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.
I found two documents that may be helpful to you in your search. Either or both of these could also be used to expand our article titled List of participants to Paris Peace Conference, 1919 which has the nations but not the persons who attended. This one is titled "Directories of the Peace Conference" and this one is titled "Peace Conference Delegates at Paris". The first seems to be a well organized directory, by both role and nation, of every attendee, including technical experts, legal experts, and diplomatic missions from every nation that attended. A really good source. The second one I give is probably somewhat redundant, as it lists only the formal diplomatic missions, and not the other attendees who were there in some other role. --Jayron3217:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the title of the book. It's a novel written for teenagers. It was probably published in the 1960s or early 1970s.
The story is about a young boy in a small town who has found a large egg by a lake (I guess). When the egg was hatched, he found a Triceratops. He brought the animal home and fed it with alfalfa.
A town politician was mad and accused the animal eating too much alfalfa ...
I think the story ends with the Triceratops moved to a zoo. The boy went to the zoo to see his old friend. Probably. -- Toytoy (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the worst of my memory! He found the egg in his chicken farm. Not by a lake.
I had a similar book about a stegosaurus. Made me cry when the kids had to give it up. Boy and a girl. It did something stupid and got in trouble. Pretty foggy now. Anyone know that one? InedibleHulk(talk) 04:41, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one. Indian Springs. I found Cricket Creek through my own meager Googling, and thought it sounded close, but not quite. The cover wasn't doing it for me, either. Thanks! InedibleHulk(talk) 21:50, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
After I asked the question, the name "Butterworth" came to me! A quick Google search took me to the book. Now I realized why I thought about a lake. It was "The Big Egg" in The Mad Scientists' Club.
A few whiz kids found a big egg. ... In the end, the egg was gone. And there's a tail print that leads to the lake. -- Toytoy (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent edit on the Thomas Nashe page, last section, 'Major Works'
Elizabethan pamphleteer Thomas Nashe is generally accepted (by academics, historians, encyclopedia entries, DNB etc) to have died c. 1601, as though no direct record of death or burial survives, contemporary literary allusions support this; and Nashe produced no further work after that date. An editor who theorises (on linguistic evidence) that Nashe faked his own death and reappeared as a different writer, Thomas Dekker, has supported an entry referring to this by reference to a book she has written herself. Is this original research? (The book's publisher [Cambridge Scholars Publishing http://www.cambridgescholars.com/]also publishes what appear to be genuinely academic works, though it may perhaps be a self-publishing outfit. RLamb (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the publisher does say prospective authors have to submit a proposal which is reviewed by their editorial panel [1], however no details are given for the criteria. I don't know if this is normal in academia. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am I asking my question in the wrong place? Is there another help desk which would tell me more about the criteria for original research? I accept the theory Nashe faked death and resurrected himself as another writer is not mainstream, and may even be unique to this author. Should I be asking whether any reputable publication has even considered it - apart from this one book? RLamb (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge Scholars is certainly a legitimate academic publisher, but it is a rather low budget outfit (I should know, since my last article was in a book published by them). They are not, shall we say, very exclusive, but they are certainly not vanity publishers. I should add that strictly speaking this is the wrong place for such enquiries. You should go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If this is what the book says, it's certainly not OR, since it's published. It certainly seems a wacky theory. Paul B (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that Donna Murphy, the author, is not a literary scholar. She has also written a book published by CSP in which she tries to prove that Marlowe and Nashe collaborated on early Shakespeare works - in other words she appears to be a Shakespeare-wasn't-Shakespeare writer. Paul B (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Investment Performance
I'm looking at a newspaper ad in the UK which states that a certain fund manager turned £10,000 into £250,769 between February 1988 and March 2014, claiming a total return of 2,407%. That looks quite impressive, but then I did a quick calculation and I think it works out at just over 13% p.a.which doesn't seem that good bearing in mind that that this is his full time job and doesn't take inflation into account.
I googled the Retail Price Index (which is used to measure inflation) and, with a base of January 1987 of 100, it gives December 87 as 103.3 (which is close enough to his start date of Feb 88) and December 2013 as 236.2 (which is close enough to his end date of March 2014).
How would you work out his true annual % increase. I think it would be a bit more complicated than 103.3/236.2 x13%. Many thanks. Widneymanor (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Divide the starting amount by 103.3 and the ending amount by 236.2, then repeat your calcs. And consistently averaging 13% returns is indeed impressive. I'm sure you've seen examples where one stock went up far more than that, in the short term, but keeping it up, over 26 years, is damn near impossible. StuRat (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a standard technique of banks is to open a lot of different funds, some of which get lucky just by chance and are then used in advertising. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stu, I did the calcs as suggested and it came out as 9.2% p.a. To an amateur, that doesn't seem very good when the various indexes can rise one percentage point in a day. Still, if I could do it, I wouldn't be here, I'd be sitting on the beach :-) Thanks also, Stephen. Widneymanor (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The stock market has lots of daily variation, but only a slow average increase. Day traders attempt to make their money by correctly predicting which stocks will rise each day. A lot of them en up committing suicide. If it was so easy everyone would do it. In the end, if you can get average returns just a little bit ahead of the stock market index, then you're doing well.
But let's look at it another way. What does 9.2% after inflation get you ? In ten years that's 241%, in 20 years, it's 581%, and in 40 years, it's 3380%. So, invest a lot of money early on, at high average returns, and hold it for years, to get rich. (Also note that we haven't figured in the tax bite or any management fees.) It really is a case of "slow and steady wins the race". StuRat (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No fund manager should ever be evaluated based on their absolute returns or real (inflation-adjusted returns), as they fail to take into account (1) how the market is doing and (2) how much risk the manager is taking on.
As an example for the first point, 13% annual return is not at all impressive if the market as a whole returns 15%. That, of course, has not been the case: Dow Jones returned over 8%, S&P - just under 8% and FTSE 100 - over 5%. In that context 13% return looks impressive.
However, to really understand whether the manager is performing well, you would have to know the ex-ante riskiness of what he's been investing in. In the fund industry, it's usually measured in terms of "beta". In simple terms, if the fund has a beta of 1.5, it is 1.5 times more risky than the market index and is expected to generate 1.5 times the return of the market portfolio over the long term. If the manager manages to exceed the return suggested by its beta, he/she is said to have generated "alpha". A positive and persistent alpha is what signifies a good manager (or insider trader), not a total return (but it is more difficult to put in a newspaper ad). Fun fact: most active managers show a negative alpha after the fees are taken into account, meaning that you're better off investing in a market index.
So, to address the original post, the 13% annual return is meaningless without the context of risk. If you had had 100 000$ ten years ago, borrowed another 900 000$ @ 5% interest (mortgage a house, maybe) and invested everything into an emerging market index (around 9% return), you would have generated around 25% return per year over the period. However, anyone can see that ex-ante this strategy was really risky.129.178.88.82 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction to the calculations. To determine the inflation adjustment, simply divide 236.2 (the index in 2014) by 103.3 (the index in 1988) to find that the inflation adjustment between the two years is 2.28. (That is 2014 prices are 228% of 1988 prices.) That means the investment result of £250,769 is £109,671 in 1988 pounds. So the manager achieved an inflation adjusted return of 1,097% (rounded) over the 26-year period. Now, the way to state the inflation-adjusted return over the entire period as a mean annual return is to take the 26th root of the compounded return (since mean investment returns are exponential over a multi-year period). The 26th root of the unrounded 26-year return is 1.0964, or 9.64%. This obviously substantially beats the mean return over that period of most assets, except perhaps gold. However impressive the number is, there is no way to know from the number itself whether it was the result of skill or luck. Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Immigration restrictions on Russians ?
Since Russia seems willing to invade and annex any nearby area with a substantial population of Russians, has this resulted in nearby nations trying to stop Russian immigration, in order to protect their territory ? Are any deporting Russian nationals ? StuRat (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Complex question before proceeding any further, perhaps also Jumping to conclusions. The first part of your question presupposes an idea which is not yet established as true, making it impossible to answer your actual question. We have incomplete information, in the sense that we have a single instance of Russia's invasion and annexation of such an area, and from a single instance we cannot extrapolate into a general principle. If you wish to rephrase your question in a way to remove the unsupported presuppositions, it may become answerable. But until then, you've made assumptions which are not yet established as true. --Jayron3200:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than a single instance. See Transnistria. Also, recent comments by Putin have been to the effect that he feels a responsibility to protect Russians everywhere, even if this means invading other nations. StuRat (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it should be noted that Crimea did not have a substantial ethnic Russian population because they recently moved there. The ethnic Russian population existed in Crimea since before Ukraine existed as a nation, indeed Crimea was explicitly Russian territory before the Soviet Union transferred it to the Ukraine in the 1950s. It had been Russian territory for some time before that. So it wasn't like there was any concerted effort to "Russify" that land in order to annex it. Russia certainly DID do that with many places (see Russification and Population transfer in the Soviet Union) but Crimea, the source of the recent conflict, is actually one of those areas where such an occurance did NOT apply. --Jayron3200:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed whatever one thinks of the conflict, the universal lesson seems to be that it's best to be fair to the ethnic minority populations be they Russian or something else. While considering the large number of deaths, population growth differences when on community was in exile, the fact that there are always likely be some who feel they would be happier where they are, etc, I don't think there was much chance of Crimean Tatars ?regaining their majority (without reducing the population levels of the other groups), it seems likely more would be there now if they had felt more welcomed and so may have been a more effective voice against the annexation. As for ethnic Russians, it may be unlikely you'd get a majority supporting you considering the time frame and conditions, but it would surely help if they didn't have so many legitimate grievances. [2][3][4][5]
Of course you could try the Stalin-Tatar route suggested by StuRat at the end, but that only really works if you are sure there's no one who can and will oppose you. Notably in the current climate, it seems a good way to inspire a Russian invasion at least if you're a neighbour. (The situation for non-neighbours sufficiently far away is more complicated, you can try the Stalin-Tatar route. Or simply do what Ukraine did, intentionally or not, and hope they leave of their own accord. You may rebalance your population but often this doesn't really benefit you. Of course you also need to consider the needs of the majority. Ultimately if you have some magical solution to balancing the needs of both, may be you should be getting a job with the UN and not asking questions on the RD.)
What's the phenomenon called whereby you start to drive a new certain brand of car, and off a sudden you recognize a lot of the same cars on the roads? It could be anything… clothes, phones, headphones, etc. --209.203.125.162 (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the "phenomenon" requires a name. It is discernment. Prior to being able to discern something one may not be able to pick it out or it would have little meaning. Bus stop (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the TV show "Brain Games", they would probably say that there was no particular reason to notice those other cars until our awareness of them is heightened somehow. The colloquial way to say it would be "not on our radar". However, someone who was really into cars might notice them. But that's because it is on their radar - they're specifically (or at least semi-consciously) looking for them. The Brain Games point would relate back to basic survival technique - that we tend to be more apt to notice something "different". Consider what you notice on the road. You're not likely to notice many individual vehicles unless they attract your attention for some reason... like if they get in your way... or if they're like the one your drive. Or if they stand out, by being much bigger or smaller or older than the average vehicle. I might not pay much attention to other cars in general, but if for example a Model A Ford is in the mix, it's very likely to catch my eye. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a similar thing happens after the death of a loved one. It's common, and I can vouch from my own experience, for bereaved people to think they spot the deceased person in crowds, on trains, etc. That's because they're "on our radar", to use Bugs' term. It isn't that we weren't aware of their existence before they died, just that, now they're gone, they're very much on our minds long after the funeral, as part of the grieving process. We may not be consciously thinking of them all the time, but they're still on our mind all the time in a way that they weren't before they died, and every time we see someone who has even a vague resemblance to them, the old subconscious computer thinks it's found a match, and we get jolted out of whatever it was we were consciously thinking of at the time. This can go on for a year or more after the person died. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]21:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How much assimilation would be tolerated (by the Jewish people) if you were a Jew in antiquity? I do remember reading somewhere that Jews in diaspora were quite different from the Jews living in Jerusalem. Maybe it was this DK reference book. What's the evidence? 140.254.227.76 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not much, is the answer. Have a look at the article on the Kitos War, of which Gibbon writes, in a footnote, quoting Dion Cassius, of the Jewish insurrectionaries: In Cyrene they massacred 220,000 Greeks; in Cyprus, 240,000; in Egypt a very great multitude. Many of these unhappy victims were sawn asunder, according to a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example. The victorious Jews devoured the flesh, licked up the blood and twisted the entrails like a girdle round their bodies. See Dion Cassius, l. lxviii. [c. 32] p.1145[6]The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon. ch.16, footnote 1[7] Dion Cassius quotation at Project Gutenburg
If you can find Gibbon's own, uncredited, reference to the 'precedent of David', I should be interested (and it might be worth adding to the article).
Chapter 16 of Gibbon answers your question; I hope that these paragraphs help. I have removed the footnotes:
Without repeating what has already been mentioned of the reverence of the Roman princes and governors for the temple of Jerusalem, we shall only observe, that the destruction of the temple and city was accompanied and followed by every circumstance that could exasperate the minds of the conquerors, and authorize religious persecution by the most specious arguments of political justice and the public safety. From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of human kind. The enthusiasm of the Jews was supported by the opinion, that it was unlawful for them to pay taxes to an idolatrous master; and by the flattering promise which they derived from their ancient oracles, that a conquering Messiah would soon arise, destined to break their fetters, and to invest the favorites of heaven with the empire of the earth. It was by announcing himself as their long-expected deliverer, and by calling on all the descendants of Abraham to assert the hope of Israel, that the famous Barchochebas collected a formidable army, with which he resisted during two years the power of the emperor Hadrian.
Notwithstanding these repeated provocations, the resentment of the Roman princes expired after the victory; nor were their apprehensions continued beyond the period of war and danger. By the general indulgence of polytheism, and by the mild temper of Antoninus Pius, the Jews were restored to their ancient privileges, and once more obtained the permission of circumcising their children, with the easy restraint, that they should never confer on any foreign proselyte that distinguishing mark of the Hebrew race. The numerous remains of that people, though they were still excluded from the precincts of Jerusalem, were permitted to form and to maintain considerable establishments both in Italy and in the provinces, to acquire the freedom of Rome, to enjoy municipal honors, and to obtain at the same time an exemption from the burdensome and expensive offices of society. The moderation or the contempt of the Romans gave a legal sanction to the form of ecclesiastical police which was instituted by the vanquished sect. The patriarch, who had fixed his residence at Tiberias, was empowered to appoint his subordinate ministers and apostles, to exercise a domestic jurisdiction, and to receive from his dispersed brethren an annual contribution. New synagogues were frequently erected in the principal cities of the empire; and the sabbaths, the fasts, and the festivals, which were either commanded by the Mosaic law, or enjoined by the traditions of the Rabbis, were celebrated in the most solemn and public manner. Such gentle treatment insensibly assuaged the stern temper of the Jews. Awakened from their dream of prophecy and conquest, they assumed the behavior of peaceable and industrious subjects. Their irreconcilable hatred of mankind, instead of flaming out in acts of blood and violence, evaporated in less dangerous gratifications. They embraced every opportunity of overreaching the idolaters in trade; and they pronounced secret and ambiguous imprecations against the haughty kingdom of Edom.' --83.49.77.33 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take Dio, in common with pretty much all ancient historians, with a healthy bucketful of salt. His biases are natural and the Roman writers had little sense for historiographical nuance, after all, "History is written by the winners", and at least in Dio's day, that's how the Romans saw themselves.
The reference to David is, I think, possibly a misattribution of the famous story of Solomon's judgement on the newborn child, which, if I'm right, is a further error by Dio as the child was never actually harmed and the point of the story was to wheedle out of the contending women which was telling the truth.
If you read what Dio says about that insurrection, it was politically-motivated, not religiously. Our article Kitos War explains it quite well - it's a hangover of disaffection from the destruction meted out in the previous war, with the touchpoint being a tax.
Finally, it's worth noting the unintentionally hilarious comment of Gibbon: "destruction of the temple and city was accompanied and followed by every circumstance that could exasperate the minds of the conquerors". Gibbon, with his Victorian attitudes to empire is surprised that after the Romans slaughtered a large chunk of the Jewish population (IIRC, Josephus says a million, but he's not reliable either, it just means "whoah! a lot") and destroyed the focal point of their religion, the Jews were a little bit annoyed. I think Gibbon would be surprised to know that the Jews are still, today, a tad irritated with the Babylonians, who pulled a similar trick about 600 years earlier than the Romans. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Gibbon (d.1794) had "Victorian" attitudes, he was ahead of his time. I don't think there's anything all all uninitentonal in the humour of the line you quote. Its laconic understatement is entirely typical of Gibbon. The idea that the Jewish rebels were trying "exasperate the minds of the conquerers" is rather like saying they were "a little bit annoyed", or was that just an unintentionally funny phrase born of your 22nd century attitudes? I suspect that Gibbon knew the Jews were still miffed with the Babylonians in his own lifetime. It wasn't much of a secret. So why would he be surprised that their annoyance continued for a mere couple of centuries more? Paul B (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
83.49.77.33 -- Edward Gibbon was an eighteenth-century opinionated historian who pretty much hated both Christianity and Judaism. You really should not take him as the last word when it comes to the interpretation of the meaning of events of ancient history... AnonMoos (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David with the head of Goliath 'sawn asunder' Returning, I make two points; (1) I am not at all sure that 'a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example' is a mistake for the judgment of Solomon, although it is an attractive theory; it would be an elementary mistake for such a scholar, and must have been picked up by an editor following in Gibbon's footsteps. The phrase is Gibbon's; it does not appear in Dion Cassius' original. I suggest that it refers to the post-mortem beheading of Goliath, although the action does not nicely fit the phrase. (2) The description of Gibbon as hating both Judaism and Christianity strikes me as unlikely; in his private life he clearly thought about religion sincerely, as evidenced by his own conversion to Catholicism (and back again); he did, however, approach the bible with the mind of a (Protestant) historian, recognising Christianity as a sect of Judaism, and carefully separating out the accretions of legends from the more likely historical record - in his amusing descriptions of the early Christian proselytisers and the unlikely miracles of the saints. 83.49.77.33 (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Gibbon is well-known for his rather sarcastic and sniping remarks against ancient Christianity, which have left the impression in many readers' minds that he thought that the Roman empire (and possibly humanity in general) would have been better off if it had never existed. I really don't think that pasting in long quotes from Gibbon is a way to provide an effective or useful answer to the original poster's original question in this thread... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like most Anglicans of his time, Gibbon believed that Christianity had been corrupted in Rome. This view was promulgated by Thomas Cranmer during the Reformation in England, to counter the Catholic assertion that practices which had been in use since the days of the early church were legitimate because of their long usage. Alansplodge (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Gibbon allegedly being a devoutly-pious "back to the origins" Christian reformer is an accurate characterization of his views, and it's certainly not the impression that a reader of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire would receive. In any case, even if he were a devoutly-pious "back to the origins" Christian reformer, it would not automatically follow that long quotes from opinionated 18th century historians would be the best answer to the original poster's original question in this thread. AnonMoos (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The true answer to the question is yes, but also depends on your definition of "assimilation". Hellenism, as Jayron says, was widespread and well attested, as was apostasy. If you take a wider definition that includes religious dissent from orthodoxy, lots took place in ancient times, as now. See Essenes, Saducees, Samaritans and perhaps the ultimate example, Christianity. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
140.254.227.76 -- In some cases Greeks and Jews of a somewhat philosophical bent were able to find value in aspects of each other's cultures and thought, but traditionally-observant Jews refused to participate in common rituals of Greek civic life which involved aspects of polytheistic worship, or otherwise violated Jewish law. Some Greeks interpreted this as meaning that Jews were insular asocial "atheists". The whole revolt against the Seleucids and rise of the Maccabean family in Judea was triggered by traditionally-minded Jews objecting vehemently to some from prominent Jerusalem families who allegedly subverted Judaism by adopting Greek customs wholesale, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes intervening in a crude and heavy-handed way on the side of the "Hellenizers" in the dispute between Hellenizers and Jewish traditionalists. In Alexandria, the Greek and Jewish communities were constantly quarreling with each other during the early Roman empire period, but the intellectual elite of the Alexandrian Jewish community were often heavily influenced by Greek ways of thought (see Philo), and later the majority of Alexandrian Jews ended up becoming Christians... AnonMoos (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can find that discussed in chapter 21 of Gibbon:
The arms of the Macedonians diffused over Asia and Egypt the language and learning of Greece; and the theological system of Plato was taught, with less reserve, and perhaps with some improvements, in the celebrated school of Alexandria. A numerous colony of Jews had been invited, by the favor of the Ptolemies, to settle in their new capital. While the bulk of the nation practised the legal ceremonies, and pursued the lucrative occupations of commerce, a few Hebrews, of a more liberal spirit, devoted their lives to religious and philosophical contemplation. They cultivated with diligence, and embraced with ardor, the theological system of the Athenian sage. But their national pride would have been mortified by a fair confession of their former poverty: and they boldly marked, as the sacred inheritance of their ancestors, the gold and jewels which they had so lately stolen from their Egyptian masters. One hundred years before the birth of Christ, a philosophical treatise, which manifestly betrays the style and sentiments of the school of Plato, was produced by the Alexandrian Jews, and unanimously received as a genuine and valuable relic of the inspired Wisdom of Solomon. A similar union of the Mosaic faith and the Grecian philosophy, distinguishes the works of Philo, which were composed, for the most part, under the reign of Augustus. The material soul of the universe might offend the piety of the Hebrews: but they applied the character of the Logos to the Jehovah of Moses and the patriarchs; and the Son of God was introduced upon earth under a visible, and even human appearance, to perform those familiar offices which seem incompatible with the nature and attributes of the Universal Cause.
And so on, and so on. Whilst the Alexandrian Jews may have ended up as Christian - and, indeed, gave us Saint John's gospel - Alexandria was a nest of the Arian heresy. Given that these Hellenistic Jews were enthusiastically slaughtered by their neighbours in 38AD - see Alexandrian riots (38) - and with equal enthusiasm slaughtered their Greek neighbours during the Kitos War (115-117AD) - there doesn't seem to have been much integration between the two communities.
Reverting to the original question, it is worth, perhaps, pointing out that after the capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple by Titus, the Jews were exiled from Jerusalem (hence Gibbon writing ...they were still excluded from the precincts of Jerusalem..., quoted above). There is a wikipedia article on the subject of the History of the Jews in the Roman Empire.
I really wonder why it is you think that quoting long passages from an eighteenth-century opinionated historian well known for his anti-religious biases is any kind of effective way to answer the original question, when it's abundantly evident that that's not the case... AnonMoos (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could be greatly inferior to Gibbon as a historian -- but lacking Gibbon's tendencies towards semi-flamboyant rhetoric and intrusive sarcasm, and his anti-religious biases, but possessing some information about facts and interpretations not yet known in the 18th century, I still might be better qualified to give a practically useful answer to the original question. AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to these Fundamentalists, Southern Baptists are not quite in the Fundamentalist tradition, mainly because they reject "Biblical separation" and "Christian militancy" (spelling?). They are Evangelicals or pseudo-Fundamentalists, but they are not true Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists must also adhere to the doctrines of the Fundamentalist Papers, published in the early 1900s. 140.254.136.157 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some are, some are not. Southern Baptist is a big umbrella and includes a wide variance of thought, both theological and political, among Christians who attend Southern Baptist churches. Specifically, per our article on Southern Baptists, "Specific beliefs based on biblical interpretation can vary somewhat due to their congregational governance system which allows autonomy to each individual local church" It is important to note that, traditionally, Southern Baptists are governed from the bottom up. The Convention does not decide governance or even doctrine for its member churches, instead it provides primarily organization for coordination of various functions, including the publication of literature for use in churches, missionary and charity events, etc. There has been a LOT of controversy in recent years as the Convention has made more and more doctrinal pronouncements (many of a politically conservative nature). This has sometimes caused individual Southern Baptists (see Jimmy Carter) or even whole congregations to break from official membership in the SBC (see Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). Still, the Convention does not, as a matter of course, officially censure or otherwise sanction individual Southern Baptist congregations that disagree with it. It has no means to do so. (unofficially, social and political pressure is used to keep individual congregations in line, which is why some have left the Convention over such issues, either becoming independent Southern Baptist churches, or joining an alternate Baptist convention) Again, as our article notes in several places "The SBC contains no mechanism to trigger the automatic expulsion of congregations that adopt practices or theology contrary to the BF&M." (BF&M being the Baptist Faith and Message, which is the centrally agreed-upon statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention). --Jayron3201:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for the exact peer-reviewed article...
I am looking for the exact peer-reviewed article. I found it on my library's database, and honestly, I have no idea how I got there. I think the librarian recommended me a source or something, but I said that the article was too old. I forgot the title, but I do remember it's from the 1980s. I vaguely remember that part of the article discussed some sort of statistical analysis of people that held anti-gay views, which by modern standards, would be exceedingly high. If you find a similar source that addresses a similar topic, then that'd be fine. 140.254.136.154 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Kaifeng, etc.
Why do persons of Jewish descent never claim "Ashkenazi" as their ethnicity and instead claim the vaguely worded "Jewish"? o_O I mean, when researchers collect data, they may be interested in "ethnicity" and may include "Jewish" as a checkbox. Although that type of practice is fairly common and probably negligible if the study is done in America where most "Jews" are Ashkenazi, I have observed one academic, peer-reviewed article that actually distinguishes people of Ashkenazic descent and people of non-Ashkenazic descent. Wouldn't "Jewish" be too vague? A person may be of Ashkenazi descent but may reject Judaism by marrying into a Christian family or converting to Christianity (Ashkenazic Christian). 140.254.136.154 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's how it shakes out. There is no central body which decides what an ethnicity is, and what it is to call itself, and how it is to define it's characteristics, and said body (which doesn't exist) also doesn't sit around and carefully weigh the logic and evidence for deciding the ethnic classification scheme. These things evolve rather arbitrarily over time as cultural memes and have no central organizing principle. Your desired classification scheme is logical and well thought out, and still the world will ignore it, because that's not how culture and ethnicity define themselves over time. --Jayron3200:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest it's a matter of taxonomy: what level of detail is relevant to answer the question. Being a nominal "Jew" (or "Arab") by descent, whether or not self-disclosed and regardless of extent vs absence of religious observance, is enough to distinguish one as non-mainstream in the U.S.A. The only relevance of my heritage being Ashkenazic rather than Sephardic or Mizrachi is that my ancestral tongue is Yiddish rather than Ladino, Arabic, or another language of the Jewish Diaspora. Frankly, I wish people cared enough about others' origins as a rich and valuable source of cultural diversity rather than for simple discrimination and grounds for exclusion and worse. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ETA:) In Israel it's quite another matter: one's ethnic background within the Jewish or Arab spectrum has for generations been associated with socioeconomic distinctions, and generally is referred to as the "ethnic demon." -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what it's like in the US or elsewhere, but in the UK, people who perceive themselves as ethnically Jewish are rarely offered the chance to define themselves as Jewish, let alone Ashkenazi etc. The closest they can usually get is "White, other", assuming they are white, and frequently even that option is missing on ethnicity monitoring forms. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
140.254.136.154 -- Why do people call themselves "German-Americans" instead of "Bavarian-Americans", etc? In operating as an ethnic group within United States society and politics, "Jewish" is the most relevant level of analysis, since the majority of non-Jewish Americans would not know or care too much about the differences between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, etc. Of course, the situation may be different in other countries... AnonMoos (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How did people view nature before the Enlightenment?
[Moved here from Language]
I was reading Mother Nature, claiming that people before the Enlightenment believed that God and nature were not separated. So... what's that supposed to mean? That hurting or cursing at nature is somehow equivalent to blasphemy against God? Eh? What's the significance of the separation? Has there been any philosophical or theological support or refutation for this separation? 140.254.226.232 (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a direct quote or link to the section? The claim is absurd, since nature was seen as the creation of God over which he gave dominion to man. Nature is also corruptible, while god is not. Spinoza was probably the first modern to identify nature with a singular God. His definition of God was Natura Naturans, roughly "nature naturing". μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that statement in that article reads like bullshit. Generally, it depends on what you mean by "nature". If you mean Wilderness, then people generally feared it, because it eats you. If you mean "all the stuff that isn't people" like horses and cows and wheat and barley and oranges and stuff, then people of the Judeo-Christian world viewed it through the lens of the Bible, and reading the first few chapters of Genesis would give you a good perspective of the relationship between Nature and Humans that God establishes. Just a hint, it isn't that "nature is God" idea that you read in that section. That concept was actually developed in the Enlightenment, by people like Spinoza, and by believers in Deism, which was an Enlightenment concept. Such ideas didn't exist in the pre-Enlightenment Europe. --Jayron3201:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think reading scripture is helpful. Reading interpretative traditions based on scripture may be more helpful, because it offers an opinion on how to interpret a particular passage. I can read scripture with a completely modern frame of mind, but that completely modern frame of mind would be anachronistic to what was actually believed. In summary, reading scripture is useless. 140.254.136.167 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a fair amount of writing on this, and it's not entirely guesswork or theory: women in living memory, and still in many parts of the world, get by without manufactured sanitary products. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to get specifics on this topic for specific ancient cultures, as oppose to general approaches women have used in general, because there doesn't tend to be much surviving reference to it. Hippocrates apparently wrote about tampon use, and ancient Egyptian descriptions of tampon-like contraceptives exist. Jewish law includes measures for a woman's period that includes inserting white cloth in the style of a tampon, and Islamic stories exist involving Muhammed giving advice to menstruating women involving the use of pads and even a tray to catch the (non-menstrual) blood while a woman prayed. I suggest starting at this website (better than it initially looks): Museum of Menstruation. The front page has blurbs that lead to more detailed articles, like this:
"Did many women intentionally menstruate into their clothing in 17th-century Britain?
"Dr Sara Read of Loughborough University (U.K.) writes (pdf in large gray box) that
"many might have considered that normal. She kindly sent me her article, which also discusses the origins of the menstrual taboo and other fascinating cultural :"details, including religious.
"And I believe that many - most? - women of later eras might have also done so.
"A reader responded with this:
""Hi, Just read your article about menstruating and devices used when menstruating in earlier times. My mother was from England and i know that going back to her great grandmothers they made pads with cotton or wool in them to absorb the blood. They attached them to their underwear with safety pins or straight pins that they blunted and bent under. She showed me a couple that she had saved when i started. They would boil them clean." "
So you get a combination of sourced information, links to further reading, and anecdotal data that really helps you develop a picture for how practices worked and developed. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that many women would only have had a few periods during their entire lives due to the contraceptive effect of breastfeeding, which has the side effect of preventing periods. A woman (like my great grandmother) who had 16 children over a 36 year span (between 16 and 54) may have only had about a dozen periods between marriage and menopause! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are the oldest large football, cricket and (non-horse) track venues in use? Say 25K+?
If an answer is not an "important team"'s home then what about honorable mentions for various levels of importance? But I look at old Premier League stadia and none of their stands look Victorian. Neither does Australia's cricket arena. So age based on how many years back do you have to go before it stopped resembling now, not necessarily what's in the infobox. Subjective, I know. Any form of football (rugby, soccer, Australian etc). And speaking of tracks, are classical stadia like the 1896 Olympic stadium still used regularly? If so, I still kindof want to know the post-Antiquity answer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, Bramall Lane was the first to open in 1855, and our article notes that "It is the oldest major stadium in the world still to be hosting professional football matches". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are standing sections "a thing" in developed countries?
I don't think any North American sports, besides golf, have had standers since the early 20th century. A few cops, personnel (vendors, camerapeople..), persons walking to the bathroom and (probably at times) people that weren't supposed to be there (snuck in by security and whatnot) and of course cheering but that's it. Basketball arenas, of course, have no standing sections, despite their small capacities and game lasting a mere 2 hours. Even Ancient Greece and Rome had seats. Did they even have standers? Yet England's Premier League probably would still have standing sections if the recent Hillsborough disaster didn't happen. When did theaters and churches gain seats by the way? Cause I know at least some Medieval parishioners and Shakespearean theatergoers stood. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all unusual in major league baseball. I had a standing-only ticket at a major league game just a couple of years ago. Major and minor league teams with a sloped grassy area are often used for overflow crows. Prior to the 1950s in MLB, they used to string ropes inside the outfield walls and spectators could stand there (or sit on the grass). The rules book still allows for the situation. And I know the National Hockey League used to allow it. I don't know about now. But at the old Chicago Stadium, as recently as the 1970s at least, you would see an announced crowd of 16,666, which was the theoretical seating capacity. With SRO, you would see a rounded-off attendance of 18,000 or 20,000. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, venues hosting national league soccer - and rugby league to a lesser degree - have dedicated seating blocks where standing is condoned or tolerated. Most sports below national level don't particularly care if you sit or stand as long as you pay. Hack (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Football was a very working class sport, as well as extremely local. Standing 'stands' and terraces are a lot cheaper, and you can fit more people in. You could technically sit on the stands, and I have been to local sports grounds where they never really added seats that you might be thinking of: people just sit on the stands like benches. The Roman stadia could have worked exactly the same way: there's no way to tell, looking at them, whether people always sat in them, or whether at popular and exciting events peolle stood. I've also been to sports grounds that are so basic, there is nowhere to sit or stand except the ground.
I actually was not just thinking of chair style seats. Major colleges have seats but I wouldn't be surprised seeing benches below that level. I don't know about places like Texas, where they take their football so seriously they probably have 1080p scoreboards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+
It's not at all unusual in major league baseball. I had a standing-only ticket at a major league game just a couple of years ago. Major and minor league teams with a sloped grassy area are often used for overflow crows. Prior to the 1950s in MLB, they used to string ropes inside the outfield walls and spectators could stand there (or sit on the grass). The rules book still allows for the situation. And I know the National Hockey League used to allow it. I don't know about now. But at the old Chicago Stadium, as recently as the 1970s at least, you would see an announced crowd of 16,666, which was the theoretical seating capacity. With SRO, you would see a rounded-off attendance of 18,000 or 20,000. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have thousands of locals showing up, buying cheap tickets to a sporting event that is not respected or aspirational the way American football or basketball are in America today (a sport that it is expected working class locals, and pretty much only working class locals, will attend), in a time before a lot of regulation, then people just stream in. The safety concerns are simply to separate the fans of the different teams. Once you're in the stands, and they're that crowded, you'd have to be an idiot to sit: you can't see, and you can't protect yourself. People casually accepted the dangers, and things like crowd surges that lifted you up and placed you down in another spot were considered part of the experience. But people casually accepted a lot of dangers in their lives, including their working lives, that we would not generally accept today.
−
In the Shakespearean Globe theatre, the seats were for higher-paying, higher-ranking people, and the standing 'groundlings' paid the lowest ticket price. At a football game in the early to mid 20th century, the groundlings still stood. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a strong groundswell of opinion from football fans in England to return to standing, at least in some parts of the ground. Among the arguments I've heard are, it's cheaper, it's warmer, there's better atmosphere, "tradition", and finally when something exciting happens you stand up anyway and are then often threatened with eviction from the ground by stewards. There are probably other arguments that I can't recall. Currently, legislation makes this illegal, but there's lobbying going on, particularly around the invention of "safe standing", which has been successful in Germany. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Standing in theatres - or at least concert halls - is alive and well. See The Proms. As regards churches, our pew article says that their adoption coincided with the Protestant Reformation and the lengthy sermons which accompanied it. Before that, clerical gentlemen (who were the only ones provided with seats) could rest their bums on a misericord and still appear to be standing. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting linguistic quirk in stadiums (in the UK at least) that the place you sit is called the stand, and the place you stand is called the terrace. There are still terraces at Rugby Union grounds. The stands are more expensive. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the oldest surviving contemporaneously dated artefact?
Does anyone know what is the oldest manuscript, monumental or architectural inscription, or other artefact, that incorporates the year (absolute chronology, not regnal or similar) in which (on the balance of probability) it was created? The oldest example of A.D. I know of in Arabic numerals is Henry VIII's astronomical clock at Hampton Court (1540); the oldest in Roman numerals is 'Sermo Lupi ad Anglos quando Dani maxime persecuti sunt eos quod fuit anno millesimo XIIII ab incarnatione Domini nostri Jesus Christi' Wulfstan_(died_1023) (if this is in fact Wulfstan's original manuscript and not a copy). I don't know of any earlier Anno Mundi, Ab Urbe Condita or Anno Hegirae dated artefacts.86.150.219.168 (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1582 (not 1852), but it seems that he's much more concerned with A.D. year dating, which was first prominently used in a general context (outside of technical Easter calculations) by Bede in the 8th century A.D., and started slowly catching on after that... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Colin, for correcting my newbie user error. Shantavira, by absolute chronology I mean it in the popularly accepted sense: today is a day in the year 2014 AD (or CE), 5774 AM, 1435 AH etc.
I still don't know the answer to this question that you asked me in the pub last night, Ric, but welcome to the Ref Desks! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195, aka Terry} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be here, Terry, and thanks for the tip!
glyphs on a column, inscribed with a rather old date, in the Long Count system. I think several of us are still unclear on what types of date systems meet your criterion. Does Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar count as an "absolute chronology" to you? It's not regnal, but not one of the examples you give... but it was the common scheme for several different groups, and we could in principle use it today. For example, according to the Smithsonian, today is 13.0.1.5.14 [9]. Anyway, if you're interested in that sort of thing, a quick google for /artifact "date inscription"/ led me to this: [10], which is inscribed with a date corresponding to 156 AD. If it counts to you, it's older than your examples, but I suspect there might be older long count dates remaining on artifacts. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, SemanticMantis and Adam Bishop. These are indeed the droids I am looking for! I didn't mention the Mayan Long Count because I was being deliberately Eurocentric, but of course it's at least as valid as my examples. The coin fits all my criteria.
So to my follow-up question: what is the oldest artefact (using my criteria) that gives an Anno Mundi (Hebrew) date? Ricooper1799 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is known that Martin Luther's hagiographers and tour guides portrayed Luther as a fighter against a demon, even though the historical Martin Luther (based on what I read from A History of Lutheranism, written by Eric W. Gritsch) never did such a thing. Similarly, St. Epiphanius' hagiographers made St. Epiphanius fight with demons. In the (Christian) Bible, the canonical gospels portray Jesus as a fighter against demons, anointing the sick with oil. What was the significance of fighting with demons? What was a "demon"? What was the purpose of writing about demons? Did demons really exist in history, or did people just have a different interpretation of the world back then? 140.254.136.167 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that demons have always existed. But that doesn't really disqualify the possibility that demons might have existed in the past but somehow cease to exist in the world today, or at least people generally don't say they are demon-possessed unless they are a member of a Pentecostal church. There are a lot of demon possessions there! 140.254.136.167 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to re-read your Bible. I'm fairly sure that the occasions on which Jesus casts out demons, and the occasions on which he anoints the sick with oil, are completely separate from one another. St Dunstan is another religious figure who's shown physically confronting a demon - grabbing its nose with hot tongs from a forge. But I think for the most part these are simply hagiographic embellishments. 'Demons' are used to personify at least three different things in the world - namely, the human tendency for evil, the human vulnerability to turn from the path, and the human tendency to suffer mental illness. Casting out demons seems to have been some sort of attempt to treat mental illness, whereas when religious figures (as with Jesus fasting in the wilderness) confront demons that tempt them, they are shown as resisting the temptation to do evil or abandon the path of goodness. These ideas have become conflated in various ways, which can obscure what kind of victory it is that the religious figure is said to have had. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like that verse is trying to say that they cast out demons by anointing the sick - just that both actions were part of their ministry. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there ever were demons, then there still are. Consider today's case, of the kid who went into school and starting knifing people. Or the guy who opened fire at Fort Hood a few days ago. It's reasonable to think of these kinds of folks as being "possessed", in a way - in an allegorical sense, at least. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't be silly!" said one sailor to the other, munching on a wing, "We'll never run out of dodos. Clearly, there's always been dodos on this island, and there always will be." MChesterMC (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do Protestants view the Catholic church as the whore of Babylon, but not the Orthodox churches of Eastern Europe?
According to Whore of Babylon, Protestants view the Catholic church as the whore of Babylon. What do they say about the Orthodox churches? Do the Orthodox churches perceive the Catholic church as the "whore of Babylon" too? 140.254.227.100 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of three differences that may be relevant:
1) The Catholic/Protestant schism is about three times more recent than the Eastern Orthodox schism.
2) It was also more violent, and some of that violence was repeated fairly recently, as in Northern Ireland.
3) Catholics and Protestants live near each other, while most Eastern Orthodox congregations are far from Protestant ones. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict with StuRat] Bear in mind that this is very much a minority position today; the only churches that actively teach it are tiny groups such as this guy's adherents (something like three or four churches in North America; none on other continents), in addition to isolated individuals in other churches. A big part of the factor is seemingly the simple fact that early Protestants didn't have to deal with the Orthodox, and most of the historic Protestant confessions were written in contexts in which everyone was either Catholic, Protestant, or some miscellaneous heretical group; the Orthodox were far away and not particularly relevant. Unlike the Muslims, the Catholics said they were Christians, so the early Protestants said that they deceptively presented themselves as believers when they were really the enemy of Christ. As for practical implications, look at the "Eligibility" section of Line of succession to the British throne — spouses of Catholics are out of the line of succession, but spouses of Orthodox Christians aren't. Considering that the current monarch's spouse grew up Orthodox, the situation might have been rather awkward if Orthodox and spouses were also excluded. Finally, for another (yet smaller) example, my church rebaptises new members who were baptised in Catholic churches, but when we began sending missionaries to the Levant, it was decided that converts from Orthodoxy wouldn't be rebaptised. I haven't a clue why. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are also groups in Europe that take this position, particularly in Scotland. See, in particular, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. (This is the church where a schism was precipitated simply because one of its leading members attended the funeral of a (Roman) catholic colleague.) RomanSpa (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primary reason simply has to do with the plain reading of the Bible passages. The Orthodox churches just don't fit the text of Revelation; the 'whore' is explicitly said to be "the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." (Rev. 17:18), which at the time could hardly be any city other than Rome. She is also seated on "seven mountains", v. 9 (see Seven hills of Rome). So the reason is just that a very strong case can be made that the "whore of Babylon" does indeed refer to Rome. Whether that means the Roman Empire or the Roman Church is of course debatable, but it's really far-fetched to apply it to the churches of the East, it just doesn't fit. - Lindert (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Constantinople was also built on seven hills, or seven things that could be called hills if they were really trying to stretch the analogy with Rome. But it had no dominion over the kings of the earth when Revelation was written... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And of course the Vatican is not built on seven hills, and also had no power over the kings of the Earth when Revelation was written. This sort of detail is almost irrelevant, since the real reason the "Whore of Babylon" types don't say much about the Orthodox is because they don't really know much about the Orthodox. If they include them at all, they either seem to assume the Orthodox agree with their own group (see Luther writing to the Orthodox) or that the Orthodox are just Romans in disguise. Since these same people think the Catholic Church is secretly the Roman Empire, disguising the old pagan Roman religion with fake Christianity to trick people into unwittingly worshipping old gods, nothing is too outlandish. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And of course the Vatican was not the center of the Roman Catholic Church for most of history. The main residence of the popes for about a thousand years was in fact the Lateran Palace, on the other side of Rome, so that's not saying much. Anyway, the text is talking about of a city, not a building or location within a city. About the political power of the Catholic Church, it's quite a reasonable interpretation from a Christian perspective that Revelation is predicting a situation in the future. And sure, many western Christians throughout history have been ignorant of the eastern churches, but I don't think the conspiracy theory in the last part of your comment has historically been a big view in Protestantism, whereas the interpretation of the "whore of Babylon" as the church of Rome has been for centuries. I'm not saying that their view is correct, just that it is not a very far-fetched interpretation. - Lindert (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the "Whore of Babylon" view of Catholicism is that conspiracy theory. That's the whole point of the claims: that the Catholic Church is really the same entitity as pagan Rome (as existed when the Book of Revelation was written), in disguise. That's why they will never never never use the phrase "Catholic Church" without the word "Roman" in front, no matter how many times they have used it in a conversation. If they have to drop a word from the phrase, it will be the word "Catholic". Not everyone who uses the phrase "Whore of Babylon" to refer to the Catholic Church will be aware that that is what they are claiming (they might just be saying phrases they heard, without thinking about what they are actually saying), but that has been the basic claim since Protestantism began to use the phrase in this way. It's not something you say to indicate that those Christians over there are well-meaning but have some points of theology a bit wrong: it's a claim that the Catholic Church is Rome as in the pagan Roman Empire. Awareness of the Orthodox, and their history, would tend to make this conspiracy more difficult to sustain. Conspiracies that include the Orthodox are rarer and more recent, because previously people just ignored them (not knowing much about them). Incidentally, Cities built on seven hills. Jerusalem and pagan Rome are the usual suspects, in terms of what people generally think the author intended. But that doesn't take account of supernatural prophetic elements, of course. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the OP. You may want to qualify the question with the word "some". As in "Some Protestants..." There are certainly many Protestants who get along well with Catholics, and see them as fellow Christians, and aren't particularly derisive of them. You will even find a lot of ecumenical cooperation between Protestants and Catholics in many endeavors on the local level. --Jayron3222:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
140.254.227.100 -- As StuRat has alluded to, Protestant / Eastern Orthodox comity is partly kind of the religious version of the well-known phenomenon that there is often friction between adjacent nations, which leads to people in a country having a more positive view of countries removed by one than adjacent countries. So traditionally the Poles kind of hated both Germans and Russians but loved the French, the Scots had a more favorable view of France than the English did, Bulgarians had a more favorable view of Russians than most of Russia's neighbors did, etc. Also, neither mainstream Protestants nor Eastern Orthodox claim the authority to govern the other. As for the Whore of Babylon, that was a sideshow of flamboyant rhetoric, but never the real issue... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the OP: I don't disagree much with anything anyone has said, and the answers are all reasonable and constructive, but they seem somewhat speculative. So is my contribution, but I defend it on the basis of personal experience, plus that it seems to me no more speculative than anything above. Firstly, the conflict in Northern Ireland is sectarian more than religious, so I don't agree with StuRat's reference to this. Indeed, one implacably anti-Catholic evangelical Protestant said exactly the same to me, that Nothern Ireland's situation is basically about politics. You can also look for more in Anti-Catholicism in the United States, which is not directly related, but which does acknowledge the existence of a theological thread, harking back to the Reformation, and a separate, secular one related to politics. Secondly, although there may be few churches teaching the Whore of Babylon thing, there are many individual evangelical Christians who have either this view, or essentially something very anti-Catholic. A common view seems to be that Catholics aren't Christians, apparently because they believe unbelievers can get into heaven, among other things. On the anti-Christ issue, one evangelical Christian told me the Pope is "an" anti-Christ, which she said according to the Bible was simply a person who was the antithesis of Christ. Such views are common, although as far as I can tell, wholly unofficial. Finally, in reply to Lindert, the "plain reading of the Bible passages" can only accomplish so much as an explanation, since many things have been read into the Bible. In other words, even if the Orthodox Church couldn't be the Whore of Babylon, it could get some other moniker. One has to agree with the point made by several people above that geographic separation is important, but that would make it mostly a historical process. The thing missing for me is an established form of the prejudice that is also taken from history. The "Whore of Babylon" thing counts, but it is one thing among many. Anti-Catholicism seems to be a modern prejudice that gets stirred up very easily in Evangelicals, at least in my experience IBE (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Former Catholics marrying UK royals
The thread immediately above this one makes me wonder about former Catholics. Imagine that you grow up Catholic, convert in adulthood to some other Christian faith or some other religion entirely, and marry an heir to the British throne. Does this marriage disqualify your spouse from inheriting the throne if everyone ahead of him/her dies? I'm not clear whether the law is meant to refer only to current Catholics or to current-and-former Catholics. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the recent case of Autumn Phillips, who married Peter Phillips, grandson of the Queen: Prior to the marriage, Autumn converted from Roman Catholicism to Anglicanism; had she remained Catholic after her marriage, her husband would have lost his place in the line of succession to the throne, per the provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701. This scenario drew attention to the Act of Settlement's bar on Catholics ascending to the throne, and prompted calls in both Canada and the United Kingdom for the respective prime ministers to address the issue.
(edit conflict) I'm fairly certain it only covers practicing Catholics. After all, faith is a matter of choice, not genetics. I don't believe any ruling monarch in the UK since the Glorious Revolution actually meets your criteria (it is, after all, a limited sample size) but I don't believe the law cares where your parents took you to church, but what you currently believe. --Jayron3222:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is quite incorrect, Jayron. The law is not concerned with the internal mental states of people. "Practising Catholic" could not be defined in any legally meaningful way, as merely turning up for Mass every Sunday while harbouring thoughts of murdering your wife when you got home is somewhat hard to judge. What if someone missed for a month - would they be temporarily "non-practising"? No, the only thing that can have any legal meaning is: (a) have you ever been baptised as a Catholic and is there any documentary evidence of this? If so, (b) have you ever renounced your Catholic association by professing another faith, and is there any documentary evidence of this? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]23:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The law requires a person to be Protestant (that is, not Catholic or Orthodox). It doesn't require that a person has never been Catholic. That's the point: A person is not disqualified because they were Catholic at any point since they were born; especially since Catholicism is not something you are born with. (after EC with you where you added a clarifying statement): That's my exact point, and now that you've added extra bits to your statement, it's clear you agree with me 100%: A person who has renounced their former Catholic faith would not be disqualified. Again, my entire point is that Catholicism is a choice, not a genetic condition. A person who chooses not to be Catholic anymore would not be disqualified. --Jayron3223:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does require that a person has never been Catholic. Specifically, once a person is Catholic, the Acts of Succession consider them dead for the purposes of succession to the throne, with inheritance bypassing them entirely. This specifically includes those who "have ever been" Catholic. The law for marrying a former Catholic was different, with the spouse being able to convert and so not cost their partner a position in the line of succession, but for inheriting the throne yourself you absolutely need to have never been Catholic ever at any point in your life. In practice, as I say below, this only seems to include Confirmation. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we do agree. For an adult, Catholicism is indeed a choice. But for tiny babies, which is generally where the association starts, it's not. They're baptised, and that and only that, as far as the law is concerned, is what makes them a Catholic for these purposes. A person who was brought up "as a Catholic", in a Catholic household, but who for whatever reason was never actually baptised, is not a Catholic in the eyes of the law, or indeed, in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I agree with you nobody is ever "born a Catholic"; it all starts at the baptismal font, not a second earlier. A person who is raised as a Catholic is free to renounce their faith whenever they like, but what form that renunciation takes may make a huge difference. A person such as me, who was raised as a Catholic but who abandoned it many years ago, and who has long since ceased all association with the church and its doings, and long since ceased to acknowledge membership of said church when asked his religion, would still be considered a Catholic if it came to marrying a UK Royal in the line of succession (are there any available cute princes?). I am, if you like, a passive ex-Catholic. Autumn Phillips is an active ex-Catholic in that she went the extra step of formally converting to Anglicanism and formally renouncing all other faiths. Before then, who knows how deeply she believed the Catholic doctrine or how often she attended Mass or whatever else? Whether she was the most devout Catholic in history or a Catholic in name only is completely immaterial to the legal issue raised by the OP. That is a red herring here. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]00:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "formally converting to Anglicanism and formally renouncing all other faiths" That is exactly what I am saying. I have never said, once, even one time, that a person who is a lapsed Catholic is eligible for marriage into the Royal Family. What I said was that a former Catholic, who had renounced it, is. That is all. You have still not disagreed with me at all. --Jayron3201:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you certainly seemed to imply it with "I don't believe the law cares where your parents took you to church, but what you currently believe". That is exactly wrong. It has nothing to do with what you believe now or have ever believed, or whether you're devout or lapsed or anywhere in between. It has everything to do with whether or not you were ever baptised into the Church, because that and only that makes one a Catholic. That is the start and end of the matter. It is merely membership of the RC Church that is repugnant to the succession laws, not anything else. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]05:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on your perspective on what believe means. See 85.255.232.192's discussion on the legal difference between baptism and confirmation, for example. --Jayron3212:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While from a Catholic point of view, you are correct that you are Catholic from the moment of Baptism (and, from that point of view, never stop being Catholic); from a royal point of view, you appear to only be rendered Catholic at the point of Confirmation, in practice. Over the years, The children of the Earl of St Andrews have been added to the line of succession, bypassing their father, and then knocked off once they were Confirmed. Or consider the children of Lord Nicholas Windsor, who converted to Catholicism and married in the Vatican. His children were indisputably Baptised as Catholics, and even acknowledged to have been Baptised as Catholics in an early day motion in Parliament, and yet they appear not to be considered Catholics by the royals, because there they are at numbers 40 and 41: [12]. This is presumably due to the Anglican view of Confirmation as being a "declaration of faith" once someone is old enough to make it themselves, in contrast to the Baptismal vows made on their behalf when they were an infant, which suggests they are concerned with some interior beliefs rather than something ontological. 85.255.232.192 (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Perth Agreement means that parallel legislation has been introduced in all 16 Commonwealth Realms with the exception of Australia, where any change to the federal constitution would need a referendum, so they are proceeding with legislation in each individual state. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, the reason the monarch has to be Anglican is that the monarch is the head of the Anglican Church, and it wouldn't do to have a Catholic running the Anglican Church. But has there been any discussion about the monarch relinquishing that role of "Anglican Pope", so to speak, and assigning the role to someone else? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're talking about something somewhat seperate from the above discussion. It's true the the monarch has to "join in communion with the Church of England" and will be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But the above discussion primarily relates to the fact that until the law change, someone who's married to a Catholic is permanently removed from the order of succession, which is a related but seperate issue. (Similarly someone who was ever a Catholic is removed.) Note that there's no such restriction on anyone else, whether atheist, Muslim, Wiccan or Scientologist; although whether such a person could "join in communion with the Church of England" may seem unlikely. (Either way I think it's clear that under current practice, such a person would either need to covert or give up the throne. OTOH somone marrying someone which such beliefs is clearly still in the other of succession but until the law change, not anyone marrying a Catholic. Whether such a person could succeed and remain monarch while their spouse remains whatever, I don't know. But it may be possible, particularly if the spouses beliefs aren't seen as by sufficient percentage of the public as getting in the way of the monarch's religious roles and the children's upbringing in the Church of England.) Anyway as for an answer to your question Act of Settlement 1701 has a fair amount of discussion relating to possible changes of the religious issues. Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the law has already changed except in South Australia and Western Australia, although even under the new arrangements, the monarch will still have to be an Anglican. To answer Bugs's last query, the idea that the Queen should not be the head of the Established Church is called Disestablishmentarianism, but is on a bit of a back burner at the moment, as I understand it - the few disadvantages of the system (such as the ability of MPs to tinker with the church's decisions) have been nullified if not removed in recent decades. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, Australian states have their own law of succession? So in principle the next sovereign of Australia might not be sovereign of one or more of the states? --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, Catholics are supposed to pledge to raise their children Catholic even if they happen to marry a non-Catholic. Prohibiting potential future monarchs from marrying a Catholic would basically pre-empt that situation from possibly arising. Obviously, relations between the British monarch and the Vatican have improved a bit since the days of Henry VIII. But it would still be a conflict of interest if the head of the Anglican Church was a practicing Catholic. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your contact details as their only purpose here is to open you up to a torrent of spam. This page is for asking questions on any humanities-related topic. Did you have such a question? Rojomoke (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The prices of items often end in 99 cents.
At least in the USA, many items are sold with a price that ends in 99 cents (for example, the item costs $24.99 or $19.99, etc.). I assume there is some "psychological" reason for this? Or some "trick" that occurs in the human mind that convinces consumers that the price is somehow "less" expensive? Even though we know the difference between $19.99 and $20.00 is only one penny, there must be some (subtle or perhaps subconscious) inner workings of the mind that make us feel that there is a wider discrepancy of price? So, does any one know the answer to why this occurs so frequently in marketing? Are there are studies (or even articles) that discuss this phenomenon? Does Wikipedia have any article related to this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that one price (for instance $20) seems more arbitrary than the other (for instance $19.99). I think the aim is to convey to the consumer that all efforts have been made to sell the item at the lowest possible price. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At one of my local supermarkets, the prices of some fresh food items fluctuate wildly. Tomatoes in particular are rarely the same price from one week to the next, sometimes changing twice or more in a week. But it's always - ALWAYS - a price that ends in 99 cents per kilo: $4.99 --> $6.99 --> $5.99 --> $8.99 --> $5.99 --> $7.99 --> $6.99 .... That says to me that their efforts to "sell the item at the lowest possible price" are pretty well non-existent. Why is it never a price that ends in 49 cents, or 84 cents, or 25 cents, or 96 other possibilities? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]19:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "their efforts to 'sell the item at the lowest possible price' are pretty well non-existent." It is a marketing convention. It bears no relation to reality. A price of $20 may be low for a product. But it doesn't wave a flag saying "bargain". For that flag we have to use the "convention" $19.99. It is the way the seller tells the buyer that "keeping prices low was a consideration". This is my guess, anyway. Bus stop (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's the even more absurd case of 9/10ths of a cent added to the end of the price of a gallon of gas. Note that if you sell something for $19.99 and the competition sells it for $20, you can also legitimately claim that your price is lower, while they can't claim their price is the same, without adding a weasel word like "about". I find a $19.99 price particularly annoying when I have a "50% off all purchases of $20 or more" coupon. I also suspect they do that on purpose. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't see it mentioned in our article, I'll add that I think (WP:OR) this is much less common in countries/regions where sales tax is included in the sticker price. Maybe someone who lives in such an area can comment? SemanticMantis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak of countries in general, but certainly in the UK prices are usually quoted inclusive of VAT, and .99 and .95 prices are common. (When the VAT is listed separately, for instance on the invoice, the price is calculated so that it comes to .99 after adding VAT. --ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, the law requires that all prices be quoted inclusive of GST (where it applies), so that the price shown on the item is exactly what you pay at the check out. There are still plenty of cases of 99-cent pricing. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]19:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this issue was explored in some depth (maybe more than once) on the ref desk some months or years ago. It's a marketing tactic. Whether it really works or not, who knows? The gas price stuff is funny. Say 3.99 and 9/10 for a gallon. So if you buy 10 gallons you pay 39.99 instead of 40.00. Yee-hah! Taxing is funny too. With some things, such as gas, and food at the ballpark, the tax is included. With a typical retail store, it's explicitly added on, so at that point you know exactly what the tax is. How do you know what it is when it's included in the price? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you need to know how much of the total price is tax? You don't pay those components separately, nor are you required to keep tabs on it and submit a return of the total sales tax you paid in a year. Are you? Or would you be suspecting retailers of adding too much tax? Their response would no doubt be: "No, we just increased the base price and the tax rose accordingly". -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]21:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so naive as to think they always operate appropriately in every sense. But equally, I'm not permanently on the watchout for shady dealings, being ripped off, etc. When I pay cash (hardly ever these days), I always check my change because honest mistakes do sometimes happen. I don’t assume they'll be trying it on every chance they get. Only if the same operator makes the same "honest mistake" every time would I suspect foul play.
But this may be a cultural thing. Until 2001, we had a whole host of state and federal sales etc taxes, but they generally applied only to certain specialised kinds of purchases, and predominantly wholesale purchases at that. Hence most people had little practical experience of these sorts of taxes. For the most part, we've never been used to paying a different price at the checkout than the advertised price. These sundry taxes were all abolished in lieu of the GST (along with a cut in personal income tax). The transparent pricing regime that has been the Australian way forever was an integral part of the GST system. It was made an offence to advertise a price that excluded the GST, and people were strongly encouraged to report offending operators. I did it once. I was flying interstate for a week and decided to park my car in a longstay carpark near the airport. I got a few quotes and went to the cheapest one. After I got back from interstate and went to collect my car, I got a nasty surprise when the price they wanted to charge me was higher than what they had quoted me. When I queried it, I got "Oh, but we don’t include GST in our quotes". To which I said "Oh, but you are legally required to, specifically to avoid customers getting rude shocks like the one I'm getting now". They wouldn’t back down and demanded full payment before they'd let me retrieve my car. The first phone call I made after I got home was to the Compliance area of the Australian Taxation Office. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]02:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should prices being inclusive of VAT mean that you don't know how much of the price is tax? Do they not provide receipts in your corner of the globe? And if the price is too high in one shop, I don't actually care whether it's because of tax or because the shopkeeper is gouging prices: the percentage tax is the same for all shops, and I will buy it where it is cheaper. How would pretending more of the price is tax than it actually is even work? I know how much I'm being asked to pay, up front, and I either pay it or I don't. I understand that things being done differently in different parts of the world is scary and upsetting, but I don't even see how the supposed scamming would work. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts:
1) For small transactions in my area of the US, like at a fast food restaurant, they often don't give you a receipt unless requested (and even then it can be a hassle).
2) They also often screw up the state sales taxes here. Dollar Tree improperly charges sales tax on the original amount of a purchase when you use a coupon, counter to Michigan state Law (and I've never been able to find who to complain about to get this fixed), while whether or not you pay sales tax at Baskin-Robbins depends on which one you visit (the tax is for "prepared foods", and they can't seem to agree on whether scooping it into a cone counts as preparation.) Then there was the bizarre case in Connecticut where buying a suit added a hefty luxury tax, while buying the jacket and pants separately put each item under $100, thus avoiding the tax.
3) I would prefer that they include the taxes in all their quoted prices. For one thing, this makes it easier to pay in exact change, as less math is required. This is especially true at the grocery store, where "food" is not taxable, but other items are (although they seem to include many items in the "food" category that seem more like a lab experiment to me). Some of the ads are just plain dishonest when they omit taxes, saying "You can walk in and buy X with only a dollar !".
I looked at archives for the term "99 cents", and this one from seven years ago turned up first. I find the archive search very clunky to use, but if you've got the patience, you can probably find the more recent reference or references. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Full text of GI Bill (as of 1944)
Can anyone tell me where I can view (online or download a pdf) of a complete copy of the entire Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (commonly known as the GI Bill)? Thank you for looking, even if you don't find me an answer.--71.167.166.18 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's the first place I landed on. All you can get there is a few pages of a giant bill. I'm looking for the whole text in an accessible form.--71.167.166.18 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has anybody done an analysis on Grimms' Fairy Tales that looks into the Christian allusions? I can't help but notice all the religiosity of the characters. At times, God intervenes and plays a direct role in the plot through miraculous healings. The good is rewarded by God, while the wicked is condemned. There is one story about an unnamed Brother and Sister. The Brother is impulsive and turns into a fawn (no idea why a fawn). The Sister is patient, humble, and beautiful, and she marries a King (it's unclear how old this girl is). She's also very pious, as there is one scene in which she prays a bedtime prayer. Since these stories are born out of Germany, I have a hunch they are very Christian. 140.254.226.239 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This book, "The Owl, The Raven, and The Dove: The Religious Meaning of the Grimms' Magic Fairy Tales" -- seems to contain what you're looking for [14]. Our own article Brothers Grimm specifically says "In the later editions Wilhelm polished the language to make it more enticing to a bourgeois audience, eliminated sexual elements and added Christian elements." SemanticMantis (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read on Wikipedia that the original Rapunzel (that is, first edition) published by the Grimm Brothers hinted at Rapunzel's pregnancy, alluding to the possibility that the prince might have had sex with her or raped her. As Christian readers tend to have very gentle palates for books, it would make sense to eliminate it. Writing is a business; you have to please the reader. By the way, I wonder if there is any difference between the Christian reader and the ordinary gentle reader. 140.254.227.53 (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the story is any less gentle than that of Lot and his daughters. Or his wife. More than just implications there. A lot of "unpalatable" things in the Bible. Magic, infanticide, war, defecation. Christians can be sensitive, but I don't know about a tendency. InedibleHulk(talk) 01:33, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
Selling food in the USA
In the USA, there are many laws and restrictions that accompany the ability to market and sell food products. Most of this, I assume, is overseen by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So, it seems like a very highly regulated industry. That being the case, how is it exactly that just anybody can sell food products on internet sites like e-Bay or Amazon? I often see various food items being sold at sites like those. And they are being sold by regular, ordinary people (not business entities). How exactly do these individuals "escape" all the FDA rules and regulations? It seems to defeat the whole point of the FDA and food safety. Any insights? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Examples on e-Bay. Just type in a word like "cookies", "oatmeal", or "cereal" in the search bar. Those were three that I tried, off the top of my head. I am sure Amazon would be similar. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the Ebay site lists its own set of regulations [15] that requires sellers to follow federal law, including getting a license if their state requires it. That page says that if a listing doesn't follow their requirements they will remove it and might suspend the account. But it doesn't say anything about their methods for checking that their rules are followed. I find the FDA site virtually unsearchable, but it does say this [16]: Importers can import foods into the United States without prior sanction by FDA, as long as the facilities that produce, store, or otherwise handle the products are registered with FDA, and prior notice of incoming shipments is provided to FDA. The FDA site has forms for giving this notice. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It makes total sense that internet companies would need to follow the laws. I wonder what the FDA does not cover. That info did not seem to be in our article. I would think local Ma-and-Pa-type vegetable stands might fall outside the FDA's realm as it's not interstate commerce, at least not directly. But interstate commerce covers a lot of ground. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting a list of reading for an advanced but non-native English speaker. She has expressed interest in A Clockwork Orange, Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Satanic Verses. But except for Thomas Harris, Anne Rice, Stephen King, and Michael Crichton my contemporary reading is mostly limited to science fiction. I've already forwarded the Modern Library's 100 Best of the 20th century lists. I'd like to suggest other titles along the lines of The Handmaid's Tale, The Time Traveller's Wife, and Children of Men. Can anyone suggest either specific books similar to the last three and links to their article, or better, a critical or popular list of more recent such fiction? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read any of those books, but goodreads.com has a cross-recommendation feature. Search for a book and then click "readers also enjoyed". Example: [17]70.36.142.114 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have a couple.
In The Beauty Of The Lilies, by John Updike (contemporary, family saga)
Holes, by Louis Sachar (contemporary, set in the 1990s)
Small Steps, by Louis Sachar (contemporary, set after Holes)
Charlotte's Web, by E.B. White (not explicitly stated but presumed to be contemporary)
The Trumpet of the Swan, by E.B. White (not explicitly stated but presumed to be contemporary)
Stuart Little, by E.B. White (not explicitly stated but presumed to be contemporary)
Speak, by Laurie Halse Anderson (contemporary high school setting)
Just Ella, by Margaret Peterson Haddix (contemporary author, fairy tale)
Ella Enchanted, by Gail Carson Levine (contemporary author, fairy tale)
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, written by Judi Barrett and illustrated by Ron Barrett
Pickles to Pittsburgh, written by Judi Barrett and illustrated by Ron Barrett
Thanks so far for the goodreads site and the list. I should specify the reader is adult, and didn't care for Lord of the Rings or Narnia. She does like Paulo Coelho and Stephen King. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taking "contemporary" to mean "the author is still alive" (or is Muriel Spark), here are a few suggestions:
Of course, this is also a great way to get to know a little more about the tastes of contributors to the Reference Desk. I imagine we are biased towards speculative fiction, and I suspect that many of us revere Heinlein. RomanSpa (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Heinlein's my third favorite writer, and has written more books on my best list than any other author. But I am so happy you mentioned Maupin, she'll love tales of the cty, and I didn't think of it. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does she specifically want books originally written in English? I keep thinking of titles translated into English from other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.142.114 (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a strong subjective element her in regard to what she's actually interested in. The problem on my end is that I very rarely read best-sellers or critic's choices, and my knowledge of the newer "classics" of the last 40 years is limited. Having suggestions like Mockingbird and Tales of the City, and the link to the Mann Booker Prize is a great jog to the memory. μηδείς (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neal Stephenson might suit you, both for this list and for your own edification (with the caveat that The Baroque Cycle is, well, baroque even by his standards), particularly Snow Crash, The Diamond Age, and Cryptonomicon. I'd also look at A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole, which is hilarious (I like to teaser-line it as "What if Nero Wolfe were a shiftless bum living in New Orleans?"). The Third Policeman by Flann O'Brien is good, and has that same sort of vaguely magical/hallucinatory feeling throughout that you get from Rushdie, albeit Irish instead of Indian. Oh, hmm: I see now you wanted titles similar to the last three you mentioned, not the first three. Crap. I can't help you there: I found Oryx and Crake to be well done but claustrophobically depressing. I'll close with a link that's unhelpful but hilarious: what if every book were titled in the most directly descriptive way possible? Hopefully other people find that as stomach-hurting hilarious as I did (the further down you scroll the better, I think) and maybe some covers will jog your memory further. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠17:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rate of China's population in growth in 1960
I was browsing the page for China and this chart caught my eye. What's the reason for the steep drop in growth rate and population size in 1960? Was this the time of Mao's massacres? — Melab±1☎22:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought it was interesting that 30 million Chinese could die in the worst manmade disaster in history, more than twice the death toll of WWI, with few people in the West knowing about it. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This question is about the Fort Lee lane closure scandal that has plagued the administration of Governor Chris Christie. There is a federal investigation that is being headed by the federal prosecutor's office (Paul J. Fishman, I believe). This is the same office in which Christie himself worked as a former federal prosecutor before becoming Governor. So, is there no conflict of interest in a situation like that? Or even the appearance of one? How is/was this issue reconciled or addressed, if at all? Wouldn't the prosecuting office want to "play it safe" (as much as possible), so that their investigation does not look biased? To err on the side of caution, can't they reassign the case to another office? Any insights on this? Or, perhaps I am missing some key details? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An "office" can't have a conflict of interest, although individuals within it can. So, if it's a large office and none of the people involved in the current investigation were there when Christie was, that sounds OK, to me. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fancy French Hotel with Ballroom
A writer friend of mine is asking for information on what fancy hotels in France, Paris or a resort town, would be suitable to throw a masked ball, including, of course, the ballroom. I am totally clueless, so I was hoping someone with knowledge of the country could suggest a name or two of hotels fitting the description and with modern room facilities and a view that I can look up. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about Paris or hotels therein, but some googling around brings up Le Bristol Paris as a likely candidate. If you check out the reception and conference facilities, it seems to have suitable rooms for such a ball. Plus, Wikipedia has an article about it: Hôtel Le Bristol Paris. --Jayron3202:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the Old-World charm of the Bristol means no space large enough for a masquerade ball, although the past clientele (Mick Jagger) is perfect. It's really hard to search for this sort of thing. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might consider hiring not a hotel in the English sense, but un hôtel particulier - a large French mansion. There are many of these in Paris. Some are now used as hotels (English sense), while others are used as embassies, government buildings, museums or private dwellings. Other options would be to hire a chateau, or one of the nicer casinos. Sadly, I can give no specific recommendation, as I've never arranged such a ball, but googling "hôtel particulier to hire" provided some promising-looking leads. RomanSpa (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely clear from the question, but I think the OP's friend is looking for venues for a masked ball to go in a work of fiction, not actually to hire. If this is the case, it would be better to make up a fictional hotel than to use the name of a real one. --Viennese Waltz09:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most 4- and 5-star hotels in Paris have venues to host large events such as a cocktail reception, a wedding, etc. This constitutes a very large and lucrative part of these hotels' business. Hôtel de Crillon, le George V or le Ritz are some of the fancier (and more expensive) ones, and there's a whole list of them at category:Hotels in Paris. Smaller 2-star and 3-star hotels that cater mainly to tourists and business visitors would not have these types of facilities however. --Xuxl (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contacting author of article on Martinus Sieveking
Dear friends at the Wikipedia Reference Desk,
I am trying to contact the author of the article on pianist Martinus Sieveking. Could you help me contact him? Here is the message I would like to send him, and the information I am searching for.
Many thanks in advance and all best greetings!
Aaron
Dear author of the Wikipedia article on Martinus Sieveking,
I am very interested in finding any existing pedagogical materials written by Sieveking. I have managed to find and obtain the two articles he wrote for Etude magazine in 1915 and 1916, but they only give a brief introduction to his pedagogical method. In the interview with Harriet Brower in her book, "Piano Mastery," he speaks of a manuscript detailing his method that he was intending to publish.
I have been able to find absolutely nothing of his pedagogical method save the Brower interview and the two Etude articles. Are you aware of how I might find other materials? Perhaps he has living descendants? (I was able to find that his grandson Leonard Vincent, a notable school teacher, passed away in 2004, Senta having passed away in 2000. I have not found mention of any other living descendants.)
As you can see if you click on the history tab at the top of the article, many editors have contributed. The creator was an anonymous IP editor back in 2005, so it's rather unlikely that you'll be able to contact that person. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you leave that message on the article's talk page (go back to the article, then pick "Talk", at the top). That's where you'll have the best chance to get a reply. You could also try leaving a message on the major contributors' talk pages. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could a state church baptize someone for secular reasons?
I don't care which state church, but state churches in general. Could they, historically, baptize people for secular reasons (such as counting who's a citizen of the country and handing out baptismal certificates as proof of citizenship)? Could state churches perform marriage and funeral services for anyone, regardless of their faith? 140.254.227.78 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly could, of course. The baptisms seem unlikely, though, as there's no reason to get wet in order to get a proof of citizenship. On the other hand, the marriages and funerals for all makes sense. I believe even normal churches often do that, although they may give priority to those in their own flock. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In England, the Church of England has a statutory duty to marry any couple who live in the parish, of any religion, who ask to be married and can legally be married. A special exception was added to allow Anglican priests to refuse to marry previously divorced people, and now a special exception has had to be added for gay marriage. Back when there were no secular or registery office weddings, the way to get legally married was basically state Church of England service, or Quakers and Jews had an exception that allowed them to legally get married in their own ceremonies. Today, those three (Church of England, Quaker, Jews) have a one-stop way to marry, and everyone else has to do a little bit of hoop-jumping before getting married legally in their own ceremonies. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
White American culture? Is there such thing and if so, what is it?
Before I begin, I want to let you know that I’m writing this from the U.S and I was born and raised in the U.S, so this question comes from an American perspective because in other countries, from what I hear people identify more with their country of origin than their race or ethnic background. so in countries outside the U.S, there is not much significance about being half this and half that. Also, whenever I use the term white, I mean Anglo-American white, the ethnicity that makes up the majority of the U.S population. Now, to my question.... I’ve come across some people of mixed background saying that they’re proud to be and embrace being “half Hispanic (or the Latin American country that applies) and half white” or “half Jewish and half white,” “half Arab and half white” (or the Arab country that applies), “half Asian (or the Asian country that applies) and half white,” etc. In my mind I wanted to tell them that these ethnicities can be of any race (except for Asians/Orientals which is considered to be a race), but that’s another story. Then I thought to myself that maybe some of these people are mixing up ethnicity with race more for cultural reasons because an ethnicity such as Hispanic/Latino does carry a lot of cultural weight to it in the U.S, like someone who says, for example, that he or she is “half Hispanic and half black,” which means that they can equally identify culturally with both Hispanic/Latino culture and African American history and culture, but of course again, in the U.S, Hispanics and Latinos can be of any race including black. However, it got me thinking about what exactly is white culture (not Italian American culture, Irish American culture, etc., which are specific cultures where people claim to be white and are in general white, but just White American culture in general, I guess the kind with lineages to different European countries.). Non-Hispanic, non-"minority" White Americans still make up the majority of the U.S population still. But since there are people who brag about being half white even though their other half is some ethnicity that can be of any race including white, what is white culture in the U.S and what special significance does it carry? What can be taken from "white culture?" How can someone “act white?” What traditions do White Americans follow? What are some things that White Americans can be proud of, culturally speaking? Willminator (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I think of WASP culture in the USA, it brings to mind things like the old social vanguard of East Coast society during the 19C and 20C, like the Mayflower descendants, Ivy League preppies (who can be from any ethnic background nowadays), groups like Daughters of the American Revolution, etc....the type of folks who would buy etiquette books. But that's actually a certain social class, a subgroup among WASPs. Working-class and impoverished WASPs have their own cultures too, and there are regional cultures to consider like the Deep South versus the Mid West....there are many subcultures among WASPs, which kind of suggests a broader cultural group exists. 99.245.253.81 (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the satirical website, Stuff White People Like. The website is created by a Canadian white person, satirizing what he perceives to be hypocrisies of his own young adult millennial-generation liberal-minded progressive-minded secular Western culture, of which he is a member. 140.254.226.226 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
White American culture is so pervasive in much of the Anglosphere (and beyond) these days, you may have to adjust your assumptions in order to notice it - much like air, or the local accent of the place you grew up. White Americans don't need to have things that they specifically take pride in - there are huge media entities (you know, like Hollywood) devoted to propagating the idea of the awesomeness, but much more importantly the normalcy of White America. And within American Whiteness, it's Anglo-American and German-American norms that predominate. I've never known an American volunteer the information that they're (for example) half-Bavarian, half-Kentish. Those identities have been so completely subsumed into the prevailing current of American Whiteness that they're now only of genealogical interest. A generic white American is far more likely to mention the small admixture of (say) Native American in their background than to dwell on the omnipresence of British and Germanic elements. And this doesn't just extend to genetic and ethnic origins - it's pretty much baked into the contemporary culture. If you drink 'a beer' in the US, it's probably a German-style lager or an Anglo-Indian IPA. Every single US president (including the current one) has been from a partly-anglo background. American common law derives directly from English; Episcopalian and Lutheran churches are widely considered to be generic white-bread places favoured by suburban white middle classes. And so on.
I don't like to be the Brit Bore who always says "you didn't tell us which country you're in" and so on ~ although I'm glad that you did - but the simple fact that a generic person online has until recently been pretty reliably a white American man, and that the leads in almost all our movies and TV shows are white American men has a fairly massive impact on our culture. A friend from California told me that when she went to visit relatives in Edinburgh, a child in the household said "mummy, there's someone at the door who sounds like the telly"; the generic sound of the media here in the UK is not a British accent, but a General American one.
As to 'acting white', it's what white folks like me are implicitly raised to do from birth; the things we're taught to consider 'nice', the media we consume, the food we eat, the slang we use, and so on. It takes us no effort to act white. But we're not the only ones expected to do so - hence the market in skin lighteners, hair straighteners, and so on. It's certainly not something I'm proud of, but I'm part of a hegemonic culture that's held up to others as an unachievable ideal.
Wow - I didn't know that was a thing. Here in the UK, 'Asian' usually means South Asian, reflecting the different population balance here - a difference which provides two examples of the distorting effect of white culture in one. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a thing, but pressured by whom? That's an internal pressure as far as I can tell. They do it because "their" culture values it, not because "ours" does. They are just using ours as a reference point. Mingmingla (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On an episode of The Talk a few months ago, host Julie Chen talked about he she was essentially pressured into having work done on her eyelids. She was told that she would need to have it done if she expected to get anywhere in her career. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, though - non-white cultures don't produce pressure to emulate whiteness in a vacuum, but in the presence of an all-encompassing whiteness of the world's most powerful nation, most distributed media, and most feted celebrities. No amount of white liberal hand-wringing from someone like me changes that - and it's not really for me to tell people that emulating my culture is wrong any more than to tell them it's right. But people like me - comparatively rich, white, English-speaking men - have forged a world in which such drives seem normal. And we did so in part by stamping all over the cultures of other nations; in the past we also literally stamped all over those nations, and nowadays our ex-pat businessfolk do so with SUVs and a sense of entitlement rather than with army boots. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the AlexTiefling's initial comments, I've noticed that it is hard to identify a thing that is so pervasive, especially if you are a member of that thing. To illustrate the point, a Canadian radio program once held a contest to help define Canadian culture by creating a statement similar to "As American as apple pie." The best we could come up with was "As Canadian as possible, under the circumstances". We Canadians have traditionally defined ourselves largely as "not American", whatever that means, so we couldn't come up with anything. What does this mean for your question of White American culture? All this is to say that there is a culture, but it's pretty hard to define from inside, and kind of hard even from outside. After all, it's literally impossible to not have a culture. Mingmingla (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a non-White 1.5 generation American, I would have thought that American religiosity - particularly Protestantism (the idea of being WASP) - would have been very important, and would have thought that if I were to fully assimilate into American culture and embracing American ideals, I would have to convert to Mainline Protestantism or something. 140.254.226.226 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm interested in the OP's statement that this is about "...Anglo-American white, the ethnicity that makes up the majority of the U.S population". Assuming "Anglo-American white" means Americans with English ancestry, I find it hard to believe that they still make up a majority of the population. Do they? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the claim is false. It's often mentioned that German-American is the largest specific ethnic group in the US, at 15.2% in the 2000 census. But as a counter to that, it's also often claimed that the American ethnicity is composed almost entirely of Anglo-American whites. If so, that would mean that all British-Americans combined accounted for 29.9% of the population - a plurality but not a majority. However, of those, 10.8 percentage points are Irish and a further 1.5 are Scots-Irish, both of whom might wish to be considered Irish rather than British. This cuts the total to 17.6% - so if even a third of the 'American ethnicity' group were not considered British, German-Americans would indeed be the largest group; if a sixth of the 'American ethnicity' group are German instead of British, the same applies. But in any case, there's obviously no single majority ethnicity in the USA at this level of detail. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you can say 'anglo' and be assumed to include, eg, Polish Americans shows just how dominant the generic (British-based) white culture is. And of course any group that is 'non-minority' is by definition a majority. But why do you think hispanics are the out-group and not, say, Irish-Americans, in this context? AlexTiefling (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
![[8]](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3501/3734373544_859c1e7a5b_z.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_Mojarra_Inscription_and_Long_Count_date.jpg){kind=link}
