Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 24

Why does the United States support Israel?

It seems like we do is make jhadists mad, waste money, and compromise our principle of Liberty. What is the practical benefit to supporting Israel? Why do we do it?

To clarify, I am asking the reason the United States does this, not whether it is morally right or justified. This is neither subjective nor a matter of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This surely goes back to the days of the creation of Israel, the number of American Jews who were part of that, and the number who emigrated there. It was a large number. Those people and their descendants would still have a lot of personal and financial connections with the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Radioactivemutant -- before 1967, the U.S. supported Israel in limited ways, but was very careful to avoid any appearance of a U.S.-Israel military alliance (and was very strongly opposed to the U.K.-France-Israel military actions in the 1956 Suez Crisis). However, in 1967, the combination of loose inflammatory reckless wannabe-genocidal throw-the-Jews-into-the-sea rhetoric by many Arabs, bombastic grandiose military threats and flirtations with the Soviets by Arab leaders, and the pathetic ignominious Arab battlefield performance when the fighting actually started, created an overall extremely negative opinion of middle-eastern Arabs in the United States -- and from that time forward there was an open U.S.-Israeli military alliance.
In any case Osama bin Laden personally barely cared about Israel at all. He sometimes uttered pro forma anti-Israeli rhetoric expected of someone in his position, but Israel was not a significant motivating factor for why he took up terrorism... AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

An influential segment of the United States population supports Israel for a variety of reasons, mainly religious. See Israel lobby in the United States. In addition, US-Israel relations are influenced by strategic thinkers who value Israel as a military ally and bridgehead in a region whose oil and gas resources are crucial to the global economy. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The entire Middle East region is a valuable piece of real estate, as an oily bridge between continents, wide open for various development. If a state were (hypothetically, of course) trying to conquer the world, it would want it before facing China. Sometimes it would need a little help from its friends in the area. Friends cost money. Making jihadists mad makes them buy weapons, which lets states who sell weapons pay their friends (often in weapons). The concept of universal liberty, like all Americanism, is imaginary. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

"Imaginary" compared to what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Black sites. Actual apple pie. Even Kurt Angle (he's damn true). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

My answer: Israel is a democracy. But here's a source that answers the question more fully: ([1]) --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it denies the vote to substantial parts of the population under its effective control, it is disputable whether Israel is a democracy. (See these sources, among many others. [2][3]) However, democracy is not a prerequisite for forming an alliance with the United States. Marco polo (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The relevant concept is Herrenvolk democracy. However, few realistic people with a detailed knowledge of the situation would (however much they blame Israel for many other things) blame Israel for not giving voting rights to a population, a large percentage of which wants to destroy Israel by means of force and violence. In any case, when Israel offered Arab inhabitants of East Jerusalem the right to vote in Jerusalem municipal elections only (without taking up Israeli citizenship or prejudicing larger issues), extremely few East Jerusalem residents accepted. The "one-state solution" actually kind of expired around 1933, when the first Arab state to be given independence in modern times celebrated its independence by massacring a religious minority -- something that the Jews of the British Palestine Mandate paid close attention to in 1933, resolving to never allow themselves to be placed in a similar situation... AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Marco Polo, see Athenian democracy; if we question whether Israel be democratic because it "denies the vote to substantial parts of the population under its effective control", we should question whether democracy was democratic. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Democracy isn't important to this question. Like Marco says above, allies can take any form of government. America's current coalition against the Islamic State, for instance, has three kingdoms and whatever a federal presidential absolute monarchy or unitary parliametary absolute monarchy is. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

One practical benefit to the US is a way to develop and test out new weapons and defense technology, since Israel is always in a state of war or near war. For example, Israel was the first to develop UAVs, then the US saw it was practical and poured lots of money into doing the same. Or, in the case of anti-missile missiles, the US developed the Patriot missile, but found them to be of limited value after using them in Israel to defend against Saddam during the Second Gulf War. Israel then developed the Iron Dome system, which seems to be more effective. The US may copy key aspects of that the set up their own technologies. Israeli technology and procedures to prevent it's passenger planes from being blown up might also be of interest in the US.

Now, as for US opinion, I don't think many think that "if we only let the Arabs massacre all the Jews we would be safe". First, there's the doubt that the US would be safe. Indeed, once all the Jews had been killed, the assumption in the US is that many of those terrorist organizations, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, etc., would then target the West. And, even if Americans believed that throwing Israel under the bus would protect them, I don't think many would think it was right to do so.

Now, the next question is probably why the US population has such a negative view of Palestinians and Arabs in general. A previous poster mentioned events around the 1967 war, but there have been many incidents since, such as the 1972 Munich Olympics PLO massacre of Israeli athletes, the Achille Lauro hijacking, Palestinians dancing in the streets to celebrate the 911 attacks, etc., not to mention more recent Arab terrorist groups like ISIL. Now I'm sure most Palestinians and Arabs are peaceful (I have a Palestinian friend myself), but terrorism committed by Palestinians and Arabs just doesn't leave that impression in the US. And yes, Israel has done some terrible things, but very few of those have targeted Americans, so they are not seen as a threat in the same way. As I've said before, had Palestine taken Gandhi's approach instead of resorting to terrorism, they would have gotten the US on their side and won independence long ago. In simplest terms, attacking an enemy by military means which you can't possibly defeat by military means is idiotic. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you underestimate the Patriot system. Just yesterday Israel shot down a Syrian jet with one.[4] They are also deployed in Turkey. Iron Dome is a low cost system to shoot down cheap targets. The U.S. is developing lasers for that role.[5] Rmhermen (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the US military learned from it's use defending against SCUDs and were able to upgrade it to be more effective. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If a nation needs to kowtow to a bigger one to gain nominal independence, that's dependence. It's why terrorists are also called "freedom fighters". Having freedom handed to you with a list of conditions isn't winning, it's compromising. If Palestine did that from the start, it would all be called Israel today, and America wouldn't know to care. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Refraining from murdering American citizens isn't "kowtowing". Had the American colonists kidnapped and murdered French citizens in an attempt to get France to support it in the American Revolution, the French would not have supported the colonies, and there would be no USA today. The colonists needed French military support to win, and sent Ben Franklin to charm the French, instead. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not killing Americans would be one condition, of many. Buying American and staging American puppet show elections would likely be on the invoice, too. Though if Palestine had bowed to Israel at the time, it'd have remained a regional and (temporarily) British problem. Americans are terrorist targets because of America's willfull political involvement, which as noted above, has strong US public support since '67. So long as Arabs are popular Hollywood/New York heels, politicians will press for more pro-Israel legislation, regardless of that legislation's effect on the ground (killing voters from across the spectrum).

As for winning freedom, you probably can't pick a worse example than the USA, at least financially. Luckily (for some), strong allies and a zealous jealousy come in handy for not worrying about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

My example was about how to win independence, in this case from England. There can be no doubt that this was accomplished, with French help. Your opinion of the USA today is completely irrelevant to that point. StuRat (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, nominal independence. Still took nearly two centuries to get to the point they are, above creditors. Having a shitload of arable land after the fact sure helped. Palestine doesn't have that advantage. It's not called a Strip for nothing. America has likely offered many more peace deals than the public's even aware of, and they haven't sold. The US and Israel together are more analogous to England than France. Hezbollah is their France. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

InedibleHulk -- Your comments of "22:40, September 24, 2014" are unfortunately quite incorrect in the form in which they were expressed there. If the Arabs had agreed to the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, then they would have had a UN-backed state (effectively guaranteed by the great powers of the day), a state which would have encompassed much more land than the later West Bank + Gaza Strip, and which would have left Israel within militarily-indefensible borders. Unfortunately, the Arabs couldn't agree to any such plan because they regarded any form of Jewish sovereignty on any territory (no matter how small) as an offense to their dignity and a blot on their honor which had to be washed away with blood. Therefore they preferred to roll the dice on the outcome of war instead -- and lost. That started a long-term pattern in which the Arabs were interested in the previous compromise only after they had already thrown it away. In 1947-1948, the Arabs contemptuously spurned and scorned the 1947 partition plan borders -- but as soon as the armistice lines were finalized in 1949, then the partition plan borders started looking good. In 1949-1967, the Arabs loftily rejected the 1949 armistice lines as having any lasting force or legal status -- but as soon as the 1967 war occurred, then the 1949 armistice lines started looking good. With the early 2000s "intifada", the Arabs pretty much eliminated any possibility of relatively open borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state, thereby guaranteeing that such borders would be rigorously controlled and fortified -- whereupon the previous prospect of relatively open borders started looking good. That's what Abba Eban called "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity" -- the Arabs lost a lot more through rigid and inflexible political maximalism (never being able to accept any intermediate pragmatic settlement which fell short in any way with respect to their ultimate grand visions and aspirations) than from alleged excessive compromising... AnonMoos (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Lost more through inflexibility because they did more that way. If they'd bent over instead, that 1947 parcel does look pretty nice, in hindsight. But how long would those borders last? It'd be a whole new storyline, made even more unpredictable by their new tendency toward wishy-washiness. I don't always like what I've heard from that camp, but they shoot relatively straight and stick to their guns. Figuratively, I mean. No question which side has literally done it better.

It's created an independent Palestinian spirit, and while they can't build a city on that or put it up as collateral, it still counts for something. Whatever that something looks like will also be clearer in hindsight. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

I don't possess an alternative-timeline crystal ball, but if the 1947 plan had been implemented, then the Arabs would have been much better off in most respects than their actual situation in 1949 after rejecting the plan. (Of course, that raises the issue of who would have been the leader of such an Arab state -- the international community would have been unlikely to accept Nazi-collaborating war criminal Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, and he would have taken violent exception to anyone who was not his toadying lackey and flunky.) Meanwhile, what you consider the "Palestinian spirit", others may see as a toxic mixture of death-worship (i.e. "baby suicide bomber") and "immoralism" (refusal to condemn any action by one's own side, no matter how loathesome and vile, as seen in glorification of Dalal Mughrabi etc. etc. etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be war without one side seeing the other as evil. That would stay the same, but yeah, without a crystal ball (or cup), hard to say what else would. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Palestinians remind me of the faction in Japan, after the atomic bombs were dropped, which still didn't want to surrender. They realized this would mean the total destruction of Japan, but considered that to be preferable to surrender. Fortunately, the Emperor was allowed to "break the tie", and he chose surrender. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• As Pamela Geller quotes, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man." Apparently American Zionism is Ayan Rand's fault. See video at bottom of the anti-Ayan Rand blog for her own words. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• • There's something to the basic sentiment behind the quote -- but unfortunately the quote in that form sounds like something that a 1950s colonialist would say, and I really don't see how a relentless and shameless attention-seeker like Pamela Geller, who often seems to be careless with facts and truth, is qualified to offer such general guidance... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Rand said basically the same thing on many occasions; Geller's poster is one of the formulations, and the jihadist blogger provides a link to a rather sloppy statement on Donahue by Ayan. There are two issues here, the politco-moral one, on which Rand is spot on, and the anthropological one, where Rand is rather embarrassingly inaccurate. Geller has nothing to do with that. Geller is simply of interest because, unlike Ayan, she didn't die in 1982, and that she has won every legal suit to which she's been party, such as the one forcing the NYC Transit system to accept her paid advertising of the quote by Ayan. μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • There will be peace in the middle east when the citizenry gets tired of perpetual war. Evidently they are nowhere near that point yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Golda Meir supposedly once said that peace will come when the Arabs finally decide that they love their own children more than they hate the Jews. Of course, that won't do anything about Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Loving your children means supporting them and defending them. If the children dream of destroying the Jews and reclaiming their homeland, however silly a notion, a loving parent must weigh their happiness against the risk. If love was all about restriction, nobody would send their sons and daughters to defend anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have constructed an elaborate scenario in your own mind (angry youth vs. tired elders) which has nothing to do with what she was trying to say. It could be rephrased as -- which is more important for the Arabs, either gaining pragmatic concrete practical benefits for themselves, or trying to take things away from the Jews? At several key moments of history, the Arabs behaved as if trying to take things away from the Jews was more important than gaining things for themselves (i.e. "I refuse to accept half a loaf of bread if this means that my enemy will receive any bread at all"), and as a result they ended up with the worst of both worlds -- they neither gained things for themselves nor took things away from the Jews. It would be nice if they could finally learn from such history and adjust their behavior accordingly... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the scenario you see in my head is a bit more elaborate than mine. The kids aren't against their parents in what I'm talking about, and not necessarily driven by anger. Many reasons to fight. Adventure, money, hopelessness, peer pressure. Walter Gretzky was pretty tired a lot of nights helping his kid beat the odds. Not trying to trivialize war by comparison, but it's the same underlying sort of loving support I mean.

My "worst of both worlds" view might be more complex than yours. I see a third world, where people eat staler bread, and taste how they paid for it selling the dream of better bread their parents had, before the friendly neighbourhood baker killed them. They haven't ended up with that on their plate either, which must feel like a plus for them, or they'd have settled for less already. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Is this the Humanities Desk or the Entertainment Desk? Contact Basemetal here 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That depends on whether you consider the perpetual warfare in the middle east to be "entertainment". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No. But what I do find entertaining is that this discussion was promptly closed, whereas the present discussion, which is essentially a Usenet level series of rants, that should have no place at any Wikipedia Reference Desk keeps merrily going and going and going, and no admin seems to worry about doing anything about it. Seriously, does it look like the OP genuinely came to the Wikipedia Reference Desk to have this neutral, completely unloaded, innocent question answered, because poor him (or her) happened to be in need of information? All of the above is at best a series of opinions, not answers to a genuine request for information. Contact Basemetal here 18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit a bit of opinionated ranting, but I didn't do it merrily. You're right though, this could use more directly relevant, referenced answers. Here are a few reasons the partnership was recently strengthened on paper. And here are some recent reasons that partnership doesn't see Palestine as a viable partner. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

This question seems more factually answerable than does that loaded question about western civilization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

arabic and persian names

Zohreh is Persian version of Arabic Zahrah and Yassaman is Persian for Yasmin. Is there a website that shows the list of Arabic names, both boys and girls with their Persian counterparts? Also, is there a list of Persian names based on cities (Shirazi), tribe (e.g. Ahmadinejad) or based on Arabic names (e.g. Hussaini, Hassani, Karimi, Hamidi)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.110 (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In the original Arabic script, I think that names of Arabic origin are generally spelled the same in both Arabic and Persian (except of course that Persian orthography does not use the letter ة). In Latin alphabet transcription, it will greatly depend on the particular transcription of Arabic and transcription of Persian which are used... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Atimia

I quote the Atimia article:

Failure to abide by atimia was seen as an attack on the power of the people, represented by the courts that had imposed it. Failing to comply with atimia could lead to the death penalty.

Atimia was deprivation of civil rights, not a command that you could disobey, unlike a fine that you could not-pay, or a prison sentence that you could escape. How could you fail to comply with it? If I'm classified as a non-voter and fail to comply, I'm not given a ballot when I request one at the voting booth, I don't get called for jury duty, (if Athenian) the judges ignore me if I try to file a lawsuit, etc., but it's not as if I'm (modern day) driving on a suspended license or possessing a firearm under disability. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The command one could disobey would be to refrain from partaking in assemblies and voting. E.g. if a man was ruled atimos, but later attended an assembly, this would be a violation of hist disenfranchisement. I have no prior knowledge of the topic, that's just my reading of the article. It could probably be phrased better. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic of discussion: World Recycle

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please kindly provide me the links related to the 'world recycle' topic, from science and religion, along with a brief knowledge in simple terms. Kind regards, (Russell.mo (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC))

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "world recycle". If you mean the process of reusing manufactured goods, there is an organization called the World Reuse, Repair and Recycling Association; and more generally the Wikipedia article titled Recycling covers some of the basics. Perhaps something like Earth Day, which is a worldwide observance of environmental concerns, like recycling, may be more to your needs here. Otherwise, if I am very far off target, can you elaborate on what you are looking for? --Jayron32 22:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In order to recycle a world, you must deploy the Genesis Device. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Requesting information on 'world recycle', basic 'scientific & religious' possession of knowledge: The world tilts upside down apparently every 3,600 years, scientists disputes the idea, mythologies/ancient histories define otherwise. The world apparently does tilt upside down,

• Scientists say it occurs over many years during its rotation, definitely not every 3,600 years and definitely not in 30 minutes when the so called planet 'nibiru' appears. Note that some say planet 'nibiru' comes near Earth/Mars, some say near Pluto, and this is the only time when all the planet aligns, when truly the planets align every, in between a few years...
• Prophet Muhammad from Islam religion said, "Judgement Day will be the Day when the Sun seen rising from the opposite way".
• In ancient Egyptian stories, apparently they've evidence, well according to human knowledge, the world tilted upside down twice/The Sun rose the opposite way twice...

I require extensive information and elaboration in simple terms... (Russell.mo (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC))

See Fringe science. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• The earth itself does not "flip". There's absolutely zero evidence that it ever has. However, the process of Geomagnetic reversal is well documented. For reasons that are not entirely well understood, at semi-regular intervals the Earth's magnetic field reverses polarity. Stories from religious texts notwithstanding, however, there is no feasible means by which the Earth could be made to physically flip, alter its rotation, etc. etc. Such stories are probably best understood for their allegorical or metaphorical truth than for any reliable reporting of any actual such event. --Jayron32 00:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We do have a good article on the Nibiru cataclysm, which should get you started. --Mark viking (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• If the Earth had no moon it would be unstable on its axis and could flip. See Uranus. As it is, until the moon escapes earth orbit (at which time the earth day will be months long) there will be no flipping, just wobble. μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

---

There is a topic I read in Wikipedia article Jayron32 that it occurs, what I’m not sure of now is whether it was a hypothesis or postulation; I can’t recall the name of the article(s) now either.

Anyways, if the Earth doesn't tilt, how do you explain the ‘great flood’ what occurred several times during the history of mankind? I assume this event recycles some souls of Earth regardless, can it or may be classified/called one of the events of Armageddon? I also assumed this 'great flood' issue occurs primarily when the Earth begins its so called slow movement reversal back to its square one position, during the first 30 minutes, when it starts to reverse due to its bounce back movement, what you are disputing due to insufficient scientific records?

In regards to 'continental drift', apparently it’s contracting, over the several years the continents were conjoining slowly not distancing from each other, not visible yet but may be in the near future..., what occurred so far according to the fringe science or scientific knowledge Baseball Bugs. Pangaea is the closest resemblance to a discussion of the topic and I am not sure whether pangaea state will reoccur in between or thereafter 4.5 billion years... If so where will it be situated?

Extinction events of ‘human’ race are likely to occur until the beginning of 4.5 billion years’ time guys, disregarding the various assumptions made so far of course which are likely as I am sure that we dumb humans who tend to act smart, or some of us who are in the position of power who tend to think we human beings are dumb enough who don’t require the knowledge of alien life or the advancements of human beings achieved in technology and so on, will come up with something for the near future…

Regarding the topic of discussion Mark viking and μηδείς, I have read through the Nibiru cataclysm a long time ago, it provides, postulates, theory, hypothesis, explanations, methods, interpretations, conclusions, etc, no definitive answers and no evidences. Is there any way I could find out about planet ‘Nibiru’ and of its moons and of its orbital sequencing period and so on? Worldwide internet web is filled with this information but nothing in Wikipedia. Note that NASA did not wish to provide information but gave the benefit of the doubt publicly after full penetration and assured no cataclysmic events will occur any time soon though to reminisce on what occured so far and might occur, as elaborated in wikipedia article(s). A reliable source I require on Planet Nibiru topic, would be helpful. And how come Wikipedia doesn't have information about Planet Nibiru and of its moons? Does Wikipedia have anything relative to it?

Extrapolating from the trend:

The Earth and the moon distancing each other, may provide the explanation of what prophet Muhammad said in regards to when Dajjal appears i.e., one day will feel like a month or year and so on, assuming that it will occur near the beginning of 4.5 billion years timeline, for beginning destruction of the sun, still doesn't clarify the 'world recycle' point, except the great flood issue which can be linked to the world tilting upside down or linking to planet nibiru cataclysmic event. Above all no concrete evidence neither a concrete statement on planet ‘nibiru’ or ‘great flood’ issue, except the hypothesis it occurs and will reoccur. another 'world recycle' subject to include is 'Judgement Day', this subject has two point one what may occur during the end of time i.e., end or the beginning of 4.5 billion years, and the other, usually a crisis that brings an end to current reality and ushers in a new way of living, thinking, or being. This crisis may take the form of the intervention of a deity in history, a war, a change in the environment, or the reaching of a new level of consciousness, as defined in eschatology.

Any idea(s) on how the souls will recycle on earth, how the new lands will arrive covering the old, when does a celestial being appear. apperantly a celestial being means a person in the form of a planet God, what does this mean?... Does the celestial being recycle the world, by creating new followers and so on...?

Apparently the bible describes the world recycling event, planet tilting upside down, I have seen it in Youtube once. true or false? -- 10:10, 25 September 2014 Russell.mo

It is best not to take ancient religious texts literally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The soul cycles through the earth like our bodies do, decomposing and recomposing. What parts aren't eaten turn to dust, what parts are eaten and unused turn to shit. Shit and dust turn to soil, which covers the old land. What parts were eaten and used are buried in this new land when they die, and the beat goes on. The celestial being is the sun, feeding the plants in the soil and warming the people to harvest them. When the light leaves for a while, we sleep. When it leaves forever, we die forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you guys. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

Resolved

What is the thing that makes this company's service so un-doable by others?

Reading and listening to this article about a startup called Stripe, it sounds like they provide the backend of, for instance, the code of the "buy" button on a business's website, or that the merchandiser's buy button calls Stripe's code for that merchandiser's account. What then is the nature of the genius that they have that any merchandise business can't figure out themselves such that they opt instead to buy Stripe's services? Is it that they got access to banking institutions' APIs? What? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on them - Stripe (company). See also Payment service provider for the general business model. To summarize, for some companies, it's cheaper to use such a service provider than to set up your own merchant account with the banks for credit-card payments. The risk of the transaction failing is also taken by the PSP rather than by the client company. Tevildo (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

September 25

Is there still a place in modern philosophy for qualitative or non-mathematical philosophy?

Modern philosophy seems to have an inclination to mathematics and other scientific disciplines. Even moral philosophy is being "mathematized". Some peer-reviewed articles on the mere addition paradox, for example, utilized complex mathematical concepts just to prove or disprove the paradox. So, is there still a place in modern philosophy for "qualitative philosophers"? What if a philosophy major is not interested in delving in logic, math or anything in between? -- 23:50, 24 September 2014 119.95.223.218

I'm not sure what you mean when you say modern philosophy is heavily dependent on math, unless you mean logic. As far a philosophy which ignores logic and science, that sounds more like religion, to me. Eastern religions, in particular, tend to be more philosophical than worry about the details of what fictional deity did what. Try studying Zen Buddhism. StuRat (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Eh? What about Aristotelian logic that influenced St. Thomas Aquinas greatly? Oh, and by the way, Buddhists can be just as devotional as Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In Buddhism, the Bodhisattva and buddhas are highly revered. Guanyin Boddhisattva is a well-known boddhisattva in many Far Eastern cultures, both in religious life and popular culture. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This is why I specified Zen rather than just Buddhism in General. According to our article "Zen emphasizes insight into Buddha-nature and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others. As such, it de-emphasizes mere knowledge of sutras and doctrine and favors direct understanding through zazen and interaction with an accomplished teacher." So, sounds like philosophy without much math, science, or religion. StuRat (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "science" and "religion". Zen Buddhism, a form of Mahayana Buddhism, also has bodhisattvas. These bodhisattvas are usually given much devotion. I don't see the point you're making when you say that Buddhism is merely "philosophical". 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Early Buddhist teachings have been loosely called "atheistic" by some (though probably "non-theistic would be more accurate). There's something on this in God in Buddhism... AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There will always be a significant place for verbal arguments and non-formal methods in modern philosophy. Conceptual analysis is symbol agnostic. But those who are fluent in more than one symbolic language may go much further and much faster than those not so well equipped mentally. Philosophy is a ferociously competitive game.

(Note, I confine my remarks to the analytic tradition in contemporary philosophy. Also, I was in your shoes until I was converted, so please forgive the proselytizing.)

Moral philosophy, to use your example, and even aesthetics, is all about possible worlds - the domain of modal logic. The prerequisite for understanding modal logic is first order (symbolic) logic.

Also, a philosophy major still needs coursework in formal logic (beyond the introductory level course for non-majors) to graduate with even a B.A. in philosophy.

You would be well advised to peruse the multi-faceted subjects of formal methods from several angles before succumbing to voluntary formal illiteracy, which would be a serious handicap to any philosophy major who might entertain (as many do) the dream of someday, somehow teaching at the university level. Guess what philosophy graduate assistants teach? Introductory logic.

I recommend playing around with some versions of formal methods that may overcome your apparent distaste for mathematical symbolism. The Santa Fe Institute is once again (starting September 29) offering their totally free and popular Complexity: An Introduction online course. Taught by the the author of the best book on the subject (which cuts across most others) and using nothing but free readings and the open source graphic modeling tool used by professors and junior high school kids alike, NetLogo. No commitment needed: just follow along and play around with the suggested software experiments - you'll pick up a lot that you wouldn't imagine is "math" but is.

Take any branch of value theory you like and put one or more sets of graphical competitors to work in a constrained environment. Assign simple rules and starting points. Fiddle around. Believe it or not, your experimentation could result in a philosophy thesis, or definitively falsify the viability of another. Importantly, the visual exploration might warm you up for more exploration of formal methods, why they are so popular and powerful.

Sets and Relations. Infinity. Trees and Networks. Modal Semantics. Finite State Machines. Utilitarian Calculi. All that and more, brought down to earth in lower case, contextualized for undergraduates, and expertly taught, in Eric Steinhart's gift to the study of philosophy, More Precisely: The Math You Need to Do Philosophy (Amazon). Significant sampling on Google Books. Author's materials on book website. And David Papineau's Philosophical Devices: Proofs, Probabilities, Possibilities, and Sets is another invaluable book that helps remove the sting from learning stunningly powerful, absolutely basic and standard, philosophical technique. More comprehensive scope, but both have unique virtues. Buy both, read, study, inwardly digest.

Work through these short books well-crafted exercises for your mind and work out your understandable distaste for formal methods and you'll be well on your way to mastery, wherever your philosophic interests take you. Good luck! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There are certain philosophers who concern themselves with page long proofs that one plus one makes two (Bertram Scudder) and others who think that the fact that they can formulate a sentence that implies a contradiction in their minds (Goedel) that they exist in reality or somehow disprove some claim (when every contradiction proves every claim.) But politics, ethics, and aesthetics have nothing to do with math, they surpass or emerge from it at least a few levels higher than chemistry.

Cosmology is a science, not a branch of philosophy, so again, the fact that it is mathematico-scientifical is an elephant. Epistemology is broader than math, since it includes qualia as well as quantity. Logic is similar to, and applies to algebra, but again, it deals with qualitative statements that are outside math. Perhaps I miss your point, but the broad answer to your question as posted is no. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you give the names of some contemporary Asian philosophers who focus on the eastern tradition? Is eastern philosophy taken seriously in the 21st century?

Philosophy has roots in both the eastern and the western world. Undoubtedly, there is a big difference between the two. Eastern traditions are more prescriptive and religious and less formal. Western traditions, on the other hand, are devoted to the formal and structural aspects of truth, reason and argumentation. However, why is western philosophy more popular in most universities around the world? Would you say that eastern philosophy is not respected because it is less rigorous and analytic compared to the western thought?

There are few, if any, journals devoted to the eastern thought today. Today, western philosophers receive more recognition than Asian or eastern philosophers. In fact, when we talk about the branches of philosophy, we always discuss the western branches of philosophy as if it is the only philosophical tradition we have.

Will I be taken seriously in the philosophical community if I would, for example, focus exclusively on eastern philosophy? In other words, is there still a place in the 21st century for an eastern philosopher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.223.218 (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

To your last question: No. You simply must be conversant in the history and basic formal methods of Western philosophy, in its contemporary analytic (and preferably also its Continental) tradition to intelligibly discuss with the non-indoctrinated any of the many particular non-Western philosophical traditions in an academic or professional philosophic context, "East" or "West".

The widely varied Western philosophical traditions, especially analytic, represent the Esperanto of comparative philosophers today. Know it or you're just not in the game. Because you can't communicate with the vast majority of living philosophers. Alternatively, become a monk.

Comparative philosophy is still a good, though not major league, philosophical game, with journals, conferences, etc. You'll not lack sparring -- or dancing, if you prefer -- partners. But the game is argumentative, however defined, or it simply isn't philosophy. No need for words.

You might enjoy Ben-Ami Scharfstein's A Comparative History of World Philosophy: From the Upanishads to Kant for an example of how it is done at its best. I like his pragmatist/phenomenological approach as a bridging stance between Eastern and Western, as well as Analytical and Continental philosophical traditions. I hope you do, too. (Don't miss his The Philosophers: Their Lives and the Nature of their Thought, an unusually perceptive thread study of some pinnacles of Western philosophy, many of whom were influenced by various "Oriental" philosophies, and especially valuable when read young - it's how I found my closest analogues in our tradition, and many of their Asian and Indian counterparts. His short and nuanced Ineffability: The Failure of Words in Philosophy and Religion is another must for comparatists. I found his books pivotal, mind-expanding.)

More on your other questions if time allows. ---- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

To your first question: "Can you give the names of some contemporary Asian philosophers who focus on the eastern tradition?"

Yes, I can.

Will I?

No, Grasshopper. That would give you nothing. It would take away your chance to learn. Most unphilosophical. Others will try to do your thinking for you, by giving you names. Ignore those. Find your own. Only then can you make your own.

As you may know, you can find -- and frequently download -- expertly cataloged papers and reviews of books written by professional contemporary philosophers working the Asian philosophical tradition: PhilPapers - Browse Asian Philosophy. Browse, find some interesting subtopic, download and skim a few related papers, just to gauge the density of argument and level of reliance on "Western" philosophical constructs and methods. That's who you're up against.

Another path: follow your curiosity with more controlled browsing in the three standard philosophy encyclopedias.

1. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Scholarly and conveniently online, but incomplete.
2. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, second edition. Become familiar with the Thematic Outline of Contents in volume 10. Libraries offer online access.
3. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Again, inquire if you have access through university or public library. East Asian philosophy, not a full article with references, but a navigation aid, was written by a Roger Ames. Who is he? Editor of top journal, Philosophy East and West and a prolific translator besides. That's one way to build your names list.

The One Forbidden Encyclopedia for Serious Philosophical Research is also known as Wikipedia. Why? A very good question, indeed. The name is shorter, for one. Another place, another time, perhaps.

Go to the monastery library (use the "look inside" feature of Amazon books) to briefly note the table of contents of various anthologies of Asian, Chinese, Indian, and Japanese philosophy. Not just the classics (though translators and editors of classic texts are frequently engaged in contemporary philosophy), but anthologies of contemporary developments, as well. Oxford, Cambridge, Hackett, Routledge, Blackwell, Princeton, Columbia, SUNY, and Hawai'i (in no particular order) are the names of some of the best publishers of such anthologies, and much else, in comparative philosophy.

Those are all the names you need to find the names of philosophers meaningful to you. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Are Holland and the Netherlands exactly synonymous?

A friend told me that Holland is only part of the Netherlands, but he could not explain which part. I've always thought they are just two names for the exact same country/territory. Who is correct? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried Holland? Technically Holland is a region within the Netherlands, but in colloquial speech it is often used to refer to the Netherlands as a whole (even by Dutch people). - Lindert (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Provinces and special municipalities of the Netherlands.

(edit conflict) Holland is the central part of the Netherlands, Zeeland is in the south, Friesland is in the north and Brabant is (I think) in the east. Friesland has its own languages. It's rather like people saying England when they mean the United Kingdom (except that they are "provinces" rather than "home nations" in the UK). See Provinces of the Netherlands. Alansplodge (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

They are not at all synonymous. It is unfortunate even many Dutch people (though mostly Hollanders) make this mistake. Although historically it is correct, it has been wrong for the best part of two centuries. I will note that for people from the North (like myself many many years ago), the use of Holland to describe them can be considered very insulting, on the same level as calling a Scot English. This stemming from the general arrogance and superiority complex of many Hollanders over the 'provincials' in the North and East. Fgf10 (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "historically correct"? —Tamfang (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I find this easy to remember by noting that "Netherlands" is plural; Holland being one of the lands in the "nether region" (although a check of Wiktionary definition suggests this would be rather insulting). —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Deliciously suspiciously, the capital of Saba is The Bottom. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, "The Bottom" is "officially" a part of the public body of the Netherlands. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I must share this anecdote. I was socialising with a bunch of Sri Lankan Australians last weekend. They generally speak quickly, and with their accent and my hearing issues, I don't always follow the conversation, and that's even when they don't spontaneously burst into Sinhalese, which is not often (that they don't do that). Anyway, the conversation had been about food, and somehow it turned to "private parts". I thought I was keeping up, but then they started talking about which ones they eat and which ones they give to the dog for a treat. Then the penny dropped: what they were calling "private parts" is what I call offal. Cute dialect, that Sri Lankan English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Up above, Fgf10 used that term "Dutch" to describe the people. I'm guessing they are people from anywhere in the Netherlands, not just Holland, but yet again the name doesn't help. Why are people from the Netherlands called Dutch? HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The word Dutch is cognate with deutsch, the self-appellation of Germans today. It was originally a self-appellation used across the whole continental West Germanic speech area, i.e. across today's Germany and the Netherlands, and was borrowed into English from Middle Dutch in that wide sense some time around the 15th century or so. After the 17th/18th centuries, in English, the term then stuck with only that part of the West Germanic area that was closest to England, namely the Netherlands, while in the Netherlands themselves it fell out of use as the inhabitants began to conceive of themselves more and more as a nation separate from the Germans to the east of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Originally 'Dutch' denoted all variants of the Germanic language(s) in modern-day Germany and the Netherlands (which did not exist as a separate country) and by extension it became synonymous with the people who spoke it. From the late medieval period, 'Dutch' was divided into Low-Dutch and High-Dutch, the former spoken in the low lands by the North-Sea, the latter more to the east. When the Low-Dutch people (in their language Nederduytsch) became independent (around 1600), they began calling their country 'de Nederlanden' ('the Netherlands') and their language they called 'Nederlands' ('Netherlandish'). Eventually they stopped using the term 'Dutch' to describe themselves. The High-Dutch, however, did not and their country they called simply 'Deutschland' ('Dutch-Land') and their language 'Deutsch' ('Dutch', hence Pennsylvania Dutch). The reason that 'Dutch' in English specifically denotes the people and language of the Netherlands is that historically (particularly in the 17th century), there was a lot of contact (both friendly and hostile) between England and the Low-Dutch people, and far less with the High-Dutch, who lived further inland. So out of convenience, the English dropped the prefix 'Low' and simply called them Dutch, and have been doing so ever since, even when the 'Dutch' themselves stopped doing this. - Lindert (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So what's the Dutch word for Dutch? Or, more correctly, what do the people of the Netherlands call themselves now? HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We call ourselves (and our language) 'Nederlands'. A Dutchman is a 'Nederlander' and a Dutchwoman a 'Nederlandse'. Collectively Dutch people are 'Nederlanders'. - Lindert (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes an awful lot of sense. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

But what makes more sense is that the expressions "Double Netherlandish" or "Double Hollandese" sound ridiculous, and would never have caught on.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Germany in the 1920s

Hi, I am writing an essay about Ebert and Germany in the 20s. I can't find some info which I think would benefit the essay, namely:

• What was the death toll per year in the period?
• How many died in the Spartacist Uprising?
• How many died in the Kapp Putsch?
• How many died as a result of starvation caused by hyperinflation?
• What were the names of Ebert's two sons who died in the First World War?

Thanks, 86.139.247.47 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Seek and ye shall find:

Spartacist uprising

Kapp Putsch

Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic

Friedrich Ebert

- Eron^Talk 18:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles listed in Category:1920s in Germany might be helpful.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

EronMain: I had looked at those, but they don't contain the info I wanted (at least, I couldn't see it), which is why I asked. Thanks, 86.139.247.47 (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(eced)For one Spartacist uprising claims ca. 100 civilians + 17 Freicorps members. de:Spartakusaufstand seems to be a lot more detailed, and, unlike our article, is well-referenced. It refers to a parliamentary investigation listing 156 dead. The total death toll of the following Germany-wide unrest is given as "about 5000". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

((edit conflict)) A cursory scan of the category that I suggested didn't find anything useful. The following PDF looks promising, however:

• Peukert, Detlev. "3. Germany in the 1920s". Facing History and Ourselves (PDF). pp. 109–153. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)

I couldn't find any answers in that source for your specific questions, but that chapter might provide some background.  —Sorry that I couldn't be more helpful, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Painting of Autumn Woman in Leaves - seeking artist name

A friend sent me this lovely image file - It almost looks like a Waterhouse painting (pre-Raphaelite at least) and yet I have been unable to find the original artist. Google searched for images also, and it just brought me back a version where someone had written a message across it. Help? http://www.legionofpagans.com/daily-greetings/4093/blessed-wodens-day-pagans

It looks like a photo to me, perhaps with CGI. The lower-right has "Airwolf", suggesting the moniker of the image's creator.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be "Kelly Miller-Lopez, of the band Woodland, holding one of Wendy Froud's masks. Photo by Brian Froud." [6] (Kelly Miller-Lopez is mentioned in our article on Faerieworlds). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Airwolf" appears to be "Elder Airwolf", the operator of the site. There's some stuff here. I couldn't be bothered digging through all the new-agey fooforall, but I assume there's contact info in there somewhere. Read carefully, however, as there's literally a quiz. Matt Deres (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - Sluzzelin! That's what I needed - I found the references to Airwolf (of course - since that was the link I posted doah). I just couldn't find the Original Artist! Awesome. Thank you. Amazing that it is a contemporary artist - but makes sense I guess that it is CGI - it looks a little too real. But is still beautiful and reminded me of Waterhouse. Thanks a bunch all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidnessone (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

September 26

What ever happened to the Puritans' religion?

I was reading this article. I'm no history expert, so I can't judge the accuracy. Anyway, what ever happened to the Puritans? Did their beliefs transform? Did their descendants die out? Did their anti-Catholicism become absorbed in modern-day Baptist teachings? Looking up "puritanical" brings up a meaning that it's a derogatory term. Since when did it become derogatory? The website seems to paint a picture that they valued a more democratic church environment, where clergy wouldn't be able to say, "Ha-ha! I'm better than you!"71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of what happened to the Puritans (at least in America) was that:

• They evolved into a number of Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches (particularly the latter).
• The Second Great Awakening caused the Methodists and Baptists to overwhelm those who weren't in the first category.

Baptists were historically as likely to be Arminian as Calvinist, and the increased popularity of Calvinism among American Baptists may have had to do with lapsed descendants of Puritans (nonetheless raised a strong belief in semi-predestinational Providence, like Abraham Lincoln) getting caught up.

Slightly off topic: Also, historical Baptists were (sadly) more likely to be anti-Catholic than modern Baptists. Transhumanism (although they haven't issued a statement yet, some views gave me the impression it won't be favorable when they do), LGBT marriage (for principle), and euthanasia are the main things keeping me from joining the Catholic Church (without leaving the Baptist Church, either). Most members of my church are good friends with Catholics. The Baptist anti-Catholics I've seen were mainly seen fringe fundamentalist groups clinging to 19th century beliefs. My (Baptist) grandparents were worried about my aunt marrying a Catholic, and their (mostly Baptist, some Methodist) grandparents wouldn't even associate with Catholics. However, it should be noted that I'm not a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, and usually leave a church when they start to take over. As such, my perception of Baptists is a bit skewed away from the most common conservative body among Baptists. Their current criticisms of the Catholic Church appear to be political rather than religious, however.

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And they all claim to be Christians. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There's some major points they manage to agree on. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

All of them? The fact that the Christian churches all argued that others also claiming to be Christians had so much of it wrong was one of the things that convinced me they were probably all wrong. But obviously some can deal with the contradictions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

See my comments here... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd think transhumanism is already ruled out by Catholic teaching, because it rests on the idea that you are essentially a mind, whereas Catholicism teaches that you are a body and soul. This is a core difference, so I would imagine a transhumanist would have difficulty assenting to Catholic teaching that touches on most things to do with the material world, human identity, or the nature of reality, let alone the afterlife. 86.136.125.63 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• As a child in elementary school I had two close friends who identified with the Pilgrims. One was Baptist, she warned me that my papism would condemn me to hell. The other was Presbyterian, and she warned me that my idolatry would send me to hell. Then when I was thirteen, my obviously gay Catholic priest gave a very odd sermon, which I finally figured out meant I was a heemaseshual, and that even though I was Catholic I was going to hell anyway. I think the great revivals of the 19th century explain how the Puritans retained their anti-Catholicism, but became political crusaders rather than witch burners. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Many individual Puritan congregations also converted to Unitarianism. Broadly speaking, the above are correct, regarding Congregationalists. That's the modern term for churches in New England that were begun by the Puritan settlers. But see also First Parish Church in Plymouth, First Church in Boston and First Parish Church (Duxbury, Massachusetts), three VERY early churches in Massachusetts that trace their history to the first settlers. It describes, briefly, the conversion from Congregationalism to Unitarianism. Congregational church#Unitarianism also describes the broader trend. --Jayron32 10:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The article linked by the person asking the question implies that most Puritans came to New England after the Commonwealth of England, but in fact, the peak of the Puritan migration was in the late 1630s and early to mid-1640s before the Commonwealth. In England, most Puritans became Dissenters, later known as Nonconformists, after the Act of Uniformity of 1662. Many became part of the English Congregationalist Church, which was absorbed (along with Presbyterians, some of whose congregations were also descendants of the Puritans) in 1972 by the United Reformed Church. Marco polo (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Property in the Enlightenment

I know that natural rights, social contract theory, popular sovereighty, and democracy/republicanism were important themes in the Age of Enlightenment, but how central was the concept of property to it? I look throughout history and across the world and property seems to be a rather ubiquitous institution present everywhere from feudal Europe to totalitarian North Korea. Was property really that important an idea to Enlightenment philosophers? — Melab±1 ☎ 02:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Property#Modern philosophy briefly outlines the thoughts of several enlightenment thinkers. --Jayron32 10:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we still living in a world dominated by the western civilization?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are we living in a world dominated by the western civilization? The immense global influence of the western powers remains unparalleled by any other non-western cultures and civilizations today. History also tells us that the western civilization has brought about most of the significant events that shaped the modern world. From pop-culture to world politics and economy, the western powers are undeniably on top. Does this mean that the west has upper-hand in out time? What is your take on this matter?Sabone123 (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Our take on this matter is "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." See the sign at the top. Also, this sounds a bit like an essay topic, which we also don't help with. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See the following works:

The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. This website (and this page in particular) exemplifies his main argument.

The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama. Rendered otiose by the subsequent rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

The Triumph of the West by John Roberts.

176.227.135.82 (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

boat on dry land

A short distance between AT&T Park and Red's Java House in San Francisco is a boat which is on dry land. It's used for corporate parties. What's the boat called?74.66.90.189 (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you want the name of that structure, or the general phenomenon (in some manifestations called "boats in a moat")? AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the first. The location seems to be here, perhaps the OP could pinpoint the boat he's talking about on that photo. --Viennese Waltz 13:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the boat in the photo. Perhaps a street view would be more helpful.74.66.90.189 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell us where in those several blocks you saw it. —Tamfang (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The boat on dry land is probably near some other docked vessels in the area.74.66.90.189 (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Where are you seeing it in Google Maps? What's the nearest street intersection and/or other building? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it in the photo, I just linked to a photo of the area between AT&T Park and Red's Java House. I expected the OP to tell us where on the photo the boat is. --Viennese Waltz 16:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The OP seems not to be able to find it. Presumably he needs to go into Google Maps Street View and pinpoint it. By the time he does that, though, he might also have the answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's try King and Brannan Streets.74.66.90.189 (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it. Have you tried Google Maps Street View? Do you live anywhere near there? Where did you see a reference to this shore-bound boat? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While I was in the San Francisco Bay Area, I'd pass the boat while riding a light-rail vehicle from and to the Caltrain Depot.74.66.90.189 (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

List of religions and spiritual traditions

Except Abrahamic Religions all other religions are classified as per their Geographical locations or as per their philosophical names. My question is, On what basis the name Abraham is given the religions which are originated in Middle east regions. Even Abraham is not a prominent figure in all Middle east religions. So if my above argument is correct please change title from Abrahamic Religions to Middle East Religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.84.1 (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

See Abrahamic religions for an explanation. The name is not synonymous with Middle Eastern religions. There are several Middle Eastern faiths (Zoroastrianism, for one example) which do not bear historic connection with Abrahamic religions. Abrhamaic religions DO have a common history, which is why they are grouped together. --Jayron32 11:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ezra Pound's Envoi (1919) (Hugh Selwyn Mauberley): Who was the woman "that sang me once that song of Lawes"?

You may be familiar with Ezra Pound's poem Envoi (1919) which ends the first part of his work Hugh Selwyn Mauberley.

If you are, do you happen to know who the woman was that Pound says "sang me once that song of Lawes"?

Thanks.

Contact Basemetal here 13:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no indication that he's referring to a real person, especially since the poem was a pastiche of "Go, Lovely Rose" by Edmund Waller [7]. This essay describes the woman in the poem as "a symbolic personification of Beauty". --Viennese Waltz 13:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Viennese Waltz for this reply. I would encourage however other editors to not necessarily consider the question definitively answered. If you have convenient access to a biography of Pound maybe there's something there about the poem. I also seem to remember (maybe mistakenly) something about this in the Norton Anthology of Poetry. Does anyone know of an annotated edition of H. S. Mauberley? Contact Basemetal here 15:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't claim to be up on the latest in Poundian scholarship, but I don't believe I've ever seen a definitive identification. For what it's worth, Pound's own answer to this question, when it was asked by his biographer Charles Norman, was "Your question is the kind of damn fool enquiry into what is nobody's damn business." Deor (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Deor. Ezra being his usual consistent self. How is a biographer supposed to worry about which enquiries are ok with the subject and which are not? When Ezra didn't like a question apparently it was "the kind of damn fool enquiry into what is nobody's damn business". I suspect there's a few of those he'd been asked over the years. But it's not a biographer's job to worry if information might or not annoy his subject. Why work with a biographer at all then? Contact Basemetal here 11:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an identification after all. Got it through the Ezra Pound Society. The relevant part of the email I received goes as follows:

There was some critical dialogue about this question many years ago, but the best place to look is a note in Paideuma by Eva Hesse, "Raymonde Collignon, or the Duck That Got Away," Pd 10 (Winter 1981): 583-84. There she prints a personal 1953 letter from Pound that makes the ID pretty conclusive. The real question is whether it matters -- to the poem, that is. I think it doesn't.

But for the curious, there's sufficient information about Raymonde Collignon in Ezra Pound and Music, and the correspondence at the Beinecke indicates an enduring friendship. Pound probably first heard music by Lawes (Henry and/or his brother William) during an early visit with Dolmetsch. He often persuaded singer friends to sing music for him privately that was not performed in public. Insight into this habit can be found in an item missed by all of EP's biographers, a chapter in Grace Lovat Fraser's memoir In the Days of My Youth (London: Cassell, 1970), where she describes his efforts to get her to sing early music.

Once I knew it was Raymonde Collignon I could find not much but something about her, for example from this page at the Online Archive of California (whatever that is), that she was born in 1894 (but no date of death) and that it's been known for some time that she "provided Pound his singing model for the closing lyrics of the two sections of Hugh Selwyn Mauberly".

Cheers,

Contact Basemetal here 09:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

She really "went to town" then

When did the expression come into existence of she "went to town" meaning she really worked hard at it then to accomplish something? Where was it first used?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The website http://www.word-detective.com/ is a good place to research these things. You can even make requests for words or phrases they haven't already covered. --Jayron32 16:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

From the OED, under 'town' P2. to go to town . (the following is a direct quote with usage citations, sorry about the formatting):

b slang (orig. Jazz).

To do something energetically, enthusiastically, or without restraint, esp. in response to a particular situation or opportunity. Freq. with on.

1933 Fortune Aug. 47/1 Returning to Trombonist Brown, he can get off, swing it, sock it, smear it, or go to town (all of which mean syncopate to beat the band).

1934 Winnipeg Free Press 1 Nov. 18/3 Some of these speedy skaters will really be able to ‘go to town’ on that spacious surface in St. Paul.

1958 A. Hocking Epit. for Nurse ix. 159 The local papers naturally went to town over the murder of Sister Biggs.

1960 N. Hilliard Maori Girl ii. ix. 128 ‘It's funny as hell to see girls fight.’.. ‘They're really tough sorts, and boy! do they go to town. And swear! Punching and spitting and pulling hair.’

1972 P. M. Hubbard Whisper in Glen vii. 67 Whoever had painted the thing, he had gone to town on his picture.

2001 Contact May 38/2 The exhibitors really go to town, sparing little expense in their efforts to create colour and entertain visitors.

-- So, like many of our phrases, it seems we can thank the Jazz community. Note that OED is not claiming that 1933 is the first usage, just the earliest one in print that they are aware of that clearly communicates the concept. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

People in rural areas and suburbs often need to literally go to town to do business. I've always figured that's where it was first used, but citation needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

That's my OR take on the expression. If you exchange "go to town" with "take care of business", in the vernacular sense it usually has the same connotation. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The old 8:15 into the city. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Dag-nabbit!   Now I can't get that song out of my head!  71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I can't get 71.20.250.51 out of my head... DuncanHill (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not replace it with a different song? Like The Ring of the Nibelung, for example. I defy anyone to replay it in their head any more than 0 times. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably it's an American variation of the English phrase 'to paint the town red'. 86.173.209.70 (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, that's originally an American term for a wild night. Wouldn't make grammatical sense to paint the town red on something that isn't a town (or like one). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

A New York phrase, according to the Oxford English Dictionary's Twitter account, predating Wiktionary's first known use by a year. Somebody with an account there and here may want to change that. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

September 27

Nudes in early 20th century France

Hi there, I'm expanding the article on September Morn and am looking for a general (accessible) reference that gives some background on the treatment of nudes in 20th century French art and meets WP:RS well enough to be cited. If possible, something like an encyclopedia entry would be nice. Does anybody know of anything? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find anything obvious in the "Research Resources" at Art History Resources on the Web site, but you might have better luck.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Look at Heather Dawkins', The Nude in French Art and Culture, 1870-1910 (Cambridge, 2002). Meaty review: Nudes Under Siege (PDF) by Patricia Failing in Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities (2003). -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was hoping for something a little more easily accessed for one based in Indonesia (i.e. very unlikely the book would be available here), but that review should point out the main topics to browse in Google Books. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

On a less academic level, French postcards were rather culturally prominent in early 20th century France... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be easier if you said what information specifically you are after. The painting was made at a period when treatment of the nude was undergoing dramatic change sand was the subject of extensive debate. I can easily find sources on specific issues. Paul B (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Julius Streicher and the German Democratic Party

Under "early life", the article on Julius Streicher says he joined the German Democratic Party in 1909. Its own page says it was only founded in 1918, and as a left-liberal group devoted to protecting minorities, it really doesn't seem like Streicher's bag anyway. Were there several DDPs, or did Streicher actually start off in a different party? 213.205.251.92 (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The German article doesn't mention him joining any party in 1909. DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings have him saying he joined the "Democratic Party" in 1911 (page 306, 28 April 1946, see here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In the hope nobody objects, I've changed the date in Streicher's article to 1911, removed the inaccurate link to the DDP, and refeenced it to DuncanHill's court testimony link. Any idea what party or group he was actually referring to? It obviously wasn't the 1918 creation. 213.205.251.92 (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - you just saved me doing the same! I can't so far find another "Democratic Party", but there were of course a host of parties coming and going at the time, both nationally and provincially. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Arabic name abbreviation

Special:Random led me to Hubasha, which had extremely poor English that I've rewritten. One part, however, I can't fix: someone's name, Da'ud b. cIsa b. Musa, governor of Mecca in the early ninth century AD. Do we have an article on the guy? I don't know how to look for him, not knowing what "b." or "c" (before "Isa") denote; I'm guessing that "b." is "bin", but I can't imagine what "cIsa" represents. All sourcing goes to what appear to be scholarly publications in Arabic, so I can't use them myself and can't reject them on WP:RS grounds. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"B." is just an all-purpose abbreviation for the word which can take a number of forms depending on context or dialect (at least "Ibn" and "Bn" in classical Arabic and "Bin" in vernacular Arabic -- with a number of other possibilities if i'rab vowels or further dialect variations are taken into account). The "c" in "cIsa" is supposed to be "ʿ" a transcription of the voiced pharyngeal letter ع ayn (strict IPA symbol [ʕ])... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've seen ^c used for ע and its Arabic equivalent, but only superscripted. How would you render this person's name? [maybe I should have gone to WP:RDL] Perhaps the answer is in the Arabic article on Hubasha. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It could be transcribed a number of ways, depending on context or the particular transliteration conventions used. In article al-Amin, it appears as "Dawud ibn Isa"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

His name is (داود بن عيسی بن موسی). cIsa should be 'isa. Omidinist (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone find a source for this graphic? (UK European Election results)

This [8] graphic, found on European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom).

I'm working on an article for which I could really use this data, but the graphic is unsourced. I think the data is real - I've found a couple of breakdowns tucked away in obscure corners of individual council websites, and it checks out - but I can't find a collection of the results by local authority anywhere, and normally I'd know where to look. It'd be really helpful to me, and also to the Wikipedia article, which is presenting unsourced data right now.

Thanks much, lovely helpful Wikipedians! Dan Hartas (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the author at their talk page[9]?WinterWall (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good call, thank you, I'll try that. Dan Hartas (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You can find a summary of the 2014 EP election results by district here: European Parliament Elections 2014 - Commons Library Research Paper. And a slightly larger version of the same map (p. 32). Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 28

followup on what did trans people do before modern surgery

We recently had a question on the above topic, I think on this desk. I had mentioned a reference on Siberian shamanism. This comment from a very old thread might also be relevant: Lev Shternberg documents men living as women (by dress and speech) among the Nivkh people in his classic work, The Social Organization of the Gilyak (Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History). μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

American Civil War Veterans

Were the majority of American Civil War Veterans that moved to California, Union army or Confederate army veteran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.236.65 (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As a first step. I checked to see if this information was recorded in the US Census in years after the Civil War. In the 1870 Census, they just asked where the person and his parents were born, which would give some inkling, but it did not say whether they were a veteran and for which side if so. Similarly the 1880 and 1900 Census did not inquire about veteran information. The 1890 Census was partially burned by accident, then most of the surviving census returns were destroyed by the government for reasons that remain unclear. Finally we get to the 1910 Census, where question 30 asked whether the person was a veteran of the US or Confederate army or navy. I have not found the instructions yet which the censustakers used in coding the responses. This datasource would at lease let you know which side they were on if they were in California 45 years after the war ended.I expect that cross tabulations of this information were created in the years after 1910. A random sample could be examined as a crude check. Edison (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The instruction in 1910 said to ask males who might have been in the war if they were veterans of the was and to enter UA, CA, UN, CN for Union or Confederate army or navy for veterans per [10]. Some of the forms have numbers in this field which do not seem to be related to veteran status, but rather to other classifications for the individual. Edison (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a thoroughly researched and scientific answer, but I looked at an arbitrarily choses enumeration district in southern California, one in Los Angeles County, and one in northern California, and in each case there were far more Union Army veterans than Confederate Army vets, and out of 62 veterans identified in the pages examined, only 4 were Confederate. There were far more Union soldiers than Confederate to begin with, but not that big a discrepancy. There might have been certain vicinities where ex-confederates tended to migrate. Or they might have lied to the census taker, but it seems unlikely they would worry about retribution 55 years after the war. Or maybe the Confederates tended to die younger. Edison (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 29

Gender ratio in 1967 Miami ?

The 1967 film Tony Rome contained the statement that "Women outnumber men 10 to 1 here" (in Miami). I can't believe that was true. But, were there significantly more women than men then ? If so, what was the cause ? (I'm guessing Cuban women escaping to Miami while their men were killed or imprisoned in Cuba might be one reason.) StuRat (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoo, spring break? When you're surrounded by scantily clad loud drunk beach bodies, it can seem like more women than in, say, Calgary, all hidden in coats. At least to men. Apparently, the sex economy in Miami exceeds $300 million, quadrupling this year’s payroll for the Miami Heat basketball team. 1967 may have been a bit less wild, but it's been a "hot" destination for a while. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:06, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Searches for Employment

I'm familiar with the likes of Monster, Indeed, and the other sites of that family, but are there any other available options for searching for employment? These websites seem very limited in their scope, and I'm curious as to what other options are out there. Both domestic (US) and international listings are a bonus. Cheers. Hubydane (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)