the fewest consecutive notes in the circle of fifths that, when duplicated into all octaves, have gaps of at most 2 semitones between them. Those gaps occur in the repeating pattern WWHWWWH. -- BenRG (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes (black keys on the piano) have alternative names in the symbol set for 12-tone Equal temperament tuning:

C C♯/D♭ D D♯/E♭ E F F♯/G♭ G G♯/A♭ A A♯/B♭ B C

This Letter notation has developed historically to the present form employed in Western music, with an exception in some Germanic notation where H is used instead of B, and B^b instead of A♯/B♭.

There is no apparent good reason to use the alternative symbols that the OP suggests. Their use would

lose the simplicity of notation of the C major scale C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C of white piano keys, which is typically the first taught and sung to in schools
do nothing to change the constant frequency ratio between adjacent notes. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing stuff, I just asking what is the formula or logic that is used to go to 12 tone equal temperament with octave to c c# d d# e f f# g g# a a# b 201.78.192.87 (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does playing chess make you smarter?[edit]

Does playing chess make you smarter? Aprilphoenix (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Define your terms. (Specifically, the terms "Does", "playing", "chess", "make", "you", "smarter", and "?".) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe? The article on chess as mental training isn't comprehensive, but mentions a few studies. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chess was the game played by the Russian aristocracy. Nevertheless, after the revolution of 1917, it became the "way to educate and develop the masses [sic]". (from an on-line article by Cyril Malka: "Chess in USSR - Soviet Rules From 1948 to 1972") 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you don't add the word "than..." at the end of the question, I think the answer is "Yes". Chess involves thinking strategically... and thinking strategically will exercise your brain, which makes you smarter. However, if you add the word "than..." (for example: "Does playing chess make you smarter than not playing chess?") the answer is "No." This is because you might have become smarter by other means. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Majority owner of public company[edit]

Can Deutsche Telecom sell (most of) its stake in T-Mobile USA to Sprint without involving public shareholders? This way, it could get Softbank's cash without sharing the rewards with other shareholders. 24.215.188.243 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a request for legal advice. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless the OP represents Deutsche Telecom; and if he did we're all screwed that such a high-ranking representative of a major corporation stopped by here for advice. No, this is not a request for legal advice, because there is no advice being sought. Not every question about legal issues is a request for advice. I'm pretty hardline when it comes to shutting down questions requesting legal or medical help for personal problems, but there is no conceivable way the OPs question could be construed as a request for legal help, and as such, it should be answered by anyone who has references to point to. I don't, so I'm not going to, but there's nothing wrong with the question, and it is perfectly within this desk's remit to answer it. --Jayron32 23:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question does not appear to be asking advice, but just if it is possible. And I don't know.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall not be involved in advising any shareholders in the mentioned companies of their rights. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check into the laws of different jurisdictions — as a German company holding a US company, it might be bound both by German laws and American laws, or it might not; I don't know. Nyttend (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only people who would be screwed in this scenario are the American shareholders of T-Mobile USA, so I think only U.S. securities laws would apply. 24.215.188.243 (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Private placement. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]