Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"- 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)

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... --Jayron32 04:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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. --Jayron32 04:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Jayron32 04:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

... 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

And the most notorious overconsumption might be Vitamin A, which can be toxic.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

(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)

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)

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)

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 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. --Jayron32 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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). [2] [3] [4] [5] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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."^[6] 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)

Various sources like [7] [8] [9] [10] do mention souls inhabiting green birds in paradise, originating at least partially from Hadith Qudsi 27 [11] [12]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

By the way, though houris (and boys!) occur in the Qur'an, the number "72" doesn't -- in this context, it's only found in hadith... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [13]) Each of the fifty states have different laws with different histories. Rmhermen (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

I wonder why Kaliningrad Oblast is shown as Protestant on that map... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Until 1945, the region was overwhelmingly Lutheran, with a small number of Catholics and Jews" from the article that you linked above; it used to be part of East Prussia. Alansplodge (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

However, the map does not appear to be about 70 years ago, and none of the other east-of-Oder-Neisse-line former Prussian territories are shown as Protestant... P.S. Belarus seems to be shown significantly smaller than its actual size (less than half the area of Poland, which is not the case in reality). AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It does seem odd. Perhaps they couldn't get any modern information on the enclave and reverted to some old data. The area now seems to be predominately atheist (perhaps they thought that Protestant was the closest fit). Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

At a guess, the name could begin with the Arabic "q" letter ق, which has a wide range of pronunciations in spoken vernacular Arabic dialects (that's how the beginning of the name of the former Libyan dictator had so many different spellings)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Were 1950s American colored drinking fountains safe?

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Here's a pic showing that they shared the same water supply: [14]. (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)

"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)

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

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)

Yes, as Baseball Bugs notes (tongue-deliciously-in-cheek), Colored fountains were safer to drink from than the White ones -- if you were colored! My attempt to drink from a White one in a Sears in Birmingham, Alabama, on the dare of a pass-for-white cousin who had just done so, was thwarted by a clerk who summoned my shopping grandmother's attention to my not-so-stealthy approach with a politely drawled "Ma'am" and an amused nod in my direction (it was my guilty loitering which must have evoked her suspicion, since the two labelled fountains were side-by-side and she could not have known beforehand which I intended to drink from -- that, and my conversation with what liked like a white girl). I think we all just assumed that the water was the same in both fountains (also in the Colored bathrooms) because it was inconceivable that proprietors would incur the extra expense of separate plumbing and water sourcing. Besides, what would have been the point? The purpose of such segregation, reflective of pervasive and deeply ingrained local culture, was not so much to deprive blacks as to comfort whites (cf., The Help), to whom it probably no more occurred that it was intrinsically humiliating to the other race than people today think restrooms are sex-segregated to humiliate the other gender. We liked going downtown to Sears and seeing "Colored" labels because we could drink and use the restrooms -- especially important when a shopping adult is accompanied by children: most places of business (e.g., restaurants, fuel stations, but excepting government buildings since Plessy v. Ferguson) only had one fountain and one set of men's and women's restrooms which meant, in the American South blacks could not use them at all. From the pov of businesses which could afford to do it, installing "Colored" anything drew in more black customers with green dollars -- no one perceived any political implications of what was an obvious and effective marketing strategy. Structural racism doesn't depend on personal bigotry to pervade inferiority, just compliance with prevalent arrangements. The system, not merely individual attitudes, must be changed to eradicate it: as near as I could detect, that Sears clerk intended no disrespect to me or Grandmother as she enforced racial segregation upon us. FactStraight (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I'd never thought about the economic advantage of installing "colored" facilities. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you recall if the fountains were identical or if the "colored" fountain was inferior ? I get the impression that was often the case, either because the owner wanted to make blacks feel inferior, or because, if they didn't, then Klansmen or other whites might give them a hassle for encouraging blacks to get "uppity" and act "above their station". StuRat (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Could it not also be, as FactStraight sort of hinted at, that because this was an additional expense, and for people who had far fewer choices, they installed inferior facilities because they were cheaper and the target market couldn't do much about it and probably also had lower expectations? And perhaps also the market while providing some financial bonus, was still small enough that those involved didn't feel it worthwhile spending too much money (this is complicated, on the one hand in terms of population size and economic status, they would generally be lower than the white clientale, on the other hand, as said earlier noting FactStraight's point, they had fewer options but I suspect it was rare that the the amount of money they spent came close to the white clientale). Also I presume some of these were retrofitted, which would often mean more difficult or greater expensve achieving the same level of facility. To be clear, I'm not defending the practices in any way, simply suggesting particularly in light of FactStraight's points, in some cases, it may have been they did it mostly based on other financial considerations without intending to send a message (for themselves or for other people, the later of course could also bring in financial considerations). Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I failed to make my point if I left anyone in confusion about this: in my recollection, the facilities were identical. I presume there were exceptions (of course, I never entered a White restroom, where differences in upkeep would have been more likely, although blacks who cleaned or served handcloths in them and those nannying White children -- in other words, workers -- did go in), but I don't recall ever noticing any. If a facility was likely to offer Coloreds the amenity (and most did not) it was presumably a minor marginal cost to keep them in similar states of cleanliness and repair for their customers. But, as you note, there would have been no recourse if the Colored ones were filthy or in poor repair compared to the White ones. Yet the notion that the proprietors (or, for that matter, Klansmen) would have deliberately left them in visibly inferior condition misunderstands the nature of this kind of systemic racism, in my opinion, which was not driven by malice or punitiveness, but by a fundamental system of separating the races because one was understood to be inferior -- not because there was a need to make us feel inferior: do you deliberately give a dog dirty water to drink to remind it that it should not expect what you have? No doubt such behavior occurred, but it misunderstands how racism and segregation worked to imagine such animus as the point of rather than incidental to the system: one doesn't need to prove a point that is widely taken for granted. FactStraight (talk) 22:03, 21 January 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs)

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. --Jayron32 02:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

People's ability to appreciate it is (in part) a result of increasing disillusion with divine authority following the world wars, and the democratic revolutions/reformations of the 18th through 20th centuries. From a practical perspective, it does imply that any action one can rationalize as being done out of love must be moral, regardless of what it is. This isn't merely like Dietrich Bonhoeffer deciding that pacifism means you have to kill Hitler, it's more along the lines of trying to kill your son because a voice only you here asks you to (it would be an understatement to say that Kierkegaard was rather fond of that topic). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What evidence do/did they have that they had been "saved"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Just yesterday, I found a Theopedia article on antinomianism. Salvation in antinomianism means that a person has faith in Christ, and that faith in Christ guarantees salvation. Hence, taking Martin Luther's sola fide to the extreme. On the Theopedia article, it mentions that many denominations and persons in the past accused other denominations or persons of antinomianism as a serious anathema; and this accusation came to mean that the accused was guilty of being too licentious. The article concluded that even though Anabaptists and Calvinists were accused of being antinomian, their conspicuously austere lifestyle contrasted the kind of licentiousness that would go with being antinomian. However, one must be aware that Theopedia writes from a Protestant perspective, so obviously they may deny the Calvinist and Anabaptist tradition as being antinomian. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't "faith in Christ" encompass obeying His commands? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The antinomian would probably say that by obeying the two commandments, they would naturally follow any truly divine commands, even if they are not following human codification thereof. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not according to historic Protestant doctrine. See Sola fide. Salvation by faith alone explicitly excludes any type of works. Rather, love and obedience are said to be a necessary result of true faith. Hence the saying "we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone". - Lindert (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they only thought they had been "saved". It still goes back to my question: How did they "know"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I never said "knowing" in the epistemological sense, and this topic has never been about that until you brought it up. In Christianity, an antinomian is one who denies the fixed meaning and applicability of moral law and believes that salvation is attained solely through faith and divine grace. Many antinomians, however, believe that Christians will obey moral law despite being free from it. Antinomianism does not say anything about knowing or acquiring knowledge in the epistemologial sense that you are thinking of or whatever epistemological approach that satisfies you. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I get the rather OR impression from what I've seen that the word "antinomian" and its variations is one that has rarely if ever been used by a group itself, but rather a prejorative used against them by others. That being the case, it might be hard to identify what antinomians say about anything, because they might not call themselves that. Having said that, I find quite a few encyclopedias here have articles on the topic, including maybe one of the most highly regarded of the lot early in the list here. But, to answer the question, I would think that those few who really did adhere to real "antinomianism" (if there were any, and not just a lot of people prejudicially accused of it) they would also think that "being saved" was not necessarily the only goal. To paraphrase Jesus, my father's house has many mansions, and some of them aren't mansions, but cramped little outhouses with maybe inadequate ventilation near the heavenly cesspit. Yeah, if you get there, you're "saved," and you ain't in any way really suffering, but you might also think that mebbe you could have done better by earning a few more points in the physical life. And, in general, people who really spend a lot of time thinking about the afterlife do tend to draw distinctions between the various options in heaven and elsewhere, so, even if those who are saved are guaranteed to get through the gate into heaven, there are still places there one might be more or less fond of, and you could work on that. There is also the possibility that, even if you are saved but do something that might carry a serious penalty, and everything did back then, you would still be suffering the penalty. And not living up to your own apparent standards will get you ridiculed and sneered at by others, so someone with a healthy ego would want to appear to be saved for personal ego reasons. Getting into heaven is one thing, consciously swinging from a gibbet for several hours, or suffering the sneering condescension of your neighbours, are entirely different, and the former won't preclude the latter if you do something to earn them. Also, honestly, particularly in the old days, pardon me for maybe being a bit recentist here, most laypeople and others weren't really trained in logic or philosophy, and most of them, at the time, probably wouldn't have been able to answer this question, other than maybe repeating the specific statements of their leaders. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

An "official" review or just people's opinions? If the latter, this might be worth a read. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Henryk Dobrzański - Confirmation in respect of his son

Henryk Dobrzański

Hello, I am hoping someone may be able to assist with the following (I have been redirected to you). With respect to the entry under the heading Death and legacy 'In 1949, Dobrzański's son, Ludwik, emigrated to England and became a property developer. He died in 1990 (December 15), in the town of Bedford'. Is anyone able to provide proof or verification that this is 100% factual please, i.e. was Ludwik indeed Hubal's son? Many Thanks 82.21.214.45 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You'd be better off asking this question at the reference desk, since Editor Assistance is for advice on how to edit the encyclopedia whereas the reference desk is for seeking information about the subjects the encyclopedia covers. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the steer in the right direction TransporterMan. 82.21.214.45 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.214.45 (talk)

This entry in the London Gazette confirms that _a_ Ludwik Dobrzanski lived in Bedford in 1964, and worked as a building contractor. I can't confirm whether or not he's Henryk's son, and 15 years seems like rather a long time between his (purported) immigration and his naturalization. Tevildo (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, I do know the dates to be correct a case of better late than never I guess. Would I need to contact the Polish Wikipedia maybe? to establish the father son connection or what would you suggest? 82.21.214.45 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the biographies referenced in the Henryk Dobrzański article should contain the basic facts (such as his son's name and date of birth). Confirmation of Ludwik's death is probably available from one of the many genealogy sites on the internet, so someone with an account on such a site could look it up. See WP:RS for the range of sources that are acceptable. Tevildo (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ludwik Dobzanski is/was my Father, he never spoke of his Father (not to me anyway), so seeing reference to my Father being the son of Hubal has intrigued me and I wish to establish its validity. Someone obviously knows/knew something to put it onto Wikipedia? Anything I have read only makes reference to Hubals daughter, born after my Father, (my Father was born in 1922). I will keep looking, thank you for your responses. 82.21.214.45 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference in the Brundtland Report

On a scanned page of the Bruntland report , which I Transcribed at Wikisource, there is a reference to a US govt report, dated in that report as 1987. The reference states it was incorporated into a public law. The question is finding the number of the Public law concerned as the actual number appears to have been mangled in the scan or typesetting. For purposes of being able to potentially link the relevant item on Wikisource or more widely , Does anyone here know which Public Law is actually being mentioned? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you repeat the relevant text here ? StuRat (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The right link is wikisource:Page:Brundtland Report.djvu/335. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The text of the reference reads "7/ 'List of Projects with Possible Environmental Issues' transmitted to Congress by U.S. Agency for International Development. 1987, as included in Public Law <illegible text>-?91." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen"

A quote from Richard J. Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics [15]:

"A distinguished historian has said that one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen."

Does anyone know who the 'distinguished historian' Hofstadter refers to was? Sadly Google isn't much help, as it merely finds quotes from Hofstadter, who was presumably paraphrasing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he himself said it. It's been known to happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Somebody named Joe Scarborough?[16] Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? Hofstadter got the quote from a one-year-old Joe Scarborough when he wrote his 1964 essay? Astonishing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Perhaps Joe Scarborough was prescient and precocious. Bus stop (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, we don't know whether Scarborough actually claimed to have come up with it, or whether he attributed the quote, and goodreads.com then miss-attributed it. Either way, assuming that Hofstadter actually wrote it first (or at least, before Scarborough) we are no nearer finding out who the distinguished historian was - though Bug's suggestion is I suppose plausible enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Another fairly plausible possibility is that Hofstadter himself didn't know who said it, and it may not have ever even appeared in print. A common source might be a conversation over dinner at a conference or some such. The author may well remember hearing the phrase from a distinguished historian, but could not remember who (perhaps there were several distinguished historians present, perhaps there was wine involved, etc). Not that helpful, but that's the kind of sloppy "attribution" that I hear in casual science discussions (though it wouldn't fly in print). I have uttered similar phrases myself, based on exactly the type of situation I've described :) SemanticMantis (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

L. B. Namier's your man. In his Avenues of History (1952) he wrote, "The crowning attainment of historical study is a historical sense — an intuitive understanding of how things do not happen." --Antiquary (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 22

FAMOUS PAINTINGS

I am in possession of a painting which depicts a beautiful landscape with no animal forms whatsoever,nor humans. Mountains, trees, a blue brook,and three huts clustered together, blue sky, some white clouds. I tired of searching its origin, it is signed "by young" and under the name two digits "76". I could not find this artist's identity. the thought came as to wether the "76" digits might stand for the year 1876 as I could not find anything covering the 1900's . this painting was under another painting108.94.177.87 (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, without further information, we have no way of knowing whether the digits indicate 1786, 1876, 1976, or something else entirely - and Young is a very common name. Why do you describe the paintings as 'famous'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

When you say that "this painting was under another painting" do you mean that the topmost painting had to be removed to find the painting that you are describing? How do you know that "this painting was under another painting"? Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You could try to photograph the painting, and use TinEye or reverse image search on google. If it really is a famous work, it might have been photographed in the past, and might even be available online. Even if it has not been photographed prior, you could still post it here. Some people can identify periods and artists by style, even for novel paintings. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And some here would be capable of doing the same. You might start by providing some basic details - where did you get it, what painting was "on top" (style, form, media, etc), what type of frame does it have, how was the top painting removed (was the "bottom" one simply a backing in the same frame or were they on the same canvas and the "top" painting was removed) and is there anything on the back by way of merchant's stamps, signatures, codes or numbers, letters or words, or labels. Often, these things are fairly easy to narrow down from there, at least in terms of style, era and nationality. If non-famous, locating an artist might be more difficult. If you genuinely believe it to be worth something and you have the money to find out, many good auction houses can be commissioned to undertake the above research for you. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Could it be Harvey Otis Young (American, 1840 - 1901)? Rodolph (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Medicaid expansion in PA without legislative approval?

This article says, that the new Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf does not need legislative approval to expand medicaid. Why doesn't he need it while other states do need a law for this? Is PA the only state were the chief executive can do this? --62.153.225.50 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)