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

April 22

biographical details of Jakob Lorber

hi, all - I'm working on a project about Lorber, and although there's quite a bit about him on the web, a lot of it is of a religious nature, talking about his writing, whereas at the moment I'm looking for stuff to do with his quotidian existence - there's a thing by Eggenstein that purports to be a biography, but gives only Lorber's early years; what I'm hoping for is something about his life when he was writing; it seems as if he did nothing but write for 25 years - where was he living? - how was he living? - did he have enough of a following in life for them to support him financially?

Thanks for any answers.

Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a three-page "digression" about him in this book about Schubert. [1] It describes him living simply in a room in an inn, and conducting seances for friends. OttawaAC (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's a wonderful find - thanks so much, Ottawa! Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The biographical accounts by his acquaintance Karl Gottfried Ritter von Leitner are available online here, but, alas, in German, though transcribed to modern Standard German orthography, which makes it a bit easier for machine translation, yet still hard to parse — I just tested the second (shorter) link). Let me (or people at the language desk) know if you need help. I couldn't find KGRvL's writings in English. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks heaps, Sluzzelin - actually, the project is a book on Lorber - illustrated essays with quotes from Lorber's revelations; because the translations of Lorber's writing are still under copyright, I believe I'll need to employ a translator to English those parts of his writing that I end up using. Would it be okay if I talked with you about this, when the time comes, or should I just put a call out onthe Language Desk, do you think? Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course it would be okay, and should I not respond swiftly, there are a number of editors at the language desk who are fluent in German. In fact, there is one Austrian friend who might be just the right bird for this! ---Sluzzelin talk 09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Sluzzelin; nice to see you again btw - I should say that it likely won't be ready for a translator until something like November - but I will certainly take you up on it, or Cockatoo, if he/she is agreeable. Is there some way I can save this thread to my profile or something so I don't forget all this? Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Permanent link, or, once this question has been archived, you can also use a normal wikilink to the archives: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2014_April_22#biographical_details_of_Jakob_Lorber (watch this link turn blue in two days). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

It is almost 2 months, till a single wreckage is not found. Is there any historical example where the first wreckage was found long after the original accident date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorMakingEdits (talk • contribs) 04:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not quite what you're asking for, but with Air France Flight 447 in 2009, wreckage was found five days after the crash, but the black boxes weren't recovered until 2 years later. Of course, some planes, such as Amelia Earhart's and Frederick Valentich's, have never been found. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the best example is probably the 1947 BSAA Avro Lancastrian Star Dust accident, where an airliner crashed into a mountain in the Andes and intensive searching did not find it. (Of course the technology they had was far behind what is available today.) Some of the wreckage was found in 1998 in a glacier and it was realized that over the intervening 51 years the glacier had moved it to a lower altitude on the mountain.

Also, there have been several examples of military flights that were lost during World War II and the planes were found decades later, but I don't have specifics to cite. Another somewhat well-known civilian example involves a small plane: hockey player Bill Barilko was killed in a crash in 1951 and the wreckage was not found until 1962. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's plane crashed in the Mediterranean Sea in 1944 and the first piece of wreckage was only found in 1998; and people had a pretty clear idea of where his plane had gone down. --Xuxl (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Now another question. Why is it taking so long to find the Malaysian plane despite all the modern technology? And it was a huge plane, not a tiny plane, so the wreckage must be clearly visible. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you appreciate the huge area they need to search? And how deep the water is there (c. 5 kilometres)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

To echo HiLo & Jack of Oz, the region or area of the crash is the main reason it has yet to be and may never be found.

The plane US Majority Leader Hale Boggs & Congressman Nick Begich went down in a glacier field back in '72. Talk about MASSIVE government co-ordinated long-term search efforts and yet no one has ever even found a scrap from that plane in over 50 years. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I must inform my friends born in 1972 that they've missed their 50th birthday parties. How time flies these days.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

lol, does it look like I frequent the math desk? lol Ok how about it is now in its 5th decade of being missing?  ;-) ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

To give some idea, last I heard, the area under consideration is about 217,000 sq km. This is larger than many countries, such as Switzerland, Belgium, Syria, Tunisia and Greece, and not much smaller than the United Kingdom. Multiply that by c.5 km deep, and you have well over 1 million cubic kilometres of water to search, and the wreckage is most probably at the bottom. At the outset, the coordinator of the Australian search, Angus Houston, warned that it could take many months, rather than weeks or days, and they may never find anything. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A passenger plane diverted from Malaysia towards the military runway at Diego Garcia could instead be downed at the bottom of the Chagos trench where nobody is thinking of looking. JustAnotherUploader (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Diego Garcia conspiracy theory has been around for a number of weeks. I'm quite sure the authorities read Facebook and have taken all of its scientifically rigorous postings into account. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

One important reason why it's taking so long is that the information about the plane's deviation from its flight path wasn't revealed for days, allowing time for any floating wreckage on the ocean surface to disperse. Also, some of the information that there is was derived indirectly, sometimes in ways that haven't been done before, and that took more time. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The technology employed to find the wreckage seems poorly engineered to find a wreck whose location isn't known initially within a few miles.. The pinger has a very limited limited range so a search ship would have to be close to it to pick it up. Having picked up a ping there seems to be no way to be sure it is the transmitter being sought, since they are generic (same intended frequency duration and repetition rate). Some article suggested that unspecified underwater devices might have been confusing the searchers as if there were several recently crashed planes in a given ocean or equipment on some of the ships produced similar sounds or underwater cables had markers with similar pings. It is supposed to have a range of only a very few miles yet ships were reporting detecting pings in search areas hundreds of miles apart, with apparently no assurance that it was a transponder on the downed airliner in question that they were detecting. Also there does not appear to be a way for the searchers to directionalize and triangulate to zero in on the location. There were reports of ships picking up the pings receiving them for a hour or whatever apparently while continuing to sail a straight course then losing them. There did not appear to be a way to stop and rotate a directional receiver to get a bearing, in a way like sonar is used to locate submarines by localizing the bearing of a returned ping. In WW2 and after submarines have carried sound locating equipment which could detect and get a bearing for underwater sounds, such as distant ship engines, and various navies today reportedly track submarines hundreds of miles away through shipboard listening equipment and stationary hydrophones. The airline crash locating system seems way less sophisticated. Given the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in this search, and the fact that a number of crashed airliners have never been located despite having similar beacons, it would be interesting to see a proof of performance study wherein engineers study the strengths and shortcomings of current beacons and detectors, so that a system could be put in place which would allow a more efficient and effective search. Possible areas for study: Different frequencies which might work better to be detected at greater distance, a ping pattern which identifies a particular unit, higher output for more distant detection, a battery with longer life, and a system which transmits a more powerful response ping when a probe signal from a search vessel is received. Finding the cockpit voice recorder and the other "black box" could help to prevent whatever happened to this plane happening to others in the future whether it was a fire, some other event which incapacitated the crew or prevented a safe emergency landing or bad actions of the crew or passengers. Edison (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

History on Author & Occultist Donald Tyson.

I am interested on the history on Author & Occultist Donald Tyson. Also any reference or reviews of his writings & work. Here on Wikipedia I read somewhere that his page was deleted for some reason. I have come across his fictional work for sale many times on Amazon.com so I would like to know why he was not any longer included on this site. Even if he was considered to be irrelevant or not perhaps an established or successful author, it seems to me that a reference on him no matter how small should at least be put on this site. Is there a reason someone can tell me of why this person had a page and then had it deleted? Was it nonfactual? I use Wikipedia all the time and after hearing of this, I think I would like to understand the sites policies more in depth. Especially concerning this author. How can it hurt anything to include at least a list of his known writings and whatever history is known or unknown on him. No author that has had his work published should be considered too small in my opinion to be on Wikipedia. If not for anything but just as a reference and maybe even a review area to highlight his work be it good or bad. Any reference is better than no reference as long as it is considered to be established & factual, right? That's all. A response will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Signed Timothy M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.225 (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Tyson tells why it was deleted. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Currency Exchange

I need to change some money up from one currency to another, the trouble is a lot of places around town that offer this service claim not to charge any commission, but then quote a rather different exchange rate than the one given online, I am wondering if this is something I will encounter everywhere, or if there is any way of finding somewhere that can change money up at a better rate, at least something close to what it is supposed to be? Or even some way of comparing different options without having to walk all over the city asking at each place to see what rate they offer?

213.104.128.16 (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is something you will encounter everywhere. If the service doesn't charge commission, then the way they make money providing this service is to manipulate the exchange rate. I see that your IP address is in England. I don't know of a way to easily compare exchange rates. Perhaps you could call some places and ask their rates over the phone to compare. See Bureau de change for more information and examples of typical locations for currency exchange.--Dreamahighway (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You can see lots of rates at xe.com. Generally places that charge no commission will give you a worse exchange rate, so if you're changing a large amount you're better off paying a small commission to get a better rate. If you're changing a smaller amount, you're better off taking the worse rate to avoid paying the commission. The crossover might in the 100-200 Euro range, depending. Rates fluctuate throughout the day just like the stock market does, so you can't expect a phone quote to still be good 30 minutes later. If you go to a part of your city where international tourists go shopping, you'll probably see a lot of change shops with exchange rates displayed in their windows, so you can pull out your calculator and make comparisons. Added: compare the buy and sell rates for a given currency: if they're within 5% of each other (in small retail amounts) you are doing pretty good. With large amounts you can of course do better. No you will not be able to make money on arbitrage by running up and down the street making exchanges in those shops. 98.207.66.10 (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a town that you live in or visit often, it might be be worthwhile to open an account with a bank and keep just a small amount of money in the account. Banks, at least here in the States, will change money for you and will do so at a better rate if you are a customer of theirs. Dismas|^(talk) 23:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My personal experience is that banks offer a very poor exchange rate, even to their customers, and a UK customer is better off trying the Post Office and local travel agents, if possible. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly right. It's easiest to go to the Post Office, ask for 100 euros and give them your debit card. They withdraw the sterling from your bank, convert it and hand you 5x 20 euro notes. Your bank account reads 'withdrawal £82.37' as if you were at an ATM - they consider it a domestic withdrawal in the UK like any other. Go spend your euros. Bring the change back to the Post Office to convert and deposit to the bank. --81.145.165.2 (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do Hare Krishna adherents view Buddhism negatively?

I recently met a Hare Krishna adherent on the street. He attracted my view, because he was the only person on the street in some sort of scanty robe, chanting some sort of verse in some language. Probably Sanskrit, Pali, or whatever. He called it "preaching". I asked him whether this was Buddhism, but apparently he just told me that Buddhism was "inferior" to his religion, because it "promoted morality". He gave me a business card, and I used it to look up the organization, which was affiliated with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. I don't get it. Assuming that this guy's views are pretty representative of the Hare Krishna group (after all, he is "ordained", whatever that is supposed to mean), I still wish to know how the Hare Krishna people view Buddhists. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Opinions or even theology aside, they're both offshoots of Hinduism, though Krishna Consciousness presents itself as a restoration of Hindu teachings while Buddhism is an explicit rejection of them. Despite this, they share a number of ideas and meditational techniques, which can make a younger religion that claims to be older rather edgy. I'm under the impression that, for a good chunk of the '60s and '70s, they were sort of competing for the same converts.

Plus, on some level, anyone who's devoted to a particular religion has to believe that their religion is superior to others, otherwise there's no reason to not convert or at least syncretize.

Also, dude probably gets tired of hearing "hey are you Buddhist or something?" Ian.thomson (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why Hare Krishna people believe that Buddhism is inferior, because it promotes morality. I don't even know what "promoting morality" means or the rationalization of perceiving Buddhism as inferior. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any ISKCON/Hare Krishna sources that have a problem with Buddhism promoting morality. Perhaps he meant that it only promotes morality, and not the sort of deeper spirituality that ISKCON claims to have? That would provide some theological reason for Hare Krishna devotees to believe Buddhism is inferior. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a profound misrepresentation of the history of those religions to suggest that Buddhism is an "offshoot" of Hinduism; the two have had substantial influence on one-another, but that is not the nature of their relationship. Snow (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A history teacher of mine used to be fond of the formulation: Buddhism is to Hinduism as Sufism is to Islam. I don't necessarily think that's the best possible way of putting it, but it's better than the Judaism/Christianity comparisons that sometimes get thrown about, with one being an identifiable "offshoot" of the other. Just thought I'd put that out there. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You're sure he didn't say "promotes immorality"? —Tamfang (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do Christians preach in the vernacular?

This question is related to the previous one, because it is about preaching in public. The Hare Krishna adherent says that he is "preaching". Christians, on the other hand, seem to preach in the vernacular language, so American Christians will preach in English, because English is the common language of America. Whether the preaching is done on street corners or in churches, people typically "preach" in English. Maybe some Roman Catholic services will introduce Greek chanting, simply because it's traditional, but most of the liturgy seems to be done in 18th-19th century English. Is there a reason why Christians do not preach in the Aramaic of Jesus, koine Greek, or biblical Hebrew? 140.254.226.231 (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Catholics are more likely to use Latin, with only certain uses of Greek.

But otherwise, Christians were historically more interested in people learning about their beliefs right away, rather than being interested in some mystical chant they didn't understand and only partially learning the religion's doctrines over time (well, with the exception of some Gnostic groups that, even if accepted by then contemporary mainstream Christianity, wouldn't have gotten anywhere). Most Jews and Muslims, IIRC, also preach in the vernacular, barring certain groups restrictions on recitation of the holy texts and certain formal prayers. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about the reference to Greek myself. In my own high-church Anglican experience, though, the Kyries may be in Greek even when the rest of the service is solely in English - is that possible in Novus Ordo, too? And does anywhere still use the 'Agios o Theos' Greek versicles from the Tridentine Mass? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's possible in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite: the little 'Order of Mass' cards common in English Catholic churches since the new translation came in have the kyrie in both languages (the only part of the Mass they do this for). But then, it's also pretty common to have some of the parts of the Mass in Latin while most is in English. The "Holy is God" versicles appear with the Reproaches on Good Friday. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As a brief aside, the only non-English language I have ever encountered in a Catholic Mass is Greek, during the kyrie. As I understand it, post-Vatican II, Latin is almost never used outside very special (and very rare) uses of the Tridentine Mass. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Then you haven't been to the perfectly ordinary parishes near me? Singing the parts of the Mass in Latin (the Agnus Dei and so on) from time to time is pretty common, and I even know a town where they do it just about every Sunday. It's always the Missa de Angelis in my experience, which is the one everyone knows. All in ordinary parishes who would never dream of using the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (the Tridentine Mass), with Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and girl altar servers. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Having only been to a few Catholic Masses, I will take your word for it! Striking the poorly informed part of my comment above. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Because no-one speaks Aramaic or Koine Greek any more, and modern Hebrew is quite localised to Israel outside Jewish liturgical contexts. More seriously - the Protestant Reformation, and latterly the Liturgical Movement, have meant that worship is conducted in the vernacular across the entire western Church. (I'm less familiar with the position in the Orthodox tradition.) This has been a big deal for Christians over the years - even though the Vulgate Bible latterly became viewed as the inaccessible, non-vernacular text, it started its life as a more accessible alternative to Greek.

There's also a confusion of terminology here. Preaching in Christianity is almost invariably words addressed to the populace - whether a congregation or the general public. Worship is words and actions addressed to God, either directly or by calling on saints to join in addressing God. Meditation is words, actions and thoughts directed inward to the self, to enhance mindfulness of God and godly deeds. Almost all Christian preaching has always been in the vernacular, even when worship has not been, because if I step out of my front door and proclaim "Quare fremuerunt gentes?", no-one will understand me.

I may meditate to myself, or perform an act of worship, in a language other than my own - I sometimes sing hymns in German, and use prayers in Latin or Greek. But no preaching that is not understandable by its audience is going to get anywhere. (There's a reflection of this in the story of the Apostles speaking in tongues at Pentecost.) So I suspect that the ISKCON fellow may not have been using the word 'preaching' in a conventional way. It's my understanding that members of the movement habitually chant the names and titles of Krishna is order to centre their thoughts on him rather than on themselves, and it sounds like this is what you witnessed.

Does that clarify things at all? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess. But still, the defense of praying to saints is that it is no different from asking your grandma or friend to pray to God for you. But I think there is some sort of devotional aspect in the saints or Mary, mother of Jesus, in a way not so much different from Buddhists naturally bowing down devotionally to Buddha or bodhisattvas. They are not gods, but bowing down is just an act of devotion and respect. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on Veneration which covers the distinction - the terms latria (worship), hyperdulia (great veneration) and dulia (veneration) have been used to delineate the honours due to God, the BVM, and other saints, respectively. To say that it's no different to asking for a friend or relative's intercession is misleading - it's also a form of honour, but not (by intention) the same honour that one gives to God. (This is all so much apologetics from me, as although as a high Anglican I accept these arguments in principle, it's very rare that I even go through the form of asking a saint to pray for me; our prayers relating to the saints mostly thank God for their lives and works, rather than calling on them personally. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So, why don't high-church Anglicans like yourself call on them personally? Is there a theological reason? 140.254.226.231 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The article only lists the claims of the Protestant view, not the reasons that lead up to the claims. That is, it does not explain why a distinction cannot be made. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Much of High Anglicanism (since the days of the Oxford Movement) has focussed on reconciling the traditions of Roman Catholicism (and of the Church in England before the Reformation specifcially) with the witness of the Church of England as a Reformed Church. This means trying to square parts of the 39 Articles with the elements of Catholic teaching - in some cases, the exact areas of Catholic teaching that the Articles were written to oppose. In this case, it's Article 22: "The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saint, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God." The usual argument is that this was attacking the profit-making and superstitious late-medieval form of the cults of the saints, and that simply calling on the saints in prayer is not the same thing. But as is so often the case in the Church of England, the specific answer is a matter of personal conscience - and so the level of saint-mentioning that I feel comfortable with won't be the same as the next person's, even within the same tradition. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Collapse preaching. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One may wonder what modern-day atheists mean by "superstition" and "magic" in regards to prayer. I think many Western atheists hold a Western view of prayer without realizing they are holding a Western view of prayer. The failure to understand Christian theology and the limited knowledge of Eastern religions and philosophies seem to make the atheist argument against prayer (i.e. "Prayer doesn't work") very weak. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC) The notion of praying to saints instead of to God is a Catholic invention with no biblical basis. As for prayer "working" or not, it always works, if you're praying for the right thing. Praying for some specific object or action is a misuse of prayer. Praying for spiritual strength works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Also, the trite answer is "God answers every prayer; sometimes the answer is "no"... --Jayron32 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The sidetrack to the sidetrack here is the curious role of saints, which does seem worthy of remark. I think pretty clearly the Protestant theology, as alluded by AlexTiefling above, is that the dead are indeed dead, and that any remarkable alteration of their status occurs (at least) at some point in the far future after all the history of the universe is written. Thus asking them for their prayers is pointless. Nonetheless, the counter-example of the piling up of relics in the Peace and Truce of God movement illustrates that the dead are not entirely without power, for there is still the power of their example. One might go so far as to say that the modern saints are a living scripture, in that by understanding the character of the sort of Christians who stand up against the tyranny of North Korea or the religious intolerance against gays in Uganda, one can understand for the first time the feeling behind the martyrs of old or the early believers who broke with Jewish traditions. Perhaps even "Belen" might offer an understanding of the virginity of Mary. I would suspect that substantial illumination on the subject can be had by rewinding all the way pre-Exodus to a Kemetic model in which the ab/heart/conscience/virtue of a person is able to live on and establish somehow an aakhu and eventually netcharu, but I should not pretend to really have a grasp of those concepts! Wnt (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that first bit is correct, at least not of Protestants generally. With few exceptions (I'm thinking of Seventh Day Adventists in particular, but I'm sure there are others) Protestants hold to the view that the "dead in Christ" (and I'm not going to point out the irony of quoting that phrase in connection with this particular view) are "transported" to heaven immediately upon death. As to whether they have any awareness of the physical world, I don't believe there are any established dogmas, but most Protestant objections to the veneration of saints center around the prohibition against necromancy, and also passages like 1 Timothy 2:5 ("For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"). Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, are you sure? Searching the phrase, at least, it seems to refer explicitly to the Rapture. [2] Wnt (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well... yes... kind of... Though "Rapture" is the worst kind of anachronism. I wasn't quite using the phrase in Paul's sense, which I (admittedly vaguely) pointed out parenthetically; in hindsight, it was confusing. Point being: If you believe in Jesus (for strict sola fide-ists, of course) when you die, God immediately "beams you up" to heaven; if you don't believe, you get beamed down in the opposite direction. I grew up among Protestants of many stripes, and it took quite a few years for me to encounter any view of the afterlife contrary to this instantaneous conception of it, and when I did, it was only in the context of being told how stupid/misguided/Satanic those other views were. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, there need not be a contradiction with what you wrote per se, if one supposes a person experiences no subjective time while dead. It is only when you imagine the dead somehow intervening in the affairs of the living that you'd have to distinguish between these ideas. Actually my favored conception would describe the distance as a second, independent temporal dimension, the same physical time in a "different version number" of the universe. Because time is a very abstract concept, difficult to define or explain even within the confines of mundane physics, I suppose the decision whether to believe in intervention by saints or other dead may be the more fundamental theological quality, and virtually any conception of time can be adjusted to match what you think of it. Wnt (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Outreach Ministry"

I saw this sign and asked the guy that stood by it was it was about. He told me that it was a notice that there would be the last meeting for some sort of campus non-denominational outreach ministry program that meets on Saturdays. I asked him why they didn't meet on Sundays, but he just told me that it's not a church, it's a "ministry". I asked him what's the difference between "church" and "ministry", but he just said that a church is where Christians come and meet, while a ministry is where Christians "introduce students to Jesus". I looked up the "outreach ministry" and got bus ministry and "Outreach ministry is the Church at work in God's name, stretching out to meet needs in the wider community. Our daily lives are filled with outreach ministry, whether or not we have a formal role in the Church", which was basically driving people in remote places to church, with the goal of making religious conversions. I don't see the connection between reaching out to people in the greater community and converting people to Christianity, but I suppose reaching out and helping others somehow make people talk about spiritual things. As time passes by, people slowly adopt the Christian worldview and become Christians - first by behavior, then by faith. How do they (bus ministries, for example) work exactly? 140.254.227.81 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked up "Outreach" on Wikipedia too. Still no help. Grrr... Why do people have to be so vague? 140.254.227.81 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Ministry" originally meant "to serve", and in many Christian churches, "lay ministries" exist where non-clergy engage in charitable service to members of the church community, or to the general public as ecclesiastic or "outreach" ministries. There are many types of such ministries. Youth outreach ministries are common, offering a combination of recreational and Christian learning activities. Outreach ministries for the elderly or homeless are other examples. Some definitions you might find helpful are here. [3] OttawaAC (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This is probably a better source of info, it basically defines "outreach" as either evangelizing, or social/community service. Essentially, proselytizing. [4] OttawaAC (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Proselytism –Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on the definition given by your sign-holder, the ministry is a parachurch organization — a group of Christians working for whatever purpose (in this case, evangelism/proselytising) without the specific oversight of a specific church, i.e. they don't answer to the leaders of an individual congregation or to the leaders of a denomination. This terminology is pretty much never used in this way except by Protestants, so Marks of the Church may be relevant to the guy's idea of the difference between the Church and his ministry; the anti-confessional nature of most American Protestants means that they'd probably reject a formal definition of the Marks of the Church, but the underlying idea is still present. This anti-confessionalism is a big part of the vagueness that you find confusing; if you're doing everything by yourself, you may end up creating your own terms that outsiders don't understand. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The other timeline of ancient history

You know, with time running horizontally, regions stacked on each other, and running from 3000 BCE to 1000 CE. T3h 1337 b0y 23:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example. [5] What is the question? OttawaAC (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

April 23

Polk's Declaration of War

Could someone list all the congressmen who made up the Immortal Fourteen who voted no to the bill declaring war against Mexico in 1847? Also can someone find me an online copy of this bill with its controversial preamble? Also did Calhoun abstain from the vote and if so who else abstained?--170.140.105.10 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"Immortal Fourteen"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The fourteen are named in this source in footnote 12. [6] It doesn't mention who abstained, though. OttawaAC (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The full text of the Act and the preamble are here (scroll down to where it says Chapter 16). [7] OttawaAC (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, why I am asking the question? I can't find a source that mentions all the congressmen who opposed the bill only the most outspoken ones like Giddings, Ashmun, and Adams. --170.140.105.10 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Lincoln was very strongly opposed to the war (nicknamed "Spotty Lincoln" by some for insisting that the spot where the war began, between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers, was not indisputably part of Texas), but he specifically did not adopt a policy of voting against military appropriations (as it's mentioned in the linked paper that Joshua Giddings did). Of course, Lincoln's term in the house didn't begin until almost a year after that vote... AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Found it! Here you go. The complete voting record to pass HR 145, the declaration of War against Mexico. Final tally 174-14. You can read the names of all 14 Nay voters there. Here is a photograph of the actual bill passed. This document has the actual text of the declaration. Page down to page 81. --Jayron32 15:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

And just because I had the time to kill, here's the list of 14 Nay votes:

1. John Quincy Adams
2. George Ashmun
3. Henry Cranston
4. Erastus Culver
5. Columbus Delano
6. Joshua Giddings
7. Joseph Grinnell
8. Charles Hudson
9. Daniel P. King
10. Joseph Root
11. Luther Severance
12. John Strohm
13. Daniel Tilden
14. Joseph Vance

There you go. --Jayron32 22:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is more commonly used: Myanmar or Burma?

Isn't Myanmar more commonly used in daily talk when talking about that Southeast Asian country? 112.198.90.36 (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I usually hear "Burma". One reason may be that most people have little idea how they're supposed to pronounce "Myanmar", another may be opposition to the govt. — kwami (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I also usually hear Burma, in "real life" (though I don't often hear the country discussed at all). Pronunciation confidence may play a part, but I think it has more to do with repetition. Burmese cats and Burmese pythons have been in the English lexicon for a while. A Google Autocomplete for "Myanma" (I even had to look up that adjective) brings up nothing that rings a bell, or looks like a common term. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:47, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

See Names of Burma. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Burma was a British colony for a long time, which either helped or hindered its development, depending on your point of view. (One might equally consider whether the USA was helped or hindered by European colonists arriving on what are now its territories.) Since almost all of us are native English-speakers, and most English literature about Burma uses historic terms for the country, and most of us know relatively little of Burma, and media and publications in Burma are not exactly unfree at present, and so on, it's not necessarily meaningful to ask this question of this audience. What do people in a randomly selected village in Burma think or pronounce? We really don't know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A straight Google search on each of the two names shows "Myanmar" as considerably more common:

Myanmar	About 76,300,000 results
Burma	About 26,800,000 results

But in Google Books, the reverse is true:

Burma	About 8,550,000 results
Myanmar	About 4,350,000 results

Most of the text searched by Google Books is content that has been professionally written and edited; but there also is likely to be a good deal more older writing than on a general web search. I think the second point probably accounts for the apparent discrepancy. In any case Google hit counts should be considered as very approximate; I think what these searches really show is that both forms are widely used. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't trust Google's guessing, anyway. It says 76 million, but if you go to the last page of results, the actual number will be closer to a thousand. And of those thousand, many will be duplicates. It's one of the few things with more uncertainty than opinion polls. Personally (another Google problem), I get 427 for "Myanmar", before it asks to include omissions. After that, 743. That's not even slightly approximate. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

This is true, but you know there must be more than a few hundred web pages that mention the country. (For one thing, consider postal addresses.) Because Google's policy is to return no more than 1,000 hits for a given search, I think there must be some sort of initial step (in their confidential algorithm) that selects chunks of the database that ought to produce at most about 1,000 hits, and then when you ask for the actual hits, you only see the ones in those chunks. So while we can't verify the large numbers shown as the initial estimates, the small numbers you get if you look at the actual hits aren't necessarily meaningful either. I choose to believe that the estimates mean something even if they can't be taken as anything like exact. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think they mean the vast majority of the Internet (literally 99.999% here) is inaccesible through Google. Or maybe that's a misleading statistic. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see those same stats for Hellenic Republic vs. Greece. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Straight Google search (the quotes make it a phrase search; I included the version without quotes just for interest):

Greece	About 148,000,000 results
"Hellenic Republic"	About 1,160,000 results
Hellenic Republic	About 2,250,000 results

Google Books search:

Greece	About 60,700,000 results
"Hellenic Republic"	About 46,300 results
Hellenic Republic	About 47,200 results

Incidentally, the first hit I got for "Hellenic Republic" was for a Greek restaurant in Melbourne, Australia. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I got History of the Hellenic Republic. The restaurant is third, behind Greece. The 834th and final result is the Hellenic Parliament's official site. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

See BBC News - Burma: What's in a name?. Alansplodge (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I distinctly remember a wave of transition to Myanmar after the official renaming in 1989, which continued for some years, as simply being the technical recognition of the new name. However, at some point substantially later on, there was a wave of reversion to Burma in association with an international sentiment that the ruling regime was illegitimate. What I don't recall is what specific event triggered the switch back, but in my recollection it was nearly as abrupt as the 1989 transition. Wnt (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to round out the discussion, Burma refers to the Burman majority, low-land living people. Myanmar is supposed to be more inclusive of ethnic tribes living in higher elevations. However, under both names, the military thugs have been at war with ethnic minorities since at least the 1962 Ne Win coup d'etat. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Uncertainties in opinion polls

When a public opinion poll give a "margin of error" or a "sampling error", are these the same thing? Occasionally a poll with say they have 95% confidence in their results. Does this mean that the error is the range for p=0.05 rather than for the standard deviation? Or does it just mean that it passes their criterion of p=0.05? Are opinion polls ever published with σ? (I'm speaking of pollsters in the US, if that makes any difference.) — kwami (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the Wikipedia article titled Confidence interval help? --Jayron32 12:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It helps, but I'm still left guessing. If opinion polls are always published with a p=0.05 confidence interval unless they state otherwise, then we'd good to go – all our polls say either nothing or 95% confidence. But if "sampling errors" and "margins of error" typically use different conventions (such as p-values and standard deviations), then we have a problem. I've seen enough discussion of p-values being misused that I'm afraid to just assume what the reported errors represent, or that they're the same thing in all the polls. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Polls are typically use discrete metrics ("Are you pro or con?", "Do you like A, B, or C?") rather than a continuous metrics ("How tall are you?"). Standard deviation (e.g. assuming a Gaussian distribution) is therefore a rather poor metric to use to describe the process. Instead of setting up the problem where there's a population average of some continuous value where individuals in the population have intrinsic values which are distributed continuously around that population average (which is how an approach using standard deviation would typically be structured), polling questions usually assume that each individual has a discrete preference of either A or B (but not some sort of fractional mix). What the poll is trying to assess is the fraction of the population which has a preference of A, rather than the average value of "A preference". When you set it up that way, you effectively do a series of discrete Bernoulli trials by asking the question to multiple different people. From these trials you attempt to back out the intrinsic fraction of people who prefer A. You can then set up a confidence interval on that estimate of the intrinsic (population) fraction based on the number of trials you did. It's this confidence interval that's typically reported with polls when they say things "with a margin of error of 3%". Note that when you compute the confidence interval there's a meta parameter of how stringent you want the confidence interval. (The p-value you use on the confidence interval.) My understanding is that this is typically set at a level of 0.05 for most polls (so the numbers reported are for 95% confidence intervals), although I'm not entirely sure of that, and that value is rarely mentioned. You may want to take this over to the Mathematics desk for more details. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'm waiting on a reply there. What I'm doing in the meantime is assuming that 0.65 of the margin is significant compared to a fixed point (such as being a majority opinion), and that 0.85 of the margin is a significant distinction between two opinions, and less than that is a statistical tie. Assuming the margin of a poll is for p = 0.05, I *think* that the first gives us 95% confidence that a response is majority opinion (1.28σ above 50%) , and that the second gives us 95% confidence that a response is plurality opinion (1.65σ above a competing response). I want to address unjustified conclusions drawn from polls, such as a map that supposedly shows where a proposition has majority support or majority opposition, when the figures are really too close to call. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read this. Might answer a few questions about unjustified conclusions. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, polls are often inaccurate, and we might not have the ability to evaluate them. What I'm trying to do here is, if we do map polling results, we at least don't misrepresent those results, such as claiming that 52% is a majority when the sampling error is 6 points. Whether the polls we're mapping actually tell us anything is another matter. — kwami (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm 100% uncertain on the whole mapping thing. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

April 24

Patron saints

At one time, I recall reading a Wikipedia article about patron saints. It contained a list of saints and what each saint was patron of. So, for example, it would say "Saint Joseph, patron saint of carpenters", and so forth. I can't seem to find that Wikipedia article anymore. If the article still exists – I can't imagine it would not survive a deletion attempt – does anyone know the exact name of it, or can provide a link to it? If it no longer exists, does anyone know what happened to it? If it makes any difference, I am referring to saints in the Roman Catholic church. Many thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There is Category:Patron saints, and it's possible that someone thought there was no need for both a category and a list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There is also a Patron saint and a List of saints, and when I searched for "list of patron saints", there's no article but there are several articles on sub-categories of saints. Presumably those could or should be added to the "see also" in Patron saint, unless it's already there and I overlooked it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Joseph, you are listed under patron saints of occupations and activities, patron saints of ailments, illness and dangers, and patron saints of places for example which are all basically lists (though the last one lists by region not by name). I agree with Bugs and have added these three links to the "See also" section (which is rather long now, but whatever). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Those are exactly the ones that I was looking for! Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Saint Joseph of Spadaro, Patron Saint of Wikipedia Editors? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL. That's funny, Jack. I will have to run that by the Pope, and see if he approves! If so, we'll be good to go. Quite coincidentally, I had a meeting with the Pope scheduled for later on today anyway, on other matters. LOL. Thanks for a good laugh. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Our article says St Agatha is the patron saint of nurses; Shouldn't she be a Matron saint?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The term apparently is "patroness". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So, who is the patron saint of Wikipedia and its editors? Sjö (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be St. Anyone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

St. Anger. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It's St Isidore of Seville. DuncanHill (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

St. Hubbins? --Jayron32 20:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

St Eve Baker? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

UK House of Lords age minimum

Before Labour functionally abolished the lords of the realm, were there age qualifications for House of Lords membership for the hereditary peers? Edward Russell, 26th Baron de Clifford succeeded to the barony at age two, due to his father's death; I'm left wondering whether he were a member from age two, or from achieving majority (and if so, at what age?), or upon attaining some other benchmark. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The House of Lords article indicates that 21 is the minimum age to take a seat in the House. This restriction is detailed in The Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to Public Business. The age limit is found on page 8, which notes that this provision was first recorded in 1685. - Eron^Talk 20:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd overlooked the bit about the age limit, so I also failed to see the citation. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Age of consent spain - wrong information in wikipedia

Hello,

someone changed the information about the minimum age of consent in Spain on this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Spain based on that article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/spain-raises-age-of-consent Actually the marriageable age was raised to 16 (with parental consent). But the raising of the age of sexual consent was just a proposal of the rightwing conservatives just as removing sex education from the curriculum, which would be ridiculous. You shouldn't change wikipedia informations based on such vague articles. In the article you can read "the change is expected to come into force this month". In this later article: http://theantifeminist.com/spain-raises-age-of-consent-to-16/ you can read "the measure is part of a draft law to be approved by the council of ministers by the end of this month. It will then be debated in Parliament for its final approval." It did NOT get it's final approval. I don't know how to change that information back, so I ask you, dear reader, to do so. Or tell me how to do it. Thank you very much and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.205.14 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you've done a good job at finding sources. See WP:RS to make sure they qualify. Then, just click the "edit" button at the top of the page, and make it say the right thing! WP:STYLE has some info about how to write, but it's ok to be WP:BOLD. Since you've already made progress, please just WP:SOFIXIT! If you need further help on editing, you can ask at Wikipedia:Help_desk or look through Wikipedia:New_contributors'_help_page. Thanks for helping to make WP better! SemanticMantis (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Viking

A perennial problem with our Vikings article is its scope. In popular usage, a Norwegian peasant in 900 AD who never left his home region is apparently a Viking, but do any academic sources follow this broad definition, too? Calling all early medieval Norse "Vikings" strikes me as no less uninformed than imagining Vikings with horned helmets. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Right now, it says Vikings are Norse seafarers. A peasant who never leaves home doesn't travel the seas, so even with a magic hammer, wouldn't be a Viking by our lead. Not sure what the academics say. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

I see from the talk page this is a new development. I prefer it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

If it helps at all, as an example of usage, with an explanation, try the Oxford University Press's "The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings"; on page 2, in Peter Sawyer's contribution, it notes how the term was originally used by the English in the 9th century to refer to the Scandinavians, the changing meaning of the term over time, and how "it now has a wider meaning, and is used to describe many aspects of Scandinavian society in what is commonly called the Age of the Vikings". Hchc2009 (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This writer acknowledges the creep of the broader definition and makes a concession in his book, but "To the general public, however, it has apparently two meanings; both are respectable and hallowed in the English language by two centuries of usage. The first is in the sense of 'raider' or 'pirate', the second in the sense of the activities of the Scandinavians outside their own country in that period."

Wikipedia writes for the general public. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

We write to inform the general public, though - not to confirm their misconceptions. And you only have to head over to the British Museums' Twitter feed this evening to see the word being put out by experts that 'viking' is not an ethnicity at all, but a lifestyle. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Aye. A seafaring lifestyle. A pygmy could be a Viking, but a farmer couldn't, whenever he lived. Unless he stopped being a farmer, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

Remember, also, that the idea of "Norse = vikings" is a new idea; the word was in Old English, used for raiders. Look at the Wikisource text of "The Battle of Maldon", which constantly uses various forms of "wīcing" because it's dealing with a viking invasion, while the first lines of the account of Ohthere of Hålogaland, Ohthere sæde his hlaforde Ælfrede kynincge þæt he ealra Norðmanna norðmest bude, i.e. "Ohthere told his lord King Alfred that he lived farthest north of all the Northmen". Norðman is used in a substantially different sense from wīcing. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The article Normandy, treats Vikings and Norsemen as synonyms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, in Normandy, you wouldn't have been encountering Norsement who weren't vikings. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. In some places, I'd bet this is still an "American". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that "wīcing" is related to "wicca/n"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. 'Wicca' comes from a proto-Germanic word for a sorcerer; 'wicing' is obscure, but is generally thought to relate to ON 'vik', meaning a gulf or bay. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

OED disagrees; it accepts the seafaring origin of <víkingr> in ON, but it argues that the term appears in English and Frisian long before its appearance in ON. Therefore, it argues that the term arises from OE <wíc>, a camp, which is cognate with <wick> in toponyms such as Warwick. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

According to some traditional definitions, those who sailed west of the Skagerrak were Vikings, while those who went east were "Varangians"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. That's an additional problem. Are warriors/raiders/traders from early medieval Sweden Vikings? Only in a very loose sense. Are early medieval Swedish peasants Vikings? Affirming that would, in my eyes, mean to go even further into horned-helmets terrority. Why make "Vikings" synonymous with "early medieval Norse" when there is a perfectly serviceable word for the concept of the early medieval Norse in general, namely Norsemen? I'm pretty sure that nobody would call a Swedish peasant from any time period a Varangian, so why Viking, which is even less appropriate? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Scottish/Irish currency

In the debate on Scottish independence, much has been made of the alleged difficulty of an independent Scotland sharing the UK currency. But how would this differ from the situation in the Irish Republic, whose currency (Irish Pound or Punt) was at par with the pound Sterling for 50 years, from 1928 to 1979?--rossb (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between choosing to peg your own currency which you issue as a sovereign state to another currency (as was the case in Ireland) and either using another sovereign state's currency as your de facto currency or forming a currency union with another state (which would be the two theoretical options that would enable Scotland to continue to use the UK pound). Valiantis (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be helpful if we had better coverage of the settlement between India and Pakistan at Partition. In the meantime, this might be of interest. Partition and the 55 crore issue. DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Ireland, they were entirely at the whim of the British fiscal policy makers. As I understand it, the SNP were hoping that in a currency union, they might have some say it what happens. Alansplodge (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Ireland were affected by British fiscal policy, but only because they chose to peg their currency - which they issued themselves - to the UK pound. They were in a sort of informal currency union. There came a point when they chose not to do that (in 1979 order to remain in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism of which the UK was not a member at that time). If an independent Scotland uses the UK pound as its de facto currency it will not have that option as it will have no currency of its own to de-peg. This situation would be avoided if there was a formal currency union but all parties who are likely to form a continuing UK government have said they would not enter such an arrangement. Now this might be a negotiating stance but I remain at a loss as to why it would be to the UK's advantage to form a currency union with an independent Scotland unless Scotland agreed to very strict economic rules which would remove much of its ability to spend its money as it saw fit which would largely invalidate the point of independence. Valiantis (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it might work out better for Scotland, as their economy is more similar and linked to to the rest of the UK's than back when Ireland was in poverty. The US/Canada case might be instructive. While those currencies aren't pegged, they always seem to trade in a fairly narrow range, due to the similarity and interlinkage of their economies, despite the difference in the scale of the populations. StuRat (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The US/Canada case is one of independent currencies that happen not to have diverged very far from one another since the Canadian dollar was de-pegged and floated in 1970. Probably this is, as you say, because the two economies and hence their monetary policies have been closely linked. An actual peg, such as existed between Canada and the United States before 1970 or between the UK and Ireland before 1978, comes with a loss of financial sovereignty for the dependent country and could make the country's central bank unable to respond to recession or speculative bubbles. Ireland had no voice in setting monetary policy for the pound sterling (and hence for Ireland's own currency), whereas Scotland wants to keep the pound sterling and have a voice in its monetary policy. The Irish peg happened to work generally in Ireland's favor when it existed because 1) it gave domestic depositors and foreign investors reassurance that the local currency was tied to one of the leading hard currencies, and 2) this was largely an inflationary period, and to the extent that prices in Ireland inflated more slowly than those in the UK, Ireland gained a competitive advantage. However, we are now in a period of disinflation or even outright deflation, and a peg tends to be harmful in such a context because the only way to maintain or increase competitive advantage is to compel workers to accept wage cuts or to put through other cost-cutting measures, which tend to be politically difficult or impossible. Also, it isn't clear from the outset that Scotland would gain investment by pegging to sterling as Ireland probably did because investors would probably have nearly as much confidence in a Scottish pound as they do in sterling, given the strong state of the Scottish economy. It is hard to imagine that Scotland would choose to peg its currency to a pound sterling without any voice in setting monetary policy for sterling, though anything is possible. If the Westminster government and the Bank of England reject a monetary union with Scotland (and after all, monetary union without fiscal union has not worked well in the euro zone), Scotland's most likely course would be to adopt an independent pound that would initially be valued at parity with sterling but that would then float in response to market forces, just as Canada's dollar has done since 1970. Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Need to borrow some paragraph breaks ? Here you go: ¶ ¶ ¶.  :-) StuRat (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

April 25

Franklin Pierce

On April 16, 1865, when news had spread of the assassination of President Lincoln, an angry mob of young teenagers gathered outside Pierce's home in Concord. The crowd wanted to know why Pierce's house was not dressed with black bunting and American flags as visual proof of his grief.[86] Pierce came outside to confront the crowd and said he, too, was saddened by Lincoln's passing. When a voice in the crowd yelled out, "Where is your flag?", Pierce became angry and recalled his family's long devotion to the country, including both his and his father's service in the military. He said he needed to display no flag to prove that he was a loyal American. The crowd soon quieted down and even cheered and applauded the former president as he went back into his home.[87]

What did Pierce say exactly? In his own words. Contemporary accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.105.10 (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

From the New York Times, April 26,1865: "The Concord (N.H.) Patriot gives the following report of a speech made by Ex-President PIERCE, a few evenings since, in response to calls from a crowd, which waited upon him to ascertain his sentiments". An excerpt: "If the period during which I have served our State and country in various situations, commencing more than thirty-five years ago, have left the question of my devotion to the flag, the Constitution and the Union in doubt, it is too late now to remove it, by any such exhibition as the enquiry suggests."

-Eron^Talk 17:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, I've added the quote and reference to the Franklin Pierce article. - Eron^Talk 18:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested retail price

Which is the more common term: manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) or recommended retail price (RRP)? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In the UK it's usually RRP. It might be diferent elsewhere.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In the US it seems to be MSRP or just SRP, as not all items are manufactured, like milk. StuRat (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Bovine Tuberculosis

I am told that if a person born ca. 1900 survived this illness then he would probably have scars on his neck for life. What caused them? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Scrofula, perhaps? - Eron^Talk 15:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

April 26

Correlation between leadership in the workplace and social skills

Are there workplace leaders who are not very skilled in their social lives or do good leaders and successful business people generally have good social skills also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.128.88 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd expect that some people are good leaders when assigned to the role, but don't spontaneously become good leaders if not assigned the role. So, in a social situation they wouldn't tend to be "the life of the party", but could still do a good job managing others. StuRat (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We need some definitions here. By "workplace leader" do you mean someone appointed to lead, somoene self-appointed to lead (through being the company owner), or someone who truly leads? In my expereince they are often quite different things. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A good leader in any field is going to have some degree of aloofness. Whether that qualifies as a good social skill is a matter of opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Really, any answer to this question is going to be a matter of opinion.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Casey Stengel said the secret to being a manager was to keep the guys who were neutral about him away from the guys who hated him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

For reference: the top three hits on this google scholar search for /workplace leadership social skills/ all look promising [8]. You can ask here or at WP:REX if you want the full texts and can't get access through your library or other means. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

See here: "Professor Hare pointed out that psychopaths thrive in the fields of big-business and politics and can create mayhem therein. Intelligent psychopaths can be very charming and charismatic and find their way into various positions of leadership because of such outward characteristics that are combined with single-minded and determined ruthlessness. Unfortunately, such charisma and decisiveness has beguiling broad appeal to non-psychopaths who do not have the either the time or inclination to undertake or audit various leadership responsibilities themselves. Psychopaths seek to be in positions of power, crave malign thrills and enjoy manipulating others and derive a sense of superiority from such pursuits." Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bismillah - Bohemian Rhapsody

Does anyone know if there have been protests (whether pro- or anti-Islam) against the song "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen on the grounds of its use of the term "Bismillah"? --69.204.228.240 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

When Queen's Greatest Hits was released in Iran, it included a booklet explaining the lyrics, and said that the "Bismillah" in Bo Rhap was the murderer calling out to God for forgiveness before his execution. Here's an Irianian choir performing it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As if nothing really mattered. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, Arabic-speaking Christians also say "Bismillah" (though not usually as part of the same longer phrases commonly used by Muslims). AnonMoos (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe see Basmala#Alternative Christian meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Saga of sci-fi novels (of the same author) about a cosmic war between centuries-old creatures (probably thousands of pages)

Dear Oracle,

some years ago a read a Wikipedia page speaking about a saga of sci-fi novels (of the same author), specifying that it was one of the longest as per number of pages for the same fictitious universe written by the same author of all times, where a sort of Divine Father had put some sort of Generals all around the universe in order to continue it, but then for divergences of opinions they had started to be in conflict and this was going to degenerate in a cosmic war. The original thing seemed to be that the main characters were not humanoid beings, but the galaxies themselves, or constellations, or vortexes. Or maybe each of them was in charge of a galaxy, I don't remember well enough. The main content seemed to be a cosmic war between the lords of different galaxies. Would you recognize the name of the sage from the poor description of my messed-up memories about it???? Thank you in every case!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.197.200 (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the plot you desribe, or this work, but Henry_Darger wrote a huge fantasy manuscript, one of the largest I've heard of:

“ He has become famous for his posthumously discovered 15,145-page, single-spaced fantasy manuscript called The Story of the Vivian Girls, in What is Known as the Realms of the Unreal, of the Glandeco-Angelinian War Storm, Caused by the Child Slave Rebellion, along with several hundred drawings and watercolor paintings illustrating the story ”

-just a guess, might help. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe one (or more) Cthulhu Mythos deities will ring a bell. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

April 27

Would this count as a primary or secondary source? (anthropology master's thesis)

When reading an anthropology master's thesis, I found it described how each of the chapters was written:

"Chapter 4 describes by means of demographic, economic, and social perspectives, the trend of the community after World War II. Chapter 5 focuses on the social interaction of the community members and on the underlying values and structures. These two chapters are based mainly on the data collected by participant observation techniques, on structured and unstructured interviews, and are supplemented by recent Japanese publications on Mexico, community newspapers, pamphlets, and newsletters." - I know the author has cited the school's enrollment figures and an "(Idaka 1977:38)."

Based on this text (I know it is footnoted) would you say it is a primary source or a secondary source? (If anyone wants to see the documents, including the pages of Chapter 5 I am talking about, I can e-mail you them)

• The University of Alabama libraries section on sourcing for anthropology states here: "Primary sources are original works created by a person who witnessed or participated in an event. Examples include diaries, memoirs, letters, newspaper and magazine articles, photographs, and manuscripts. Government materials are sometimes considered primary sources, too." and "Secondary sources discuss information originally presented elsewhere. They include scholarly journal articles, books, conference proceedings, dissertations, and class lectures."
• Nova Southeastern University states here: "Primary sources refer to information collected firsthand from such sources as historical documents, literary texts, artistic works, experiments, surveys, and interviews. Thus, articles where the author is describing their own experiments would be considered a primary source." while "Secondary sources refer to another person's second-hand account of something such as in a literature review. Thus, an experiment that is described by someone other than the researcher(s) would be considered a secondary source. Accounts found in newspapers, radio, and television about research findings would be considered secondary sources."

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If chapter 4 describes the "trend of the community", it would have to be secondary I would think. Describing a trend is a synthetic creation, not a presentation of oral histories, etc. Same for chapter 5, not least because it says these two chapters are based on participant observation and interviews (rather than primarily consisting of them). Further, the chapter is supplemented by other publications, as listed. I think it can only be secondary. IBE (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

When I read chapter 5 it was a narrative form with an occasional quote from an individual instead of a list of recordings of the participants being presented verbatim. The author of the thesis wrote the chapter using various sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I find IBE's description totally incompatible from how sources are treated in the natural sciences. Perhaps the definitions vary by academic culture.

In my world, if the author conducted the research, then it is a primary source. Even if the author used previously published data, presumably a master's thesis has a requirement that it contain original research or synthesis, similar to what we don't allow here, WP:OR. Generally speaking, theses and dissertations are almost always considered primary sources. People write them to prove to their academy that they can perform useful original research. If a work uses historical documents to present new research, then it is a primary source. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that different academic departments define the terms "Primary" and "Secondary" differently. Also note that sources don't always fit neatly into these narrow definitions... Very often, sources are actually a mix of both primary and secondary material. Where the author is discussing specific data, that data itself is best treated as primary material... when the author shifts to comparing and analyzing the data, that comparison and analysis is secondary material. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Canadian version of national crime victimization survey?

In the US, the Bureau of Justice Statistics administers a national survey known as the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is used to determine the prevalence of different categories of crimes. Does Canada administer a similar survey? 65.92.5.76 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not completely sure, but I think that Canada's General Social Survey on Victimization is a bit similar, link here. Hope this helps, cheers ~Helicopter Llama~ 15:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Helped a lot, thanks. 65.92.5.76 (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)