Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 9

riots in Camden, Notting Hill and Ealing

Camden, Notting Hill and Ealing in London are good boroughs? The first two sound as more refined, but I don't know anything about the third. Quest09 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In much of London, poverty and wealth are in close proximity - sometimes only streets away. This isn't new either: see the research of Charles Booth (philanthropist). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, as far as I understood, the riots where not in the same boroughs where the rioters lived. They simply went to different places of the city. Specially for looting, it makes lots of sense to go there were non-poor live. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no boroughs devoid of poor people, because councils have the obligation to provide council housing or social housing of one sort or another, even in Kensington and Chelsea. It is true that there are boroughs where not many wealthy people choose to live, because the free market has not chosen to build millionaires' houses there. But inner London is well-known for cheek-by-jowl wealth and poverty. Take for example Islington: not just streets of gentrified Georgian architecture and organic hummous purveyors, but some of the most deprived wards in the country: unemployment, free school meals, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

London riots

Why British people are so uncivilized? If someone is wrongly killed by police, why are they rioting instead of approaching judiciary? --World Watcher 000 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

People rioting in Britain have been members of socially excluded groups for years if not generations. In particular, since the late 1970s, Britain has restricted access by the poorest workers to political representation and common wealth. When people in industrial societies lack a sense of access to political voice, are impoverished, excluded, but have strong social networks; they often rely on direct action through their social networks. One way to look at this is by examining E. P. Thompson's Making of the English Working Class where he discusses the relationship between Radical liberals and the London Mobility or Mob in the late 18th and early 19th century. The Mob could get their candidates elected through riot in London, as voting was a very public action. Intimidating the few rich individuals who could vote, was a way in which the London poor gained political voice. In the late 20th and early 21st century where Parliament and Council's claims to represent all people is effective propaganda, hegemonic in the terms of Antonio Gramsci, the poorest workers who know through life experience that they have no political power, take actions like rioting. I think rioting because you're excluded from democratic social power is a rather sensible and civilised thing. Your opinions on the radically democratic Boston and London mobs of the 18th century may differ from mine; and, similarly, your opinion on whether real democracy constitutes an element of civilised society may also differ. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Since the late 1970s, Britain has restricted access by the poorest workers to political representation and common wealth." I think you mean the 1380s ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In propaganda I'd go back and kick it old school with Wat Tyler. But there's a reasonable debate to be had as to whether revolt prior to the 1790s constitutes "workers'" revolt or not. Also, I think it is disingenious to deny that between 1945 and the late 1970s that both the representative power, and real living standards in relation to rights to common wealth, rose for most workers—even including Black British, Irish, Catholics, Afro-carribeans, women and youth. If we compare the Winter of Discontent to the Anti-Poll Tax Unions, we can see a fall in the power of political representation considered distinctly from political power for workers in general. The hysteria in liberal (Guardian sense) media in the UK in the 1970s about the living standards of poor Britons was quite tangible—they started more sociologist's courses at Universities. In comparison Shameless is a horrific joke for the white collar workers and stipendiary professionals whose interests within Capitalism are represented by Labour, the Liberals and the Tories; and Shameless is arguably the Shame of Labour both new and old. (Its also a telling reminder on the pathetic ineffectiveness and white-collar (at best) background of British "revolutionary" organisations in general.) But enough bile at the failures of the workers' movement in general. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

...and I thought I was the Grump around here. What is this, an old Trots' reunion? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm closer to Solidarity (UK). I believe the Socialist Register described them (paraphrase): Their mascot is a hedgehog, small and spikey. Of course, I've also heard that in Industrial struggle Solidarity was pretty much lovely to deal with. Their Australian admirers were apparently lovely in industrial struggle too. Why be sectarian, when I can blame everybody :). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

IMHO most riots are the same nearly everywhere and there is nothing diffrent compared to recent riots in China, Paris/France, USA/Los Angeles etc. The poor youth are bored, frustated and lack hope. Something creates a spark and suddenly the youth goes wild. In this particular case the rioters don't know of or give a damm about the guy who was shot (and no one is sure if this was lawful police shooting or not). IMHO they aren't excluded from democratic social power.

The rioters seem to be poor, lacking parental supervision, uneducated, unemployed, frustated and without hope of a better future. They seem to be poor thugs who have caught the police by surprise. So they throw stones, loot shops and burn the shops, cars and other peoples' homes to the ground (and the rioters don't give a FUC* if you're still inside the house or not). They are, for the lack of a better word, SCUM and should be ashamed of themselves. They should be punished according to harshest degree of the law. Flamarande (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"recent riots in China..." What? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rural workers rioting against enclosure [here, in the Guardian]. There are also regular workers riots due to the lack of union and bargaining rights within Chinese capitalism. (Also because local Party figures regularly send violent police in to smash industrial protest by workers). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

China was never spared from urban unrest or riots. Go to Template:21st century unrest in the People's Republic of China and read the respective articles. Flamarande (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, the Chinese workers should seize the means of production, and declare a state of irony. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if it happened in '56 in Hungary and '68 in Czechoslovakia and '89 in bits of China's old industries why not in '11 :).

(ec x 2) It may suit the purpose of Wikipedia editors and newspapers to label the incidents listed in that template as "riots", but I must say most of them are merely violently put down, peaceful protests. For example, the 2011 Shanghai riot is nothing like the London riots. For one thing, the protests target the government, not shoe stores.

That said, I asked the question because I was wondering what exactly Flamarande was referring to, and now I understand. Thanks! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, there are riots, "riots", and there are revolts and revolutions. Some riots are "justified to a certain degree" because of the circumstances. Others are simple orgies of violence, looting, burning, rape and destruction. Was there widespread looting by the mob in the 3 examples you chose? I honestly don't think so (but I may be mistaken). Granted, many "riots" in China are something else. Flamarande (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The British are not alone to do this, see 2005 civil unrest in France , 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel , 1992 Los Angeles riots and 2008 Greek riots. I am sure there are hundreds more. Don't imagine it is a British problem only. --08:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective, I'd look at it like this. Every day, everyone passes opportunities to commit crime. Much of it, petty enough, would never be found. I could become that bit richer if I started defrauding the system. Instead, I, and almost everyone else, follow the rules because of some 'greater good'. If you're hopeless, unemployed, etc., then the 'greater good' is going to look like a pipe dream. So you kick out. Same the world over. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's refreshing to see the British riot over something other than a soccer game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

How dare you??!! The British never riot about soccer. It's Football we riot about ;)--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Geez, I don't like the New England Patriots either but I don't riot when they win. Googlemeister (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rioting in the sub-zeros of early February has little appeal. Riots usually happen in good weather. Although Vikings fans have rioted every time their team won the Super Bowl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As a Packers fan, that comment gives me great glee. (For the uninformed, the Packers and the Vikings are rivals, and the Vikings are 0 for 4 in their Superbowl appearances). Googlemeister (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the OP's question "why?", it would appear as if at least two of the rioters subscribe to this rationale. Gabbe (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What we seem to be seeing is a range of different activities being captured under the media term of "riot". The first night there was escalation from a straightforward law enforcement operation where one violent criminal ended up being shot. There is reporting that the escalation on the first night was a gang response, exacerbated by opportunistic criminality.

On the second night there is reporting of a co-ordinated copycat response from a number of other gangs in London.

Media reporting indicates that the expansion is more related to criminality than any kid of coherent political reaction. Policing has been seen to have been challenged by the scale of the action and there is an opportunity to steal some "free stuff, innit". The identification that regional forces will have been depleted in support of London creates opportunity that has been exploited.

Inevitably there are political answers from all quarters attempting to explain this as some indicator of whatever the commentators persuasion might revert to; disenfranchised and disillusioned, feral youth etc. That doesn't appear to be supported by the available information.

ALR (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This ceased to be about the killing of Mark Duggan by a police marksman after the family's vigil on Saturday afternoon. Instead, it became the latest manifestation of the "getting away with it" mentality in British society: after the bankers who destroyed the world's economy, and the UK MPs who pushed the boundaries of legitimate expenses, now we have people who think that if they can break into shops and steal stuff and get away with it, they will do it. Of course there are underlying problems, not the least of which is that the social programmes which have kept the lid on the anger felt by poor people over the last 15 years have been cut in the name of austerity. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Facebook, Yahoo Mail, YouTube - Profit

• How does Facebook generate profit? It is a free service.
• Why do online companies like Yahoo or Google offer free email service? They have to bear the cost for providing free email service, but what they gain in return? Providing free email service is loss-making, but still they provide it, definitely they gain something. What is that gain? How does that affect their overall business model and profit generation?
• YouTube is a free video-sharing website. Then how does Google generate profit through YouTube? --Reference Desker (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertising, advertising, and advertising, respectively. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not just advertising, very targeted advertising. Google can serve you emails based on the what you've been emailing about. Facebook can do essentially the same thing with the stuff you post on Facebook. That kind of very targeted advertising is worth a lot more than regular advertising.

By the way, Google also sells gMail service to businesses, so you could consider that the free service also acts as advertisement for the paid service. APL (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But why do the advertisers bother buying ad space? Most people use some sort of ad blocker in their browser, and those who don't, never actually click the ads, do they? Pais (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

They don't need for everyone to click the ads, only a sufficient number to sell something. It's just like the junk mail you receive. You might not buy, but someone else will. It's the "carpet bombing" approach to marketing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But they need someone to click the ads, right? Have you ever actually clicked one, Bugs? Has anyone else reading this thread? I just can't believe the number of clicks they receive is non-zero. Pais (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

People click the ads. Also, if you think, say of TV advertising, you don't have to buy it now. It'll just affect your decisions when you're in the shops, you probably won't notice. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I rarely see TV ads; I always either change the channel or put the TV on mute and read a book until the ads are over. (Sometimes I just shout "Stop trying to sell me shit I don't need!" at the set.) And at the store, I always buy the cheapest no-name brands that don't advertise anyway. But I guess other people pay more attention to ads than I do. Pais (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertisers don't care if they get you to buy their stuff, only that they get somebody to buy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What utterly mystifies me is why these sites (e.g. a Google search) don't crack down hard on advertisers who make up phony targeted ads. I mean, if you search for a left handed monkey wrench in Podunk, there will be a site advertising a left handed monkey wrench in Podunk ... be the first to rate this product and list suppliers! Sure, I understand that such scammers pay the same as anyone else, but the problem is, the customers try clicking one or two featured links and decide it's a waste of time, and the ads become worth much less than otherwise. Wnt (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there's some debate as to whether YouTube actually is profitable.[1][2] As a subsidiary of Google, part of its value is in enticing people to use other more profitable Google services. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As for people who "think" they are impervious to advertising, no one actually believes they are being manipulated. Unless you work in advertising, or you have studied the psychology of influence and persuasion, (and therefore make up a tiny insignificant part of the population) what makes you think you are smarter then everyone else? (apart from the fact that you trawl the wiki ref desks? lol). I like to think advertising doesn't work on me either but I wouldn't be so certain as to proclaim it in a public forum. Vespine (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii and Britain

What was happening in the British Empire from 1893 to 1900 which would explain why the British didn't step in to prevent America from annexing Hawaii or even voice a non-physical opposition/objection? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From the history given in the Hawaii article, it appears that Hawaii was not a part of the British Empire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Never said Hawaii was part of the British Empire. What was happening with the British at this time that would explain why they didn't intefere in the situation in Hawaii at the time? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would they be expected to? Maybe they didn't interfere for the same reason the French, the Germans, the Japanese, and the Russians didn't, namely that they didn't care. Pais (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

British interests in the Pacific, Britain's ties to Hawaii, and the fact that Britain was mighty enough to have a say in such an issue during those days. All reasons and many more given by British ambassadors in Hawaii. The Kingdom of Hawaii allowed the British and Americans to dock merchant and military vessels in their ports. With Hawaii under American control the British lost a lot of access and control in the Pacific which as a naval power it would benefict from; "Cut in half" according to James H. Wodehouse since they still had some colonies in the Southern Pacific. I've been guessing the British were starting to fear America's growing power so they stay silent, but that's probably not it since America had a terrible army at the time and there navy wasn't that great until after all this and the Spanish-American War.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Britain's ties to Hawaii..." such as the natives killing Captain Cook? Maybe the Brits had had enough of the place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ties=the flag, foreign relations between both countries, the fact that four Hawaiian royals met Queen Victoria, invites to the Golden Jubilee, and even the Diamond Jubilee as the Republic of Hawaii. I've never heard of any hostility between the British and Hawaiians because of Captain Cook's death, twenty years after the death of Captain Cook, George Vancouver came along and he was too eager to make peace and allies with the people that killed Cook. Vancouver even gave Kamehameha I a modern naval ship, lifestocks and other stuff. And then Britain was the first nation to recognize Hawaiian independence and even returned sovereignty back to it rulers after a British naval officer decided to go ahead take over the island in the name of Britain in 1843.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that America forced Hawaii to become part of the US, when they would have preferred to be connected with the Britain Empire instead? Hence the flag. 92.28.254.151 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii preferred to be an independent sovereign country, but was forceably annexed by the US. All it required was the marines from one ship marching in. They only had to kill one Hawiian policeman in the conquest. Then the put Sanford Dole (American) and his cronies in charge of the country. The pretense was that the Hawiians were about to do harm to Americans, just like when the US invaded Granada in 1983. The invasion of Hawaii was described as imperialism in its most blatant form by many writers of the time. European countries like Britain had done the same thing many times: see a country then just send in the troops and announce it belongs to them. When Hitler and Japan started doing the same thing in the 1930's the US and Europe did not view it as the same process at all. Edison (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just some corrections the ones who overthrew the monarch were Hawaiian citizens of American and European descent with the help US marines who didn't fire a shot but were probably prepare to if the Hawaiian government resisted. The policeman was wounded not killed trying to stop a cart of ammunitions to get to the revolutionists. Sanford B. Dole wasn't install by the American government. The things is the Americans in Hawaii wanted to annex Hawaii to the US while President Cleveland didn't want to and wanted to restore the Queen, so the Americans in Hawaii decided to declare a republic until a US president comes along that support annexation. Which was McKinley.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This was the height of the imperialist period, when European countries were busy carving out colonial empires in Africa and elsewhere and extracting concessions in China. The U.S. annexion of Hawaii was exactly the same type of action, and the islands were closer to the U.S. sphere of influence than anyone else's. And why wage a war over a few small islands when there were still much larger and significant chunks of territory to be parcelled out, such as the crumbling Ottoman Empire and all of Central Asia ? --Xuxl (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also see Treaty of Paris (1898). During this time the U.S. also acquired Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines (actually bought it). The latter sparked the bloody Philippine–American War. It was all pretty dastardly, in my (admittedly biased) opinion. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 clearly put Hawaii within the U.S. sphere of influence. If the British were going to object, 1875 would have been the time to do it, since the treaty allowed the United States to set up a naval base at Pearl Harbor. Since there was otherwise no prospect of conflict with the United States, and since Hawaii was on the other side of the world from Great Britain, far from its main shipping lanes, it wasn't worth provoking a conflict with the United States, whose economy was now larger than that of the United Kingdom, over such a distant group of islands. During the 1870s, the UK was preoccupied with securing territory in what are now Pakistan and Egypt, protecting its empire in India and its communication links with that empire, including the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. During the 1890s, the UK was preoccupied with expanding its empire in Africa. Also, during the 1870s, the UK was much more concerned about the rise of nearby Germany and its defeat of France, which had upset the balance of power in Europe, than it could possibly have been with US expansion on the other side of the world. During the 1890s, French and German seizures of territory in Africa, Indochina, and New Guinea posed a much more direct threat to major British colonies than US imperialism in Hawaii. Marco polo (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It was already apparent in 1874 that in Hawaii the US had a leading rôle relative to the UK. The event was the quelling of a riot where the US with 2 warships provided 150 troops compared to the British with one ship and 70-80 troops. America's involvement in the riot led to the establishment of the United States Navy base at Pearl Harbour, see above. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

C3, you're such a stickler for spelling and pronunciation. Please recognize that there is no such place as Pearl Harbour. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor is indeed the US spelling while the British who are the subject of the OP's question adhere to the spelling Pearl Harbour which is also a valid Wikilink. Learn how to spell my name properly. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "British spelling" of an American proper name. It's a US location so the US spelling is correct by definition, and any other is wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. It wasn't until 1887 that Pearl Harbor was under US semi-control and even then other nations' wawrships were allow to dock at Pearl Harbor which I don't know why. Japan, Britain and America each had one ship in Pearl Harbor at the time of overthrow. The British still had HMS Champion and the Japanese Naniwa docked in Pearl Harbor; the Japanese offered to assist Liliuokalani militarily or take her to Japan to start a government in exile, but she declined the offers.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Google's News Archive, it seems an objection was raised in the House of Commons but Lord Curzon didn't seem to care that much. The Pall Mall Gazette said it was better for Hawaii to be in American hands than under any (other) rival. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

An interesting comparison to the Hawaiian situation was the Samoan Crisis of the late 1870s, which was ultimately resolved with the Tripartite Convention of 1899 — the UK, the USA, and Germany were disputing control of another group of Pacific islands; unlike the situation in Hawaii, Samoa almost led to warfare between the disputing powers, although war was averted by a tropical cyclone that wrecked almost all of the disputing powers' ships. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How could Dan Brown make such a mistake?

Hello to so many people. Please excuse my uneasy English, indeed I'm a froggy. My wife has just finished "The Lost Symbol" (in the original text) and from time to time while she was reading she explained me many interesting things that we trusted 100% because page 15 FACT: says ..."All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real". So for us it meant that this novel is more trustworthy than "The Da Vinci Code" was.

BUT a trifle puzzles me: page 472, lignes 1 to 6 is explained the etymology of the words sincere and sincerely referring to the latin "sine cera" meaning without wax. "Sincere" coming from the French word "sincère" we checked in 2 good dictionnaries of French etymology. No reference to wax. I did the same on the Internet for French etymology, nothing.

But doing the same for English etymology, I found this http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sincere&searchmode=none which shows that apparently Dan Brown was wrong.

So may be now you understand my question: is Dan Brown a liar or an ignorant?

Thank you very much for the time you took to read my question. Joël Deshaies-Rheims-France---80.236.117.41 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidently, Dan Brown made a similar claim for The Da Vinci Code - see Dan_Brown#Criticism. Of note is his response to the criticism, which I interpret as saying "just enjoy the book and don't think too much about the details." Personally, I prefer authors who are less intellectually dishonest. (Also, your English is just fine, much better than my French). --LarryMac | Talk 15:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be that he made a mistake, perhaps by trusting an online source. (Since you obviously care about words, let me point out that in English, "ignorant" is not a noun. The correct wording is, "is Dan Brown a liar or is he ignorant?") Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See Sincerity#Controversy. (WP:WHAAOE) --Tango (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that works of fiction are made up. That literally means that every word between the front cover and the back cover exists for the sole purpose of advancing the plot in entertaining ways. Some works of fiction incorporate random actual historical facts, because it serves the purpose of the author, but that should not be taken to mean that other facts in the book are true even if the author tells you they are. The actual statement declaring that some aspect of the book is "honest to god, we swear this is true" is itself a dramatic device; it is being used by the author to elicit a reaction in you, since he primed you that some part of the book is true, you are more likely to accept it, and that may lead to your liking the book more. That, however, doesn't mean that it is actually true, just that the author is telling you it is true to advance the plot. There are lots of works of fiction which use these disclaimers, and which are blatantly false. Communion by Whitley Strieber declares itself to be a true story; but if you believe that I have a sweet land deal you should buy into. The film Fargo is completely made up, despite the disclaimer at the front that tells you "THIS IS A TRUE STORY". Fargo_(film)#Fact_vs._fiction discusses this. The fact remains, you should enjoy Dan Brown's book for what it is, but don't even take his disclaimer about the veracity of any aspect of it at face value. Yes, there may be historical facts in it, but that doesn't mean that any specific fact is in itself trustworthy in that book. Check actual histories and find out for yourself. Don't take the author's word for it, and don't treat his fictional work as a work of scholarship. --Jayron32 17:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dramatic license knows no bounds. Case in point: Plan 9 from Outer Space was "based on sworn testimony". We know that's true because Criswell tells us so, and also reminds us that we can't prove it didn't happen. Criswell would have been an interesting wikipedia contributor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea at all why Dan Brown's books are so overrated. I mean, Da Vinci Code was quite similar (but inferior) to a rather modest film Revelation (2001),^[3] which certainly didn't get that much attention; the ideas presented are also familiar to readers of The Illuminatus Trilogy. His writing didn't seem all that compelling to me, though the Da Vinci film was very nicely filmed and scored. How did that book become so famous? Wnt (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

While dramatic license may know no bounds, fans of the hard sci-fi genre fondly recall afterwords from some of the better authors explaining the factual basis for their tales. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For hard science fiction, the principle I explained above has been coded into law, specifically Clarke's third law. Most hard science fiction runs smack-dab into the wall of relativity when it tries to deal with the problem of the speed of light. Every author deals with it differently, and some produce some pseudoscientific "explanation" about why their solution to the problem is "elegant", but that just means that it's well written pseudoscientific babble. The fact remains that, as yet, the problem of rapid interstellar travel and communication, as it relates to the speed of light limit, is entirely unresolved, and anything that any science fiction author comes up with to deal with it is, by necessity, entirely made up. --Jayron32 19:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but not all hard sci-fi assumes FTL, and even where they do, this can merely set the stage without trammeling the plot (e.g. Dragon's Egg). The important parts of the action can be rooted in fact. Of course, a little "magic" may be involved in any fiction - details are always omitted somewhere - but to deny the validity of hard sci-fi as a genre is an unjustified overreaction. The attempt to building the fiction using real scientific ideas and not just random jargon is very much worthwhile, and is much akin to the planning of real-world enterprises, except at some point the author stops working out the details because the resources are unavailable or the technologies aren't fully mature. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never denied the validity of hard sci-fi as a genre, I read such books all the time. I find them quite entertaining. I just don't treat anything written in them as reliable sources of real science, in the same way I might, say, for the journal Nature... --Jayron32 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the core plot of the Davinci Code was ripped off of the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Dan Brown may have thought everything presented as facts in that book was in fact real (if we are to take his disclaimer literally), we can't really know. However if he did, then it certainly does speak volumes about his gullibility, as well as being a warning not to take everything written in books as the literal truth. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. That article tells us about Dossiers Secrets d'Henri Lobineau (1967). I suppose this probably inspired the mentions of these details in both The Illuminatus Trilogy and the BBC series leading up to the Holy Blood book. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Etymology is not a ritual, science, artwork or monument.
Sleigh (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Our article Etymology is in Category:Etymology, which is in Category:Lexicology, which is in Category:Linguistics, which is in Category:Social sciences, which is in Category:Scientific disciplines, which is in Category:Science. So etymology is a science. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope that's tongue-in-cheek? I'm not ruling out etymology as a science, but inferring that from Wikipedia's category structure, especially with such a long transitive chain, is evidence so terribly weak as hardly to be evidence at all. --Trovatore (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to underline that science in a broader sense encompasses not only natural sciences, but also social sciences with all their subdivisions – including etymology. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

outside ancient Rome

There is plenty of information around about the various government officials in ancient Rome itself, but I am wondering if anyone can tell me anything about the sorts of officials that might have been appointed or elected to govern say a small town somewhere in one of the provinces. Would they have had anyone in such a capacity, how might they be chosen, what would they do and what were they called?

79.66.103.116 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Much of what we know about provincial administration in the Roman Empire comes from the Notitia Dignitatum. The governors of the provinces themselves were called Proconsuls. Smaller subdivisions were called dioceses, and their administrators were called Vicarius, or Vicars. Other local officials had titles which later morphed into titles of nobility in Western Europe. Comes (Count) was one, though some Comes were officials or advisors in the Emperor's household, others were local governors. Dux (Duke) were military governors, the position also changed and morphed with time and place; some Dux were more like Generals than Governors, while others had roles similar to Marcher Lords in later English history. There were also civilian officials, like Corrector and Praeses. --Jayron32 19:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also see our articles Prefect, Municipium, and Civitas, which have additional information on Roman local government. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a notable example of someone who held such office: Pliny the Younger --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

self sufficient nation

If there was some kind of situation where all countries closed all their borders today to all trade and allowed no one in or out (think really nasty disease), which country would most likely be able to maintain the best standard of living for the next 20 years or so (assuming the borders remained closed and that the populations remained where they are now)? I realize there is probably no one answer to this question, but reasonable guidance in the matter as much as possible would be enough for me. Googlemeister (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Canada. It has all of the energy it needs, plenty of cropland, and abundant other resources. In addition, it has a tradition of good governance and a well-educated population. The latter two qualities are missing, for example, in Russia. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You would have to look at which countries have (a) enough agricultural capacity to feed their entire population; (b) enough domestic sources of energy to maintain their standard of living; (3) supplies of raw materials required to produce basic goods; and (4) the skills to create new areas of production to replace what was once supplied from abroad. A complicating factor is that all national economies are now woven into the world economy. No country would be able to maintain its standard of living if cut off from trade; the question is whether any country could adjust quickly enough to avoid mass penury and starvation. Some speculation on how certain countries would do: the USA is hampered by its dependence on foreign energy sources, which would be hard to replace; China would need to reorient its export-based economy inward, which is not too difficult (it was existing largely outside the world economy until three decades or so ago); Russia would need to finally get its act together on agricultural production, but it's not lacking in any skills or natural resources; Most European countries are energy-poor and would have difficulty adjusting - they also have a lot fewer resources than the USA; Japan would struggle to produce enough food and has almost no resources; most emerging countries lack the skills to produce domestically what is presently imported, even though they often have the raw materials and sources of energy required. --Xuxl (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, Canada does seem to be a very good choice. They have plenty of oil, gas, timber and food production, as well as minerals and fresh water resources and a smallish population. Googlemeister (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Norway: small population, large energy reserves, perfect long coastline for smuggling. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the OP means a hypothetical situation where nothing is crossing the borders, whether people nor things. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As Cuddlyable hints at, you've got the issue of maintaining the border; in the US/Canada case that's going to be impossible. Is it under consideration? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming anyone who tries to cross a border or coast to magically get pushed back. Smugglers would complicate things. Googlemeister (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rolls eyes at the word "magically". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There are too some magic countries. My realm, for starters. Surely we have Category:Magic countries. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pay no attention to the man behind the redlink. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Canada has a lot of natural resources but there's no way it or any modern country could maintain its standard of living without trade. Canada's economy is very closely tied to exports to the US. If the border were to close, it would cause a massive depression. Like the U.S., Canada is reliant on imports for its consumer goods. There's no way it could easily go back to making TVs, dishwashers, toys, clothing, etc. Those factories that do exist in Canada depend quite a bit on parts from the U.S. and elsewhere. Many medications are not made in Canada. And what would all the Tim Hortons do without access to coffee? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, the larger a common market the better, allowing better division of labor. The limitation on resources in places like the US is artificially self-imposed, America has all the oil, etc., it needs. The determining factors in relative success between the big nations would be political--how great their regulatory and tax burdens. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Australia also has lots of good farmland and fisheries, lots of coal and uranium, and lots of minerals. Its economy at present is heavily dependent on export, and its population might be too small to support all the industries needed for a modern techological society, but in terms of raw resources it is well-off.

In practice, though, there's no real way of answering this question: modern living requires production of a huge variety of things such as electronic components which are at present only produced in a small number of countries, all of which (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China) are heavily dependent on imports of energy and food; and it would be very hard to set up a complete electronics industry. For anywhere without such sources of semiconductors, the change would be immense. Add the likelihood of domestic unrest, violence, lawlessness, etc, as virtually everybody sees their standard of living plummet and vast numbers lose their jobs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a trade cutoff would lead to something close to an economic collapse in almost every country that currently has a high standard of living, Canada included. It's just that I think, of these countries, Canada would stand the best chance of reorganizing and being able to support a reduced, but still high standard of living after reorganization. While there are a number of manufactured goods Canada doesn't produce, it retains a sizable manufacturing base in Ontario and Quebec, and it has the technical know-how to set up production of components currently imported. I'm not sure what Medeis means when he says that the United States has all of the oil that it needs. Our article oil reserves in the United States says that the country has 134 billion barrels, even if areas currently excluded from production are included. The United States now consumes more than 7 billion barrels per year. First, it would take several years to ramp up production in currently excluded areas, many of which are offshore and/or in remote areas. Next, this production could only be expected to meet current US demand during a peak production period lasting 10 years at most before production started to decline. So, even harnessing these reserves, the United States would not meet Googlemeister's 20-year criterion. As for China, China's energy demand also now exceeds its supply. China might be able to survive without trade, but it would come at the price of a substantial drop in the standard of living. It is in a similar position to the United States, except that the United States would have the additional challenge of restarting production of goods it no longer makes. (There are few manufactured goods not made in China, apart from the most sophisticated precision tools and instruments now made in Japan or Germany.)

Oddly, the countries best positioned for a trade cutoff would be the countries least dependent on trade, but that are net exporters of petroleum and that are more or less self-sufficient in food. These countries are mainly in Africa, including Congo, Gabon, Cameroon, and Nigeria. These countries all have relatively low standards of living and could maintain them if their elites adjust to doing without the imported goodies that oil exports finance without further impoverishing the rest of the population. Another interesting country from this perspective is Malaysia, which is self-sufficient in oil and food and which has a large, though export-oriented, manufacturing sector. Malaysia has a moderately high standard of living and could conceivably retool its industry to meet domestic demand. Marco polo (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How is Malaysia in terms of domestic food production? Arguably, that is a more important consideration then oil. Googlemeister (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Malaysai imports rice from Thailand. They are not producing enough to feed themselves at the moment. --Lgriot (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lgriot is correct that Malaysia imports rice and other food products. However, according to the chart on page 6 of this document, they produce 90% of their rice consumption. Furthermore, most food imports are foods that are foods of affluence and not part of a traditional Malaysian diet. By far Malaysia's main agricultural product is palm oil. Rubber is also an important product. This is because large areas of Malaysia's cropland are planted with oil palm and rubber tree plantations producing cash crops for export. If this land were converted to food crop production, Malaysia could easily be self-sufficient in food. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

self-stifled nation

In response to Marco polo who asks what I meant by saying the US has all the oil reserves it needs when he implies that our 134B bbl reserve would not last at a 7B bbl over 20 years, the point is that the market adjusts. Knowing that oil would run out, the price would increase, and seeing the possibility of profits, exploration and innovation of alternatives (hemp oil fuel, nuclear for electricity) would increase. If the government were not to interfere in the process with regulations and bail outs the market would quickly correct itself--look at the 1970's oil crisis as opposed to the Reagan boom. That turn around was accomplished in under two years--less time than Obama has been in office.

The ultimate limitation on physical resources are energy and chemical substances. Our limits on energy production are self-imposed. Nuclear could easily be cheap safe and abundant if not for political opposition. Chemical substances are virtually unlimited, and in the off case that some rare element should be at low supply there is always some other alternative. Again, if, say, it were discovered that platinum were necessary to fusion reactors but the domestic supply were very limited, the price would go up, people would dig deeper and look in the oceans to find it, people would gladly sell their jewelry for dozens of times the price at which they bought it, and scientists would look for more efficient ways of using or bypassing platinum in fusion reactors. All without the need for a green czar or an auto industry bailout. Free market pricing does this automatically. The fallacy is to take the political status quo and current knowledge and reserves as givens. If we choose a stifling status quo that is voluntary stupidity, not an insuperable fact of nature. Socialism is a behavioral, not a physical disorder.

As for economic collapse, in a large free market country an immediate cut of of imports would cause a drastic economic contraction. But it would not be anything near the sort of disaster you get from civil war, hyperinflation (a purely political disaster) or and EMP strike, or even as long term as the current political malaise. In the US electronics and cars would suddenly become expensive--leading to a rebirth of those highly in-demand industries. Food prices, however, although they might spike in an immediate panic, should remain stable or fall because we are a net exporter and we even pay farmers not to farm. (WE PAY FARMERS NOT TO FARM!) Gasahol might actually become economically viable, given the short term boom in gas prices until domestic production caught up.

The lesson is, the problems are largely political, disaster is predicated on not liberalizing the economy or reacting with any common sense to market pressures. Indeed, given the choice between current policy and an irrational policy of isolationism with the proviso of a full return to laissez faire I am tempted to say that the second would be by far the preferable state of affairs. The funny thing is we don't even need the isolation to go back to the laissez faire. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

British police

When did British police start commonly carrying firearms? I was under the impression that for the most part, only their SWAT equivalent commonly used firearms. Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See List of police firearms in the United Kingdom. UK police are not commonly armed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)What makes you think that things have changed? I'm not sure that it's common for them to be armed. Mikenorton (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As a resident, I have seen armed police only once. (On any interesting side-note, the UK owns only 6 water cannon, all in Northern Ireland.) If you're referring to the death of Mark Duggan, it was a special firearms team that shot him. (Probably.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression from the reporting on the riots in London that a lot of the cops int he UK did carry handguns. Googlemeister (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If the police have information that they are dealing with someone who is armed, then there will be firearm officers called in. Apart from that, and away from anti-terrorist officers at airport etc. they average British 'bobby' remains armed with nothing more than a baton. Mikenorton (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't they have a pepper spray? It's difficult to understand why they wouldn't issue at least that, provided the chances of being attacked with a knife.193.153.125.105 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Uniforms_and_equipment_of_the_British_police#Incapacitant_spray --Tango (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tasers are also increasingly common, as that article says. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Our normal British police officers on normal police duties do not carry firearms. There are specific sections of the force who carry them: some airport police; protection duty officers, etc. And, of course there are specific duties on which specially trained 'firearms officers' will carry them. In fact there are quite a lot of police duties on which officers carry firearms, but the normal 'bobby' on the beat, or in his patrol car, does not. Gurumaister (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Our article on the death of Mark Duggan says that he was shot by a member of the Specialist Firearms Command unit. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just think about the difference in culture between the US and the UK indicated by the fact that one man shot by the police causes riots in the street... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A guy who got shot by police in Oakland a year or two ago also caused rioting, so I don't know what you are getting at. Googlemeister (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to blame the victims here. It wasn't the shot guy who caused any rioting. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see some facts: 'In the year 2007-08, there were 6,780 Authorised Firearms Officers, 21,181 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales and 7 incidents where conventional firearms were used', 'According to an October 2005 article in The Independent, in the preceding 12 years, 30 people had been shot dead by police.' Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom. (for reference As of September 2001 there were 127,231 police officers in England and Wales - can't find a more up to date one quickly) This is probably for England and Wales; whilst I do not expect Scotland to differ much, Northern Ireland, per capita, is likely to have considerably more deaths (depending on the timeframe). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Great answer. So only around 5% of British cops commonly carry firearms as part of their job (at least in England and Wales). Googlemeister (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, about 5% have the training and authorisation to carry firearms, but only a small percentage of those will commonly carry them (as part of one of the aforementioned small forces, or a specialist team). Most will only use them on the uncommon occasions where they are part of one of the operations in which firearms are authorised. Warofdreams talk 13:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In Scotland as of 2006/7 (here, p. 5) firearms officers were said to be 3.7% of strength. As for police use of firearms, in the ten years to 2006/7 "there have been three instances (all of which were non-fatal) where conventional firearms have been discharged at a person" (p. 5). There doesn't seem to be a directly comparable figure to the 21,181 for E&W given in the report I linked to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What is this Art movement called?

This video shows a series of artworks. Do they belong to a named art movement? 89.82.190.163 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see several different movements. Some of it looks like modern forms of surrealism, others look like Dada (especially the cut-out-letters bit), others like Cubism. The vast majority of the images I would describe as Fantasy art, however. --Jayron32 20:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know but I know what I like and I like it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see several as well. If you're interested in names of artists, I'd say there were influences of Salvador Dali, H. R. Giger, M. C. Escher, and whoever did the album covers for Boston (band). Dismas|^(talk) 00:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Boston (album), that would be someone named "Roger Huyssen", at least for the debut album. --Jayron32 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy art is not a bad way to name it. Strictly speaking I don't know if Fantasy art would be an art movement. I would guess that most of the images are not particularly well-known. The images seen in the video, in my opinion, display the sensibilities of Lowbrow art. Consider an artist mentioned in the Lowbrow (art movement) article—Robert Williams (artist). Click on some of these images. (Click "Enter" and then "Gallery".) Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you could probably classify fantasy art as a movement; there's a definite uniformity of style and theme that runs through it. Just because it isn't a popular movement with the art collectors and the practitionars aren't all famous doesn't make it less of a movement. There are lots of cohesive music genres which aren't well regarded or popular, but it doesn't make them less of a genre... --Jayron32 01:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Genre" is slightly different than "art movement". An art movement is a commonality in visual art that enjoys the support of art criticism. "Commonality" may not even make sense because a common thread may be elusive concerning art movements. Consider Color field painting or Abstract expressionism. Art movements are created or at least defined by art critics. Art critics bring their own assumptions to art criticism, giving rise to what they perceive—correctly or not—as art movements. Their pronouncements are dependent on the acceptance of others—especially other well-respected art critics. Art critics give voice to their own assumptions in the interpretations that they provide for works of art. Their own assumptions have to bear some relationship to the prevailing zeitgeist of an age. I don't think art movements are ever understood to exist detached from the zeitgeist of a period of time in which they are said to exist. This is original research and designed to be as incomprehensible as possible. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh... I think you're all barking up the wrong tree. Most if not all of them, are actually digital art. i.e. created in non-traditional media (speed painting, concept art, and matte paintings especially). Their actual genres can range from Pop Art, Surrealism, Cubism, Street art etc. to genres-but-not-art-movements like Cyberpunk, Steampunk, Anime, Goth, etc.

They share on thing distinguishing them from other forms of art though: they're done almost entirely on a computer. Using photomanipulation, tablets, high poly 3d modeling, 3d rendering techniques, etc. They usually feature strong influences from games, science fiction, comics, graffiti, anime, and youth culture in general. You can see a lot of examples of this (some of them quite stunning) in sites like DeviantArt. You can also routinely see this kind of artwork in game development and movie CGI. Speed painting and concept art both evolved from there after all.

Sadly, trad art 'snobs' don't really consider them art. As unlike traditional media, they are far more forgiving on mistakes.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Art snobs are irrelevant. The original question inquired about art movements. Thank you for bringing Speed painting and Matte painting to my attention, as I was not aware of those entities. There are no "traditional media" and there are no "non-traditional media" (in my opinion). Art uses "materials", is often created using techniques, and these materials and techniques are refreshed periodically. Plastic for instance was not a material used in making art a few hundred years ago, but has been used in the twentieth century. The use of the computer in making art would be a "technique", I think. Pop art, Surrealism, and Cubism are art movements; they are not Genres. Neither untraditional media nor traditional media are "more forgiving on mistakes". What is a "mistake", anyway? The artworks of Jean Dubuffet seem forgiving of mistakes, but I certainly could be mistaken about that. Bus stop (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For the genre/art movement thing, my bad, got confused, heh. But yeah, as a 3d artist (though with no pretensions of being an artist artist, LOL, I tend to consider myself more like a draughtsman than anything else), I respectfully disagree. People do differentiate the two. Especially since digital art is still very much in its infancy and is still usually considered Commercial art rather than Fine art.

By mistakes, I mean literal mistakes. If you accidentally mix the wrong colors and end up ruining a watercolor (or if it got drenched in the rain or something), there is usually no way to salvage it. If you were in Photoshop however, you can simply undo, cut and paste, heal, or do a dozen other things to fix it without starting all over again. Not to mention the fact that you can make perfect copies of digital art by simple copy-paste, while traditional art can usually never be perfectly duplicated. Some techniques can also be automated in digital art. You can see why some trad artists will resent it. In the view of some traditional artists (and previously mentioned theoretical snobs, heh), this is cheating. Hence probably why you don't see exhibits of digital art in galleries and museums.

Our own article Digital painting discusses the difference. Some other online stuff that talk about the two :

• Art: Traditional vs. Digital
• What is Fine Art—Traditional Art Only, or Digital Art Too?
• And more results from Google on the topic.

I'm fully aware how absurd it all is though, so I agree really. Art is art, the medium is simply the vehicle, not the purpose. But still, the OP asked about the common link between all of them. It's safe to say he wasn't asking about the art movement (since they belong to several). I don't know what you'd call digital art, but it's definitely not technique though, sorry. The number of ways you can create visual art digitally is just as varied as in real life.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul, it can make a thread confusing when you change[4] [5] [6] your own words after others have read them. It is better clearer if you put < strike > < /strike > around the word(s) you replace, as I did here to the word "better". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Er no... they were consecutive edits, with little time elapsed between them, and done before any other replies. In other words: normal copyediting/clarification. Hence the 'ce' edit summary. Other editors do that frequently don't they? I only strike lines when someone else has already replied before I made the edit. Also, I know my html tags thank you, please don't treat me like a noob... T_T LOL-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that art including beautiful sculptures have been lying around since the Big Bang, and represent no "Art Movement" at all, just (re)discovery? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you can paint the Mona Lisa with fractals, heh. If you think mandelboxes are beautiful. Check out Mandelbulbs (google it too)-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See Fractal compression that can be applied to images including the Mona Lisa. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If the central bank interests is lower than the gov. bond interest...

...couldn't certain financial players borrow money from the government and lend it back to it? 193.153.125.105 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But central bank loans generally have a much shorter term than most government bonds, so the strategy entails risks. Looie496 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But can you buy a gov bond on the secondary market, to match the maturity of the bond your are getting from the gov? In this case, would it be free money? 193.153.125.105 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Typically, when a bank borrows from the Fed, the bank goes on the Fed's records as being a risky bank worthy of future scrutiny. Borrowing from the Fed is not something banks like to do if they can avoid it. Wikiant (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. There is a big difference between the central bank bailing out banks as they've had to do recently and the routine overnight loans that are just a normal part of banking operations (if one bank happens to have more withdrawals than deposits one day, it will need some cash, so it borrows it from either another high street bank or the central bank until the next day rather than having to liquidate its investment assets). --Tango (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Banks in effect control the Federal Reserve System. Banks own the regional Federal Reserve Banks that make up the system and that elect 5 of the 12 system board members. While the other 7 are appointed by the US president and confirmed by the US Senate, in practice the desire for campaign contributions from the finance sector insures that these 7 appointees are agreeable to the banking community. As such, a top priority of the Federal Reserve system is to pursue policies that benefit banks. Many commentators have pointed out that keeping the discount rate below market rates for other kinds of loans is a subsidy to banks. See, for example, this blog, or this one. The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank itself admits that low interest rates are designed to help banks. Marco polo (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for that US-centric response, which explains the situation in the United States. After checking the questioner's IP address, I see that he or she is probably in Spain. The European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of England, unlike the Federal Reserve System, are in effect owned by their respective governments. (In the case of the ECB, the bank is owned by the member central banks, each of which is in turn owned by its government.) These central banks are generally managed by technocrats with an academic background in economics. This background has apparently led them to the same conclusion as the Federal Reserve board members, namely that banks need this kind of support. Marco polo (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

August 10

Addition to O. Henry article

The Wikipedia article on O. Henry mentions performances of The Cop and the Anthem, but doesn't mention that Red Skelton recorded one some time in the 1950's. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.27.88.202 (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See The_Cop_and_the_Anthem#Cultural_references, which is a better location for the info than the O. Henry article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you have a reliable source to confirm that fact, please feel free to add the fact yourself. Just indicate the source for the addition so that others can trust it to be a true, verifiable fact. --Jayron32 01:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• It was a fine and memorable segment of the Red Skelton Show, broadcast December 20, 1955. Here is video of the broadcast: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. I suppose that a newspaper or book describing it would be required for "reliable sourcing." Ok here is "A critical history of television's The Red Skelton Show, 1951-1971" by Wesley Hyatt, which lists it for Dec 20, 1955. Google News Archive lists [that broadcastas well as repeat performances in 1958 the fourth performance on Dec 20, 1959, Dec 20 1960, and Dec 23, 1961. Edison (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It is already mentioned in the appropriate article, as above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Making allegations in fiction and poetry

Hello, I was recently writing something and I wondered - is it ok for a work of fiction of poetry to contain a statement that could be technically libellous? For example, if a poem or a novel contained the line "John Leslie celebrity rapist" (Ulrika Johnson claimed he had raped her but the case never went to court? I understand it's dodgy ground, but a poem is essentially a work of fiction, so I'd imagine that was ok? If I wrote a story about Tony Blair killing a dog, he wouldn't track me down and have me killed (I hope!), but I understand a situation like that might be a bit more edgy? Or am I making a bit of a fuss about nothing? And would it be better or worse if it contained the line "John Leslie the celebrity rapist"? Ol' Uncle Screamin Bug (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently fictional about poetry. If a poem is about real events or events purported to be real, then it can be libel just as anything else can. If it's something that no reasonable person would interpret as being a true statement, then you're probably ok, but something like the John Leslie claim wouldn't fall under that. (NB: These are just general comments about libel law - it differs considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so if you want specific answers about how it pertains to you, you should consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction.) --Tango (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Libel is covered by the article Defamation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You might also have difficulty getting something like that published at all. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of novelists have been sued for libel or defamation.[7][8][9][10] You're apparently less likely to be sued, at least in the US, if you use pseudonyms for the characters (e.g. Anna Wintour never sued over The Devil Wears Prada because the titular devil wasn't called Anna Wintour).[11] Note: this isn't legal advice, just a description of past events and other people's opinions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Slightly related to the above discussion: When Poetry Seems to Matter/NYTimes Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

DELHI POLICE

Soapbox post deleted. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Australian national debt data

I need to get hold of a timeseries (from the 70s at least) for the Australian federal government debt as a percentage of GDP. I have tried ABS, IMF, OECD, the World Bank and PWT. Does anyone have a link to this timeseries? Jacob Lundberg 62.20.0.254 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A Google search for "Australian federal government debt as a percentage of GDP" takes me directly to this document, which I think either gives you what you need or at least points to a place where you can find it. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that but I need the data, not just a diagram. I've emailed one of the authors but he has not responded. Jacob Lundberg 62.20.0.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

I had a look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and searched for “central government debt.” The results weren’t great, except that I got a clue as to why some of that debt exists: the search bot asked, “Did you mean “Federal Government Rebate” ?

More to the point, perhaps Jacob Lundberg can clarify if he is looking for “central government debt,” “total gross outstanding debt” or perhaps “net foreign debt.”

If you do not have on-line access, a good library will have back issues of the IMF International Financial Statistics Yearbooks. I’m looking at a 1979 copy that has data from 1949 to 1978, and as an example, it lists (1975 data) Government deficit or surplus -A$4,161 million; Net borrowing: Australian dollars A$3,797 million and foreign currency -A$15 million; Debt: Australian dollars A$13,536 million; and Debt: Foreign Currency A$6,069 million (the last is from 1973, the last year data is available. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Google comes through! Here's a spreadsheet with debt to GDP ratios for 1861 to 2010 (find GDP, and work out the dollar amounts yourself): [[12]] DOR (HK) (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Exactly what I needed! Jacob Lundberg (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a list of all verses of the bible by earliest date of appearance in manuscript?

Hi, I'm looking for a reference for the Bible, or at least the NT, that lists, verse by verse, the earliest point at which there exists a manuscript containing that verse. For example, the earliest I know of for the last chapter of Luke is Papyrus 75, around the end of the second century. I know we have an exceptional article on the topic in general, but I can't find, either in any article or on the linked websites (or google) anything that gives the summary of the earliest appearance by verse. There is something close here, but it is not quite what I am after. I really want a list of dates, with a papyrus/MS reference as well. Does anyone know of anything, online or in print? It's been emotional (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In what story does Jesus pull a man out of a hole?

I have heard a story where a man falls in a hole just deep enough that a strong man could reach in and pull him out. The leaders of all the world's religions pass by. Most give him useless advice, and some say he must have committed some sin. The last man to pass is Jesus, who reaches in to pull the man out.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And? Obviously a Sunday School story for simple Christian kids. Given that the sin obsession is primarily a Christian one anyway, it's hardly a realistic story. It would be more likely that Jesus would be telling him he had sinned. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that sin is a Christian obsession, but since several religions did not exist at the time, I wonder exactly how the story went. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe sin is the wrong word. I seem to recall that Muhammad was the one who said he must have done something wrong if he fell in the hole. I'll search tomorrow using the title of this thread if I remember. I'd rather not do it at home.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is not watching where you are going a sin? That must have been on the missing tablet of the originally 20 commandments. Right up there with "Thou shalt not cheer for the Yankees" and "Thou shalt bring a 6 pack when visiting friends". Googlemeister (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you misspelled "thou shalt not cheer for the Dodgers". I mean, come on. You'd have us believe that the Almighty is interested in the American League? --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Since he cares about the wellbeing of sparrow, I would suspect he is a fan of birds and is likely to be a Orioles fan, but you might be right and he actually likes the Cardinals. Googlemeister (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad doesn't appear in the Bible, since he was born in 570AD. If both Muhammad and Jesus appear in the same story, it's obviously just something made up as an example (and, apparently, an example of how Islam is evil, which makes it among the worst kind of religious stories). --Tango (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. But then again, demonization is an age old tactic in in the business of trying to get the most souls (gotta catch em all!). Most religions have stories of 'us vs. them'. What makes it ironic though, is that this story contrasts sharply (completely rejects it, even) with the actual Biblical story that Jesus himself told of the Good Samaritan. It would be more realistic if the "leaders of world religions" included leaders of major modern Christian denominations as well as others, heh. I'd wager a Pope pushed the man there in the first place. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this scene took place in "Jesus Christ and the Sermon of Doom". Ok, seriously... The story isn't biblical (although there are echos of the "Parable of the Good Samaritan" in it). It does sound like something that was made up for Sunday school (The implied moral is obvious: no matter how deep a hole (sin) you find yourself in, faith in Christ will get you out of it, and faith in other religions won't). Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, prosperity theology would say that if you'd been good, God would have shown his favor by not letting you fall in the hole. Which sounds like a debasement of Christianity to mere magic, but seems awfully popular. Wnt (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's called Calvinism, right? Oddly enough, it's primarily the wealthy that believe in it. An amazing coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, there's also a good-sized group of poor Christians who buy into prosperity theology (which isn't Calvinism, and Calvinism isn't it) and think that when things go badly, it's because they have done something wrong or haven't fully surrendered to God or something, and when they talk to people at their church about their problems will basically get a lecture on how they aren't being a good enough Christian. And probably aren't giving enough to the church. "Not enough money to pay for surgery and feed your children? Well, you can't be tithing enough. If you give more, you'll receive more." People get into real trouble, and think it's all their fault for not being properly saved, but it appeals to them because it appears to offer an answer to all their problems. Calvinism is much less judgemental: it holds that you are either Saved or not Saved, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, no way you can respond to God's Grace, no role you play in your Salvation. This doesn't actually tend to tie in with Earthly prosperity at all. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

After a little Google searching, I found that the source of the story is this video clip from a Christian "teaching" site called BluefishTV. There are also a bunch of copies on Youtube. Looie496 (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't watch videos at home. My Internet is too slow. And I don't have sound where I am now. But I found a similar story here.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not the one you asked about but I prefer The West Wing story: video, text. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

August 11

Rotation method

What was the original Danish term for Rotation method? The article gives a citation for page 4 of an English edition of Either/Or, if anyone has the Danish version handy for a quick leafing. Skomorokh 03:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The article "Enten - Eller" says vexel-driften. Note: The "-en" at the end implies that it is in the definite form ("The crop rotation"). Gabbe (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that the present-day Danish word for "crop rotation" is vekseldrift. I assume the spelling differences (dash; "x"/"ks") is due to some spelling reform. Gabbe (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you very much Gabbe. Skomorokh 07:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dictators in Africa/anti-dictators

Besides Robert Mugabe, defiant at 87, there is other dictator guys like Him. Yoweri Museveni is another bad guy like him. How does Yoweri Museveni do bad to blind Africa. Corruptions? Killing people? How is he brutal. Paul Kagame another dictator of Rwanda, a 53 year old being a ruthless killer. When I look them up on Google image, it usually say what he is-tyrant and that. Is he a corrupter, why is he almost like Adolf Hitler basically. Mwai Kibaki one site say he practice dictatorship and best friends of museveni-i thought Kibaki is not that bad. I thought other leaders like Pierre Nkurunziza, new leaders like Jakaya Kikwete, Armando Guebuza rules states just fine. They are more friendly and try to support the state rather than trying to commit genocides.--69.229.5.134 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you a question, or are you just trying to start an argument? This is not the place for arguments.

You have linked to articles on several of the people you name: those articles will tell you a lot about them. If you have specific questions about them that the articles do not answer, you are welcome to post them here. --ColinFine (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on vandalism

How to vandalize wikipedia without getting caught? Please suggest some tricks of vandalism. --WW009977 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a particularly insidious form of vandalism where you study up on the topic and improve the article, thus fooling everyone into thinking you're an expert when you're really just a vandal. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a policy relating to questions like that: see WP:BEANS. Looie496 (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First, become an Administrator. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia should be posted on Wikipedia:Help desk, not here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is beginners' stuff. I once crashed Wikipedia, globally, for about ten minutes. It was an accident, although I guess I could do it again if I was feeling malicious. I don't think anybody realised that I'd done it, although if I did it repeatedly, I'm sure a dev could figure it out. I won't explain how I did it, but becoming an administrator is the first step. Warofdreams talk 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Legality of vandalism

Can a vandal face legal trouble after vandalizing wikipedia articles and userpages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WW009977 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we usually just trace where a vandal lives then send assassins.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Except we call them Hired Goons. (No disrespect to goons.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism, it's hacking!
Sleigh (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone getting in trouble with the law for vandalising Wikipedia, but people have got in trouble with their school/university/employer for misusing their computers. --Tango (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You could be sued for libel or defamation (e.g. [13]), or for harassment. But note that we can't offer legal advice: if you're considering vandalising Wikipedia I suggest you consult a lawyer first. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any case where someone WAS sued for libel under these circumstances, but it's a distinct possibility. They'd have to prove you published a known untruth (or simply didn't care if it was true or not) that caused damage, though. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But how can one hack "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? --Nricardo (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You may find this relevant. 87.112.14.181 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, that was hilarious. I'm surprised they didn't bring in the CIA and the USSOCOM too. I'm glad we at Wikipedia are more refined, in just utilizing our vast army of assas... er Hired Goons.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

when did Jesus realize he was the Messiah?

At what age did (historical) Jesus realize he was the Messiah? Did he realize it first, or did his parents? Does the bible show any disagreement between him and his parents about how he should use his powers?

Note: I am trying to imagine what would happen if my son were the Messiah. Obviously the above could contain inaccuracies in my preconceptions. I am not a historibiblical scholar, I welcome corrections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's very doubtful if the historical Jesus (who, if he existed, likely was a peasant preacher from Galilee) ever though of himself as the messiah (literally "the anointed one", i.e. a king, and in this case a king who would rebuild David's kingdom). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify: are you saying he said it, but didn't believe it himself? Or that he didn't believe it, didn't say it, and didn't perform miracles without noticing, and then his disciples invented all of this after the fact? I am trying to see why it got ever written down in the Gospels, if he neither said it, nor did it, nor had someone invent that he did it? Most likely, is that he DID say it. My question is when he started saying it, saying stuff like he is the way, the truth, and the life... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

i.e. at what age did he start saying he was the messiah? or, did he never say that himself? (talking about historical jesus now). note that I don't care if he actually did miracles or prove he was the messiah, my question is when he started saying he was, what age. thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he ever did explicitly say he was the messiah. All instances of the association consists of other people asking 'Are you the messiah?' and him replying something ambiguous. The most he claims to be seems to be 'the Son of God', which can be interpreted in many ways, but can also simply mean being human.

The whole 'vibe' I can get from the passages about it, was that people wanted desperately to believe that he was the messiah, and he simply went with what they wanted to believe in order to get things done without ever explicitly saying he was. Ironically, this was what made him so unpopular among the clergy. Notice the different words that his disciples attribute to him.

When asked if he was the messiah, his replies: “You have said so” (Matthew 26:63-64); "“I am." (Mark 14:62); and "You say that I am." (Luke 22:70). Two versions say he gave a nonanswer. Then again, I'm no Bible scholar, nor do I believe in it. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

When Jesus met John the Baptist who had been announcing Him. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for actually answering my question, lovely Cuddlyable. But could you dumb it down a shade more! What age was he when he met John the Baptist who had been announcing Him? --84.2.130.231 (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you also quote the relevant verses for us, please Cuddlyable? This is a really interesting thread. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Aid to Bible Understanding: In the autumn of 29 CE, Jesus came to John to be baptized. (Note that this would be a jew baptizing another jew.) John at first objected, knowing his sinfulness and the righteousness of Jesus. But Jesus insisted. God had promised John a sign so that he could identify the Son of God. (Matt. 3:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21; John 1:33). When Jesus was baptized the sign was fulfilled: John saw God's spirit coming down upon Jesus and heard God's own voice declaring Jesus to be his Son. Evidently no others were present at Jesus' baptism. - Matt. 3:16,17; Mark 1:9-11; John 1:32-34; 5:31,37. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Luke 3:21-3 suggests he was about 30 when he was baptised and started preaching: "When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened (22) and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: 'You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.' (23) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" (NIV). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How is that telling us that he then considered himself the messiah? --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Jesus had a vision when he was baptized, so, as much as we can date anything this ambiguous, that would seem to be it. He is reported to give evasive answers, but of course those answers were written down hundreds of years later. It seems from e.g. riding into Jerusalem on a donkey that he was acting as the Messiah, not just being called one. But of course the true Messiah could have defeated the Romans with a sweep of his hand, so when he was arrested, people decided we was a false Messiah. (Denied 3 times etc.) His followers who did not abandon him then reinterpreted his kingdom as being in heaven rather than on earth, had him say he knew he would die even though it seems obvious his followers never heard him say that, etc. That is, he went from being the Jewish Messiah to the Christian one, though Christianity and Judaism were all but identical until about the 5th century. — kwami (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a little weak. Did everyone who rode into Jerusalem on a donkey thereby definitively proclaim themselves as messiah? There'd be thousands of messiahs every week in those days. --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's the way he did it. He was fulfilling prophesy. It was clearly a significant event from the way he was received, and the way the Bible tells it. — kwami (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the Bible tell it in such a way that tells us that Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem and therefore, unambiguously, Jesus considered himself the Messiah? If so, please quote the verse, because it'll answer the OP's question. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing is unambiguous. It comes down to the obvious interpretation that people would give things, when we would no longer think to interpret them that way. That's why people spend their lives researching these questions. — kwami (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So, did Jesus never claim to be the Messiah? --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How can we know? All we know is what the gospels say, and they weren't written by Jesus or any of his disciples.

Read Mark 11:

(1) And as they approached Jerusalem, near Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples (2)and said to them, ‘Go to the village lying before you. As soon as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there on which no one of men has ever sat. Untie it and bring it here. (3)If anyone says to you, “Why are you doing this?” say, “The Lord needs it and will send it back here soon. ”’ (4)And they went and found a colt tied at a door, outside in the street, and untied it. (5)Some people standing there said to them, ‘What are you doing, untying that colt?’ (6)They replied as Jesus had told them, and they let them go. (7)And they brought the colt to Jesus, threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. (8)Many spread their cloaks on the road and others spread branches they had cut in the fields. (9)Both those who went ahead and those who followed kept shouting, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! (10)Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!’ (11)And he entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. And after looking around at everything, he went out to Bethany with the twelve since it was already late.

Now compare this to Zachariah 9.9, when the messianic king arrives to claim his throne:

Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem! Look, your king is coming to you: he is legitimate and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey—on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

There are lots of passages like this, where Jesus fulfills the expectations of the OT Messiah, acts like the Messiah, speaks like the Messiah. But that all started with his baptism and vision at age 30. — kwami (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

..but, it seems, doesn't actually proclaim himself as the Messiah. Strange. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But it seems he did. It's just not reported as an official pronouncement. — kwami (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

See Confession of Peter, where Peter says he believes Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus responds, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven", which is effectively saying "Yes, I am". He was more discreet when Pilate asked him that question. Pais (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment on "what the gospels say, and they weren't written by Jesus or any of his disciples. " What shitty disciples. --84.2.130.231 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to be offensive. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was an oral society to a large extent. Writing was scripture, and at the time these things happened, they weren't scripture, they were current events. — kwami (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The gospels Matthew and John have traditionally been attributed to these disciples. There is no Biblical basis for impugning the posterior cleanliness of any of the disciples. On the contrary, Jesus was particular about washing their feet. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark text

That Mark text mentioned above is interesting. According to Wikisource's King James Version, the question asked was "Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed"([14]) which isn't quite as unambiguous a question as the one cited above. What does the original (Greek?) text for Mark say the question was? I guess part of the problem here is the ambiguity between messiah meaning anointed and messiah meaning the one who'll deliver Israel... and the meaning of "Christ". All the Israelite kings and many priests were anointed (for example), but no-one would claim King Ahab to have been the messiah! --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but why would the Messiah's existence on Earth not be written down until "hundreds of years later"?? Wouldn't this be like the Book of Mormon being written TODAY, in 2011, saying "Oh, by the way, a couple of hundred years ago, in the eighteen hundreds, God sent a new Prophet down, but we haven't gotten around to writing it down until now..." That just doesn't make sense. Joseph Smith convinced people he was a new prophet in his lifetime, and people thought this was remarkable enough to write home about. Jesus convinced people he was the SON OF GOD in his lifetime, and NOBODY thought it was remarkable enough to write home about? This makes precisely ZERO sense to me, please explain! NOTE THAT I AM THE OP OF THIS THREAD AND THE ENTIRE THREAD IS ABOUT HISTORICAL JESUS/JOSEPH SMITH, ETC. No part of this thread is concerned with whether anyone was or is a prophet, son of God, messiah, etc. Just, what they say, who they convince, when they start believing it, etc. --84.2.130.231 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bible wasn't compiled until 325. We don't know how old the texts were that it was compiled from; estimates vary widely, but they're all generations after the fact. Of course, people may have written stuff down, we don't know; all we do know are the texts preserved in the Bible, and that there were many more texts which were not chosen and are now lost. And of course things could have changed between the time they were first written down and when they were compiled into the Bible—after all, they were changed even after they were compiled into the Bible! — kwami (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are they "all" generations after the fact. This makes ZERO sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're asking a historical question. I don't know. Mark is probably the oldest gospel, and I've seen estimates as early as 70AD, two generations after the crucifixion. It's thought that many of Paul's letters are older than that, but of course Paul was not a witness to the events. In any case, we don't have any writings from any witnesses or companions of Jesus that have survived, at least as far as we know. (There has been speculation that some boy in the crowd who ran away may have been the author of one of the gospels, but that is speculative.) — kwami (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

AD is supposed to be dated from Christ's birth, not the crucifixion, so 70 AD is only one generation after the crucifixion, about the time that the witnesses to it would be getting old and starting to die off from old age, and people would start to think, "Wait, we'd better get some of this written down, since we won't be able to ask them to clarify later." If you look at the epistles, which tend to date from the time the Apostles were actually going from place to place, telling people what they'd seen and heard and writing (or dictating) letters to other communities, it really was being passed on by people visiting the churches and telling them it orally, and to some extent by reading letters sent out. Why not? It would have seemed the obvious way to do it. Why would your first reaction be to write up new Scriptures, rather than tell as many people as possible what you had heard and seen, and answer their questions first hand? It started small.

Mark, the oldest Gospel, is traditionally considered to have been gathered by Mark taking dictation from Peter when he was fairly old. That was why it was said to have a slightly meandering quality, and to not be particularly stylish: Mark supposedly didn't want to reword anything, or rearrange it, in case he missed something out, so it's a dictated old-man's telling of the story of what happened when he was in his twenties/thirties. The Gospel of Mark is criticised by early Christian writers for not being in a literary style, but nobody seems to suggest it doesn't fit what they had received orally, or to suggest that the Apostolic nature of it (taken from Peter's telling) is unlikely.

In a similar vein, see Luke (I forget if Matthew does it too) mentioning that this is the account he's gathered from various witnesses (traditionally, he was supposed to have talked to Mary, among others) and actually making an effort to name witnesses. And the author of John also talks about his Gospel being the story he has compiled based on what the disciples saw, although does not record on what basis he knows this. The later appendix claims that it is all vouched for by one disciple ('this' disciple), but that's a later addition. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't get the question. Wouldn't you consider it strange if nobody wrote about the fact that Joseph Smith convinced a bunch of people in the nineteenth century that he was a new prophet, until two generations later? And that is the earliest text to get into the book of mormon? Why would the bible not include anything contemporaneous, if this guy convinced all these people that he was the messiah! It does NOT add up to me, I do not understand this. Please explain why no sources contemporaneous with Jesus were deemed important enough to include in the bible -- didn't people write letters or diaries at the time, wouldn't somebody "blog" (in the terms of the day) about hanging out with the son of God, who is the Messiah??? Please explain to me. Thank you. --84.2.130.231 (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be strange. But it's not parallel. First, we don't know when things were written down. AFAIK the only historical date we have is the Council of Nicaea in 325. Sure, Mary Magdalene might have kept a diary, but if so it hasn't survived. Second, literacy wasn't what it is now. It seems clear from, say, Mark that everybody knew these stories. That is, they were passed from person to person, or taught in the temples/churches, and it may not have seemed important to write them down right away. All we know is what we know, and that isn't much. — kwami (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

However low literacy was at the time, it wasn't 0. Jesus picked some seriously shitty "disciples", who in no way memorialized him, and now 2000 years after the fact we are left guessing. --84.2.130.231 (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got the same problem in Islam, where Muhammad was illiterate, and at one point there were 13 conflicting official versions of the Koran. We don't even have a good copy of the Ten Commandments. Seems to happen a lot in religion. — kwami (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that literacy levels in early first century Judea were poor? I'd have assumed the opposite? --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they were generally pretty poor before universal education, some religious groups excepted. That was a radical idea at the time. Remember, a lot of Jesus's followers were peasants. Also, many of his disciples abandoned him when he failed to defeat the Romans. Maybe all the literate ones left. — kwami (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the point... I think we are indeed talking about "some religious groups" - or rather, one religious group, Jews. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If Jesus was from the royal family, as the Messiah should be, he would presumably have been literate. But many of his disciples were "simple folk". Jews place great value on education now, but that's following millennia of being dispossessed. At the time, I don't know. Scripture was of course paramount, but that doesn't mean that a simple fisherman or goat herder would spend much time at the local book store. — kwami (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Literate ones tend to become rabbis. And none of his disciples were even remotely close to being a rabbi. Even if one of them actually were literate, it's a bit unlikely that they'd carry around little notebooks jotting around every little detail of Jesus' life like paparazzi waiting to write a prize-winning biography someday. And a very detailed biography at that, written by what can only be an actual scholar, not a peasant. I think the main problem is someone apparently saw these different versions of the compilations of oral and scattered accounts (the books) and felt the need to attribute them to a specific disciple. When in truth, they may have simply been different versions of people using slightly varying sources.

Anyway, the 'messiah' in Jesus' time probably had stronger connotations of being a pretender (i.e. claimant to the throne) rather than simply being theological, and probably added to the confusion. Some probably called him that because they saw him as the literal messiah, i.e. someone of royal blood who is coming to restore independence of the Kingdom of Israel from the Romans. Hence the obsession with the descent from David. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he was going to restore a Jewish Kingdom and rid Judea of the Romans. He had the power of God flowing through him as the rightful heir to the throne. That why his arrest was so devastating, and his execution inconceivable—or, rather, proving he wasn't the Messiah after all. — kwami (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First, let's not forget oral history... much more common in the first century than today. Second, what makes you think that there were no contemporaneous sources?... there are some indications that the Gospels we have today borrowed material from an earlier source. If this theory is correct, then Mark's Gospel is not the earliest account... its simply the oldest that survived. This happens all the time with ancient sources. An eye witness (or at least a contemporary) writes down an account... someone else copies it (and adds material that was passed down to him orally)... at some point, however, the eye witness account gets lost... so the earliest source we have is the later copy. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there may have been contemporaneous sources, again he was very notable for his time, but the ones in the Bible now are unlikely to be it. They all seem to be compilations of the aforementioned contemporary sources, yet the Council of Nicaea all proclaim them to be contemporary, even going as far as attributing them to specific disciples.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's presumably what happened. But all we know is what survived. — kwami (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course! There was no reason to write anything down, because you would only do that to preserve historical events for posterity. The Kingdom of God was at hand; the end of history would occur during the lives of those living. Why would you bother to write things down? — kwami (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

answer to rest of original question?

I also ask whether he realized it first, or his parents... this is an aspect of my question no one has answered directly. But can we agree that by everything detailed above, it is pretty clear that Jesus realized he was the Messiah well before his parents did? (It also seems this happened around when he was 30.). Thanks... --84.2.130.231 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If the OP has not yet done so, he/she might do well to read our article Messiah, which I don't think has previously been linked in the discussions above. The Jewish concept of the Messiah was rather different from the one later evolved in Christianity, perhaps in part to explain why Jesus (to use the name he himself would not have recognised) had not fulfilled the requirements of the former. There were many aspirants to the role of the Jewish Messiah around that time, some of whom are much better recorded in contemporary documents than Jesus, of whom no contemporary record at all survives. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.129 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In Luke, the angel Gabriel pretty much spells it out before Jesus' birth. He goes through the Messiah checklist: Thone of David, house of Jacob, and son of God. It would take a real idiot not to get the point. -- kainaw™ 15:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Luke 1:26-35 has the story, including the name Jesus, kingdom without end, throne of David, Son of the Highest, Son of God, etc. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But! This was to Mary. Did they tell Jesus? I imagine it'd be like hunkering down and saying... "Son... you're adopted.". :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The episode of the Finding in the Temple suggests he knew he was the Son of God without anyone having to tell him, and that he assumed Mary and Joseph knew it too. Pais (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooh. Good point.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you believe the non-canonical Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the killing of a boy (and blinding of his parents) via a curse, animating clay pigeons, resurrecting the dead, and successful re-plantation of a severed foot should give both Jesus and the onlookers a hint that something unusual was going on... --Stephan Schulz (talk)

(edit conflict)x3 To expand a bit on this, it seems rather trite and arbitrary to demand that Jesus stated unambiguously "I am the Messiah" to confirm that he knew he was The Messiah at any point. If a man is planting and harvesting corn all day, do I need to hear him say "I am a farmer" or can we assume he knows pretty well what he is doing from the evidence of his actions? If we go by the textual evidence in the Gospels, its pretty clear from the text that he knew his role definately by the time of his baptism. From Matthew 3:13-17, God states unambiguously in verse 17 "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." To claim that after this time, Jesus didn't know or understand his role seems pretty rediculous. As noted before, the text indicates he was "about 30" years old when this event occured, so that is the absolute LATEST age when he should have known he was the Chosen One. There are other events in his childhood and youth when it shows he had some idea that he was different with regards to his relationship with God; though none is as completely unambigious as the baptism as described in Matthew 3. See Luke 2:25-52, which describes several incidents in his childhood which would steer a reasonable person to understand something was different about themselves. (post EC) or, exactly what Pais said. --Jayron32 16:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, being the Son of God isn't the same thing as being the Messiah. AFAIK, none of the OT prophecies about the Messiah say he'll be the Son of God, let alone God the Son incarnate. Pais (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but Jewish thought contemporary to Jesus' time was that the Messiah would be a warrior-king (ala Joshua, David, etc.) who would lead to the new independence of the Jewish state. There wasn't any expectation of a religious leader who would lead a Heavenly Kingdom or anything like that. If we go by the expectation of who the Messiah would be, Jesus never claimed that he was that. The question needs to be asked "When did Jesus ever claim to be the military leader who would lead a military force to rise up and lead to an independent Jewish state" the answer is "never". If the question is instead "When did Jesus realize he was going to be leading a religious revival, and knew that his role was to lead people to God through a new covenant based on faith in him, as the Son of God incarnate" then the answer is almost certainly by his baptism, and likely even in childhood (per the Luke passages). --Jayron32 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the original question was asked for "the historical Jesus", not "the mythical Jesus". Only very few parts of the gospels are generally accepted as probably true in the historical sense. In particular, everything that has only one independent attestation (where typically the shared tradition between the synoptic gospels is not independent), and that fits in well with the overall intention of the early church, is highly dubious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A contemporary person who also solely did 'God's work' was John the Baptist, and I assume he did much of the same things Jesus did (miracles even) without actually being labelled a messiah. To use the farmer analogy, they both plant and harvest corn all day, yet only one of them is getting government tax cuts. Should it be evident in the way they plant and harvest the corn? A messiah is not equivalent to a godly man who goes around healing people, if that were the case, there would have been dozens of prophets mistaken for the messiah long before Jesus' time.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to get my hands on some of those seeds that farmer has if he can harvest corn the same day he plants it. Googlemeister (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

They were utilizing the revolutionary technique of extremely rapid crop rotation™, planting and harvesting exactly one plant a day, everyday! :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jesus realized he had a mission when he was baptized and then spent the 40 days in the desert. Temptation of Christ. That seems neither implausible from a believers' standpoint nor from a historical and psychological one.

If you want to credit stories of baby Jesus doing miracles, they made both a Star Trek Charlie X and a Twilight Zone It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone) episode on that theme. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The main thing that you need to understand about Jesus is that he was an apocalypticist. He preached to his followers that the world would be ending within their lifetimes. They weren't supposed to be writing things down! or divorcing, or accumulating possessions, or doing anything that implies that the world will be around for a while. His messianism is related to, but not necessarily more significant than his apocalypticism. The idea was that upon his being martyred, the end would come. He was mistaken, and hence the line "Why hath thou forsaken me." When did he get this idea? Well schizophrenia often has an onset during the late twenties. See Apocalypticism. Greg Bard (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is both reasonable on its own, and congruous with the thought of authors as varied as Robert Graves (King Jesus) and Geza Vermes. Nevertheless there is a tension between Jesus' moral and his apocalyptic teaching. Perhaps this implies the influence of different later redactors? What a fertile subject Jesus is, even for us not wholly unsympathetic atheists. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that much is being speculated here with little evidence in order to make events consistent with the Nicene Creed, or belief in it - but I wonder if that really represented what Jesus had to say. The standard phrase "son of man" from the texts reminds me of Nietszche's Übermensch (an atheistic repackaging of the concept which clarifies the idea that love and will can transcend traditional moral codes) But the more historically relevant concept may be the Lamed Vav Tzadikim, a tradition which so far as I know seems unfortunately to have been lost from Christianity. Current concepts of the "son of God" seem excessively literal - I don't think a Christian should necessarily need to believe that DNA cloned from a piece of the True Cross would contain half Mary DNA and half God DNA, sired by divine semen. Rather it should have a more abstract meaning, which does not need to be disprovable by science. Wnt (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that the idea of Mary being inseminated with divine semen, and Jesus having half human and half divine DNA, is completely alien to the mainstream Christian idea of what it means for Jesus to be the Son of God. What you describe is closer to the Mormon view, which is far from the mainstream. The mainstream view, at least that espoused by the Catholic, Orthodox, and traditional Protestant groups, is that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine; that his human nature was completely derived from Mary, and his divine nature was completely derived from God ante ómnia sæcula (before all ages). He did not have any divine DNA. The article hypostatic union might help to summarise the actual mainstream views. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did his Y chromosome come from then? Then again, considering his extreme inbreeding perhaps that was the least of his worries. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, once you're positing that God was incarnated of a virgin, I don't see that this is a problem. There isn't an official position of the Catholic Church on this, so no answer that is considered definitively right or wrong, and chromosomes are a more recent discovery, so there is no general position accepted by other Churches either. Regardless, a God who could incarnate of a virgin could clearly turn an X chromosome into a Y. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering that God created a human from dust once, doing it again wouldn't be that big of a stretch of the imagination. Googlemeister (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying god couldn't do it. I'm asking how did god do it? Or rather, why is it believed/claimed god didn't give a Y chromosome or at least the essential genes from it? I mean sure, god could have induced the protein synthesis from the Y chromosome (at a minimum the the SRY protein) which would mean god didn't give genes but did give proteins so still calls in to question the claim Jesus's human self is 100% Mary! In fact if his human self required the effective constent interference of god, I think this calls in to question even more the claim his human self can really be considered entirely human so I would suggest this idea is even worse then him having a Y chromosome that came out of nowhere.

BTW, just to emphasise, if god 'turned' a X chromosome into a Y chromosome, that implies Jesus's human nature and particularly his genes were not derived entirely from Mary, since the only way to turn a X chromosome into a Y chromosome would imply modifying and adding genes which were clearly not Marys. In other words, I can't see how the Catholic and other churches can really claim his human part was 100% Mary since from our understanding of molecular biology in particular the human sex determination system and embryology it's not possible unless Mary had a Y chromosome which was somehow partially inactive, perhaps that explains the Roman Catholic view of Joseph and Mary having no children which then leads to the claim of Mary's perpetual virginity. Alternative you have to relax what you consider human (allowing something which requires the consistent interference of god to be considered human)/Mary (allowing genes or even a whole chromosome which did not really derive from Mary to be considered Mary) in a rather strange way. The best you can do is perhaps to argue the Y chromosome arose in a pseudo-natural way, a serious of mutations arising from natural processes which just so happened because god was in charge to replicate a Y chromosome or at least the SRY gene. Since normally the genes coming from a parent would be still considered to derive from said parent even with whatever naturally occuring mutations, you could try to make the argument it's the same thing but when you have such a heavily modified in such a specific way gene I find this questionable.

In case I'm still not being clear, the impossibility comes from the fact that the way things work mean it's not logical for us to accept the claim Jesus is 100% Mary no matter how god did it, not by placing arbitary restrictions on what god could do. Whether you call the proteins induced without genes or Y chromosome that came out of no where or however you believed it happened, divine or artificial/sythentic or whatever is mostly beside the point.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're asking. I'm not sure how thoroughly I can answer the 'why is it believed', although I can probably point towards some of it. Jesus is considered to be the Son of Man, and completely human, and as a completely human person he is considered to be completely the son of Mary, descended from David, and hence the Son of David. As the Son of God, he is completely God, and is completely the same substance as God the Father (this starts to be more Western, as the Orthodox Churches tend to disagree on some of the details here), but God the Father is spirit, not matter. Which is why he couldn't contribute himself to the fleshy human aspect of Jesus, quite apart from that starting to get into demi-gods, which isn't a Christian thing. As to why it isn't believed that God just 'poofed' the matter that became Jesus into being? Well, sort of because that isn't what God chose to do, because God chose to have Jesus born of Mary, and because it messes up the symbolism. God could have chosen not to involve Mary at all, to create an adult human body from the dust, but that wasn't the plan. How God chose to do it was by incarnating as a human from conception, with a natural mother. Mary conceived him (look in Luke), she didn't merely incubate him. Jesus's human nature was descended from David (Romans 1:3), because he is genuinely Mary's son: his human nature came from her. For him then to add some 'made up' DNA wouldn't really fit with this. Jesus is Man begotten of Mary just as he is God begotten of the Father. I can't find a straighforward treatment of this, but it all sort of suffuses the way this stuff is discussed.

Just to be clear, this is why there is the mainstream, orthodox view that Jesus's human nature is derived entirely from Mary. As I said, the question of how the X and Y chromosomes work is not something that there's an official view on, or any sort of concensus. To be honest, nobody's really spent much time pondering it because it isn't one of the more important aspects. There are all sorts of ways it could happen: Jesus didn't have to be fertile, and Mary didn't have to be non-divinely fertile. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The angel um... *cough* performed artificial insemination maybe? Seriously though, an even funnier thing? Both wildly contradicting genealogies of Jesus trace his roots back to David through.. dundundundun... JOSEPH! So unless Joseph was Mary's brother, they did do the durty after all! Or someone somewhere really messed up their cover stories badly. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, artificial insemination by an angel would again be straying into more Mormon territory. The traditional answer on the genealogies of Jesus is that one genealogy is of Joseph, showing how Jesus was adopted into his family, and the other is of Mary, hampered by the lack of an accepted way (at the time) to include women in genealogies at the time. So Mary has to be listed as being Joseph's wife, and bearing Jesus, even though it is her genealogy that matters. Compare the genealogy at the end of the Book of Ruth, which includes Boaz as the father of Obed (and hence the line of David), even though the whole book of Ruth is about Ruth and about Elimelech being Obed's legal father, whose line he continues. The genealogies in the Gospels are clearly constructed into symbolic bits of writing anyway, especially in Matthew, so their literal genealogical information is not the main point. Matthew's is structured and formatted as poetry, with symbolic divisions and numbers of names, and references to the promise and Israel's history. Might be more of a problem if someone were sola scriptura. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Geza Vermes whose various books I have all reread and strongly recommend addresses Jesus and the concepts associated with him such as "son of man" within the Jewish context. It is the layered contextual meaningfulness of many of Jesus' reported statements and actions which make it impossible to believe that his existence was a hoax. There is a huge difference between the Jewish concept of the Messiah and the Gentile Christian elaboration of fertility god themes such as the virgin birth. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrator

What is the criteria for becoming an administrator in English Wikipedia? How many edits I should have and for how long I should edit? --WW009977 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no official requirements: see Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. However it might be a good idea if you know the difference between the Reference Desk and the Help Desk; the latter is for questions about Wikipedia and the former for general factual questions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear whether the OP is asking out of random interest or personal desire. If it's the later, I would note there's also little chance of becoming an admin while you can't work out how to become an admin by yourself (although you should already have a fair idea by heart before trying to become one anyway). In addition people are often sceptical of those who appear too keen to become admins (again not saying this applies to the OP). Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You must first prove that we can trust you. That means surviving the seven deadly trials of doom.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bah, you kids today don't know how easy you have it, back in my day it was 12 trials of doom--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they weren't deadly. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Try telling that to the first 16887 Jacs ;)--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And here I thought it was your credit card pin number. :( -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, my pin number is 723....wait a second, I'm on to you now, nice try--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Arrgh. What do you think the n in PIN stands for? This is as bad as talking about an ATM machine. Googlemeister (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why, Noodles of course. Everyone knows that!-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion (which is rather piss-poor when it comes to admins), becoming an admin is very easy. Make a bunch of dummy accounts. Edit a few times with them just to ensure they work. Then, do the RfA. Flood your RfA with praise from the dummy accounts. Use the dummy accounts to play down any scrutiny. You're in. Now, to avoid problems, you should think through how to handle the dummy accounts. Vandalize with one of them. Block that one yourself. Then, somehow identify the others as socks and block them too. Then, you'll be the cool admin who shut down a whole ring of vandal socks! -- kainaw™ 15:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Riiiiight. You don't think people will notice blatant sockpuppeting from accounts that have never voted on an RFA before? There are people who spend a considerable portion of their day voting on RFAs; they'll notice if something is amiss, the same way that we notice when things are out of order on here. (Imagine if someone came on, posted some sort of idiotic question, and then 5 other people who each had 10 random edits each showed up and started agreeing with the original poster. It'd stand out.)

It used to be that if you hung around for long enough, edited enough, and were friendly enough, RFAs were pretty straightforward. My perception is that nowadays it's a much more painful process, with much deeper scrutinizing of edit histories, arbitrary numbers assigned to editing habits (how many edits you've done in the main namespace, on talk pages, on admin pages, etc.), and so on. When I became an admin in 2005 or so (with a different, mostly defunct account), it was pretty much a breeze. I'm not sure I would have been able to get it with the same sort of editing history today, even though I don't think the additional requirements have probably made it any more likely than an admin is going to be a good admin. But such is how it goes. I don't think it's at all easy to become an admin — I think it's gone a bit far in the other direction. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with nowadays is that people pretend that adminship means something more (socially) than it used to. You still get access to the same basic 3 functions (protect-block-delete) but people have this weird idea that being an admin means that you have some sort of additional power or status with regards to resolving disputes at Wikipedia; that somehow the opinions of admins mean more than the average editor of similar experience, or anything like that. It shouldn't be that way AT ALL. Admins should just be experienced editors who have extra editing tools, and the tools should be much easier to give, and to take away if they are misused. As Mr. 98 notes, it used to be much better. It would get better again if people would stop treating adminship as a social prize, which grants the holder status. It shouldn't do that. --Jayron32 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. We should reduce the seven deadly trials of doom to six. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A few years ago in my city there was a spate of incidents in which security guards overstepped the mark, and some innocent or not very guilty people got very badly hurt. In an enquiry into a death, the wise statement was made that probably the worst kind of person to recruit to such a job was someone who really wanted to do it. Does the same rule apply to Admins here? HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Plato had a similar idea a few thousand years ago, after a whole series of incidents in which people got badly hurt. I think you're right, it applies to Wikipedia administrators too. Wikipedia needs to move away from the volunteer method of recruiting administrators, and instead introduce conscription. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We can try an admin lottery, and force anyone drawn to be an admin! Athenian democracy, har! -- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin lottery in June, corn be heavy soon? --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Both term limits and an Admin lottery would help immeasurably since most admins are nepotistical (spellcheck says that's a word!) vain, sanctimonious, clueless and arbitrary. A few simple rules impartially imposed would be a huge improvement upon the present lazy self-validating failed-academic jacobins in charge. The usual admin response to any valid ANI complaint is "do you seriously expect me to read the diffs or understand the topic at hand when summary judgment based on popularity contests and political correctness can be had?" At least with randomly assigned admins lechebotte creeps would on occasion suffer what they deserve. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, for the sake of accuracy, you should change your statement from "most admins" to "most admins I've lost an argument with and am still unhappy about." It's ridiculous to generalize in such a way. You haven't interacted with most admins. Frankly I doubt even the ones you've interacted with deserve such silly insults. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What does lechebotte mean? I can't find this word in dictionary. --WW009977 (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. I stand by my conclusion that most admins are lazy partisans rather than dedicated objectivists, because, even those who have, on occasion, found in my favor, have done so not from investigation or adherence to principal, but as the easiest way out. Wikipedia is, as a moral enterprise, a joke, and anyone who thinks it is anything better than a starting point from which to conduct one's own investigation is fatally mistook. There is no such thing as thought by proxy.

In all justice I must say that User:Kwamikagami is a dedicated admin who and a distinct exception to my complaints. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Lechebotte is rather transparent French and means bootlick. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with μηδείς here. It's the same with most courts of law. Some people always seem to be found guilty of all sorts offences. Clearly the judges/jury are at fault, there's no way someone can be the one at fault that often. And the reason why judges/juries sometimes come to a conclusion very fast is because they were too lazy to actually consider the evidence, not because the case was clear cut. Such is life of course. Whenever someone has a problem with someone or someone gets in trouble it's clearly everyone else who is at fault, that's self evidentally true and can't be wrong (even if it doesn't make any sense). (Incidentally wikipedia policy has never really aimed for objectivity either in articles or interactions, in fact arguably one of the guiding principles is there's no such thing as true objectivity.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There are some 1500 Wikipedia administrators which is enough to defeat any generalisation of them. One can only say they each made a grab for power and gained it, often over the objections of a minority of responsible editors. Since acclaim and/or nepotism are the criteria for selection, the qualities of our administrators are necessarily varied and follow the bell curve encountered in social sciences. Both the upper and lower "tails" of the quality distribution, that theoretically have no limit, are amply populated. No aspirant is tested for their sobriety, sanity or ability to write an English sentence with correctly placed apostrophes and without profanity. Despite such drawbacks of mopster rule, the apointment of unpaid fag-masters (see Fagging) is as convenient for the Wikipedia Foundation as it was for British private schools in the 19th century. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And the 20th - or at least, most of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Grab for power? You get pretty much three actual "powers" as an admin. If you misuse them, other admins will use their "powers" against you. It is not a "power" thing. If anything, there is a social "prestige" aspect that one gets with any in-crowd. Anyway, generalizing for thousands of administrators is ridiculously stupid. There are all kinds of administrators, just as there are all kinds of non-administrators. I am not sure who is supposed to be arguing that Wikipedia is meant to be a moral enterprise, in any case, or what relevance that is supposed to hold here.

And Nil Einne — I have to say, I'm not convinced by your logic that "there's now ay someone can be the one at fault that often." Why not? I have met plenty of people who are, again and again, the ones at fault. In my experience it is the one who thinks that multitudes of individuals are independently at fault in causing their ills are usually the ones who are, themselves, the cause of their ills. (I'm thinking of a friend who is constantly getting fired, and constantly blaming others for it. But if you get fired again and again and again by totally unrelated individuals — you're probably the one doing something wrong, one way or another.)

Anyway, for a Reference Desk thread, this has dissolved into more or less admin flaming. I see no references, nor even any productive discussion, alas; only pointless griping. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The observations by Medeis and Nil Einne about lazy admins may be supported by the frequency of blocks ascribed to "behaviour for which (s)he was earlier blocked". Mr. 98's prediction that if an admin misuses their "powers", other admins will use their "powers" against them is meant to be comforting. It does not answer the question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. It does not explain why one admin acts to suppress the quoting on a user's own page of what has been posted in Wikipedia by another admin with whom the first admin is friendly. Is it credible that there is no exchanging of favours among 1500 admins? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like most people missed what I thought was obvious sarcasm in my post. My point was that if I follow my intepretation of μηδείς's logic, the reason why some people are repeatedly and usually found guilty of whatever criminal offences they are charged with is not because they really are guilty but because the judge/jury made a mistake. I think most of us here do accept there are people who commit a large number of crimes (even though we may not agree on the best way to deal with them or reduce the number of crimes and number of people) so wouldn't agree. Similarly, I was being sarcastic when I suggested that whenever a jury or judge comes to a decision quickly it can't be because the case was clear cut but because the judge/jury was too lazy, since I think many people would accept that at least some times it would be because the case was clear cut. In case it also wasn't obvious, when I made the statement 'whenever someone has a problem with someone or someone gets in trouble it's clearly everyone else who is at fault' I was also being sarcastic. My later comment was pointing out it doesn't make sense, since it's not possible for everyone else to be at fault all the time, otherwise it means no one is ever at fault and everyone is at fault. 13:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(Unsmall) I thought your irony was obvious, your implied smear not worth response, and your underlying implication off. My complaint is not of personal mistreatment toward me by admins, but that those who populate ANI fora tend to be far too arbitrary in their actions. Inaction by admins is far worse than action. Concise ANI reports are often met with the complaint that not enough has been documented to take action. Detailed reports on the other hand will be met with Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Blatant wp:3rr violations will be winked at when the admin is sympathetic to the POV being pushed. "I am not interested in the technical details of the issue and I don't want to be bothered to read the diffs (but am closing the report anyway)" is quite common. Received opinion gets far more respect than objective enforcement of the rules, and to complain is to yell at a brick wall. All too often the reality is that clear-cut technical violations will be ignored if the admin's own POV on the matter isn't being gored. And if action is taken it will be the moral-equivalent expedient of blocking the article rather than its abuser. If admins don't want to do the grunt work objectively and conscientiously they shouldn't have the position. They have become an incestuously self-selecting class of sinecure holders no different in their bureaucracy than tenured academics or the Catholic priesthood, with the same institutional results. Term limits and an admin lottery would go far toward curing that. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Danish government report on the costs and benefices of immigration

Is the report cited here available online? Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is it. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Marco polo. I myself did look but could not find. You used google translate? In any case, once again you show your merit. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I can make out a bit of Danish without Google. Marco polo (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I also found it but Marco polo had posted by then. I don't have his language skills but it helps somewhat that I happen to be Danish ;-) There are many Danish media stories about it but I couldn't find one with a link so I went to the website of the Integration Ministry and found a list of publications.[15] It also listed the related [16] published the same day 28.04.2011. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Be aware that even the people who was behind the rapport criticised the conclusion posed in the article posted by the OP (Danish article, I am afraid). The rapport could only be said to conclude that immigration was a a net negative, if you manipulated the figures (that is, did not remove expenses on the budget that would have appeared even without immigration). The leader of an opposition party stated that without that manipulation the rapport actually stated they were a net benefit. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Buyers and Sellers

When I sell my shares in a company, to whom am I selling them? Conversely, from whom am I buying shares? 166.205.10.235 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally, someone who is offering to buy shares, and someone who is offering to sell shares, respectively. Various types of trades allow you to further specify the subset of offers that you'll match with. Our stock market article, and related articles, provide additional context. — Lomn 20:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In practice, that other party may be a large institutional investor like a mutual fund. This is particularly true if the stock is listed in a major index; large portions of the equity of many large corporations is owned by such large investors (Apple 71%, Microsoft 72%, GE 52%, Ford 64%). If one of those large funds elects to change its position at the time you're in the market, it's quite likely that that's who you'll be buying from/selling to. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the market and the stock, there may also be a market maker. In rare circumstances the buyer/seller may be the company itself - in the case of an IPO/SPO or other equity offering, you may be buying stock in a company from the company itself. Conversely if a share repurchase is underway you may be selling the company's stock back to it. And in cases where a company is going in or out of government ownership, you may be dealing with that government (or some government-owned financial corporation). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are selling your shares to the public, that's who can buy them. Literally, anyone with the cash may purchase them; though as noted most stock trading goes on at the institutional level. That is, if you are selling your company's shares via an initial public offering. You can also sell shares of your company privately. If your company is a Privately held company it may still be organized into "shares" which aren't publicly traded. These types of securities are called Private equity. --Jayron32 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)~

Wikipedia has an article about the Initial public offering (IPO) process of raising capital for a company by selling shares through banks known as "underwriters". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Most likely unless you are talking about shares on the order of 10s of thousands or more, you are probably going through a stock brokerage. The stock brokerage buys your shares and the brokerage house deals in larger quantities directly with the corporations or mutual fund large scale purchasers. Googlemeister (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

See our article Electronic communication network, though it's a little jargony. When you put your 100 shares of AAPL up for sale, you can either set a price (see limit order) or you can sell them at whatever the current market cost is. If you set a limit order of US$390, then this order goes up on the ECN and whenever some random person out there wants to buy some AAPL at 390 then your sale will be triggered and you'll sell the shares to whatever random person or company issued their buy order. If you had sold them with a market order, on the other hand, that order, too, would go up on the ECN and whatever shares are available at the cheapest current price are the shares the system will purchase for you. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

August 12

Where are some fine places online to solicit charity donations?

My campus ministry center has funds to raise for a kitchen that has yet to be built. So far, we've raised $93,000 out of the $160,000 needed. The campus minister would love to have me approach caring people for the kitchen donations. However, I feel more comfortable doing so online. Therefore, where are some fine digital venues in which to post for donations to charities? Thanks, --70.179.163.168 (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Twitter and Facebook are popular venues for soliciting donations online. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean a website like First Giving?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of online charity donation services seems to cover just the UK, but you might find some links from there useful. --ColinFine (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bacchus and the Ganges

Ovid in the Ars Amatoria, speaking of Love, says, "Thy ardent flame turns water itself to vapour. Such was Bacchus when he triumphed over the land of the Ganges."[17]

What mythical event is Ovid referring to here? How did Bacchus "triumph over the land of the Ganges"? And what did that have to do with turning water in to vapour? -- noosphere 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The land of the Ganges is India, which was well known to the Greeks and the Romans, and apparently plays into the Dionysus/Bacchus myth. See Dionysus#Childhood. --Jayron32 02:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For the vaporization, see also the long quotation from Nonnus' Dionysiaca on this page (seventh quotation in the list). Deor (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dangerous guiness record

1 What happen if he accidentally threw a knife at her resulting her dead or injure? Is there some kind of protection or something?Trongphu (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Accident do happen, see Impalement arts#Myths. Royor (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's not a trick, I don't understand how it's possible to throw so many knives and never miss. And then why doesn't the precise throwing of knives, e.g. to hit a sentry in the throat, have more visibility in military actions? Wnt (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

[18] Kittybrewster ☎ 10:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Practice makes perfect, I'm pretty sure they missed a lot before perfecting their craft. As our knife throwing article points out - Military personnel (typically special forces operators) seldom use "normal" knives for throwing, because lack of repeatability makes training and certification difficult. Royor (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, a few knife-throwers miss - but did all of them miss at some point? Wnt (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

See this. They do miss - even on television. Notice that the knives have sharp points, but the blades are obviously dull. Otherwise, this would have been far worse than a bump on the head. -- kainaw™ 13:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of decades ago, the Guinness Book of World Records stopped recording new dangerous records, including competitive eating records. I see they're back, though; I suppose "if it bleeds, it leads" and that danger sells. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel obligated to mention Les Barker's poem, Cosmo the Fairly Accurate Knife Thrower. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.142 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bans in Saudi Arabia

Why are all Christian holidays banned in Saudi Arabia? Why are women banned from driving in Saudi Arabia? Why is homosexuality banned in Saudi Arabia? Why is the Gregorian calendar banned in Saudi Arabia? --84.61.188.59 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

See "Legal system of Saudi Arabia". Gabbe (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Homosexuality is banned for the same reason it was banned in Texas before Lawrence v. Texas - stupid religious fundamentalist yahoos with too much power. Is the Gregorian calender banned or simply not used? Are Christian holidays banned or simply not observed? Any sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to bet the OP the cost of a return flight, meal and accomodation in Saudi Arabia that I can openly carry a Gregorian calender through Saudi Arabian customs. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do not wiser Christians condemn the behaviour and/or ignorance of "Christian" bigots like our OP? HiLo48 (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. --Reference Desker (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling blatant religious bigotry where it exists is not a personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the OP's question that suggests he's a Christian religious bigot. He's asking questions about Saudi Arabia that make factual presuppositions. In fact, if he were a Christian religious bigot, rather than asking why homosexuality is banned in Saudi Arabia, he'd more likely be asking why it's permitted in other countries (like Germany, where the IP address is located). Pais (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

bigotry is the expression of unreasonable opinion. bigot is an abusive ad hominem term. HiLo48 you may say only one of these words and it isn't "bigot". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

[19] suggests there are severe restrictions on celebrating any non Muslim religious festivals. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Gregorian calendar is used in Saudi Arabia for business purposes, just like everywhere else in the world. Check out the website of any Saudi newspaper, for example, they all have both the Islamic and Christian date. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To HiLo48: Wiser Christians do call out idiocy that claims to be Christian. For example, the retards at Westboro Baptist Church get no support from the majority of Christians. The problem here is that the questioner did not ask "Why do stupid Saudis not agree with my Christian view?" However, you clearly read the question that way and made a claim that ALL Christians support the behavior that you implied in the question. -- kainaw™ 13:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bigotry aside, the OP is a well known troll of the RD and encyclopaedia [20] Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are alcohol, gambling, pork, and porn banned in Saudi Arabia? --84.61.188.59 (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously because they are antithetical to the state religion. Googlemeister (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted, of course, that in many US counties, alcohol is banned or heavily regulated, and that gambling in the US is illegal except for a few locations, state lotteries, or the weird legal loophole of tribal casinos. There are plenty of non-religious reasons to regulate both alcohol and gambling. Pork, not so much. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Trichinosis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean from a modern standpoint. (And trichinosis doesn't mean you have to ban all pork. It just means you have to cook the pork and regulate how it is produced. To use trichinosis as an excuse to ban pork is akin to using E coli. as an excuse to ban lettuce.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Pig particularly the section on environmental impacts and health issues may be of interest. Of the animals (excluding fish) commonly reared for food, pigs appear to be the most commonly reared ones listed in List of the world's 100 worst invasive species (the other ones listed there are red deer, goat and rabbit). Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but nobody actually bans pork for that reason, which was my point. Note also there is a big distinction between banning the farming of pigs and the consumption of pork. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Feral bacons running around the countryside does sound tasty. Googlemeister (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Many of the traditional bans on alcohol and gambling in the US and elsewhere had much more to do with the perceived immorality then to do with the social harm. (In other words, most people didn't ban alcohol and gambling for those reasons either traditionally.) Even in many of the modern ones, perceived immorality often is part of the reason. And there are no native pigs in Saudi Arabia so I question the relevence of the distinction. I would note importing farmed pigs risks moving the problem to somewhere else so importing wild pigs is the only real option, but in many cases that risks harming the wild pig population. In modern times since so many countries have already totally screwed up their environments with introduced invasive animals which includes pigs of course importing feral pigs is a useful thing but that doesn't apply in traditional contexts which we appeared to be referring to at first. Note that according to our article, pigs were sometimes purposely introduced for hunting, so it wasn't just farming that was part of the problem. In other words a total ban on pig products in the past wasn't necessarily a bad thing in places without native pigs. (Although I doubt feral pigs would have ever been a problem in many Middle Eastern countries.) BTW most bans include all pigs products such as bacon and ham and gelatine from pig bones and often even pig hairs and rather then just pork. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

See haraam. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The mayor of Oslo was aghast when a representative of the moslem community proposed that moslems should be banned from the city for a week. "But why do you want us to make such an unjust discrimination when all religions are welcome here?" he asked. The moslem replied "It's because for a whole week you people can watch porn, eat pork, draw Mohammed, act indecently....and we won't complain at all." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Religious fundamentalists are the enemies of freedom everywhere. Currently, those of the Muslim persuasion are more of a problem simply because Islamic fundamentalism and theocracies are more widespread. However, in the past, when Christian fundamentalism had more power and had control of many nations, Christian fundamentalists also denied others freedoms, as well as torturing and murdering anyone who disagreed with them, as during the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition. If we go even farther back, to when Jewish fundamentalists had control of ancient Israel, they also committed genocide against their neighbors. StuRat (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some might say that Christian fundamentalists have not stopped. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, with the crusades, they were reacting to Muslim fundamentalism, and were trying to take back territory that had formerly been Christian. (You may not believe it but this is, at least, what the crusaders themselves had in mind.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article Crusades says as much. Adam, why should anyone not believe that? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The regions the Crusades targeted were not 'traditionally Christian'. They were multi-denominational (something you still see in say, Lebanon), Muslim, Jewish, and Eastern Orthodox Christian (of the Byzantine Empire). But yes, they wanted to take back what they perceived to be rightfully Christian territories (specifically Jesus' birthplace), which was nonsensical since Jesus was Jewish. It was simply the latest in a series of invasions and counter invasions, going back to the Roman Empire, the Byzantine empire, the Turkish empires, to the Umayyad conquest of Spain. Either way, it wasn't a 'reaction to Muslim fundamentalism', it was a political maneuver disguised as a religious campaign. It helps if you realize that popes of the Holy Roman Empire were basically the replacements of Roman Emperors after the fall of the [Western] Roman Empire, they controlled the German kings they called 'Holy Roman Emperors' The first crusade was started when the Byzantine Empire requested help from a Pope against the Seljuks. It was an opportunity to reunite the Eastern and Western Catholic churches (moah powah!), so they took advantage of it. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know Cuddlyable, but evidently (as StuRat demonstrated) lots of people believe the crusades were random violence against Muslims (and Jews). Also, Obsidian, the regions targeted by the crusades (the first few at least) were traditionally Christian as far as Christians of the time were concerned. Are you suggesting that Christians shouldn't have cared about the Christian Holy Land because the Christian Messiah was ethnically Jewish? That doesn't make any sense...remember we're talking about medieval Christians here, for whom Jews are sort of a weird anomaly (Judaism should have ceased to exist when Jesus fulfilled all their prophecies, or, at best, the Jews had to stick around until the End Times when they would all convert anyway). It's a good point that the crusades are part of a series of invasions of the Near East going back for millennia, and that is certainly how the Muslims interpreted the First Crusade at first (although the Turks themselves, the Seljuks in this case, had only just arrived about 20 years before, and if by "Turkish" you mean the Ottomans, they did not arrive for another couple of hundred years). However, the Popes and the Holy Roman Emperors are completely separate. The pope was supposed to crown the emperor, but at this point in the Middle Ages their relationship was almost always antagonistic; in fact Urban II, who organized the First Crusade, had a rival anti-pope who had been set up by the emperor. Frederick II, the emperor most heavily involved in the crusades, was certainly not controlled by the pope, nor was the pope controlled by him, no matter how much both would have wanted to control the other. And lastly, yes, the Byzantine emperor did request help from the Pope, and the Pope may have considered it an opportunity to reunite the churches, but nothing like that actually happened. The "Great Schism" had only occurred in 1054, so did they even think of the two churches as completely distinct yet? Probably not. The reunion of the churches was certainly a political tool in later centuries when the Byzantines wanted help against the Ottomans, but in the eleventh century that wasn't really a big issue yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were saying they were traditionally Christian. My bad. So yeah, agree. They perceived it as theirs. But yes, they didn't care, as is obvious by the fact that Jerusalem hadn't been under the control of the Christian Byzantine Empire for hundreds of years. If they really cared about Jesus' birthplace being invaded by the Turks, then why didn't the crusades start in 635 AD? And Seljuks were Turks, and the people the First Crusades were mounted against. And no, Urban II's antipope was set up against the pope preceding him by an emperor set up by a pope preceding him. Yes the relationships between the Pope and the Emperors were rocky, but Emperors were always crowned by a Pope (regardless if they had to be elected to be King beforehand), while Emperors can only elect Popes, not appoint them (though they might as well have, given all the power they have at their disposal). In a sense, the emperor was the martial arm of the pope, both tools and liabilities when they become too independent. Note that even Frederick II was crowned by a Pope who saw him as a tool in controlling the previous emperor - Otto. And no, the separation of the east and west churches happened long before 1024, beginning with the split of the Roman empires basically. How do you think were there two popes (a patriarch is basically a pope, both mean 'father' and both rule their respective churches with no higher authority) who mutually exchanged excommunication letters in the great schism? The point really is, the popes during these periods were anything like the mostly benign popes we have now who keep out of anything secular. These were extremely wealthy and powerful rulers who commanded kings. The crusades therefore is unlikely to have been started for purely religious reasons. They were political, it simply used religion as a convenient reason. The fact that it didn't succeed in reuniting the byzantine church with the western roman popes (probably because the crusaders refused to return Jerusalem to the Byzantines after they conquered it), has no bearing on it. The effect on a simple proclamation of a holy war was still remarkable enough that later popes and kings used it to their advantage, even more blatantly for power and greed this time when they saw the possibilities. See First Crusade#Situation in Europe. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The crusades didn't start in the 7th century because, well, how could they have? The seventh century was obviously very different from the twelfth. And I guess it wasn't really a big concern until the eleventh century; when the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed in 1009, there was some proto-crusade rhetoric about in Europe, and when the Turks did arrive in the 1070s, it was a lot more dangerous for pilgrims to go there (because of the collapse of central Abbasid control, the fighting between the Turkish and Arab emirates and the Fatimid caliphate in Egypt, etc). I still don't agree about the closeness of the pope and the emperor. The Empire was never the martial arm of the papacy. The First Crusade hardly involved the Empire at all, it was almost entirely French. The pope never bothered to ask the Empire for help...why would he? For the religious schism, sure there were two "popes" but in that case there were actually five (if you include Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria). The First Crusade did not intend to reunite the churches. Maybe the pope (if no one else) hoped that might be a result of the cooperation, but it wasn't one of the goals. (Even when a crusade did conquer Constantinople, in 1204, that was neither a goal nor an end result.) I also can't agree with your characterization of the First Crusade as entirely political and not religious; despite your argument, the Pope did not have that kind of power, he couldn't amass an army from multiple countries to do his bidding, and that's not at all what happened anyway. Certainly the crusade, and any crusade by definition, involves the Papacy in some way, but apparently not in the way that you imagine. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're nitpicking now, heh, only the Patriarch of Constantinople ("first among equals"?) really held the reins in the Eastern Orthodox church and thus was the counterpart of the Pope. I was wrong to characterize emperors as the 'martial arm' maybe. Still sticking to characterizing them as 'tools' though. Emperors and popes certainly did use each other a lot. And you can't definitely say it wasn't the goal when there are sources that discuss its possibility at length, not to mention the circumstantial evidence. Because, what else would be the reason then? Mere piety? Taking back 'Christian lands' can be and was probably synonymous with reuniting the Byzantine empire with Rome, since those lands were under Byzantine before the Turkish invasions anyway. Would you agree to mostly political then? If not for the first crusade, then for the succeeding ones. You can't really dispute that the focus slowly shifted from the pretext of retaking the holy land to shepherding the valuable inflow of spice and silk from eastern trade routes once they know just how valuable the region was. The same thing happened centuries later during the age of exploration, particularly with Spain's "God, Gold, and Glory" ideals. And I find it very hard to imagine that Popes of the Dark Ages actually had noble goals (however misguided). And Popes before the Catholic reformation can, and did amass armies from multiple nations, heh, weren't the crusades a particularly remarkable example of that? French crusaders were the first, simply because they were the most enthusiastic, but the first crusade definitely was not a 'mostly french' matter (they were preceded even by what can only be described as a mob of zealots). They had the power to deny heaven on a whim (several instances caused wars targeted on the excommunicated ruler), they can 'give' lands (already inhabited, thus giving tacit blessings to invade), the number of popes and antipopes vying for that kind of power, the lengths kings and emperors will go just to secure favor of a pope (if he can't then the lengths he goes through to find ways to replace him with any pope, just as long as that one won't excommunicate him), should be indication enough of how powerful the title was. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Historical nitpick. Much of the holy land was conquered ca. 640 by Arabs, not Turks. At that time, it had been under Byzantine control for only about 10 years. Before that it was under Persian control for 15 years. At the time of the crusades, there were many effectively independent Muslim states in the area - only under Nur al-Din and Saladin did they become reasonably united (but still separate from the Turks in Asia Minor). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oop. Just goes to show how lopsided what's being taught here really was. All we learned from their side was that they were vaguely 'Turks' and that they were Muslim, hence my earlier confusion with later Ottomans and Seljuks. In contrast our history classes were particularly detailed in the European side. Same thing with the Umayyad Arabs who were simply called Moors in our lessons. Not that school was a recent thing though, LOL. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, yes, I am nitpicking, because this has veered far away from the original question (assuming it was a legitimate question), and there are lots of things to nitpick (the thing about the Turks, for example). I can see your point, definitely, because a lot of what you are saying is what people normally learn about the crusades, but there's a lot more to it than that. In recent years, for example, "Mere piety" has indeed been accepted as one of the reasons people went on crusade. In as much as you can't assign a single goal to tens of thousands of people, then yes, "mere piety" was a major reason - otherwise why would they give up their land, money, family, to go thousands of miles away to a land that had no connection to them other than a religious one, where they were likely to be killed on the way? (The works of Jonathan Riley-Smith is especially important on this subject.) Other nitpicks: yes, I will dispute that "valuable inflow of spice and silk" was important, assuming that you mean this was a political goal of the crusades for the popes - firstly this is an economic matter and secondly the popes have very little, if anything, to do with trade routes like that (which were controlled by the Italian city-states). The only time I can think of that popes got involved in economics was to forbid trade with Egypt and other Muslim states. They didn't want the Venetians (or whoever) supplying the enemy with materials, not that this stopped the Venetians anyway. Also, once the Kingdom of Jerusalem/Acre and the other states on the mainland were conquered, there was very little effort to regain them. No one wanted to fight for a losing cause, even if it was for Jerusalem. Economically it was still possible to trade with Asia through Cyprus, and with favourable trade treaties from the Muslim mainland states, so no, the crusades were never about opening up trade routes (that this happened to be a result does not make it a goal). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are non-Muslims banned from entering Mecca? Why are non-Muslims banned from entering Medina as well? Why is the use of the name “Mecca” for gambling very offensive? --84.61.188.59 (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Arbuthnot

Was it he who was a Colonel at the Battle of Waterloo? If not, then who was the colonel Robert who was there? I found this quotation "The Colombo Observer says four, including among them Sir Robert Arbuthnot, but the General, though he had been through nearly every battle in the Peninsular War, does not seem to have been at Waterloo". - Kittybrewster ☎ 06:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Charles Dalton's WATERLOO ROLL CALL With Biographical Notes and Anecdotes Robert Arbuthnot was not among the officers at Waterloo. There were two Sir Robert entries:

1. Lieut-Col. Sir Robert Macara, K.C.B. 42ND (OR THE ROYAL HIGHLAND) REGIMENT OF FOOT.
2. Lieut.-Col. Sir Robert Gardiner, BRITISH HORSE ARTILLERY

There were no colonels named Robert without the Sir. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. How does the entry come to be: Corporal Timothy Greenhalgh, 2nd Bn Coldstream Guards, served in Colonel Robert Arbuthnot's company at Waterloo.? - Kittybrewster ☎ 07:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know. I tried a search at the National Archive for Timothy Greenhalgh but search didn't have any hits. I have a list of the company commanders at Waterloo but no Robert Arbuthnot although he was assigned a company on 25 July 1814. Illness or injury may have prevented his attendance. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Depends on where that entry comes from, of course, and at this remove it may well be in error... interestingly, his entry in Hart's Army List for 1840 says he was at Waterloo, here, and again in 1841. Note, however, that while it says this in the descriptive text, his entry in the main list only has the "Peninsular" mark against it, not the Waterloo mark. A few years later, however, his entry explicitly did not mention Waterloo in the description (1845, 1846.) So it seems to have been a misconception that circulated in reference works for a while, at least. Shimgray | talk | 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Grammar: United States debt-ceiling crisis

Which is correct, from a grammatical point of view:

• United States debt-ceiling crisis

or

• United States debt ceiling crisis (without the hyphen)

Why? Is debt-ceiling a "compound modifier"? If not, what is it? I think the words debt and ceiling are being used in apposition but I'm not sure. You can have a debt crisis but a ceiling crisis doesn't make much sense.

(There is a conflict over which of these should be used as the main subject of a Wikipedia article. The MOS says this about hyphens.)

I'm directing this posting to the reference desk, instead of the Village pump, because it appears to be a straight grammatical question. Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a question of orthography, not grammar. I'd say both are orthographically correct; you can include the hyphen or omit it as you prefer. It is a compound modifier, but I'd tend to omit the hyphen myself, if only because "United States" is also a compound modifier in this context, and you'd never hyphenate that. (Would you?) Pais (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that this article and English compounds#Hyphenated compound adjectives are pretty clear that hyphenation isn't used when there is no ambiguity. Do you wonder if this is a "debt" variety of "ceiling crisis"? Also, the comment that people have begun to merely look up the adjectives in dictionaries also seems relevant - I can't picture finding "debt-ceiling" as an established adjective/noun/whatever. Wnt (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We do have a Language Desk, you know... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Debt" is a noun, not an adjective. If there were a crisis concerning a "high ceiling", I'd want the hyphen when the two-word phrase is used as an attributive adjective. I.e., it would be a "high-ceiling crisis", not a "high ceiling crisis", since it's not a "ceiling crisis" that is high, but rather a crisis concerning a high ceiling. Since "debt" is not an adjective, one can't say it's a "ceiling crisis" that is "debt". However, I still at least wouldn't mind seeing a hyphen there.

It seems lots of people don't use hyphens very much in the present day. Publishers of books, magazines, and newspapers still usually use them. Advertisers and package labelers usually don't, I think. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

....I'd have posted this query to the "language" reference desk rather than the "humanities" reference desk. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the hyphenated form as unambiguous. The type of crisis is a debt ceiling crisis, not a debt ceiling crisis or a debt ceiling crisis, nor, especially, a debt ceiling crisis. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the hyphenated form is less ambiguous. Hyphens tend to be omitted when the compound is well known, but I don't think "debt ceiling" is immediately recognised as a compound. If it becomes better known, it might eventually be spelt (or spelled if you prefer) as a single word: "debtceiling". Dbfirs 08:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

tip jar

Is it considered bad form to make change from the tip jar in US establishments? Like say you wanted to leave a tip where $1-2 would be appropriate but you only have a $10? Googlemeister (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Handling other people's money to which you're not entitled may be viewed as bad form, as if perhaps you're "helping yourself" to the till. Better to approach the register and have change made there. The employee on duty will certainly oblige if at all possible, understanding the favorable purpose of your gesture (or your stated request). That option's not available with the collection plate at church, though.-- Deborahjay (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In cases where the tip jar is at a cash register, the expectation generally is that whatever change is made on the transaction will be used for the tip, rounding up to the next denomination, more or less. A cup of coffee costs $1.35, you pay two bucks, and 65 cents go in the jar. A take-out order at a restaurant costs 17.88, pay with a twenty and leave $2.12 in the jar. In cases where the change coming back is going to be a large bill -- paying $20.00 for something that costs $9.75, say -- I would ask the cashier for the change in smaller denominations, in my example, a five and five ones, without giving any particular explanation, then leave a couple of singles in the jar. In my experience, establishments with tip jars have a knack for providing customers with currency that fits into them. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that first example normal? That's pretty much a 50% tip! I know it's small fry cash wise but even so that's a ridiculous % tip-wise. ny156uk (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think so. The "high" tip you may leave offsets the large number of people who don't tip at all. (I almost always drop the change in the jar. People behind the counter don't make much money, and to me it just feels right; I'm in the US, don't know what the custom is elsewhere.) Antandrus (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the first part of this. I don't get why we are pressured to tip when the service doesn't warrant it. They did their job, they are paid for it, and to me, only exceptional service warrants anything extra. That said, making change from the tip jar is not okay. It makes you seem cheap, even if you are actually being quite generous. Ask for change instead. They'll notice why and appreciate it, rather than assuming you are stealing. Mingmingla (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In the US, the minimum wage for tipped waiters is $2.13. Therefore, they depend on the tips as part of their income. Here's a website outlining the specifics in each state. [21]. So in effect, they are not paid [hardly anything] by the employers for doing their job, that falls to the customers. Falconus^{p t c} 04:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

More to the point; my brother has been a waiter his whole working life; and the wage that waiters get paid doesn't even cover the taxes on his tips. (he has the tax returns to prove it). They literally survive almost entirely on tips. --Jayron32 05:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

All well and good to use the change from your payment for the tip jar, but a lot of people use plastic to pay for things these days and not all receipts have the line where you can add a tip. Googlemeister (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good point. In that instance, I would drop a buck or two in the jar if I had them, and not if I didn't. I wouldn't ask the cashier to make change expressly for giving the tip; if I had cash on me and planned on tipping, I would use the cash, not a card (though there could easily be a situation where I had cash, but not enough to pay for whatever I was buying, I'll grant). Using a credit/debit card to pay for something then making it known you're carrying cash seems tacky to me somehow. As for the percentage question, I would certainly give the whole 65 cents, but if I bought a coffee for myself and one for my friend, paid $3.00, and gotten 35 30 cents back, that's all I would put in the jar as well, to the same cashier, for the same level of service. The whole notion of a tip jar, to my mind, is that gratuities are appreciated, but not required or even necessarily expected, and it's the gesture more than the money that matters. *derp* fixed that elementary math mistake --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of a separate but somewhat related question...there is a place for tips at the Mongolian Grill inside of a Chinese buffet in my town. The actual Mongolian Grill feature costs nothing to use beyond the price of the all you can eat buffet (which is about $10), so what is an appropriate tip for the cook at the grill? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

British uprising

Will the current uprising in England result in a permanent revolution such as the French revolution or Russian revolution? --Toiil99 (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No. It wasn't an 'uprising', and it isn't 'current' (and neither the French nor Russian revolutions seem to have been 'permanent') AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The graphic at 2011 England riots#Causes suggests that most people think that the principal causes of the disturbances were criminal behaviour and gang culture. Those in turn clearly have root causes, but very few people see the disturbances as a political "uprising". Incidentally, they were not "British", they were almost exclusively English (rather than Scottish or Welsh). Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The recent events in London are not comparable to the events of a few months ago in Tunisia. In that instance there was widespread popular feeling against the regime throughout the country. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

news media seems to classify this more as people from gangs seeing an opportunity to do some looting rather then a grassroots political unrest which are the kinds that result in revolutions. Googlemeister (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There were no coherent political demands or attempts to take control of anything. It was just mindless destruction and looting for fun and profit. It has very little in common with a revolution. --Tango (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

THAT would be the last straw. Those yobs trying to overthrow the government. 88.14.196.229 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify; the French Revolution's republican form of government lasted about 15 years, and none of the various French Revolutionary Constitutions lasted more than 5. Certain aspects of administrative and governmental reform did outlast it (like Code Napoleon), but Napoleon declared himself emperor (and thus restored a form of Monarchy) in 1804, and the old order itself was restored when Louis XVIII re-established the Borbon monarchy in 1815. The Russian Revolution (assuming you mean the October Revolution) lasted quite a bit longer; the Soviet Union survived a about 70 years; but Russia today has a very different form of government. It is basically an autocratic-presidential-oligarchical-republic with lots of crony capitalism. The recent riots in England don't represent an organized uprising. In the cases of the French and Russian revolution, they had organized leadership (the Jacobin Club and Robespierre in France; the Bolsheviks and Lenin in Russia) that organized and directed the uprising from the first. The recent riots in the U.K. are mostly a spontaneous, unorganized rabble. There are a few minor organized protests, but mostly its looting and undirected rage. --Jayron32 23:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Re the question of "organisation" - I think there is growing evidence that the recent rioting in England was indeed "organised", in the sense that criminal gangs and their followers organised collective action among themselves in terms of agreeing collectively where to riot and loot, through using networking sites, text messaging and so forth - but that it was organised criminal action, rather than organised with any overt political intent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Permanent revolution is a term used in Marx and Trotsky's writings, "Marx used it to describe the strategy of a revolutionary class to continue to pursue its class interests independently and without compromise, despite overtures for political alliances, and despite the political dominance of opposing sections of society. Trotsky put forward his conception of 'permanent revolution' as an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved advanced capitalism." [Our article's lede]. The rioters in England did not compose themselves as a revolutionary class, even though evidence indicates that rioters came from the entire spectrum of white collar, blue collar and lumpenproletariat members of the English urban working class. A revolutionary class would be a body of the working class displaying class consciousness normally in the form of being a class for itself out of Lukacs' still useful writings. In Gramscian terms they would pose a counter-hegemony. For laypeople: the English rioters would have had to have advocated or attempted to implement different systems of governance or social production—they didn't. It is possible to draw a very long bow, and argue that the riots demonstrated a class consciousness of the position of a ground down class in capitalism, but that doesn't relate to "Permanent revolution's" conception of a self-aware class advocating post capitalism. In relation to Jayron32's simplification of the French and Russian situation, he could look into Jacques Roux or the fact that the montagnards had to continuously play catch-up with the urban continuous committees. Or that February 1917 kicked off with an International Women's Day march and that the Moscow soviet was an all party revolutionary soviet. The riots in Paris, Petrograd and Moscow weren't organised by leaderships except in Stalin's execrable Short Course History of the RSDLP(b). This is more than quibbling over a misrepresentation of history—it goes to Marx's question regarding Permanent revolution: can a class organise itself autonomously, or (as in Trotsky's view) does a class require a singular party organising it? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Fifelfoo, you seem to misunderstand that a person may answer a question with an answer, and still understand more about the subject than they write in answering that specific question. More specifically, the OP's question about the relationship between the recent British riots and the French and Russian revolutions can be answered adequately without an exhaustive explanation of the complete history of them. I am quite aware of Roux, well before you mentioned him, and the montagnards, and indeed probably any other figure you would care to bring up. The difference between you Fifelfoo and me is that I am not so insecure in my level of intelligence that I feel the need to prove it to the world by trying to demonstrate that other people who answer question know less about the subject than I do, especially where such demonstration serves no purpose in answering the original question. My answer sufficiently answered the question, and I don't think I need to bring up every single figure in the history of the French Revolution to do so. If you'd like to discuss anyone else (Danton? Saint-Just? Tallyrand?) perhaps we can do so outside of the context of this question... --Jayron32 16:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems relevant when your simplification isn't pedagogical—you were using a simplification which asserts the centrality of revolutionary organisation and leadership to demonstrate a point about revolutionary organisation and leadership. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Say again, please, in single-syllable words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Learn longer ones :P AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't support a claim that leadership is necessary to revolutions, by simplifying the history of leadership and spontaneous actions in the Russian and French revolutions, such that your simplified history of the Russian and French revolutions is "leadership is necessary." Fifelfoo (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

hiatus in presidential deaths

Was the 21-year period from January 1973 to April 1994 the only time 21 years passed without any presidents of the United States dying (other than periods of 21 years ending before December 1799)? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a List of Presidents of the United States, from which it appears that no presidents died between George Washington (14 December 1799) and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (both on 4 July 1826). Otherwise the closest to a 21 year hiatus was the 18 year gap between the deaths of Franklin Roosevelt (12 April 1945) and John Kennedy (22 November 1963). --Antiquary (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

By hindsight it seems as if I should have wondered about Adams and Jefferson, although even if I'd thought about the timing of their terms and their deaths, it would have been far from a sure thing without looking at that list. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Got your eye on the Elder Bush? μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it a logical problem, or just me? (w. spoiler of The Subtle Knife)

I think I may be misread this, but I'm not sure how it's possible:

"She reached out a paw to pat something in the air in front of her, ... . Then she leaped backward, back arched and ... approached the spot again, just an empty patch of grass between the hornbeams and the bushes of a garden hedge, ...

Again she leaped back, but less far ...

It looked as if someone had cut a patch out of the air, about two yards from the edge of the road ... You could see it only from the side nearest the road ..."

pg. 14-15.

I think Pullman wrote this so that it is believable that the patch of air has not been observed by others until then, but if it's only two yards from the road, and only observable from that side, then surely the cat had leaped back onto the road when it first approached. It seems curious then that this was not remarked upon by the narrator. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. It wouldn't be noticed by a casual passer-by because the world on the other side of the window looks very similar to the world on this side. The cat wouldn't end up on the road because two yards is quite big relative to the size of a cat, so it probably didn't jump back that far. --Tango (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I was not as familiar with yards as I'd thought. Thanks. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Climbing an hierarchy

How can you climb the hierarchy of an institution which does not have any productive purpose? For example, why do some priester manage to become bishop? In a corporation you always can set quarterly goal, that if reached, bring you up in the hierarchy...Quest09 (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You might begin with our article Office politics, and go on to investigate some of the links it contains to further related concepts. In most hierarchies, advancement is achieved as much or more by the manipulation of interpersonal relationships and perceptions than by material achievements to the benefit of the organisation: indeed, concentration on the latter may deflect effort that might instead be directed to the former. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.142 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Also relevent is the Peter principle, which may explain why managers are always more incompetant than their underlings, even IF the company were to promote on merit alone. --Jayron32 23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Many institutions which are not seen to be inherently "productive" have been marketised since the 1970s. Universities have "customers", socialised hospitals have "clients", and Churches have recruitment goals and monthly sales meetings. While these don't arise directly from a commodity sale (you can twist yourself into knots trying to assert that this is the case), such relationships can often be inflicted through audit culture, forcing institutions to produce artificial metrics of productivity, and then applying large scale firm processes on the "failing" public institutions. Often this has been connected to direct external recruitment of senior management, while maintaining more traditional bureaucratic methods of promotion internally, or eliminating internal promotion altogether. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"An hierarchy" ? Does that mean you pronounce it eye-archy ? StuRat (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In my own informal Southern English register (in which I drop initial aitches), it would be closer to "eyer-arky" (hence "an [h]ierarchy"); in more formal speech I'd probably pronounce the aitch (hence "a hierarchy"), but might drop it for "hierarchical" where the main stress is on the third syllable (hence "an [h]ierarchical"). We discussed "a/an with initial h" at length a couple of months ago, probably on the Language Desk. {The poster formerly known as 87.91.230.195} 90.201.110.213 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely people don't drop the initial H in "an history" though. ;) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The most aggressive little hierarchy climbing twit I ever knew had a standard set of tricks. Twit was always very jolly and friendly around some senior person with power and official status. Twit was a big yes-man, kiss-ass and flatterer, quick to laugh at jokes the BigGuy told and to give him lavish compliments. The B.S. was obvious, but the BigGuy somehow did not seem to notice it or object to it. Then Twit would volunteer to help out with any assignment which gave him some power over his peers, like making arrangements for a seminar where members of the group and distinguished outsiders gave talks. His catchphrase then became "BigGuy and I were wondering if you could" set up the chairs, run off copies, or do whatever mundane tasks might take a little time and effort. The "wondering" was all on the part of Twit, who took all credit for any work done.He was always jovial, and a "hale fellow well met." This was one of many techniques which served Twit in good stead, to make him well-thought of by superiors and despised by peers. He was also very skilled at finding someone with hard-won technical expertise, flattering him or her, and getting the person to do all sorts of difficult work for him, saving Twit the time and effort to learn the technical/mathematical/scientific ropes, but giving him the appearance of being a real expert in multiple fields. Kissing up and using people by borrowing the efforts and expertise of others should work in a non-profit as well as in business, industry, or academia. Edison (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, excellent short term strategies for climbing. But do be aware that this is all dependent on the BigGuy being a bit of a twit himself. Whenever you get a change of BigGuy, and true productivity is sought, characters like your Twit can be in a lot of trouble. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What tends to happen in those circumstances is that some guy who works all night to solve problems that really were of his own making or bad planning gets the attention and promotion. The one who planned properly, looked for trouble in advance and got the job done tends to be ignored. You really do need to go to the boos and make certain they know about what you've done. In fact keeping a boss informed and not having too many crises - but just a couple to show how well you deal with them - is probably best. As for the twit in the previous spiel - he got things done, nothing wrong with that. It's hard enough to get anybody to manage properly. Dmcq (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

August 13

The Gunpowder Plot - was the king behind it?

Following a lead from VP(P) - [22], an editor has tried to add a section to Gunpowder Plot suggesting that the king was behind the plot - diff - and cites Scholastic's The Slimy Stuarts, part of their Horrible Histories series. It's doubtful that that book can be considered a reliable source. Two questions: 1) does anyone have the book to hand, to check whether the assertion is merely flippancy on the author's part and 2) has anyone come across a reliable source for such an assertion? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

there are serious historians, in peer-reviewed journals etc, that have questioned the veracity of the orthodox interpretation of the Gunpowder Plot - but this isn't an example of one. Not remotely meeting WP:RS, and as such, unfit to be cited as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The thrust of my question was towards whether anyone had an RS covering the assertion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As much as I enjoyed the books myself, there must be a better source for it – whilst generally accurate, nothing in the series is new material. So I would be surprised if it weren't correct, but it needs a better source. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a negative review in a Catholic journal of a book arguing that Robert Cecil contrived the plot to defame Catholics. At least it provides a attributable reliable source for that minority theory. The Enigma of Gunpowder Plot, 1605: The Third Solution (review) μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Weather Service Modernization Act of 1992

What were the NWS offices closed/merged/created by the Weather Service Modernization Act of 1992? I know that the wiki article is redlinked, so the best I can do for background information is this link, where the text of the act can be found under the header "Weather Service Modernization". A Reference Desk Barnstar will be awarded if a complete list can be provided. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Myth of Witch Drowning

Did the process of identifying a witch by dunking her in water to see if she float or sank always resulted in death as most source say including the article on dunking? I've heard on a documentary (can't remember the name but may have been a history channel one) that they didn't let them drown they actually pulled they back up if they sank, proving their innocence.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Letting them die would have taken away the opportunity to punish/execute them later, so no, normally they would not be allowed to drown. We also have Trial_by_ordeal#Ordeal_of_water, which contradicts the dunking article. Also, is it normal that a witch was considered guilty if she sank? That was usually proof of innocence (as water wouldn't accept a guilty person, or something...maybe it was changed for the witch trials though. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If she sank, she was innocent, as this was what normal people did: if she floated, she was using witchcraft to counteract the water and so she was guilty and burned at the stake. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC) This site seems to have been well researched with examples. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder, were there any witches put on trial (either in the Inquisition or the colonial witch hunts) who were ever released for being innocent?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, lots. The cliché about the angry lynchmob carrying torches and pitchforks type of withchunting was not how these things generally went down. In most cases there were real trials and interrogations (some using torture, others where it wasn't found necessary). For examples of acquittals see here, here and here (this one being the largest witch trial ever carried out, and a majority by far of the accused were acquitted). --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I suppose they only really went through with it for the unfortunate few who were already viewed outcasts anyway.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

To say that letting them die would have taken away the opportunity of punishing them later is to confuse the point entirely. Witches didn't sink, they floated. Killing a supposed witch was not a problem, since drowning proved her innocence, and, presumably, going to heaven was her reward for cooperating in furthering the overwhelming state interest in rooting out witches. If she survived then she was obviously guilty and could be executed without further compunction. μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Middle ages land of nobles - acres and size

How many people would a 2000 acre big (or small if'd like) barony be able to hold?

It's not a big land (2,000 acres = 8 km2) but imagine that the land is rich and fertile, well suited for agriculture; farming and keeping livestock and such so that the people can be fairly self-sufficient and mostly cover their own most basic need; food. Obviously people would gather in small village(s) inside the barony and work what land was available to them, but with such a small barony there would a limit to how much it could produce and thus how many people it could sustain. My guess: around 400?

A similar 1000 acre land would thus be able to hold 200 maybe?

But if we double the land size from 2000 to 4000 acres then it would likely be able to hold significantly more than double the population of a 2000 acres-sized land, right, or does my way of thinking get me wrong?

I'm thinking middle ages around 1100-1250 first and foremost, pointing out what timeperiod I'm thinking of might be a good idea since the middle ages spanned over a long time 85.165.120.106 (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find the most useful way of researching this is to look at the Domesday Book, and get an idea of the sizes of holdings, numbers of residents from that. The population slowly increased after that time, but fell again in the 14th century. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Economy of England in the Middle Ages indicates that land bearing is limited by social systems of production and by technology. It also indicates that wastes and forests surrounded farmable land. Your best bet is to examine monastic records as these were kept in standard form by literate individuals. References for further reading on agricultural economics in the middle ages are to be found at the previously mentioned article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It also varied from country to country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It also varied from local area to local area within a country. 2000 acres in Kent could support a lot more people than the same acreage in Yorkshire. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also note that land measurements like "acre" were based on how much the land would yield, not its exact size, at least before the middle to late 16th century. The units used in the Domesday Book, for example, varied in size according to the richness of the soil: a virgate was enough land for a single person to live on, a hide enough to support a family. Their actual size was smaller when measured on fertile land and larger in poorer, upland areas. The acre and carrucate were equally flexible. An acre of rough pasture was larger than an acre of meadow, which could produce hay. Under the feudal system land was held in exchange for services, so measurements of land were based on feeding people and yielding services, not exact areas. Only in the 16th century did surveying manuals begin to teach how to measure exact areas. Other units of measure were similar. A bushel of oats was larger than a bushel of wheat. Weak beer was measured with larger gallons and wine with smaller gallons. So, when reading old sources like the Domesday Book, one should remember not to understand terms like "acre" in their modern sense. I'm paraphrasing and quoting from Andro Linklater's book Measuring America. Pfly (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We do have an article about the carucate which may be useful. Also, there has been a lot of academic work on medieval population, especially on the population of Britain. I suppose there are more recent works I'm not familiar with, but Josiah C. Russell was once the major name in this field ("British Medieval Population", and the article "The Pre-Plague Population of England"). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

To give you an example; my home town of Leyton in Essex was an ancient parish of 2,271 acres[23]. In the Domesday Book in 1086, the parish was divided into 6 seperate manors[24]. The total number of households was 51 (22 villagers, 18 smallholders, 8 free men and 2 priests) which might equate to perhaps 200 adults and almost as many children (that's my guess). It's not clear if the various lords of the manors lived on their estates or not. Besides ploughland in the parish (the exact amount is unclear for the reasons stated above), there were 194 acres of pasture, woodland capable of supporting 490 pigs and one mill. However in 1524, a survey of Leyton found only 49 persons (adults), including 18 labourers and 10 servants[25]. There are now nearly 100,000. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

UK-US population ratio

When did the population of the United States overtake that of the UK? LANTZY^TALK 22:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Per this graph, mid-1850s. If the US data only counts state populations (and not US citizens resident in the territories), which is probable, then it's possible the magic date was in May 1858, when Minnesota was admitted. Shimgray | talk | 23:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, Minnesota became a state May 11, 1858. (edited to add) The President signed the bill on May 12, 1858, so it is unclear how they became a state on the 11th. Edison (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I supposed it would be sometime in the nineteenth century. I didn't expect it would fall neatly in the 1850s. I don't suppose this event was regarded as noteworthy? - I mean the fact that most English-speakers were now non-English. Was this fact remarked upon at the time? It seems like the sort of fact that would induce despair in some quarters, or at least lead people to rethink the nature of the English language. LANTZY^TALK 03:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That date wouldn't have marked the transition you note, since there were primary English speakers outside of England in many places, including Canada, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, many places in the Carribean, etc. --Jayron32 03:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)In debates over Minnesota's elections in 1857, some complained that alien Norwegians, Swedes, Germans, and "savage Indians" had voted. Many Minnesotans of 1858 were not English speakers. There was indeed despair in the US Congress, but irregularities such as massive vote fraud, statewide election (rather than required by-district election) of three representatives, with only 2 of these reporting to be sworn in (because Congress only authorized 2 representatives), the separate rival constitutional conventions of Republicans and Democrats and the adoption of two slightly different constitutions, were all ignored and glossed over in favor of going ahead and adding the 32nd state. Others might note any despair in the UK. How many English speakers were there in India and the rest of the British Empire by 1858? Did they outnumber those in the UK? Edison (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There were considerable numbers of people within the UK who couldn't speak English in the 1850s. George Borrow wrote Wild Wales, an account of a walking tour through Wales in 1854, for which he learned Welsh before he set out; although many people were bi-lingual there were a substantial minority who knew no English at all. In the 1850s Gaelic was alive and well in the Scottish Highlands and rural Ireland. There was no compulsory education in the UK until 1870. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

August 14

Buying dollars and Euros again: who has lost?

If someone buys dollars with Euros and then, after the dollar raised, Euros again, you end up with more Euros. However, who has lost money? Other financial actors who kept dollars? The other Euro holders? Both? It's clear that you ended up with more. Where this more came from? Quest09 (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I would say the first person you traded with, the one who gave up the dollars, since they went up while he didn't have them. Of course if he traded his Euros quickly for something even better, then I suppose it's the next person who had them. More accurately, everyone loses who has a currency that depreciates, so if you have more of it, you lose more. It's been emotional (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Form1040NR-EZ

I am not asking for tax advice, so don't flame. Form 1040NR-EZ (for tax purposes) states: "Exceptions. You do not need to file Form 1040NR-EZ (or Form 1040NR) if: 1. Your only U.S. trade or business was the performance of personal services;" What exactly is a personal service? Is it a job where you're not working for an organization, but directly for a client (similar to a consultant role)? Or is it a job where you work directly with a client, in a personal capacity, like a librarian or something? 209.188.18.179 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)