Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

January 16

Another SDA question

Followup on the section just above...Among meat-eating Seventh-Day Adventists, are cheeseburgers considered a permissible food? I'm seeing lots of webpages, including our Seventh-day Adventist Church article, that say that SDAs are expected to keep kashrut, but I'm not clear whether that involves obeying Talmudic standards (including meat-and-milk, which absolutely forbids cheeseburgers, even though all the components are clean by themselves) or developing their own standards on how to obey the biblical text. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says they keep to the rules of Leviticus 11. The milk-meat prohibition is found in Exodus and Deuteronomy so perhaps not. Rmhermen (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leviticus 11 does not mention the milk-and-meat prohibition, and even there the restriction has been subject to an incredible amount of rule creep. The original rule is not to boil a calf in it's mother's milk. This has come to mean no dairy products and no meat of any kind, to the point that chicken parmesan, ironically, is forbidden, but not egg in one's stuffed poultry. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I learned this by accident a few years ago, while eating at a pizza restaurant with several friends including two Orthodox Jews. I understood why they weren't willing to have a "normal" meat pizza, regardless of the type of meat, but I was visibly confused when they said that they couldn't eat chicken on the pizza; I figured it was safe, since chickens don't produce milk. I feel marginally better, seeing from Milk and meat#The term "halev immo" that a prominent rabbi took the same position! But yes, basically my question was asking whether they follow a specifically SDA interpretation of the text, or whether they follow a Orthodox Jewish interpretation; even if you ignore everything outside of Leviticus 11, there's still plenty of relevant text in the Talmud. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a Jewish point of view, see http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm § "Separation of Meat and Dairy" LongHairedFop (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These sources [1] (blog, but links to better sources like [2]), [3], [4], [5], [6] & [7] suggest it's more complicated than simply following Leviticus 11. It sounds like it's a weird combination of beliefs relating to the health benefits of certain diets, and what the bible says. In particular, it sounds like there's no strict adherence to the dietary laws or Leviticus and Deuteronomy or anything else in the bible. Rather, vegetarianism is seen as the ideal, with pork and other meats discouraged or forbidden for Jewish people in the bible seen as especially bad and unhealthy if you do eat meat (so are rarely, if ever, eaten). There is a suggestion that eating milk and eggs is something that may eventually have to be abandoned, and some Adventists are vegans although it sounds like the current most common message remains that such consumption is currently okay in moderation. I can't find any specific comment on the milk and meat issue, but considering as has been said above, the actual bibilical comment is fairly unclear, it's perhaps not surprising this part is largely ignored. I did find these discussions, [8] & [9], obviously not RS but it does suggest the prohibition may be viewed as a moral issue relating to the connection between a mother and its offspring, rather than a health issue so not perceived the same as eating pork and other 'unclean' animals. Note that the source on Ellen G. White's writings above suggest the unclean animal thing took a while to come about, with an initial concentration on pork (which in itself wasn't initially widely held compared to the vegetarism). Also from some of the sources, it seems Adventists may discourage the combination of milk and refined sugar (as well as a general reduction of refined sugar in general). I did find [10] which recommends against combining milk with anything but I can't find evidence that it's widely held. All in all, it seems to me a cheeseburger isn't something many Adventists will consider good to eat, but they may not view it quite the same as a bacon cheeseburger, although that isn't absolutely forbidden per se anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cities whose borders and administrative divisions remained the same since the 1800s or earlier than the 1800s (all the way up to today)?

As far as I know, both Paris (whose external borders and the borders of its administrative divisions remained unchanged since 1860) and New York City (whose external borders and the borders of its administrative divisions remained unchanged since 1898) both qualify for this.

That said, exactly which other cities, if any, qualify for this/meet this criteria of mine?

Also, to clarify, I am talking about large cities here (I will let you define "large" here); finally, my view on this question is this: the larger the city, the better. Futurist110 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the addition of some landfill on the waterfronts,San Francisco borders appear unchanged from this 1861 map; the border between SF and San Mateo County was established sometime after 1856. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Act of Consolidation, 1854, which helped to make Philadelphia one of the biggest cities in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DC gave it's trans-river land to Virginia pretty early. Now it's a cut-off square. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it became a single municipality in 1871 (previously, Georgetown and Washington itself were two cities within the District.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How far does legal snapping turtle discrimination go?

As I was revisiting an old New England mystery, I stumbled onto another in the sidebar.

In 1971, Connecticut enacted legislation handing over power to regulate trade in basically everything with a face, except snapping turtles. Apparently, everything else went smoothly, but the demand for unregulated snapping turtle meat was just too high. Now someone (not a turtle) demands equality.

This seems like one of those quirky things one state does (the politician's name is Lesser), but does bullshit like this exist in other places? And is anyone outraged? Not here, I mean. In the referenceable world. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Seems like it was deliberately worded to counteract previous legislation which outlawed the sale of turtle meat. According to Senator Stanley J. Pac - "The present statute permits the sale and exchange, possession of pelts hides and what have you of wild animals and quadrupeds. If they are legally acquired. However, inadvertently, it forbids the use of snapping turtle as food. So this is the real purpose. This would permit the use of smapping turtles as a commercial food. I urge the passage of this momentous legislation."[11]Hack (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To which the Chair replies: "I was reading in the Book of Solomon, just the other night, The Voice of the Turtle is heard in the land." And then he passes the turtle instead of the law. Did marijuana happen to be legal in 1971 Connecticut? Thanks for finding this! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Connecticut was unaware of the cosmological significance of the turtle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this Lesser guy doesn't pull a Yertle. I found this 1968 prog album which may explain that Chairman. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what this is explaining, but it's pretty good, in a crappy way. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have been oblivious to the problem in my own backyard. Snapping turtles are considered an endangered species and the only reptile open for hunting in Ontario. At least as of 2012, when Garfield Dunlop noticed "It doesn’t make any sense to me.” InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

A few months later, the law changed. A little. Now if you catch one, you have to report it. That's almost like protecting them. Which they don't have to do, because it's not technically endangered anymore, just "of special concern". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it's good eating according to some very unreliable sources. [12][13] Hack (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in at least one eminently readable one: Terry Pratchett's Small Gods features a deity that through misfortune (i.e. not being believed in much) ends up in the form of a turtle, and repeatedly finds Himself threatened with the cooking-pot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty cool. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:10, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

He's a tortoise! Great A'Tuin is a turtle. Yes, I know that taxonomically tortoises are in the turtle order. But if Pratchett had meant 'turtle' he'd have said 'turtle'. --ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. I should check my sources more carefully. Right you are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But so are most of the "normal" animals. Why do snapping turtles keep getting special laws? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario tried to change the Environmental Bill of Rights in 2010. The Ministry of Natural Resources declared public interest in turtles didn't warrant wasting their time, and damage by postponing to snapping turtles was "relatively low" (despite admitting they don't collect population or harvesting data), but they'd figure something out by September 2014. Such a specific animal to have such a problem with. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

"handing over power" to whom? —Tamfang (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "environmental protection commissioner", whoever that is. The one who handles the other quadrupeds. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

This guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Going back to the original declaration of open season. I wonder if this may have been a factor - "In Connecticut and elsewhere, snapping turtles have a reputation for decimating game fish and waterfowl populations." [14] Hack (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hunters and sport fishers have huge power in some legislative domains. E.g. Ducks_Unlimited wants very badly to conserve their ability to shoot ducks, and groups like the American sportfishing association [15] can also exert pretty strong pressure. So it seems reasonable to me that protecting sport hunting would be a factor in snapping turtle control. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks Unlimited are conservationists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks Unlimited are conservationists who's website contains a great deal of information on how to hunt ducks. [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some subtext in this discussion which would seem to imply that some people believe that hunters cannot be also conservationists. Of course they can. The hobby on the one hand, and the political position on the other hand, have nothing to do with one another. --Jayron 32 20:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Nothing to do with one another'? Really? That seems a strange assertion to make. Particularly after I pointed out that the conservationists website includes information regarding the best way to hunt ducks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be less obfuscatory. The tone and subtext of the conversation showed that some people were expressing incredulity at the notion that a hunter could be a conservationist, or that there was some how a moral contradiction that was introduced that a group which hunts would also advocate for conservation. I was merely pointing out that there is no moral contradiction. One can have a hobby such as hunting, and still be a conservationist and want to protect the natural environment. One could also hunt, and not give a shit. The one fact (that one hunts) neither requires nor denies the other fact. You could be a hunter and support conservation. You could also be a hunter and not support conservation. The two concepts are thus unrelated to each other. One should not be surprised or skeptical about a hunting group that also supports environmental causes. Such people are perfectly capable of being earnest environmentalists and also avid hunters. --Jayron 32 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks Unlimited's "Position on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and Hunting". ---Sluzzelin talk 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether there is a 'moral contradiction' between hunting and conservation seems to be a matter of opinion - and this is a reference desk, where we aren't supposed to be offering our personal opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken no stance one way or the other. I was merely pointing out the problem with people who express opinions by means of tone of writing in the way they ask questions; who cast aspersions by posing questions in an incredulous way, or make statements of an incredulous tone, so as to give themselves plausible deniability in their aspersion-casting. I don't care one way or another about the actual opinions here, I just don't want people to obfuscate their own opinion in subtext. --Jayron 32 04:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their being conservationists is fact, not opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's not just an opinion, but a factual statement that can in principle be referenced, such as by statistics that show how many wetlands actually have been saved by DU. (There's always been more leeway for OR here than in article space.) But what matters more is that this is not the original question. — Sebastian 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a conservation movement and an environmental movement. One group wants animals around for their children to kill and/or eat. One doesn't consider them "resources". But yeah, ducks get special treatment, too. Thanks for reminding me the snapping turtle isn't in the margin by himself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, January 17, 2015 (UTC)

Sought: study on a certain group of entries (fiction)

Do you know of any study that deals with Wikipedia's entries on fiction? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you should be waaay more specific. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I meant entries on single items (works) that would belong to Category:Literature (by which I mean fictional literature, e.g. Shakespeare & Co., not what people mean when they say "in the literature"). So this could include poetry, drama, whatever genre, really. Do you know if anyone ever studied how Wikipedia portrays such works? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a directory of various Wikipedia Projects on all types of literature, see WP:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Culture/Language_and_literature. Links should lead you to genre Project pages & thus to Categories useful for narrowing in on specific interests.

Richard Rogers, "Wikipedia as a Cultural Reference", ch. 8 in his Digital Methods (MIT, 2013), while dealing not with the Western canon, but with Wikipedia coverage of the Srebrenica massacre according to Dutch, Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian Wikipedias, looks like a good place to start for an empirical approach that could be applied to most any subject matter.

Thanks, Paulscrawl, will take a look at it. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have in mind? - Paulscrawl (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to know more about what experts say might be considered the prevalent theoretical slant in descriptions of literary works in Wikipedia entries. Can any approach be rated as being the dominant one in entries on literary works of art? E.g., in case NOR is adhered to, from which section of reliable published sources are references taken? And which point of view among the wealth of information about research results is mostly considered to be neutral enough NPOV? Just a single one, and if yes, which one in particular? If no, which approaches to a certain literary work of art are deemed relevant? It is questions like these that I seek experts' answers to. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "fictional literature" would be things like a fictional book, e.g. the Necronomicon or Air Chrysalis. Shakespeare is just "fiction" :) I tried to search google scholar for analysis of WP articles on fiction but couldn't find anything that relevant. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terms and classifications are always interesting, it seems. See my answer to the article pointed out below. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This paper might be relevant - the authors compare English Wikipedia's coverage of topics to that of the corpus of books published in English. About literature, they say: "One of the most marked differences, that in language and literature, is to be expected. An encyclopedia is unlikely to map the publishing industry in every regard, and since nearly 15% of new books published each year are fictional, and fiction is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, there is a discrepancy. In practice, there is actually a substantial number of articles that represent literary criticism on Wikipedia, otherwise the disparity would be even greater. The documentation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for example, or commentary on the Harry Potter series, is voluminous. ... Fans drive the creation and development of articles ... in the fine arts (e.g., comics) and literature. "184.147.128.97 (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a pretty strong tenet, I'd say: "fiction is not appropriate for an encyclopedia" ;-) thank you for your pointer, 184.147.128.97. Not quite my direction of interest at this point, but certainly a surprise which might generate new questions. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I think that even listing data about material objects like books (e.g. in infoboxes) says something like "this is the minimum you need to know about x", and especially so if the entry contains practically no other information on this work of art. Just why is this considered the minimum? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

Effects of hate speech

What is the state of the evidence on hate speech? Does saying words really increase hatred for minorities? Might make people stick up for them even more? Or are people who argue about it just assuming things?--79.97.222.210 (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some background, check out Fighting words and Incitement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing about hate speech requires thinking about hatred, so to that effect, it works regardless of who spoke of hating whom. Thinking hate leads to hating, especially when someone else thinks differently. Find any semi-popular online video or article of someone hating something and check out the comments. Hating the haters (or "sticking up" for the hated) doesn't do a damn thing for love, but it's way easier to touch a stranger with hate. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, January 17, 2015 (UTC)

Hello. OP here again. I am only interested in empirical evidence showing a direct correlation between hate speech and violent crime, I have read enough unsupported theories. I live in a country where a little over 20 years ago portraying homosexuality in a positive light carried a jail term, that arrested people for promoting birth control and banned books like catcher in the rye. None of these things stopped a sudden liberal revolution, in fact they probably added flame to the fire. I think that's reason to be extremely skeptical of unsupported theories about censorship.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this document produced by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, "There is no direct, incontrovertible evidence linking hate speech or propaganda to violence." However, the document goes on to present several plausible reasons to believe that hate speech is likely to increase hatred for minorities and is likely to increase violence against them. RomanSpa (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can also increase hatred by the minority toward the ones saying it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that." - Tom Lehrer Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw a distinction: "Minority X is bad" probably won't cause much of an effect, while "Minority X is bad so we should kill them all" probably will. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking the wrong question. Doesn't matter if it increases hatred for minorities, because it's an act of violence against us. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An act of verbal violence, but one that's easier to recover from than being gunned down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) (although I believe he's the son of God, for this purpose let us instead assume he is a historical figure as explained below.) Please describe historical jesus's biography

Hi,

I believe that Jesus is the son of God, and our Lord and Savior. However for the purposes of this question I am interested in some historical facts. Therefore, I would ask for answers with the (false) assumption that Jesus was, very specifically, a historical person who (for the sake of argument) had a specific hallucinatory experience that caused him to begin to teach (rather than actual fact in my own real opinion, which is that he was the Son of God.)

From this (false) perspective, could you please answer the following questions:

- What is known about the early life of this historical person? Did he go to school? DId he travel?

- Assuming that he would go on to convert at least 12, but several million people to his teachings, I would like to compare his philosophy or teachings/learning/etc in his early twenties, with other great historical people who have convinced a lot of people of something new. (Such as: Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, Newton, etc.)

So, through his twenties, did he already express some ideas that were recorded somewhere? Biographically, what was he doing?

I realize we may not have answers to many of these questions, however I am very interested in learning what we do know. If there is anything inappropriate about this question, kindly edit it in-place to read in an acceptable way! Thank you for your attention. p.s. I've googled "biographical life of jesus" but did not get a wikipedia ink. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Jesus is a good source for what the modern academic/historical view of Jesus. To answer the more specific questions:

Did he go to school? - No information, although it is to be assumed from the available information, including the frequency of schooling in general at the area at the time, that the answer is probably no.
Did he travel? - The only instances of alleged travel known are the alleged flight to Egypt and the alleged trip to India or the east. Neither of these possibilities has much support in the modern academic community.
Did he express some ideas that were recorded somewhere? Biographically, what was he doing? The answer to the second is, basically, we don't know. There are no particular reliable sources which say anything that has widespread support, although there are a number of theories, most of which don't have much support, that he was doing some particular things or other particular things, depending on the individual theory. Did he express some ideas that were recorded somewhere? Yeah, some of his statements extant in and alluded to in the New Testament are considered by modern academia to come from him, and there are a few agrapha and other statements, like those in the Talmud and maybe a few specific comments from some of the noncanonical books which have support as being from him, although that support probably doesn't rise to consensus of the academic community very often. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article; Unknown years of Jesus, which just about says it all. See also Finding in the Temple when Jesus was aged 12, "the only event of the later childhood of Jesus mentioned in a gospel". For non-Christian historical references to Jesus (there aren't many), see Historicity of Jesus. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good place to start is the article Quest for the historical Jesus. Check out the references at the bottom of the page. They contain many books that touch on this subject. I'll quote one interesting reference here:

Amy-Jill Levine in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. Princeton University Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 page 4: "There is a consensus of sorts on a basic outline of Jesus' life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate" - Lindert (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, thanks for those links. In terms of trying to synthesize them -- do we have any indication whatsoever about any of Jesus's beliefs prior to when he started teaching in his thirties? What would be an example? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no accounts of his beliefs before he started teaching in any of the sources, so we just have to admit we don't know. We can deduce a few things about what might have influenced his thought, though. Josephus refers to four main schools of Judaism - Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots - and from the Gospel accounts Jesus seems closest to the Pharisees, although he must have had his differences from them as he is most often depicted as arguing with Pharisees. He was also a follower of John the Baptist, so must have been influenced by him.

Constructing a historical biography of Jesus that is universally agreed upon is virtually impossible. The main sources are the ones you, as a believing Christian, will already be aware of - the canonical Gospels. There are of course other, apocryphal gospels, but they are of little use for our purposes - for example, the Gospel of Thomas, probably the earliest of them and the most likely to contain some genuinely early traditions, contains no narrative, only a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. But you have to read the Gospels, not as a religious person seeking inspiration, but as a historian seeking reliable information. You need to critically assess the reliability of each source, and be prepared to discount information that you deem unreliable. One historian's attempt to do this is Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorised Version. You may disagree with some of his conclusions, but I'd recommend reading it to give you an idea of the thought processes and arguments involved.

Take, for example, Jesus' trial before Pilate. There are two distinct versions of this - in the synoptic gospels Jesus says very little, while in John he and Pilate have a fairly in-depth philosophical conversation. On top of that, none of the gospels have a plausible source for this event - no-one was present at the trial in either account who could have passed on the details of what was said. So a historian would have to conclude that the accounts of the trial are unreliable and should be discounted as history.

However, take what was written on the sign attached to Jesus' cross. The four Gospels give slightly different versions, but all agree that "King of the Jews" was part of it. Robin Lane Fox argues that this is likely to be historical, because "King of the Jews" is not a title applied to Jesus in Christian theology, so it's unlikely to be an example of later Christians projecting their theology back to Jesus' time.

You also have to read the Gospels in light of what's known of the period from other sources. Matthew says Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great, while Luke says he was born at the time Quirinius, governor of Syria, carried out a census. We know from other sources that Herod died in 4BC, and Judaea was only put under the authority of Quirinius in AD 6, after Herod's son Archilaus had been deposed by the Romans. Quirinius carried out a census because Judea was now under direct Roman control and its inhabitants needed to be taxed, as opposed to previously when it was independent under a native ruler who paid tribute to Rome. Galilee, however, was still independent under another of Herod's sons, Antipas (the one who killed John the Baptist), so if Jesus' parents lived there the census would not have applied to them. So we can discount Luke's version of the nativity.

To Lindert's quote of Levine's account of Jesus' biography, I'd add a few more things that are likely to be historical. His mother's name was Mary, and he had brothers and sisters. He was a tradesman of some sort, and lived in Capernaum in Galilee. After he went to Jerusalem, he caused a disturbance at the Temple. He either claimed to be the Messiah or was claimed to be the Messiah by others - the Messiah being generally understood to be the rightful king who would restore the Israelite nation to independence by military force - which is why the Romans had him killed, as they generally did to Messianic claimants. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"- which is why the Romans had him killed, as they generally did to Messianic claimants."... .why did we end up believing him, (but dont even know the name of any other messianic claimants of that era.) (continuing the perspective you wrote the above paragraphs in, nicknack009). 212.96.61.236 (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speaking as a fellow Christian who also has an interest in the accurate history of Jesus's life, whatever we can know about it The answer to "why did we end up believing him" is Paul the Apostle. Christianity, as it is practiced today, really is attributable to Paul and his ferverent missionary work. Not only did he spread Christianity to many places, more importantly he spread his version of Christianity to many places, which was in many ways different from what was practiced prior to his work. The Bible itself, in Acts of the Apostles (written by Luke, and not Paul, so going on Nicknack's historical analysis is likely to be more reliable than any self-serving narrative from Paul himself) notes the split between Paul and the first Christians. Paul has some disagreements with most of Jesus's direct followers (those that personally knew and followed him) and strikes out on his own; it's his version of Christianity that gains a foothold and spreads throughout the Western world. The break specifically happens in Acts 15, known as the Council of Jerusalem, when the leaders begrudgingly concede that non-Jews can become Christians without first becoming Jews, basically endorsing Paul's own work and beliefs. It's thus the changes that Paul makes to Christianity that leads to its spread... --Jayron 32 04:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, we do know the names of a number of Messianic claimants. See Wikipedia's article on Jewish Messiah claimants. Another reference for you: Open Yale Courses have an interesting video lecture on the historical Jesus, part of their Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature series. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, watching it again, I seem to have got the examples of the trial and the sign on the cross from that lecture, and not from Robin Lane Fox. He's still worth reading though. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a baptised, confirmed, educated and lapsed Catholic who had Roman Catholicism bullied and beaten into me from infancy and childhood by The Sisters of Mercy and Jesuit Priests. And I still bear the psychological scars to prove it. I love the Bible and The New Testament stories of Jesus and the apostles and disciples. But whilst I fervently believe in a Greater Being, be he he/she/it whatever, whom I give thanks and pray to every day of my life, I have the gravest doubts about the authenticity of Jesus etc. and why that is belongs to my genuine conviction that his existence and authenticity are exactly that, stories that had to be brainwashed into me by deranged people who clearly had major doubts about their own beliefs, and who thought that physical bruising would instil a lifelong adherence to their professed beliefs and that of Mother Church. Thanks be to God for giving me the intelligence and the courage to say that in public. But thanks be to God nonetheless. 77.97.208.118 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

recent apocrypha

I heard the definition that apocrypha is anything "found later" (after the bible). I did see online that jesus's historical existence is agreed on by everyoen, so I was wondering what the most recent time is that new writing was found? (e.g. in the 20th century, etc). I mean, writing by his contemporaries. (Anything not included in the bible already.) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit over-simplified. Apocrypha usually refers to the Deuterocanon, books that were written between the Old and New Testament periods, that non-Protestants (Catholics and Orthodox) accept as part of the Old Testament (though less inspired than the parts all Christians agree on). Pseudepigrapha refers to works written after the works in the Bible's canon -- but also works that were written after the Bible's canon was set (which was a slow process occurring during the first few centuries A.D.).

There are a number of pseudepigraphal works that date to around the time of Jesus (earlier works of Merkabah mysticism and Hekhalot literature). Some of these were lost and later rediscovered later (such as "Pistis Sophia" or the Nag Hammadi library), while others were preserved in some form for centuries (such as the Testament of Solomon, though Western Europe more or less forgot about it between the 11th and 16th centuries). Others were written throughout the past 2000 years. Many grimoires (or spell books) fall into this category, since Solomon was a popular figure to attribute magical books to (such as the aforementioned Testament, as well as the Magical Treatise of Solomon, the Greater and Lesser Key of Solomon); though Moses also has a few falsely attributed to him (e.g. Sword of Moses, Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses, and even the Greek Magical Papyri's "Eighth book of Moses"), as does Enoch (enough that Johannes Trithemius all but wrote not to trust any book that claims to be by Enoch).

As to stuff written by Jesus's contemporaries, some Merkabah and Hekhalot works might have been written in the first centuries BC and AD, but were ignored by Christianity (though Paul's cryptic reference to the Third Heaven is generally accepted to mean that Christianity and Merkabah evolved from the same type of Israelite religion). The Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with other later works attributed to Thomas) might be an older work than the Gospel of John (and the Gospel of John might have been written in reaction to it or alongside it as a complimentary work), and it might have been quoted by Paul -- but there's just as much of an argument that it came later and was referencing John and quoting Paul instead of the other way around.

Most other works were well after Jesus's era. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I was unclear. I meant by recent, only recently-unearthed or discovered. Of the roughly contemporaneous-wih-Jesus written things, when was the last time a major discovery was made? Past few decades? last century? two centuries ago? five centuries ago? Etc. I mean finding some parchment in a box buried in a temple or something. I didn't mean to refer to much later writing at all - though thanks for all your work writing about those links as well. sorry about my unfortunate phrasing. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel of Thomas may be that old and was rediscovered in 1945. Rmhermen (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent discovery of a full text apocryphal work is probably the Gospel of Judas. There was fairly significant indication that such a work existed before then, but it was more or less confirmed with the discovery of manuscript in 1983. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! These are super-interesting. (I made your reference a link Rmhermen) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Sea Scrolls show some interesting works, in many cases bridging the gap between what we accept today as the Hebrew Canon (Old Testament) and other, deuterocanonical works. --Jayron 32 04:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Mormon was either written ~2000 BCE-~400 Ce, or in ~1827 CE, depending on if you believe what the Mormons believe... SemanticMantis (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

The ravages of deflation.

I am completely baffled by the headlines and WSJ articles proclaiming that Europe is on the verge of collapse because the prices for consumer goods may drop (deflation). What's wrong with it?

Also how does purchasing sovereign governmental bonds help to stimulate the economy?

Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A complex question, as our deflation article shows. One obvious consequence though is that consumers expecting prices to drop will have an incentive to delay purchases, causing a drop in demand, which leaves the producers having to drop their prices further to attract custom, in a deflationary spiral. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and when employers try to cut wages to match, you can expect lots of trouble, especially where there are contracts and unions and minimum wages in the way. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, deflation hurts debtors disproportionately. Look at what happened in the housing market bubble (an Economic bubble is just a rapid deflation in a specific sector of the economy). People with mortgages saw housing prices deflate, making their homes "under water", meaning that the value of the home doesn't actually cover the outstanding debt on it. Now, instead of this merely striking a single sector, imagine the entire economy doing that. If you took out some debt when money was worth less, and then deflation hit, you still have to pay back the amount of cash, but now that cash is worth more in purchasing power, which means your repayment takes up a greater portion of your value. This also works for companies as well: prices fall, but liabilities such as insurance costs, rents, and wages do not, meaning that companies see less income (because their products are worth less), but still pay out the same cash. Bad news for all. Economists generally agree that slight inflation is generally the sign of a healthy economy. Small amounts of inflation tend to put upward pressure on wages (thus benefiting more people) without overly burdening purchasing power. --Jayron 32 04:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but there should be someone who benefits from deflation. It should be a zero sum game. Also how about bond purchasing? How does it help fighting deflation? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly individual winners under deflation, but if you want to set in place foundations to help prepare the way for solid broad-based growth over the next 5-10 years, then permitting deflation now is generally not the way to do it... AnonMoos (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, debt holders, such as banks, would benefit as long as they keep getting payments that are worth more and more each month, and those on fixed benefit retirement programs,etc., would similarly do well. However, chances are that eventually the debtors and governments will be unable to make their payments, and default. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the government purchases bonds that are in circulation, it will increase the money supply, which will lower the effective interest rate. If they sell bonds, the opposite happens. I'm not sure which is the appropriate response to deflation, although I suspect it is the latter. OldTimeNESter (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a gospel tract that gives more significance to Mary, mother of Jesus?

Out of all the gospel tracts I've encountered, it seems that they barely touch any information about Mary and what she has to do with salvation. Honestly, I did read The Illustrated Bible Story by Story, by DK Publishing, and I remember that there was one line that talked about how Mary, mother of Jesus, was regarded as the Second Eve, because she maintained perfect obedience to God and was known for her sinlessness. Eve sinned, but Mary did not. She obeyed God. Jesus was regarded as the Second Adam, because of his perfect obedience too. Unfortunately, the gospel tracts completely neglect Mary!!! Is there a gospel tract that gives more significance to Mary, mother of Jesus? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariology is a very large topic, with many contributors and changes in doctrine over the centuries. To answer your question, see Mary (mother of Jesus)#Specific references, which lists Scriptural references to Mary - in particular, the Annunciation (Luke 1:26-39), and John 19:25-26 ("Woman, behold thy son!"). See also Co-Redemptrix and related articles. Tevildo (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool. There is an article on Co-Redemptrix. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... further to Tevildo's excellent answer above, I would add that many tracts are produced by Protestant churches who do not believe in Roman Catholic Mariology. Dbfirs 10:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why does my vitamin B have 6000% percent of this stuff

I'm looking at a package of vitamin b and it shows like 6667% daily requirement of thiamin. whyy. how is that healthy? If it's healthy, why is it set so low? (by RDA) --89.133.6.76 (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Thiamine. The RDA is the amount required to remove the risk of beri-beri and similar deficiency diseases - above that, you can eat as much of the stuff as you like ("There are no reports available of adverse effects from consumption of excess thiamine".) Whether or not it'll actually do you any good probably comes into the area of medical advice. Tevildo (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo's answer makes sense. Otherwise, are you sure there's not a decimal point in there somewhere? Can you find an illustration? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know some people believe in "megavitamin" therapy (taking obscene multiples of RDA). I don't. I just want a normal amount of the stuff. So, I assume there are no laws against any obscene overdosage of vitamins, and I want to make sure I don't have such a silly pack in front of me. Why doesn't the FDA also suggest a maximum? Well, I guess they would just start using that. Still, I'm uncomfortable with not even being able to determine if the maker of my vitamins intends it to be a controversial megavitamin therapy, or just a normal dosage. --89.133.6.76 (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a strange looking number - like two-thirds multiplied by a thousand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No man this is the actual amount, it's not hte only one in the vitamin that's over 100% - same as if it had been this one for example http://www.optimumnutrition-bg.com/images/stress-b-complex-facts.jpg (I just did a google image search for "nutrition label vitamin b supplement" to get you that example picture.) --89.133.6.76 (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overdosing on (some) vitamins can be a bad thing. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, VERY interesting link, especially since the last paragraph of the lede explicitly mentions vitamin B3. I thought there was some effect like that. So why aren't maximum recommended allowances printed? (even if it's just a recommendation.) Why only print a minimum? (which is also just a recommendation - it's not like you die if you don't eat anything all day that has vitamins listed in it.) Come to think of it, maximum might be more important than minimum, since you can eat all sorts of different prodcuts throughout the day and it will add up. But if my soy milk is fortified with calcium, I'd like to know if I'm likely to get more than the recommended dosage if I drinking 2.5 liters (or quarts) in a given day for some reason, such as eating a lot of cereal with it. (Where the cereal might also be fortified come to think of it. . .) Is vitamin overdosage just not a common concern? (as long as you get the minimum)? I mean if you eat 6-10 times the recommended dosage of all the vitamins, every day, is that still fine? --89.133.6.76 (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious answer is "Because the law doesn't require it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the most notorious overconsumption might be Vitamin A, which can be toxic.[17] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, obviously the question is why printing maximums isn't required where RDA is printed, given that it would be useful. --89.133.6.76 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6667% daily requirement is 66 and two thirds times the daily requirement. Vitamin B1 is a water soluable vitamin so your body will excrete the vitamin B1 it dosen't use.
Sleigh (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. If I'm consuming 66 times the "daily recommended" dosage, I'd like to know how the FDA thinks that compares with a recommended maximum. --89.133.6.76 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't care, as long as its labelled accurately. FDA doesn't set recomended maximums. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(same poster) I guess it's just pretty much a non-issue in most cases. I would think so, the only thing I want to make sure is that I'm not accicdentally eating some crazy person's idea that I need 10,000 times the daily recommended intake of whatever. For normal foods, I eat as much as I want from them. But when I see a vitamin supplement that has 66x the daily recommended dosage I'm like - wait, do the manufacturers happen to be insane? -- byh the by, the famous futurist Kurzweil is among these insane people. https://www.google.com/search?q=kurzweil+vitamins "takes 150 vitamins a day", including intravenous vitamins so he can "be immortal". (Hold out long enough, based on vitamin supplements, for medicine to cure old age.) That is crazy in my opinion, since if you're going to argue that you have to show that there is any such effect. it's not like they discovered a mouse that lived for 15 years (versus normal longevity of 2 years) in a storage container of multivitamins where it ate 15,000 the recommended amount per day. there's just (to my knowledge) no basis, it's just simple craziness. I'd like to avoid it. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try the consumers, who will prefer very large amounts of non-toxic vitamins to reasonable amounts for enough of a premium to matter. EllenCT (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that the USRDA doesn't include a maximum, they don't even make it clear whether the RDA is a minimum, maximum, or average recommended dosage. For sodium, I suspect the 2500 mg figure they use is meant as a maximum. I think the logic must be "for things which people generally overdose on, give the maximum as the RDA, while for things which people generally underdose on, give the minimum as the RDA". StuRat (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if we had access to a reference source so Stu didn't have to go his whole life not knowing what the RDA means. So he wouldn't have to suspect things, but would be able to actually read what the answers to his questions are. Has anyone seen an encyclopedia around here? I swear, someone should create a website of some sort, where we could collect this information in one place, and then questions like Stu's could be answered with minimal effort. Goodness, has anyone heard of such a thing? The best thing I could find was an obscure website called Wikipedia, where I found an article about the Dietary Reference Intake, which is the method used to calculate the recommended daily allowance. The text there says "Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA), the daily dietary intake level of a nutrient considered sufficient by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine to meet the requirements of 97.5% of healthy individuals in each life-stage and sex group." (bold mine). Hope that helps. Also, according to that article, they DO Include maximum recommendations for those nutrients which are harmful in large amounts, "Tolerable upper intake levels (UL), to caution against excessive intake of nutrients (like vitamin A) that can be harmful in large amounts. This is the highest level of daily consumption that current data have shown to cause no side effects in humans when used indefinitely without medical supervision." We even have a nice table, referenced to the original source, which lists all of the various recommendations, upper levels, etc. for various nutrients. --Jayron 32 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the time it took you to write that, you could have made it past the first sentence of the article. There's a whole section, the third one, called "Disputed value" and reading "The value of RDA/RDIs is disputed among nutritionists. Indeed, even the 'definition of RDAs and their relevance to health' is disputed. It then gives the example of Sodium and speaks directly to Stu's point. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, which is why I included a link to a reference because this is the reference desk. Stu finds it beneath himself to actually back up anything he says with verifiable referencing, claiming that "obvious" statements don't need references (he often claims that when called on his lack of references). However, Stu's definition of "obvious" is somewhat idiosyncratic, meaning "literally almost every statement StuRat makes". Conveniently, whenever he is working with that definition, he never has to provide a single reference for any random statement he chooses to make. --Jayron 32 02:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information about artist F. Tayler

I'm unsure about an artist and would appreciate information about him so we could set the records straight.

I created Category:John Frederick Tayler on Commons for a series of illustrations to The Ballad of Chevy Chase signed F. Tayler, which I uploaded. Now I strongly suspect that John Frederick and F are not identical, as motives and style differ, but I'm unable to find information about this other "F. Tayler". A separate category for him would be appropriate, but I would prefer to know more before I do anything. Anybody who has access to information? --Jonund (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think they're the same man. I find several references to "Chevy Chase" being illustrated by Frederick Tayler, President of the Water Colour Society, or by Frederick Tayler (1802-1889). [18] [19] [20] [21] Our page on John Frederick Tayler (1802-1889) puts brackets around his first name to show he was better known by the middle one, and says he was President of that society. I think you're going to have to show something stronger than stylistic evidence that there was a separate F. Tayler who illustrated "Chevy Chase". --Antiquary (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Antiquary, in his obituary in the London Times "Frederick Tayler" the water colour artist died on 20 June 1889, the same day as John Frederick Tayler per his article, it is clear they are the same person. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Estimate of compensation to Britain for loss of 1776 USA.

OK, I know it was a victorious outcome for the U.S. over Britain and that's all in the past. I am not concerned with the rights, wrongs or politics surrounding or following that fact. But out of sheer curiosity, I wonder what the perceived financial loss was to Britain, expressed in current £ Sterling. Yes, there were savings too, insofar as not having to maintain a Colonial Government and Militia etc. but the loss of such an asset as the USA must have been incredibly immense, even allowing for the then untapped oil reserves, gold, silver, grain, timber, technology as we know it, and international commerce. Difficult question to assess I know. And if it's not possible to do so, I understand. Thanks. 77.97.208.118 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article Financial costs of the American Revolutionary War, but that just covers the short-term costs of the war itself. How the world would have developed if the USA had not been independent can only be a matter for speculation, starting with how North America would have been divided between Britain, France, Spain, and Russia. Tevildo (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can always look at the current GDP of the US and assume that would be added to Britain's GDP, but that makes a lot of assumptions. Personally, I'd expect that if the US hadn't split off suddenly, in war, it would have done so gradually, in peace, as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., did. StuRat (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. As for the French and Spanish bits of North America, if the Thirteen Colonies had still been in British hands during the Napoleonic Wars, we'd almost certainly have annexed them since neither power had an effective fleet after the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. As it was, the US bought Louisiana, the proceeds of which were used to build an cross-Channel invasion fleet which was never used. Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural terminology

Is there a term for the ornamental brickwork above and below the top-storey windows of this building? I think I've seen a term that refers to ornamental work with the indentations (below the windows) and the slightly overhanging stuff (above the windows, and on the tops of the facade's corners), but I don't know what it is. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The overhanging stuff above the windows is called corbelling, I believe. See, for instance, the page here about its use in brickwork. Deor (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Deor above, but see also cornice. Alansplodge (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Informally, all of the brickwork that is offset from the dominant plane can be referred to as corbelling. Some cornices are made via corbelling, but not all. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Alansplodge (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I know what corbelling and a cornice are (WhatLinksHere for those pages will show plenty of articles I've written), but I tend to confuse corbelling with dentilling, and anyway all three of these terms were slipping my mind. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

"body of a bird surrounded by 72 virgins"

Just saw this in the New York Times: "Mr. Benyettou reassured them that the soul of their 19-year-old friend was now in the body of a bird in paradise surrounded by 72 virgins."^[22] Obviously this seems a bit odd because what the hell use are 72 virgins if you're in the body of a bird? Yeah, yeah, I know... you use your little pecker as best as you possibly can. :) We don't have the word "bird" in Houri, either. I'm vaguely reminded of the ancient Egyptian conception of the Akh. Is this an authentic belief or some kind of confusion on the New York Times' end, and if it is real, can someone explain it? Wnt (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Various sources like [23] [24] [25] [26] do mention souls inhabiting green birds in paradise, originating at least partially from Hadith Qudsi 27 [27] [28]. I'm not sure how widely this is intepreted literally and of course not everyone accepts the Hadith, even the Hadith Qudsi as our article says, but the first source does suggest the green bird thing is imagery used by some radicals. Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To bring some of the answer here, this cites Hadith Qudsi 27:

We asked Abdullah (i.e. Ibn Masud) about this verse: And do not regard those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead, rather are they alive with their Lord, being provided for (Quran Chapter 3 Verse 169). He said: We asked about that and the Prophet (pbuh) said: Their souls are in the insides of green birds having lanterns suspended from the Throne, roaming freely in Paradise where they please, then taking shelter in those lanterns. So their Lord cast a glance at them (1) and said: Do you wish for anything? They said: What shall we wish for when we roam freely in Paradise where we please? And thus did He do to them three times. When they say that they would not be spared from being asked [again], they said: O Lord, we would like for You to put back our souls into our bodies so that we might fight for Your sake once again. And when He saw that they were not in need of anything they were let be.

(I don't know enough about Islam to know if this is a sort of temporary heaven preceding some other judgment, or if a believer can picture having his soul flying around happy in a green bird even while he continues to live in his body being entertained by houris, nor do I have any real understanding how wide the range of opinion is about the origin of the text. Kind of funny though that they say they want their bodies back but don't get them...) Wnt (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the virgins, the possibility exists that they aren't there as sex toys, but as servants, where being virginal is merely to assure their purity, much like the Vestal Virgins. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is contradicted by the Quran, however: "... and We will marry them to fair women (Arabic: Houris) with large, [beautiful] eyes." (52:20, Sahih International). That these houris are indeed virgins can be seen from this "In them are good and beautiful women - So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? - Fair ones (Arabic: Houris) reserved in pavilions - So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? - Untouched before them by man or jinni - So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? -" (55:70-75 Sahih International)

Now that is not to say that the virgins are 'sex toys' per se, but Muslims are going to marry them. - Lindert (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From our article houri "Importantly, some scholars argue that the promise of 72 virgins is a mistranslation from "72 angels"[61] or 72 "white raisins" of "crystal clarity".[62][61] According to Ibn Warraq referring to The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran, "Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offered, and not unsullied maidens or houris".[61][63]" This interpretation may be heretical in most current interpretations of Islam, but it is regarded as possible by Western scholars. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least this version would content Muslim women as well, not only men. Isn't the whole virgin thing yet another example that shows religions (and their interpretations and explanations) are always made by men for men, and seem to ignore women or to submit women to men's view? Akseli9 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the common traditional view of the Houri may seem more targetted at heterosexual men than women (although our article those suggest there may be feminine male houri or that women will otherwise be happy with their houri), even for men some of the ideas seem to be either poorly thought out or restricted to a subset of men (even if we ignore the bird bit). The houri are supposed to companions of ~equal age, since you're eternally young, I guess this doesn't mean you're going to end up with 60 year olds if you die at 60, which is useful I guess it's fairly common that men may prefer somewhat younger women. However this doesn't seem to work out so well if you prefer much older women which some men do. Also the houri are supposed to have large, round, firm. This may be something quite a number of men would like, however these breasts seem somewhat "wasted" since the houri also have skin transparent enough that you can see their bone marrow. I'm not sure if there's some translation problems and transparent more means translucent but it would seem these breasts might be a bit hard to see. Of course mean with a breast feeding or pregnancy fettish seem to be SOL. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get back on track... is there any indication why the birds are green? Is a particular species being referred to? Wnt (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese immigrants in the mid-20th century and marriage

I am not sure if this website would be true during the mid-20th century as far as how legal marriage worked in the United States at that time. It seems to me that the process for legal marriage is that one person must be an ordained minister, must follow the marriage laws in the state, must include the Declaration of Intent, and must sign the marriage license papers. In that case, I am wondering how Chinese immigrants in the mid-20th century or later would have married. At that time, did it have to be an ordained minister? Could it be the Justice of the Peace at the courthouse? Or did Chinese immigrants attempt to obtain permission from a local church? How did the US government handle civil marriages? (According to this webpage, the traditional Chinese wedding does not even mention having a minister solemnizing the ceremony, let alone saying any Declaration of Intent, presumably because the wedding was arranged by the families, not by the individuals themselves. Today, that has changed substantially, and many couples are self-arranged, but parental guiding and opinion are still important and involved.) 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Justice of the Peace goes back much further than that. Our article is weak on the history in the US, but does mention that the Texas Constitution defined the position, and the current Texas Constitution was written in 1876. StuRat (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This still does not answer the question of how Chinese immigrants might have gotten married or have their foreign marriages recognized. It is possible that the state may have recognized common-law marriages, and this might have made foreign-born Chinese-American couples to be legally married, even though they might have never set foot in a church and have the wedding solemnized by a Christian minister. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have to get married by an officially recognized celebrant, who could be a minister, priest, rabbi, Justice of the Peace, mayor, county clerk, governor, magistrate or a judge. ([for Utah: [29]) Each of the fifty states have different laws with different histories. Rmhermen (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That just repeats what I said. It does not answer my question for government recognition of marriages of foreign-born Chinese immigrants who were married in China who came to the United States as married couples. Perhaps, a married status on the visa would be enough? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be hung up on the idea of a Christian minister but that was never a requirement. There have always been alternative officiants and in all states Common-law marriage in the United States was allowed until specifically prohibited which some states have still not done. Rmhermen (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for providing a direct answer. :) 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got confused, when I found out about how legal marriage worked in England, and I thought the same thing occurred in America, because America started as British colonies. I confess that I thought quite erroneously that it was advantageous to be Christian in America, because one could easily get married by one's pastor or minister. Thanks for clearing that up. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Easily" would likely depend on the church. The Catholic church for example is known for their requirement for the Pre-Cana and some other requirements (like requiring any Catholic partner to promise to do their best to raise the children Catholic). Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quantitative easing

Hello, everyone. Is there any particular reason why money created in quantitative easing programmes is simply pumped into banks, as opposed to being used for investment spending (e.g. building and upgrading infrastructure, funding R&D, education, energy efficiency programmes, etc.)? Intuitively at least, the latter approach would seem to have a faster and more direct impact on the real economy. Thanks for your answers. Leptictidium (mt) 17:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or more to the point, why doesn't the government instead offer a substantial line of free credit to every citizen directly? (Is there even a name for that idea? And true, I think the cynical explanation is the obvious one) Wnt (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because if they offered un-free credit, they'd be indistinguishable from a bank? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Under normal circumstances the money supply is manipulated through Open market operations. As you will see from our article on the subject, Quantitative Easing is essentially an extension of the same process, in that in both cases money is injected into financial institutions in exchange for the purchase of assets. In normal open market operations the central bank or its designated agent buys government bills or government bonds for cash, thus giving the banks more cash to lend and fewer assets to set against their existing cash and depositary base (see, for example, how it works in the USA). Sometimes in normal open market operations these purchases are for a fixed period of time only (that is, the central bank buys the assets and immediately sells them back to the same institution on some designated future date); such transactions are called repurchase agreements, and these have the effect of providing a temporary boost to bank liquidity. On other occasions the assets are bought outright by the central bank; since the assets are then permanently removed from the bank this has the effect of adding liquidity (that is, money) directly to the financial system. In the most common form of quantitative easing the central bank extends the range of assets that it is prepared to buy from financial institutions beyond the usual government bills and bonds. For example, in the USA the Federal Reserve bought mortgage-backed securities from financial institutions; in the UK the Bank of England bought bonds issued not just by the government but also by a range of corporations; in the past the Bank of Japan has indicated that it is even prepared to buy equities under certain circumstances.

On the basis of this, I think the answer to your question is, at least in part, that quantitative easing runs through the existing financial system because much of the necessary infrastructure and administrative machinery is already in place, in that quantitative easing can be regarded as a temporary extension of existing processes.

You suggest that direct infrastructural and investment programmes might be faster and more direct. It's unlikely that this is the case: infrastructure projects big enough to absorb the many billions that are required in a successful quantitative easing programme are likely to take many years of planning and design, and this is likely to be slower than simply making the money available to banks to lend to customers who already have plans for things they particularly want to do. RomanSpa (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were some attempts to boost the economy more directly, like the cash for clunkers program. But I agree with the sentiment, that far more could have been done like this. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Economic theory reasons that the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources is through markets, and central bank quantitative easing conforms to that principle. Direct investment by a central bank, probably decided at least partly on political grounds, might misallocate resources that would be better directed elsewhere. Still, it is possible to critique central banks' assumptions. For example, one could argue that the real problem with developed-world economies just now is excessive public and private debt. Quantitative easing seeks to encourage banks to issue more credit and create more debt, which would not only add to the debt overhang, but also confront a reluctance on the part of banks and borrowers to increase their stock of debt. Arguably, a more effective central bank action would be to create money to repay and erase outstanding debts, particularly debts held by consumers. Eliminating burdensome consumer debts would help stimulate demand. While this would raise an objection of moral hazard, moral hazard did not stop governments from bailing out big banks, even though the economic benefits of doing so are not clear. Another objection to debt forgiveness would be that it might cause inflation, though at the moment that might be an attractive antidote to the possibly greater risk of deflation. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what would a chinese person explain if we could talk?

I'm curious about other cultures, but haven't been to the East, and even if I had I don't know how well I could communicate. If I talked with average people in China or elsewhere in Asia, what would they explain to me about their life that would totally surprise me? (totally different from anything in the west.) I'm particularly interested in life under 'communism' since I think it sucks. what is it like to live under state control like that? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things can surprise people. It's called culture shock, which can be as mild as being amused by a foreign accent to as severe as hatred and genocide. All governments and government forms in thought and in practice in the world are corruptible, and all governments have their national issues and problems to deal with. Expecting perfection out of a country does not exist in the real world as we know it. Some just have more problems than others. Understanding the history of a country's government is critical to understanding a country's culture. For basic information on culture, you may want to visit CultureGrams. Many libraries may have this resource called CultureGrams, where you learn about different cultures, lifestyles, and habits. Alternatively, you may privately purchase subscription. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that China is now communist in name only. In reality, it's more like a right-wing dictatorship, where people with the right contacts in the leadership get rich, and the poor get nothing. You might want to read the book Animal Farm, as that shows how "communism" eventually gives up on helping the poor, and instead is used to enrich a small minority.StuRat (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Stu, but you're just completely wrong. Poverty in China and the rest of the developing world has been plummeting for decades; very quickly. You must be referring to the poor in the developed world, who have been getting nothing, and are on track to lose most of what they have if trends continue. EllenCT (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In China, yes, of course Stu is in error. The rest of the developing world, no, not so much. Poverty plummeting very quickly is hardly the right word for most of Africa, say. China is so big that most of the progress against poverty has been due to its success.John Z (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at our Poverty in China article, which states that over 900 million (more than 2/3) Chinese lived on under $5 a day in 2009. The poor in China just aren't very visible, since most are rural, where reporters rarely go. And Western reporters might not be allowed into those areas. Yes, the average income is rising rapidly, but at the same time inequality is increasing rapidly, leaving the poor in poverty, as a small minority gets rich. I do agree that this is also happening in parts of the developed world, particularly the US. StuRat (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is the middle class of skilled professionals, like medical doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, teachers, and lawyers. The standard of living has greatly improved since the late 20th century for many urban Chinese and some rural Chinese. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EveryCulture.com has useful (if sometimes dated) preparatory reading for travelers. Of course, every rule has exceptions and nobody knows exactly what to expect anywhere. All part of the fun of going to see. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what 'living under state control' means, if it is supposed mean mean something different from what we all do even here in Western democracies. That is what government is for. Policies change, of course, but there is no freedom to act as if you were in an anarchic society. Anyway, what would a Chinese person surprise you about his daily life? It would depend on the person. China is a vast country, with 56 ethnic groups (and 54 languages - not including the Han Chinese dialects), and they all live in different - though similar - ways. You will be more surprised to see that China is very similar to the West. People all have mobile phones, Louis Vuitton bags, and cars. Life is not so different there on this 'alien world' you think of as China. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the average Chinese person has all those things, only the rich, with the possible exception of of cell phones. According to our article (List of countries by vehicles per capita), there are only 188 cars per 1000 people in China. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are a billion people there. That's a helluva lot of cars. Believe me. I lived there. It's chaos on the roads. As for all the branded goods, of course, we all know many of them are counterfeit. Mobile phones - everyone has them. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the population means China can have massive traffic jams and air pollution problems, even though only a small percentage own cars. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, when I said chaos, I meant chaos. People don't even bother to check the traffic lights. It is incredibly difficult to cross the road safely as a pedestrian, and even if you do get knocked over, the car won't stop, and you'll just keep getting run over by other cars until you manage to drag yourself back to the pavement. Believe me. I've seen it. This might be because of the old way of pedestrians purposefully jumping in front of bicycles (specifically ones with foreigners riding them) in order to claim compensation. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you live in the UK? Then about life under "communism" and about this kind of "state control", you could talk with some Polish or Baltic people who live in the UK and who remember how life was there before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Akseli9 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the OP geolocates to Hungary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's life under communism that interests you ask locals in Hungary (if your ip geolocation is correct.) They'd probably tell you similar to what people here in Latvia would tell you. On the whole things were worse, but a lot of things are considered better by people who can remember that time. Pluses: free education, guaranteed employment and free healthcare, though of questionable quality at times. Also the old were, they say, well looked after. Pensions were generous relative to prices and men could retire at 60 and women at 55. Negatives, lack of political freedom isn't the main complaint that comes up. It's usually about the lack of consumer goods, the poor quality of goods and services available and long waiting times for them. A second common gripe is about the lack of ability to travel to the west. A third would be that a lot of the work was mundane and there was little incentive to push ahead as people earned more or less the same, so no challenges in careers. Criticisms of communist party rule would probably be the closest article to what you're asking. Valenciano (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to China and speak Mandarin Chinese. Most Chinese people are not very concerned about politics and don't much care that they live in an authoritarian society. Their unhappiness with the corruption of their leaders is similar to western dissatisfaction with western politicians. Their daily concerns are much the same as anyone else's, having to do with making a living, personal relationships, and health. The things that would strike you as a visitor, such as the crowding, are things that they take for granted, though even the Chinese are alarmed at the serious air pollution, which is also striking to a visitor. Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do we have an article comparing contemporary human cultures?

Hi,

I searched google for "comparison of contemporary human cultures", you know, for a general NPOV article that would compare the 18% here, 15% there, 20% there that make up various parts of contemporary human culture, for the largest differences, similarities, etc.

Do we not have one? There's a bunch of big cultures I know next to nothing about, and I would appreciate an overview of contemporary human society worldwide today. (similarities and differences). It seems the kind of thing we'd have an article on. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not have an article comparing contemporary human cultures. Such an article is most likely going to be too broad to cover and is prone to be POV biased. What you want here is to find a blog, editorial, or academic study that talks about a specific aspect of a specific culture. Then, in your mind, you should be able to integrate your knowledge about various cultures, which is the foundation for doing comparative studies. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Website The World Factbook.
Sleigh (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess EveryCulture.com is relevant here, too. Not all in one page (that would be huge), but each has similar specific sections, for quick comparison. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you google "map of world cultures" which brings up images like this and read the articles on which they are based, like this from Hunter College. A minor quibble, the land to the south of the stars representing NYC and Philadelphia is distorted, and the largely Catholic (among Christians) New Jersey and the more Protestant (among Christians) Delmarva Peninsula are merged. In part this is due to scale limitations. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Fact? The Azores is the only Catholic place on Earth with Romeiros. They're pretty complicated, for simple folk. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

January 20

Golfan/Khalfan tribes in Sudan

Hi,

I can find almost no info on the Khalfan and Golfan tribe(s) or ethnic group(s). Are these two spelling for the same group?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawazma are Arabs. The "Golfan" are Ghulfan, one of the Hill Nubian peoples. The Khalfan are said to speak the same "dialect" as the Kadaro, Karko, Dilling, Kasha, Wali Boboi, Habila, Kodor, Ferla, Tabag, Abu Gonouk and Fonda. Most of these I can ID as Hill Nubian peoples. From this, I strongly suspect "Khalfan" is the Arabic rendering of "Golfan", or that "Khalfan" and "Ghulfan" are both Arabic renderings of the same people. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were 1950s American colored drinking fountains safe?

Were they safe to drink from? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safer than drinking from the "white only" ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect so, at least from bacterial/viral/fungal contamination, since they typically would use the same water supply as the "whites only" fountain. Even if the segregationists wanted to connect them to unsafe water, they lacked a ready supply, and it would be very expensive to add additional plumbing and pumps, just to bring in untreated water. Now, there could have been lead pipes in the "colored" water fountain that they didn't bother to replace after finding out that this can be harmful, but the lead exposure from that would be minor. I suspect that in many cases, the "colored" drinking fountains were former "whites only" fountains, repurposed after a new "whites only" drinking fountain was installed (say with a cooling unit). StuRat (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not being familiar with the usage on this side of the pond, I was puzzled as to why the colour of the fountain made a difference to the safety of the water coming out of it. It wasn't until I re-read Stu's use of the plural "whites" that I realised what was being talked about! Dbfirs 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The British might consider Hyacinth Bucket's demand of the meter-reader that her electricity not pass through any homes of lesser social standing than her own before she received it. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a pic showing that they shared the same water supply: [30]. (I agree that "colored" was a strange word to use, since black, white, and brown are not "colors" but rather neutrals. Yellow and red are, so perhaps "colored" might have better been applied to East Asians and Native Americans.) StuRat (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Colored" was considered relatively polite, compared with some other things. It was also the standard indicator in documents such as city directories: name, followed by (c) if "colored". And it's interesting to look at census records from that era. Under "race", white is white, but black might be black, colored, or Negro. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, like National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting your whole mouth over the spout, as seen here, isn't exactly sanitary. Can catch viruses from other mouths, or just homegrown bacteria. I've seen real people (kids, anyway) do that post-Segregation, so it seems likely some did back then, too. Herpes doesn't discriminate. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, wait, it does. Lives best in humidity, so a bit more dangerous drinking in the South. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

January 21

Carpet bombing

Not sure if this is the right section but wutevs

If the US were to do a WWII/Vietnam style carpet bombing today, what would they use for it? B-52 planes or something else? Obviously this is speculative so a logical, backed up guess will do.

See List of active United States military aircraft and look for bombers. Interestingly, there are still more B-52s in active service than any other bomber, so it would still be the B-52, not bad for an aircraft still in service since the 1950s. The articles about them (see Boeing B-52 Stratofortress) indicates that the are planned to stay in active service until the the 2040s, which would indicate a 90+ year lifespan. Not too bad. There are other strategic bombers in service, but there are still more B-52s than any other bomber. --Jayron 32 02:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that limited carpet bombing was used by the US fairly recently, was it the First Gulf War ? The difference, of course, was that it was used on strictly military targets. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. This critical article about the Gulf War, U.S. Bombing: The Myth of Surgical Bombing in the Gulf War says; "The use of B-52s and carpet bombing violates Article 51 of Geneva Protocol I which prohibits area bombing. Any bombardment that treats a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located within a city as a single military objective is prohibited". This recent article; The B-52 bomber: Long-standing symbol of US strength (BBC June 2014)"...while the B-52 was once used to conduct "carpet bombing" now it is more likely to carry cruise missiles and Laser Guided Bombs." Alansplodge (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was the justification for morality in antinomianism?

According to antinomianism, the term refers to the belief that Christians were saved and obeyed the law, even though they did not really have to obey the law. It might be an extreme interpretation of Martin Luther's soteriology. Margaret Atwood said in an interview on Youtube that antinomianism was the belief of some heretical Puritans that God saved them, and thus they could do whatever they wanted. In that sense, is there a sense of morality in antinomianism? What is the justification for morality then? How do you put this doctrine into practice? Please help me visualize this. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that I have checked out The A to Z of Lutheranism from my public library, and honestly and surprisingly, it does not mention antinomianism at all! Is this even a Lutheran concept or a Puritan concept? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's appeared in a number of different Christian circles, though I think it's more associated with the early church, certain medieval heresies, and with Puritanism. Probably a bit WP:OR for me to say this (and I'm probably thinking of Kierkegaard more than the Puritans), but an antinomian would probably say that the law is a human imitation of divine grace. That is, the law is only playing at being Christian, just as a child might play at being a doctor, cook, or mother. The child and adult might carry out the same actions, but the child's actions have no real effect (no sickness is healed, no food is prepared, no baby is cared for). Likewise, a person who performs charitable works but does not love others is only playing at being a Christian.

Then there's "Love, and do what thou wilt." Before it was hijacked by Aleister Crowley, that saying was expressed by none other than Augustine of Hippo in an unusually antinomian moment (though I would have to guess is the context is that if one truly loves God and their neighbor, their actions will not violate any law that's worth observing). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So, that's what it means! I think a deeper meaning may be drawn from this: that sincerity and genuine concern for others are a lot better than affectations and artificiality. I believe that is something everybody, regardless of creed, can understand. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to read some fiction that explores the implications of an extreme antinomianism (along the lines of the Atwood statement you referred to), I highly recommend The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner. Deor (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking down a cite to "The Consensus Opinion" artwork

My google-foo has failed me. Hoping the follow might jog someone else's memory.

Within the past couple of years, I caught a lecture on BBC World Service on the topic of judging quality in art. The lecture was given by a well-known contemporary artist whose name I have no hope of remembering. He advanced the thesis that quality was simply the consensus of the people who judged art. He then described creating a bowl (?) on which he inscribed the names of the fifty most active collectors. He called the work "The Consensus Opinion" (or something similar, can't swear to that either). He then related how one of the folks whose name was inscribed thereon noticed the work at a gallery and, on seeing their name, promptly paid the five-figure price to buy the work.

I'd love to be able to use this anecdote in a talk I'm giving, but I do need to get the details right. I'd appreciate any pointers to the lecture, the artist, and/or the work itself.

Thanks,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

My google-foo has returned. The artist (I'm nearly certain) is Grayson Perry, and the link to the BBC Reith lectures is here. This series began on Oct 8, 2013. Thank you all for putting up with a bit of confessional debugging.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I just spent the last 15 mins tracking this down, and now when I come back you've already found it. The lecture you're talking about is this one (pdf). The anecdote about the pot is on page 7. --Viennese Waltz 10:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viennese Waltz Ah, damn, sorry about that. Let me know if you need anything that happens to be paywalled (or in the University of California system) and I'll try to return the favor. And nice work tracking that down in fifteen minutes based on the sketchy description I gave—I'm impressed! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book Reviews, Ex-Inmate In Exile

I am looking for any reviews written about the self-published autobiography, Ex-Inmate In Exile, ISBN 1-55212-227-1.70.17.200.100 (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]