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

June 28

Question about Supreme Court justices strategically retiring so as to influence who their successor will be

My understanding is that a justice will only retire when the "right" President is in office, so that that President will replace the retiring justice with one whose ideology supports that of the President (in other words, along party lines or conservative/liberal). So, is this basically an "unwritten rule"? Or just a "professional courtesy"? Or is the driving force that the departing justice wants to be replaced with someone that thinks (votes) like him? I'd like to think that Supreme Court justices focus more on the law than on politics. But, that is probably very naive. Does anyone know? Also, when was the last time (in modern days) that a justice departed when the appointing President was of the opposite party/ideology? I am referring to the Supreme Court of the USA. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I am also referring to a voluntary departure (i.e., retirement) as opposed to involuntary ones (e.g., death, disability, illness, impeachment, etc.). Although, for informational purposes, I'd like to know those from the latter category (i.e., involuntary departures) as well. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

David Souter was a Republican appointee (George H. W. Bush), who retired during a Democratic presidency (2009 Obama, who appointed Sonia Sotomayor to replace him), though historically Souter tended to vote with the "liberal" judges. John Paul Stevens was a Republican nominee also (Gerald Ford), who was replaced during 2010, so also an Obama appointee (Elena Kagan this time). Stevens, though, despite being a Republican appointee, was also considered a "liberal" justice. Likewise, Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee was replaced by Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer, though again, Blackmun is considered a liberal justice historically. Looking back, the last "liberal" justice replaced by a "conservative" was when Thurgood Marshall (LBJ Appointee) was replaced by Clarence Thomas (GHW Bush nominee) in 1991. The last "conservative" justice replaced by a "liberal" could possibly have been when Lewis F. Powell, Jr. was replaced by Anthony Kennedy in 1987, though both men were more "middle of the road" swing votes, with Powell leaning slightly more to the right, and Kennedy slightly more to the left. --Jayron32 02:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that while retiring at such times may be a goal, there are practical matters that often interfere with that goal. One rarely knows years in advance when one will need to retire, and one also rarely knows years in advance who the future Presidents are likely to be. Considering that one party can hold the presidency for a decade or more, like the FDR/Harry Truman period of 20 years, or the Reagan/George H W Bush period of 12 years, a Supreme Court Justice would have to know that in advance and be willing to retire far earlier than they would otherwise choose, to accomplish that goal. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I'd take exception to that. One: Supreme Court justices are not really like "normal people" with a "normal job" (for lack of better words). I doubt they are "worried" about their financial futures. For many of them, they can retire at any moment. But, for various reasons, they seem to "hold on" as long as possible. Two: What I was referring to is a scenario when the justice knows that the current President's term will end, and might want to retire before the "next" President enters office, just to "be safe" and "guarantee" the ideology of the successor. So, for example, we all know with certainty when Obama will leave office. So, a justice might worry that the next president might be a Republican, so he will want to retire now, while a Democrat is still in office (i.e., before he leaves). That sort of thing. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. When I said they will eventually need to retire I was referring to their health. I wasn't talking about financial matters at all. And as for retiring now, Republicans might just "run out the clock" by refusing to approve any replacement, in the hopes of getting a Republican President next. With that in mind, not only would a Supreme need to retire during a particular President's term, but early in it. I don't think Republicans could have blocked all nominees for 8 years without creating a public uproar. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

True. And even that assumes that there is no "ninth year" (the incoming President after eight years is also another Democrat, elected when the current Democrat leaves office). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Can a Supreme Court justice recuse himself from a case for no reason?

I assume that when there is some conflict of interest (in a legal case), a Supreme Court justice recuses himself from that case, either because he must (i.e., it is required) or because he feels it is the "right"/ethical thing to do (even if not required). My question is: Can a Supreme Court justice recuse himself from a case just because he "feels like it" (with no particular reason)? I am thinking, for example, of such scenarios (if, hypothetically, I were on the Supreme Court). (A) I might be terribly conflicted about a case (say, abortion or death penalty) or "on the fence". And I'd just rather not commit to voting one way or another. (B) To play a "numbers game". I know that the other justices will vote 4-4 and I don't want to break the tie (or some such numbers games). Can they do this? I am referring to the Supreme Court of the USA. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's fairly rare, but I haven't been able to find a reason why not. In practice, you may be assuming that justices are chosen simply for their legal minds, but the reality is that justices are chosen not just for their legal acumen (Cl*r**ce Th***s, for example), but also for their character. The job requires you not to sit on the fence: if you don't have the courage to judge, you shouldn't take the job. RomanSpa (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, but that goes to my Scenario "A", not to my Scenario "B". And Scenario "B" is the one I would have assumed would more frequently arise. Yes, justices are chosen for legal acumen and character, etc. But certainly the number one factor is politics. No? Which is why my Scenario "B" discusses the justices engaging in "numbers games". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

In practice, the Justices are their own arbiters in whether they should recuse themselves or not, and they don't really have to publicly reveal the reason. However, I'm having difficulty in trying to figure out how those two scenarios that you mentioned would be generally beneficial. A Justice would normally have to recuse before oral arguments, and that runs the risk of either (A) a point raised during oral arguments that changes the minds of one or more of the Justices, thus swinging a presumed 4-4 tie to one way or the other. Or (B) minds are changed during internal deliberations. A perfect example is explained on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius#Speculation over Roberts' vote, where there were reports that Justice Roberts changed his opinion. Also note that in that case, the Justices became fragmented on many of the issues that were raised: Roberts was the only one who supported the opinion of the court in full. Everybody else either concurred in part and dissented in part (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan), or dissented in full (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito). I doubt a Justice would want to risk being silent on a case that ends up being more complex than it originally was presumed to be, or results in a majority opinion that he or she may not agree in full. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, you make some valid points. However, they are premised on your statement that "a Justice would normally have to recuse before oral arguments". Says who? You yourself just stated that they are their own arbiters (and, hence, can recuse whenever they feel appropriate). For example, perhaps a conflict becomes known after oral arguments, not before. (Who knows?) So, I guess I could also imagine a recusal after oral argument. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do people change their minds?

I've just watched a debate on a Biblical (fairly general) topic between Bart D. Ehrman and Craig A. Evans. Such debates between competent scholars are great fun for people who just want to learn stuff, or like to watch pro wrestling. But my impression is that they are useless for actually changing people's minds. But is there any scientific data to support that impression (or the reverse)? Contact Basemetal here 13:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what they are changing their minds about. Small issues are simply but questioning fundamental beliefs can cause so much cognitive dissonance that some individuals can't. Some times drugs like Ketamine, Psilocybin, LSD, etc., can help people accept come to terms with their own mortality when faced with terminal cancer etc., by dampening down the unpleasant feelings of cognitive dissonance enough to shift their view point to one of accepting reality. That has been researched a little but is held back by the war on drugs legalization. --Aspro (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the resistance to facing one's mortality an instance of cognitive dissonance? I don't think so. Except in the suicidal, every thought one holds is at odds with conceptualizing one's death. Cognitive dissonance involves different mindsets within those thoughts that are generally life affirming. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I question whether reliance on illegal drugs is a valid way to impose "changing one's mind". But it's true that personal traumas, "seeing the light", can radically change one's perspective. Jim Brady would be a good example. Lee Atwater would be another. I can also think of various public figures who were lifelong smokers and took to the airwaves to rail against smoking, including William Tallman, Yul Brynner, and Morton Downey Jr. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

How does the current legality of a drug effect it its medial efficaciousness? Remember, these drugs are still legal in many countries. Also, they don't impose a change of mind. Rather they free the person from the pain of cognitive dissonance so they can reconsider and make up they own mind based on the realty confronting them. The alternative is denial and the emotional pain that follows from that.--Aspro (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a brainwashing technique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"Seeing the light" is not the same as changing one's mind based on being exposed to new arguments or new data. If that's the only way human beings can change their minds then it's pretty sad (but it might be true). Of course the question of changing one's mind is connected to the question of how one forms an opinion in the first place. That also seems to be a less than rational process. I'm interested in scientific data regarding both those questions if they do exist. Contact Basemetal here 19:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Aspro's comments which imply a link between brain chemistry and the capacity of changing one's mind make me think of a related question: if modifying the chemistry of the brain through drugs can make people more open to changing their minds, is there the possibility that even without the use of drugs some people are innately more or less capable of either overcoming or simply not experiencing cognitive dissonance or not experiencing cognitive dissonance to the same extent? If humans have the capacity of overcoming cognitive dissonance or not experiencing it in varying measures (by that I mean to an extent that varies among individuals, again: without any use of drugs), would such a psychological trait be favored or disfavored by evolution? Any data or theory on that? Contact Basemetal here 21:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I used to think that people could change their minds, now I'm sure that they can't. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it rare for someone to have a sudden change of opinion based on one single televised debate (a single debate tends to simply reinforce opinions already held). On-going debate and discussion, on the other hand, might well end up with people slowly changing their minds. I think the societal change of opinion (at least in the US) on the issue of Gay Marriage is a good example of this... ten years ago, the majority of Americans were against it (even Obama)... today, American society seems to have changed it's minds and the majority supports it. That was not the result of one debate, but of multiple debates and discussions held over many many years. One debate might help someone to didn't have a firm opinion to form one, but it is unlikely to cause sudden shifts of opinion... that takes much longer. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, "marginal change of mind" while not very noticeable on a daily basis can, in the long run, when it always happens in the same direction, result in big societal changes. When change is so slow one must also consider demographic change, in other words that it's not so much individuals that changed their minds but that the proportions of people holding one opinion or another changed as a result of demographic change. That is of course connected to the question how one forms an opinion, why newer generations form opinions that are different from the previous ones. Big questions, hunh? That's why I was merely asking for scientific studies of these questions. I was of course not expecting that they would be settled here at the RD. Contact Basemetal here 19:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting post. I had always wondered if there was a "name" for this. I just never bothered to post my question. Is there some name (in science, psychology, sociology, whatever) for the notion that when we hear an argument/debate, we only draw from it the points that confirm our original belief, and we really don't "hear" or "listen to" the points that go against our original belief? In other words, we (humans, in general) usually listen to the argument/debate with a closed mind, not an open mind. And we usually are trying to gather more "ammunition" to bolster what we already believe, as opposed to being open to listening to the other side and perhaps changing our minds about the issue at hand. I found a good article about this. I will see if I can find the link. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The good article that I recently read was about how people feel about the death penalty. I believe it came out about the time that the Boston Bomber trial reignited debate about the death penalty. The article basically said that we believe what we want to believe, and basically no one can change our mind, no matter what arguments/evidence they put forth. On such important matters as the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, etc. I did a Google search to see if I could find that article again. But using all the relevant search words (like "death penalty", etc.) came up with an enormous amount of "hits". So, I cannot weed through them all to try to find that article. Does anyone know the article I am referring to? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias208.87.234.202 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that confirmation bias does have limits. For example, if a Holocaust denier was given a tour of a death camp while the bodies were fresh, he might have been convinced, but less so when just looking at pictures, where he could argue they were all faked. StuRat (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There's also cherry picking (fallacy), when only using those facts which support your view in an argument with others. Of course, if trying to win a debate, that's exactly what you want to do. Not so when trying to determine the facts of a case. (Unfortunately, court cases really should try to determine the facts of the case, but the adversarial process ensures that each side cherry picks their own facts.) StuRat (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, people often change their minds.

.... Wait, I've had a rethink. No, they don't change their minds.

.... Wait .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

To me it seems that in both formal and informal learning people are changing their minds all the time. They may keep some fixed points, but within those there is a lot that can change. After reading just one book people say things like "that's put a new perspective on it for me", or "I see it in a different light now", "I've got a more nuanced view", "I hadn't realised", "I've learnt a lot", "it's clarified a lot of things for me", etc. See Amazon book reviews for these phrases and many more. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" John Maynard Keynes. Widneymanor (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Ed Leslie a person? Because the seven hundredth of his thousand gimmicks (give or take) was simply a guy with black and white facepaint who said "Yes! No! Yes! No!" That was the entire deal. Called "The Zodiac", for reasons that probably only made sense for fifteen minutes. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

This is a really interesting debate. Is there a reliably sourced list of clerics of various faiths who changed faith (or dropped faith altogether), absent of persecution? --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I recall something Garrison Keillor once said (very likely quoting someone else), that men are well-known for making a bad decision and then "sticking with it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you are looking for science refs. Here's some: This book looks really good for a recent overview [1]. This one is specifically about media influence [2]. This one takes a more cognitive science perspective [3]. Some relevant WP articles: persuasion, attitude change, elaboration likelihood. Finally, specific to debate - here's one on various features of rhetoric and effects on persuasion [4], here's one on message order that also pertains to debate [5]. Here's a specific one analyzing impact of the Bush-Gore debates [6] Plenty of further fodder on google scholar. My understanding is that often viewing a debate will serve to just reinforce one's prior attitude. However, real attitude change is possible. Beyond that I recommend reading the literature for more nuanced findings and discussion. Search various combinations of /persuasion attitude change debate message effect/ . SemanticMantis (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. I can see you Googled "persuasion change mind". You used Google better than me. I had Googled "changing people's minds" which unfortunately returned a lot of stuff about how to change people's minds. Googling "changing one's mind" returned at the top stuff about changing your own brain. However I got this. It's more opinion than scientific data but the paper does quote some statistics. Thanks again. Contact Basemetal here 16:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad those help. I've found it's useful to think of google and it's related services as a highly literate idiot - use key terms, ideally the ones used by science, but don't ever conjugate or decline words unless that's specifically what you're looking for :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to toss in a mention of Intelligence Squared, a debate program I've recently heard a few times on an American public radio station (and which I understand originated in the UK), which is based on changing people's minds over the course of a single debate. An audience poll is conducted on the day's topic prior to the debate, then another poll is conducted after, with the team who has gained the most percentage points for their side of the argument being declared "the winner". --LarryMac | Talk 18:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Joimpy

Does the hamlet of Joimpy in Saint-Léger-des-Aubées still exist?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A hamlet named Goimpy exists.[7] I don't know if it's the same place. Nanonic (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

[ec] I'm fairly sure it is, Saint-Léger-des-Aubées is the nearest place that has an article on :fr. Tevildo (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course the presence of a place on Google Maps or any other map is not actual proof that it exists. Maps may contain errors, even deliberate errors on occasion. But if you check Google's Street View imagery at the edge of the place, you will see a sign reading "GOIMPY (C^ne de S^t LÉGER des AUBÉES)", and I call that pretty definitive. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

June 29

music intervals

moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#music intervals96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Judaism and history

I know that Christians believe that Jesus actually resurrected himself as a historical fact and that Muslims believe that Muhammad actually ascended to heaven on the dome of the rock as a historical fact. Is there any equivalence in Judaism? Are there any things in Judaism that Jews may believe to be historical fact? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Lack of universal acceptance in Jewish theology mirrors the fabulously messy tangle of blurs of white, grey and black that is Jewish law. But a good place to start is here. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the links. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Jewish religion's founding narrative, which by Divine commandment is recited annually at Passover during the ceremonial seder meal, is written in the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament dubbed the "Five Books of Moses." The narrative features the events surrounding the patriarch Jacob and sons, notably Joseph, in the Egyptian Land of Goshen, the Hebrews' captivity in Egypt, their liberation through the efforts of Moses, their flight from Egypt ("The Exodus") including the parting of the Red Sea, Moses receiving the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai and the episode of the Golden Calf, the forty years' wandering in the desert, and to the Promised Land of Canaan. Check these internal links to read about the historicity of these events. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Plus, if you're looking for something analogous to Jesus' resurrection or Muhammad's ascenscion, there's Elijah, who didn't die, but was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind accompanied by a fiery chariot, and is prophesied to return. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And also Enoch, the Enoch (ancestor of Noah) of the Hebrew Bible. In the words of the King James Bible (which I love for its Early Modern English prose, but is rejected as a translation by mainstream Bible scholars) "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Just bear in mind that "Jews" are not a homogenous group. Two Jews, three opinions is the old joke and it's well founded. As such pretty much anything that may fall into "things in Judaism that Jews may believe to be historical fact" would also fall into "things in Judaism that Jews may believe to be fiction".

You could narrow the request by asking about traditional Orthodox Judaism, but even within those bounds there's still a multiplicity of viewpoints on, for example, the historicity of much of Midrash and even books of the Tnakh. One famous example: see Job_(biblical_figure)#Job_in_Judaism for the arguments over whether the book of Job is regarded a true story or just a story.

That said, Deborah is right, that much of Tnakh is regarded by Orthodoxy as fact and that absolutely includes the Exodus narrative. --Dweller (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

order of Southern Baptist liturgy

Do Southern Baptist liturgies have any order? So, I visited a Southern Baptist church last weekend. It seemed that the first part of the worship service was a hymn, except the fact that there was no congregational singing. It was more like a theatrical display of the hymn, performed by children, at the front of the room on a stage-like thing. Then, there was a very long sermon with citations from the Bible, instead of reading an excerpt from the holy scriptures and then interpreting it to the congregation. The only thing that the congregation said was "Amen", but it was very sporadic and non-collective. Near the end, there was another hymn, but this time some congregants thought it was over and left! Apparently, there was no communion. What did I just see? Why was the sermon so long? Why were there no Bible readings before the sermon? What happened to the Eucharist? Do Southern Baptists ever take communion? And exactly where do they take communion? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

For a partial answer to your questions, see Eucharist#Protestant: "It is rare to find a Baptist church where The Lord's Supper is observed every Sunday; most observe monthly or quarterly, with some holding Communion only during a designated Communion service or following a worship service." Gandalf61 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh. So, does that mean Southern Baptists hold Communion during a designated Communion service or following a worship service? Either way, why do Protestants separate Communion from the actual worship service instead of holding Communion within the worship service? How is the Communion service different from the worship service in terms of structure? Is there a reason behind the sparing Communion services? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Most of the protestant churches used rejection of transubstantiation as one of their bickering points with the Catholic church, and some took it further and argued that it shouldn't be part of worship. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Baptists in general are supposed to be independent, and although the Southern Baptist Convention doesn't mind yanking funding from seminaries based on what they teach ("Arminianism? No funding for you!"), they still don't enforce any particular order. Baptist churches do tend to be heavier on the sermon than other parts, in part because of Evangelicalism, the Great Awakenings, and Revival meetings. If they have a good minister of music (...or just an enthusiastic one), there may be more music than some other churches.

Despite being allowed to believe in whatever Eucharistic theology a member can reconcile with the Bible and their own reasoning, most just settle for memorialism and many will actively reject transubstantiation out of some faint memory that we're supposed to be protesting something (...or just straight up sectarianism). Some Baptist churches have "the Lord's Supper" (i.e. communion) every week, but most have it on special occasions. It really varies from each congregation to congregation. How communion is done also varies from church to church. The one I grew up in had trays of wafers and small cups of grape juice passed down each row by a pair of ushers. The last one I attended had everyone come up to the alter, tear off a piece of bread, and dip it in a cup of grape juice. There are enough Baptists who are teetotalers for there to be a stereotype that we're all teetotalers (even though it's on an individual basis), so if you ever find one that uses wine, please let me know so I can move there.

This is only dealing with mainline and evangelical Baptists. There are some hardcore independent Baptist churches that... well... you'll know them when you see them. (If the church building doubles as a fallout shelter, or there are no minorities, or the congregation keeps referring to "the compound," you've probably found one). I've only passed by those and have not attended their services.

In short: Baptists are sort of ecumenical anarchists. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

66.213.29.17, you sound like you're from a more thoroughly liturgical church, perhaps Catholic or Anglican or high Lutheran. You have to begin by noting that most Baptists reject the term "liturgy", associating it with missals and pre-determined schedules and not realising that any order of service (including the traditional way of worship in a Baptist church) is a kind of liturgy. I've never heard of churches that celebrate the Lord's Supper outside of a worship service, so the fact that some do is probably as surprising to me as to you. We Protestants have generally separated the sacraments from normal worship services, and when the sacraments are celebrated, it's with special other elements, perhaps a special sermon or even an earlier start time to accommodate the extra elements. [Note that there's an important exception: many or most Restoration Movement churches, e.g. "Church of Christ", celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly.] I don't know why Baptists may celebrate the Lord's Supper just a few times per year, but I can guess: Baptists (and the Presbyterians of whom I am one) came out of the context of the Act of Uniformity 1662 (England) and corresponding legislation in Scotland, by which all clergy rejecting episcopal church government (and at least in England, Anglicanism in general) were forced out of their pulpits; comparatively few dared to reject it (after all, this was your and your family's life), leaving dissenters largely without clergy, so even if every minister officiated at the Lord's Supper every week, many congregations could only celebrate it a few times per year because the minister would only visit a few times per year. Combine this with the idea that preaching, not the sacraments, was central to the worship service, and mix it with later regard for the traditions of the elders (all the while rejecting the Catholic dependence on tradition!), and you just celebrate the sacraments rarely because that's what Grandpa's church (and Grandpa's grandpa's church) did. And re: Ian's last comment, see A little stone pretended to be out of the mountain for an earlier work taking this position (but it will be hard to read, due to the seventeenth-century orthography); congregationalism and independency naturally lead to ecumenical anarchy. Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Greek businesses opening overseas bank accounts

Just watched the news about capital controls in Greece. I was wondering, could a tourist business that mostly sells to foreigners, but is legally based in Greece (a small hotel, for example), realistically arrange a bank account in a more stable country and get all its customers to pay for bookings there? With something like Paypal for card payments. Meaning they would still have hard currency if this doesn't get sorted out. Basically how hard is it to open foreign accounts for a smallish business, and would they get away with it re the Greek government? 213.205.251.244 (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be wise for the Greek government to encourage this, as tourism dollars are badly needed (the government would still get a share via taxes, assuming they manage to collect them). However, riots may discourage tourism. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There is some expense and trouble involved. It might be beyond the resources of a small hotel. See this article on the subject. Basically, the hotel would have to pay either high fees to open and maintain a "high-risk merchant account" in a country outside Greece, or the hotel would have to register as a business (with all of the fees involved) in a different country and then open a domestic merchant bank account in that country. In either case, a credit check would be involved (since the merchant would be expected to face some liability for chargeback), and at the moment, I doubt that most banks would consider any Greek business a good credit risk. Marco polo (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

They might want to pick an "iffy" nation with lax banking laws. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Greek referendum documents

A referendum will take place in Greece next Sunday. The question will be: “Do you agree with or reject the proposal of the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank, consisting of two documents, entitled Reforms for the completion of the Current Program and Beyond and Preliminary Debt sustainability analysis?”. My question is: is it possible to find and read the text of these two documents online?--The Theosophist (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The last draft of the creditors' proposals, which were being discussed with Greek delegates right up to the referendum announcement, has been published on the EU website. It's in the form of a list of things they want Greece to do (or perhaps more realistically start doing) before anything would be paid out. Presumably if the "memorandum" was resurrected it might be based on this. 213.205.251.244 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The question of the referendum names two specific documents. I search for online editions of these.--The Theosophist (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think these might be the two: [8] and [9] (they have the right titles, but I don't speak Greek). 184.147.138.101 (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are the ones. Thank you.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome!184.147.138.101 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 30

What happened to the US?

These things are totally forgotten, just like erased from history, very strange.

• United States antitrust law
• New Deal

--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

They are both very much part of the US government:

1) Mergers of large companies are regularly reviewed, and often rejected, when they will lead to a lack of competition, or, in the case of media companies, a lack of independent voices.

2) The Social Security Administration is perhaps the most lasting effect of the New Deal. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Also still very much part of history. Erased things don't have Wikipedia articles, let alone well-sourced ones. Do you mean erased from history class? If so, I don't know much about that (even if they're taught or not), but, in general, there aren't enough hours in the school day for most important events. Even American history is very long. Can't teach every kid every thing. Even Wikipedia can only try. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the FDIC! Neutrality^talk 04:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the uncovering of the 2015 FIFA corruption case was the result of the application US antitrust law. Alansplodge (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And United States v. Microsoft Corp. was not so long ago either. It received a ton of media coverage. --Xuxl (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Also the more recent United States v. Apple Inc. which didn't perhaps receive quite so much, but still a fair amount. As Sturat has said, antitrust law also comes in to play with most major mergers. Even if it doesn't stop the merger or result in additional conditions, it's the reason (in particular the Clayton Act 1914 I think) why such mergers need approval. (Note also, the lack of rejection or additional conditions isn't an indication the law isn't doing anything, the companies themselves will consider such issues before proposing a merger so may not propose a merger unlikely to be successful or may have already agreed to do something to satisfy government concerns.) Of course in the modern world it usually isn't just US anti-trust law that comes in to play.

In the case of the New Deal, it's difficult to watch much Fox News, or read other US conservative news without seeing some discussion of how the New Deal destroyed America/prolonged the great depression and how Obama is doing the same thing in some way.

So as with many others, I don't understand the OPs question. I don't live in the US and was well aware of these probably since my mid teens. (Well at least US antitrust although that was difficult to ignore as this was the time of the MS case.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

One date "they" don't tell you about is June 18, 1958. The day Homer J Simpson died. Note, students, the J stands for nothing. Even a Findagrave site search on Google for "homer j simpson" doesn't find him. But he was real, once. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:33, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

In other news, US Air Force Major General Chester E. McCarty (this guy) took three jackrabbits, two horned toads and an armadillo to Portland, Oregon. He returned to Waco, Texas with a porcupine and a beaver. Elsewhere, a bridge fell. How many fifth-graders know that? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:45, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

You mean, present or past fifth-graders? By the way, the zoo swap happened the day before the article is dated, that would be June the 17th. That would be a reason to desesperate, while in fact there are plenty of them if not just targeting the same Google research date. --Askedonty (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

In real time, a day before. But when reviewing history, perception is reality. Nobody knows the news till it's fit to print. Many things were in the zeitgeist that week, but in my eye, flying armadillos deserve the recognition as much as any southbound pachyderm. I'll bet no birth notice in any paper mentioned "Jello Biafra" was born. But he was real, later. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Marty Haggard, a constant value following birth notices, whom we don't know what the tale would be if he'd decided exploring alternative realities, was born on the 18th, not the 17th: now him real right from the start, and at the same time, we are now reading the news only a long time after they have been pushed (or after he's been shot by a hitch-hicker, imagine that.) --Askedonty (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw this guy released an album and song called "The Bridge" 42 years after the other bridge released, tried to scrape some nutjob meaning from the lyrics, and wouldn't you know it? I knew the Internet would forget history, but to see lyrics disappear is more troubling than missing LOLcats. Guess I'll just have to chalk another one up to the Mothman instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

I could find the song on Youtube and I think '42' means only the guy was 42. If you're doing Christian simplicity music, the Bridge it's a bit one of the doctorates. Now you can still reason he choosed the style on purpose deliberately. --Askedonty (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

same as happened to old-school Leftism in general. Got replaced by social justice warriordom and market fundamentalism. Also, stuff (at least electronics) actually getting cheaper (or becoming more advanced for the same price) thanks to China (which helps dull people's suspicion of cartel activity) Asmrulz (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. These topics are covered in standard U.S. history texts used in U.S. schools today. Check any major text and you will find them. Marco polo (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Story checks out. At least for the New Deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I'm pretending to be in Australia, where Christmas comes in early summer :-) Do we have any coverage of "Joseph dearest, Joseph mine"? I'm not finding much under that title, "Song of the crib", or "Josef, Lieber Josef Mein", but as with any obscure work translated from another language, I don't want to assume that these are the only names under which it might appear. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Christmas is always on December 25th, regardless of the hemisphere, right? I found this on Google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't on 25 December in Russia or in Ethiopia. All together now, "Do they know it's Christmas time at all?". Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yea, in some Eastern European sects Christmas is in January, but that has nothing to do with which side of the equator you are on. The side of the equator inverts the seasons, but not when Christmas is. Therefore they have Christmas in summer south of the equator. That might seem strange to us in the Northern Hemisphere, but keep in mind that Bethlehem is close enough to the equator that it wouldn't be likely to have snow any time of the year, anyway, and that we really don't know when Jesus was actually born. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely unheard of [10]. Mikenorton (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Some eastern churches, such as Russian Orthodox, still go by the Julian calendar rather than the Gregorian. So they still celebrate Christmas on December 25th, Julian, although it's into January, per the standard calendar. The civil calendar was changed to sync with the west, after the "October" (actually November) revolution which put Lenin in power. Lenin and his pals did a lot of bad things, but at least they made the civil calendar run on time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is actually Christmas in July or alternatively Mid Winter Christmas (which isn't necessarily in July). That said, while I can't comment on the situation in Australia, I don't think it really gets much attention here in NZ except among various places looking for a way to make money (generally places associated with snow, and eateries). Actually I think Matariki probably gets more attention in recent times. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We have an article on the translator credited on the page you linked Percy Dearmer. He published three hymnbooks in his lifetime (1906, 1926 and 1928); two have online versions but I can't find this hymn in either of them. However if you can get the third; Oxford Book of Carols, it seems most likely.

(Nevertheless, I found at least one mention of this song title before any of those books were published: [11] (1898).)

Anyway, most useful information I found was in the German wikipedia article on the original hymn. [12] It says the tune goes back to a Latin one that we have an English article on Resonet in laudibus, which says the words have been credited, but far from definitively, to Johannes Galliculus (couple of references in that article). On the other hand, the German article says the words were likely by Monk of Salzburg.

The German article also says the song is attested in five medieval manuscripts, and links to one of them dated c. 1420 [13]. Another reference (Ludwig Erk, Franz Magnus Böhme (Hrsg.): Deutscher Liederhort. Band 3. Leipzig 1894, S. 643 f.) dates it to c. 1400 and there's an unreferenced claim that puts it in the mid-12th century as part of a Christmas play (no English article, but see [14]). 184.147.138.101 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

July 1

In the Horus article where is the section about Horemakhet and how does it related to the Great_Sphinx_of_Giza

Thank you!

The sphinx one says "hor-em-akhet" means "Horus of the Horizon", and was another name for the kitty. The Horus article doesn't mention it, or if it does, it hides as well from me as you. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Horemakhet was a form of Horus who represented the sun. He was one of several Egyptian sun gods, the best-known of which is Ra, who is very similar to Horemakhet, though not so much to other forms of Horus. There are no Egyptian texts that refer to the sphinx from around the time it was built, but in the New Kingdom, a thousand years later, it was called Horemakhet. Lions were symbols of the sun in ancient Egypt, and the sphinx is assumed to represent the king who built it (probably Khafre or perhaps Khufu) taking the form of a sun god like Ra or Horemakhet. The New Kingdom name for the sphinx therefore loosely fits with the meaning that its sculptors probably meant to convey. Here is an article with more details about the sphinx's meaning. A. Parrot (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions of the form "Why is XXX not in Wikipedia/this Wikipedia article?" (and the passive-aggressive variant "Where is XXX in this Wikipedia article?") almost always have one or both of the following answers:

• Because nobody has written it yet: if you have reliable published sources, why don't you go ahead and put it in?
• Because there aren't enough reliable published sources for it, so it can't be written. --ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Les Chants de Maldoror public domain English translation

The title says it all: is there a public domain English translation of Les Chants de Maldoror (The Songs of Maldoror) by the Comte de Lautréamont?--The Theosophist (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The article lists one published in 1924 - which will be public domain in the U.S. in 2019 (without further changes in the laws). Rmhermen (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Showing skin

Women's clothing in the west has developed so that more and more skin is shown, i.e. cleavage legs etc. How did this development occur? 84.13.27.150 (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

History of Western Fashion is the general article, but all these are also relevant: mores, hemline, dress code, Shorts#Sociology, Neckline, Cleavage_(breasts), Buttock_cleavage. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Also Modesty has some nice historical context, both worldwide, and in western countries. These trends go in cycles. 10 years ago the young women on large university campuses in the USA were often exposing the tops of their butts - whale tail. Today, that is much less uncommon, but instead it seems ((WP:OR)) more acceptable to show expose a bit of the bottom of the buttocks - underbun (redlink, plenty of google hits. I'd think it's notable enough for an article if whale tail and buttock cleavage are, but that's another discussion). SemanticMantis (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Double negative alert: "less uncommon" = "more common". StuRat (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Part of the trend may be due to women working in more fields today, some of which require less clothing, due to heat, or specific cases, like a lifeguard, who can't get dragged down due to the weight of heavy, wet clothes. However, working women in other fields may need less revealing clothes, like pants. But, once you establish that women could wear different clothes in different circumstances, personal preference starts to play into their selection, too.

Another factor may be that tans became fashionable for women, where previously pale white skin was desirable. However, more recently, the link of tans to wrinkles and skin cancer may reverse that trend, leading women to wear more clothes, at least outside. StuRat (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2

Ptolemaic numbers

I am looking for a table of Ptolemaic numbers and their modern counterparts (1, 2, etc). Not a system of planets or tides, just the actual physical numbers, 1-20 if possible. If you can find them please tell me what I should have entered into the Google search engine also! :) 14.2.30.233 (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you looking for how the numbers 1-20 were written in an ancient language ? Ptolemy was Greco-Egyptian, in Alexandria while it was under Roman control, so do you want ancient Greek, ancient Egyptian, or Latin, from that period ? StuRat (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminations and buy-back

I've just learned Macy's ditched Donald Trump, as did NBC. The network will also no longer air the Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants. (Trump still owns half of the Miss Universe Organization.) By any chance, will somebody hired by CBS, buy Trump's half, as well as the broadcast rights to both pageants?2604:2000:712C:2900:5090:B7FE:BF98:2807 (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not the job of the Reference Desk to make predictions. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)