Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

January 30

Alternatives to Bible Gateway?

I am interested in reading English (and potentially French) translations of the (Christian) Bible, since I have an intellectual interest in the trappings of Christianity and Judaism. The internet has generally been a good source for this sort of thing -- if I'm not mistaken, there's a Wikisource upload of the Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanakh, and I can find a lot of New Testament material on Bible Gateway.

However, I also feel at-odds with the people who run Bible Gateway; for instance, they run adverts catering to the evangelical Christian crowd and seem to support politics that I disagree with. In a pinch, I'm fine with using the site, but I'm wondering if there's a similar site elsewhere, preferably run by a nonsectarian group. It's really not a big issue though - in the worst case, I can probably just live off of the JPS translation and public domain uploads of the KJV translation (assuming that the KJV translation is any good). --Morningcrow (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like the Skeptics Annotated Bible: [1]. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't spent enough time on any of them in order to recommend one, but there are a couple more listed in our Category:Online Scripture Search Engine. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the ones in Sluzzelin's link, here are a few more: http://www.biblestudytools.com/ http://biblehub.com/ http://www.bible-online.cz/ http://www.bibleserver.com/. Regarding the KJV, that is not a bad translation, but the underlying Greek text for the New Testament is the Textus Receptus, which is based on a small number of rather late manuscripts. Modern translations use a Greek text reconstructed from far more and earlier manuscripts. So although the differences are not all that great, I'd recommend using a more recent translation such as the ESV or NIV if you want a New Testament that is as close as possible to the originals. For the Old Testament, the KJV is fine if you don't mind the dated language. - Lindert (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that different Christian groups have and promote different bible versions. The King James Version is considered authoritative by Mormons and some other Protestants, as King James was a Protestant king. It's definitely not a Catholic or Orthodox version, because it skips out the deuterocanonical books entirely, treating them as if they are not inspired. The Bible is not one holy text; rather, it is a collection of texts that is considered to be inspired by Jews and Christians. Jews reject the entire New Testament, and mainstream Christians reject the Book of Mormon to be inspired. So, when you are looking at the Bible, you are not looking at a book. Instead, you are looking at theological tradition. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Studylight site might interest you. It's obviously a site run by evangelical Christians, but the range of translations is impressive, starting with Wycliffe, and covering the early editions such as Coverdale and Geneva, with a good range of the modern ones. My only quibble is the absence of the marginal notes in the Geneva bible. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That I'm aware of; honestly I guess you could just say that I'm interested in a translation of the Tanakh (for which JPS will most likely suffice) and the standard Protestant New Testament (which was the main thing I wasn't as sure about, particularly since JPS obviously don't have a translation of that, and I wasn't sure how good KJV (which I can definitely find on nonsectarian sites) or any of the other standard "word for word" translations were). --Morningcrow (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are more in need of a commentary written by somebody that understands Hebrew/Greek, and can tell you where Tanakh translators were guessing, or why John 21:15-17 only works in Greek. I'm guessing you'll have to find these on a book by book basis. Alternatively, I've always worked on comparing modern versions with the King James and looking up the differences in a dictionary. KJV is useful if your Hebrew is as bad as mine - as you say, it's almost word for word. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2013 edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures in English is at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/binav/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013 and http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/1 and http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/. (At this moment, the "Book of Matthew" is available in audio at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/binav/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/40.) Also, The Divine Name King James Bible is at http://www.dnkjb.net.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC) and 05:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC) and 14:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New World Translation is the in-house version of the Watchtower Tract and Bible Society, the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses organisation. It differs from the scholarly consensus in a number of important ways, and I would advice against using it as a reference translation. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos the 1917 JPS edition of the Tanakh: I looked at the Wikisource version just now and see that some books are missing. I don't understand how this compares with the Mechone Mamre website that provides the complete edition and other texts besides. Perhaps the site is of use for your purposes? -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out; I probably hadn't realised it since I'd only looked up the Wikisource upload for a specific Exodus passage. That site seems a lot more helpful. --Morningcrow (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Crusade and people on ships

In Third Crusade#King Richard and King Philip's departure it says, Shortly after setting sail from Sicily, King Richard's armada of 100 ships (carrying 8,000 men) was struck by a violent storm. Do we have a reference source that verifies these numbers?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A useful source is The Later Crusades: 1189-1311 edited by Kenneth M. Setton, Robert Lee Wolff, Harry W. Hazard which has a substantial Google Books preview. Annoyingly, the relevant pages, 61 and 62 "are not shown in this preview". It does make it plain that our article is wrong; Richard and Philip did not "...set out jointly from Marseille, France for Sicily", they met at Vézelay and set out together on 4 July as far as Lyons where they parted, Richard to Marseilles and Philip to Genoa where he hired a fleet to transport his force (p. 57). Richard's fleet that had left Dartmouth went straight to Sicily via Portugal, rather than meeting Richard in Marseilles as our article says; Richard hired ships in Marseilles for his retinue of 800, which may be an overestimate. I haven't found the answer to your question yet though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lead. It will keep me busy meanwhile.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for Google Books - all 6 volumes of the "Wisconsin History" (as we like to call it) is available online here. Page 61 of volume 2 says Richard had "180 ships and 39 galleys". There was a storm after they left Sicily, and Richard briefly landed on Crete. A footnote on page 62 gives the primary sources for Richard's journey. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well done sir! Please note Doug, the caveat on page 57; "When a medieval writer had to guess at a number, he did so with lavish generosity. When he was an eye witness, he made his estimates with dashing carelessness. The figures given by contemporary writers are usually magnificently improbable round numbers." Alansplodge (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You guys sure know your stuff. Thanks. This will keep me busy for some time studying it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; a cursory grasp combined with Google I'm afraid (speaking only for myself of course). It's not what you know, it's knowing where to look. Good reading! Alansplodge (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have a better grasp on this than I do. Just one more question and I will get back to my reading and stay out of your hair. If you were to guess (as I haven't found it yet), how many people on King Richard's armada of 180 ships and 39 galleys? A guess is fine, if you don't stumble on an exact number. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forge, Rev Charles (1870) Richard the First and the Third Crusade, Wyman & Sons, London (p. 91) gives a figure of 20,000 men but gives no sources. That equals 100 men on each ship. Bearing in mind that they had to bring horses as well and given the reservations quoted above, you can be sure that it was probably a lot fewer than that: perhaps half? BTW, I have amended the Third Crusade#King Richard and King Philip's departure section using the references above. Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the ships would have transported horses exclusively - since Wikipedia is blessed with people who love to write about horses, we have a pretty informative article on Horse transports in the Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That will keep me busy reading and studying all this.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everlasting punishment

Other than Christianity, which religions believe that everyone who doesn't share their religion receives everlasting punishment in hell? Does any exist today? --Bowlhover (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islam, for one. Google "islamic view of hell" and you'll get plenty of hits that seem to square with the traditional Christian viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you get to wait till the Last Day before going to Jahannam, if your only crime is not believing, and some say you can work your way out. So it's maybe not quite eternal. They have their own version of the Chinvat Bridge, so good deeds alone can help. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

And does Islam have the same flaw as Christianity, saying that people who lived before Jesus or Mohammed, or otherwise never even heard of Christianity or Islam, can't get into heaven ? Same is true of Judaism too, I suppose. Reincarnation seems the only convenient way around the assumption that "You can't get into heaven unless you accept X", for those who never even heard of X. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You get resurrected first. That alone should make you aware that something credible is happening. Just a matter of asking someone younger what the deal is. Once you're convinced (assuming you weren't a terrible person), should be smooth sailing. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:32, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

According to Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, dead people are unconscious.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I question the OP's premise in relation to Christianity. Which Christian denominations teach that "everyone who doesn't share their religion receives everlasting punishment in hell"? Because I know of quite a few major denominations that teach nothing of the sort. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Says you can't be saved without the Church, but not necessarily damned. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

And, with regard to those who lived before Jesus' nativity, see Harrowing of Hell. Deor (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, InedibleHulk, it doesn't say that you can't be saved without the Church. See the section "Inculpable ignorance":

In its statements of this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God";[6] that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control";[6] and that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life."[8]

Inculpable ignorance is not a means of salvation.[21] But if by no fault of the individual ignorance cannot be overcome (if, that is, it is inculpable and invincible), it does not prevent the grace that comes from Christ, a grace that has a relationship with the Church, saving that person. Thus it is believed that God would make known to such a person before the moment of death, by either natural or supernatural means, the Catholic faith, since "without [such] faith it is impossible to please God", and this entails, for even the unbaptized, at the very least baptism of desire.

Given that those who never even heard of Jesus and the Church WAY outnumber those who have (since the beginning of humanity), this means that Heaven is full of mainly non-believers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That says God would give the invincibly ignorant (I like that phrase) a crash course, before the moment of death. So they'd still be in the Church, briefly, but long enough. And mercy is at God's discretion. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to admit that this is a surprise to me. I thought the damnation of non-believers is almost universally accepted by Christians. Which major denominations don't teach it? --Bowlhover (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church, for one. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might that depend on your local church's teachings? I mean some Catholic churches ignore Vatican II. I attended a Jesuit high school as a non-Catholic. Nobody outright told me I would burn in hell (that's usually more the game the evangelical christians play), but I recall them telling me that John 14:6 was about non-Christians not being able to be saved [2], straight from the mouth of Jesus. I'm way out of my element here, just wanted to point out that, outside of formal dogma and creeds (of which many of the faithful are ignorant anyway), you'll find a lot of variety in interpretation even among one Christian sect. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to ask a too personal question, roughly how long ago was your experience? While there's obviously still a few fair who believe anyone who isn't Catholic or at least Christian is going to hell, my experience is that this seems a lot rarer now than it perhaps it was in the past. As the sources and discussion above indicates, I think there's increasing recognition that the idea doesn't go down very well, although there are different levels. The most obvious problem would be babies, as our limbo article indicates this is something recognised as a problem for a long time, since the idea that babies would be eternally punished simply because their parents didn't baptise them. Then there's the related problem of whether it's fair to punish someone who lived a good life but had no opportunity to learn about Jesus (which even nowadays in the internet era is still a problem, let alone in the past). Those who did know about Jesus but still rejected the message is the one that was perhaps the longest for people to come around to but nowadays there seems to be increasing recognition that the idea of an all loving god just seems incompatible with the idea a person who does so would definitely be eternally punished/damned even if they otherwise lived a very moral life, helped all sorts of people etc. (Particularly since someone who lived a terribly immoral life, e.g. murdered etc would be fine if they were genuinely contrite and accepted the proper god at the end. For that matter, most would suggest it's possible someone who sinned a bit and wasn't really contrite for some of them but accepts the proper god may be okay. Of course the whole forgiveness thing hits issues if you just think of ordinary life anyway, since someone who spends 10 years on death row or gets a terminal illness with a long time before they die has far more opportunity to accept their mistakes then someone who is killed while commiting a crime, or has a heart attack, or whatever.) The Vatican's official view on these issues nowadays as per our articles seems to be basically "well we don't think god can be that evil, but we can't truly know god, and it is ultimately only through accepting god that you will be saved so we figure he'll find a way although you're still far better off if you accept god now). In terms of you point, may be it also depends a lot on the area, a place with relatively few Catholics probably finds it harder to suggest that. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're misunderstanding each other. My question was really about the modern world, not people before the founding of the religion or in remote uncontacted regions. Almost everybody today has heard of the major world religions, albeit not necessarily in any detail, so they're surely not "invincibly ignorant". (BTW, thank you Baseball Bugs for pointing out Islam. I thought I understood Islam's views on hell, but obviously not.) --Bowlhover (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that people who died without knowing Jehovah will be resurrected and will learn about him. (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003609)

—Wavelength (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's taught pretty unambiguously by the Athanasian Creed, which is accepted by many denominations (see Ecumenical creeds):

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. (...) Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. (...) And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.". - Lindert (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of the obvious: have a good look at Hell. Many Jewish people don't believe there is a hell, so of course they don't think non-Jews get eternal punishment. The Unitarians aren't big on exclusion or fire and brimstone either, inclusion is central enough to be part of their name. Taoism has no concept of Hell as far as I know, and only some parts of Hinduism acknowledge hell. I suppose there might be concepts of eternal punishment that aren't Hell-like (e.g. endless reincarnation into lives of suffering), but our article is pretty comprehensive. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the Sikhs but Sikhism#Liberation makes it pretty clear that they're not down with heaven, hell, or reincarnation. So it doesn't look like they think I'm going to be tormented for not being a Sikh. Like Judaism, Sikhs don't aggressively recruit, and may actually dissuade would-be converts. My general rubric is, the religions/sects that aggressively recruit are the most likely to think everyone else will burn. It's a compelling argument (to some) - "join us, or suffer eternally". SemanticMantis (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC) (P.S. Oops, sorry, I misread the question, and was answering as though there was a "does not believe" in there. I'll leave these links though, as they at least rule out many candidates :)[reply]

Colonialism in Africa

There are many writers and resources that are about the negatives of colonialism in Africa. However were there any prolific writers or books that view colonialism in Africa as a positive, and a good thing? --Preston pig (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cui bono? I'm sure you can find books by Dutch, British, and French authors of the time who were very happy about how the whole thing was working out for them. For example the directors of the Dutch East India Company were likely very positive about the Dutch Cape Colony. I suppose you'd find some warlords in modern Africa that owe their power to the Belgian_Congo, so they might be more positive on the whole business as well.

Our article on Colonialism has a long section on impacts. Most don't seem very positive for the Africans. I see no comment there on any modern perspectives that think it was good for Africa.

Searching a bit more, I find these three books [3] [4] [5]. None of them say it was generally positive or good for Africa, but they discuss some positives as well as negatives. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A more modern study is The Legacy of Western Overseas Colonialism on Democratic Survival (2004); "We find that Western overseas colonialism, a factor often overlooked in recent large-n studies, continues to have an effect on the survival of democratic regimes". You may also be interested in this 2005 article; French angry at law to teach glory of colonialism. Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a positive continuing effect, or just an effect? I mean, are they saying that western colonialism has generally helped democratic regimes to survive/persist in Africa? SemanticMantis (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! forgot to link it - try this. Bit of a long read I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Empire by Niall Ferguson. This section of our article on him quotes one critic describing it as a "panegyric to British colonialism" and gives a summary of some of Ferguson's arguments that the British Empire "was preferable to the alternatives". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, also Civilization: The West and the Rest also goes over the subject in some detail. 203.96.130.148 (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one metioned Rudyard Kipling yet? Granted, there is some debate over how pro-imperialism he actually was, but he's usually the first name that comes up when talking about English-language "Hurrah for Empire!" stuff. --71.104.75.148 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

Both the president and vice president attending the White House Correspondents' Dinner

I was watching some old White House Correspondents' Dinner videos on youtube and noticed that the event is never attended by both the president and vice president in the same year. In some years it's president, and in others, the vice president. Is this actually the case? Has there been a recent case where both of them attended the dinner? Has there been a case where neither of them attended? WinterWall (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They do try to limit the risk of both being killed together by reducing the number of public appearances featuring both at once. Of course, there are events where both are expected, such as the State of the Union address. In those cases, somebody else in the Presidential line of succession is kept safe, offsite, as the designated survivor. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar precautions are taken with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles, never, for example travelling together.Pincrete (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Windermere's Fan

So, there's this article about play and it's a good thing that it has recording of the play as well. I want to ask some questions related to it.

How can it be considered as comedy ? Yes, there are some lines spoken which I find it to be comedy. But, in which things a listener should know the play is comedy ?
What aspects should be in a play to consider it s play?
It would be great if there were recordings of the play like this . Are there any?

Learnerktm 07:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read that play, but according to traditional definitions, a tragedy play generally has several deaths near the end, while most other plays are comedies... AnonMoos (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the theatre it is often the case that "comedy" has a slightly different meaning from other usages. Basically, you know you've seen a comedy if you leave the theatre in a light and happy mood. This doesn't mean that there won't be sad bits in the play, and in a good comedy there will be bits that make you think, but the resolution of the play should be that of a "happy ending", though perhaps not the one that you expect (see, for example, The Merry Wives of Windsor, where the happiness of the protagonist at the end is most decidedly bitter-sweet).

As for recordings of the play, I was able to find a production on YouTube. I was also able to find several other comedies, including several of Shakespeare's - Twelfth Night, As You Like It, Measure for Measure (audio only), and so on. RomanSpa (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, AnonMoos RomanSpa

The play Lady Windermere's Fan has its recording within the article. If there were more like that, it would have been great.

) Thanks a lot for the info.

Learnerktm 12:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's a comedy because it has a happy ending: "Their marriage is restored, but both Lord and Lady Windermere keep their secrets." I'd strongly recommend reading the original and seeing the BBC TV adaptation over watching the tedious re-written Helen Hunt costume-drama adaptation, A Good Woman (film). μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Lady Windermere's fan" is hilarious, in my opinion, and to many of the audiences that saw it when it came out. This isn't some weird, not-that-funny stuff from an ancient age. It's social satire, scandalous pairings, witty banter, dry humour, mistaken identity, and lots of other aspects that are staples of modern comedies too. I guess it might be a little hard to see the humor if you're reading it and not watching it, or if you're rather unfamiliar with the culture of the time. But I find it much easier to laugh at Oscar Wilde than Shakespeare, Oscar's much closer to us (i.e. the present) in terms of shared language and experience.

An Ideal Husband and The Importance of Being Earnest, both by Oscar Wilde, have been released as movies relatively recently, and were similarly well-received as traditional, funny comedies [6] [7]. As for what makes a play a play, see Play_(theatre). SemanticMantis (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But please consider tracking down the Michael Redgrave version of The Importance of Being Earnest. It's in brilliant color, directed by Anthony Asquith, and Margaret Rutherford as Miss Prism is peerless. As is Dame Edith Evans as Lady Bracknell. I'm sure it'd be on youtube. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: I think you've mixed up Fan with Earnest because the cast you mention is from this film The Importance of Being Earnest (1952 film). Fan doesn't seem to have been adapted as often as OW's other plays see Lady Windermere's Fan#Adaptations. The 1985 BBC version is well done. The 1925 silent version is fascinating Lady Windermere's Fan (1925 film). You might think that "Wilde without words" would be a non-starter but the film does find a way to capture the spirit of the play. MarnetteD|Talk 19:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

?? I never mentioned Lady Windermere's Fan, mate. Semantic Mantis mentioned The Importance of Being Earnest and An Ideal Husband, and I responded in relation to the first-mentioned play. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, D'oh and a trout slap. My apologies @JackofOz:. I read the header - skimmed the posts and missed who you were responding to. Sloppy error on my part. I am glad you mentioned that version though. MarnetteD|Talk 20:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with SM above but he doesn't mention that An Ideal Husband (1999 film), with Julianne Moore, Minnie Driver, Jeremy Northam, Cate Blanchett and Rupert Everett vastly improves on the original. Again, see any version of Lady Windemere's Fan that is not the Helen Hunt version; it is terribly directed, poorly set, and amounts to a very bad Britploitation movie. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally a tragedy explores the tragic flaws in a character, it isn't necessarily 'bodies all over the floor at the end', but does tend to be. A comedy explores lighter subjects, or explores them in a lighter way, but again it isn't necessarily laugh-out-loud stuff. Lighter subjects include human love (what we would call Romantic comedy, which even today is often smiles, rather than laughs). There aren't that many laughs in Dante's Divine Comedy, The Tempest, does have humour, but that isn't why it is categorised as comedy. It is mainly that our expectation of what a comedy should be has changed, to us it is 'a laugh a minute'. I don't know LWF very well, but endorse much of what Medeis says, AIHusband, is again 'light-hearted', rather than obviously funny. Pincrete (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Buddhist underworld

Special:Random led me to Sanzu River and Keneō. How do these concepts fit into the concept of reincarnation, which I thought was central to all of Buddhism? If you're crossing something like the Styx for the afterlife, it doesn't seem like you're going to be reincarnated. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could look at Naraka (Buddhism)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation and underworlds (or heavens or hells) aren't incompatible. Most forms of Buddhism usually teach that there are heavens and hells, they're just temporary -- at worst, there to zero out one's karma; at best, a safe spot for someone to achieve enlightenment (invariably a heaven, though heavens present the danger of being too enjoyable to accept that existence is ultimately discontentment). Some Greek mystery religions followed a similar train of thought: the river Lethe was what prevented us from remembering past lives.

Laurence Waddell's Buddhism of Tibet (a touch old but mostly good if one ignores about anything west of Pakistan) has a chapter on of Tibetan Buddhist underworlds, and (IIRC) discusses their relationship to earlier Indian Buddhism as well as East Asian Buddhism. Japanese Buddhism had influence from native Shinto, but was otherwise derived from Chinese, Tibetan, and Indian Buddhism. (As for Greek mystery religions, it's been years since I've read it, but I think Harold Willoughby's Pagan Regeneration covers that topic). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The real idea about reincarnation is that it happens every millisecond in your life, and even to inanimate objects like rocks. This is not the idea most people have - wishing they will be reborn as a happier person, which is the cause of suffering (or one of them). It's just common sense and common physics. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, Buddhism States that your mind is a never-ending continuum, and it also says that what is born must die. This apparent paradox is understood to mean that your mind is reborn through an infinite number of lives, across many worlds. It is possible to be born in heaven or hell, or the underworld but, because what is born will die, these states are not permanent or eternal, and one will once again be reborn. It is understood that therefore the only way to 'get off the roundabout' of this eternal chain of lives is through liberation by developing an understanding of the way things really are. This is the enlightenment of Buddhists. (20040302 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Except that Gautama Shakyamuni did actually say that however hard he tries, he cannot find a soul or a spirit, or anything permanent in the bodies. The stories about past lives, etc., were added later for people who wanted to avoid reality and try to have something to hope for. In any case, even if you did have a rebirth, it wouldn't matter, because you would have no recollection whatsoever of any previous lives - can you remember what 'you' were doing 100 years ago, whatever that 'you' is, or was? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 07:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be drawn into a WP:BATTLE here, but these opinions belong to a very small number of Buddhists. Firstly, following rational analysis, nothing can be found, even the keyboard that I'm using to type this. It doesn't mean that it's not really there, but that it's existence is ensconced within those narratives that recognise it. This is the same with the person; as you and I agree that the mind is subject to momentary change, following your own argument there is no reason to ever do anything for your own future - as it's not you, it's a different person.. Secondly, if you read the Pali Sutta canon - the scholar's accepted 'original sermons', you will discover that the majority of these works include mentions of karma, rebirth, past and future lives; were you to argue that this is a 'metaphor' for the momentary continuum of change, you would then have to demonstrate why Sakyamuni chose ONLY THIS ONE metaphor, when everywhere else he used the language of the people, and the simplest possible arguments for his case. Sakyamuni was keen on simile, but there isn't much metaphor. Regarding the argument for memory, the vast majority of the population cannot remember the dreams they had the night before, but there is no doubt that they had those dreams - MRI scans show that dreaming happens to all of us. Regardless, and finally (for I will not be drawn into an argument which, fundamentally, is based upon different convictions, and therefore can never be resolved), as found in statistical analysis, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - to disbelieve in the continuum of mind is to make an undemonstrable assumption; one is better off being open-minded. I will not respond further. (20040302 (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

How are patron saints supposed to work in practice?

As far as I know, each town, village, city, and even a person may have or be named after a patron saint. In many Christian communities, these patron saints may be celebrated than an individual's own birthday. Yet, a patron saint may have a specific patronage. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, is the patron saint for academics, because he was primarily an academic. If a community somehow gets St. Thomas Aquinas as a patron saint, then does that mean that the other saints are treated less reverently? Do the other saints serve any purpose at all, even though every saint has its own patronage? If the Virgin Mary is a saint, and she is not the patron saint of a community, then does that mean she would actually receive less reverence than the patron saint? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a member of your church replaced a busted door on your house while a deacon visited you in the hospital, would you treat one better than the other?

People who are likely to ask for a saint's intercession generally don't use a saint as a catch-all just because they're under a saint's patronage. For example, a teacher probably wouldn't ask Thomas Aquinas for help finding their car keys, but instead Anthony of Padua (patron saint of lost stuff, and so probably couch cushions and laundry drying machines by association). God tends to be the only catch-all for prayer. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael is also very versatile, taking calls from warriors and the suffering. He'll raze your village, and then raise it. Maybe the first profiteer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

The deacon is most likely going to receive the fancy title of address, while the member of the laity will probably be addressed less formally. The years of training at divinity school, as well as possible practice in the field, should have given the deacon more respect than the Average Guy on the street. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a person can ask a saint to talk with the other saints in heaven about something. So, even when something falls out of the patronage of a particular saint, another saint - well versed in the subject - can adequately take over. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, as both you and the saint would by definition be dead. Sorry to wake you up to reality, but that's it. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 05:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's to be hoped that the OP is talking "Catholic theology theory" here, hence the title how is it "supposed" to work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might be how we ended up with camels. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

For "how it's supposed to work", we have an article about the Intercession of saints. The 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia has an article as well although it is, as you might expect, much more heavily biased :) There is one about patron saints too. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the Catholic Encyclopedia biased? It doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is, unlike Wikipedia which routinely has articles like IPCC where political bodies are called non-scientific scientific bodies. Such articles are patrolled by partisan firewalls. The Catholic Encyclopedia purports to be and is an accurate reflection of Catholic views at the time of printing. It's neither written by Anglicans nor claims to define Islam. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's true enough. It does what it says on the box, certainly. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Videos of ISIS hostage beheadings

Perhaps someone can shed light on this for me. This question is regarding videos of ISIS hostage beheadings that have become so commonplace recently. How/why is it that these hostages seem so calm and non-combative, I am wondering? I have heard some theories, but I'd like to know if others can shed some light on this "phenomenon". These are some theories that I have heard. (1) The hostage is resigned and knows the situation to be hopeless. Therefore, what can he really do? (2) The hostages have been through many "mock" executions. So, they never really know that this is the "real" execution versus the many other "fake" ones that they had endured. (3) If the hostage is uncooperative, the captors will increase their brutality towards him during the execution. Those are some theories that I have heard. It always seems to "surprise" me that these hostages seem so "calm", almost oblivious. (Are they perhaps drugged/sedated by the captors?) So, I would think (but I am not sure) that one's instinct of survival kicks in, and they would be kicking and screaming. So, does anyone know anything about all this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When they were captured, they probably kicked and screamed in alarm. For a while longer, they resisted. After a bit, they're exhausted. It's called the General Adaptation Syndrome. Fits pretty much any high-stress situation normal people face.

King Goujian of Yue used to convince his prisoners to line up in the front of battle formations and slit their own throats, mainly to freak out the other side long enough to sneak around back. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

An interesting read. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're down for something longer, Psychological Operations in Guerrila Warfare is still generally relevant. Much of what guerrilas do overlaps with how they're trained. That's not to say the CIA trained ISIS, just that the concepts still work. Section 3's the most relevant to getting people to accept and repeat your message. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Very often they are already dead, after escape attempts. They are shot, then propped up to look like they are still alive, with obviously fake screaming while they are beheaded, because these people who do this think we are stupid. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen these videos, is there an article about this (I'm agnostic but feel it's disrespectful to view such videos)? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Shevat 5775 04:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here is the article: ISIL beheading incidents. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Shevat 5775 14:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When we start seeing videos of ISIS hostage-takers getting beheaded, then we'll be making progress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think even Jesus would approve. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Shevat 5775 04:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which Jesus would that be? Apparently not the "turn the other cheek" one. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Of course the Jesus that wrote a letter to another Jesus about a third man named Jesus. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Shevat 5775 14:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean these three?

Don't know about Jesus... but his brother Bob would approve Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The only thing we can do is convince these people to not travel to a very dangerous warzone, for whatever 'humanitarian' reasons they may think they have, and leave the locals to kill each other, as they are already doing. There is plenty of humanitarian work to be done here in God's Own Islands. They may say "But, it's an experience..." Yes, it may be, but not one that you will live to remember. I hope this epidemic of 'making me feel good in the guise of humanitarianism' will end soon, as we are paying taxes just to bring the bodies back, if we can find them. These peoople don't want our help - they want publicity and our money. Why no just shower them with fake dollars, and destroy their economy with hyperinflation - that would work. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been interesting if Japan had gone again and paid the ransom, only to find that their two citizens had already been killed by their hostage takers - as with the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. But, here is something that I don't understand. If the ISIS people really wanted the ransom money, why would they kill the hostages beforehand? Do they not realize that the Japan government will give them the ransom money only on the condition that they receive the hostages back alive? What's their thinking on this? Or is the whole "We want ransom money" just some ploy, trick, or theatrics with which they had no intention of complying? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think their real goal is to be seen as a legitimate government that other governments need to negotiate with, eventually leading to a peace agreement which leaves them holding territory. The actual ransom is just an excuse. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Very likely, you are right. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, Bugs just said it "might have been interesting". As far as I've read (I don't read Infowars or The Daily Mail), the Japanese were killed after the deadline passed. At that point, it was about looking tough, but there's no reason to think they didn't want $200 million. Everyone wants $200 million, even if they're not trying to take over the world. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, February 1, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, correct. Bugs said that such a situation "might have been interesting". And I was pursuing his line of thought. As interesting as it is, why would ISIS think that such shenanigans would ever fly? That is, expecting the Japanese government to simply fork over $200 million and, at the same time, not expect/demand the hostages being returned alive. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's to say they wouldn't have been returned? That's generally how hostages work. Japan didn't pay. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, February 1, 2015 (UTC)

You're not following the conversation. I asked why would ISIS expect that Japan would uphold their end of the bargain (i.e., pay ISIS $200 million) if, in fact, ISIS would not return the hostages alive. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The line between hypothetical and not got a bit hazy. Sorry. In theory, I can't think of any reason they'd expect that. Or how one person could reasonably be expected to sell for $100 million. But even though the rational part of the mainstream world audience understands that, Japan and Jordan still look weak, dishonest and/or greedy by being forced to say they'll do everything they can.

A less grandiose demand might have netted ISIS thousands of dollars instead of zero, but the sort of media exposure they received through these "Jihadi John" videos alone would cost a "normal" brand at least hundreds of millions of dollars. So it more than pays for the expenses of holding seemingly worthless hostages. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good points. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty convinced that they do mock executions, and if need be repurpose them as beheading video, based on the case of James Foley. He didn't make any specific statements about the date, and the disconnect between the part where he reads a bland statement and the display of his body allowed for chicanery. I had the feeling that they had him read a dozen different generic explanations for why he was about to be killed in advance, and when someone got trigger happy, thought a rescue mission was on the way, almost let him escape whatever, they decapitated his dead body (which I suspected had been bandaged) and put the two together to make it look like a planned act rather than a loss of control. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they staged a dozen different videos for a dozen future scenarios, wouldn't that be planning? And wouldn't this plan afford them more control, by letting them retroactively adapt their message? In any case, they overlooked the seemingly longshot scenario where the enemy threatens to prosecute the hostage's family for raising ransom money, and everyone lost. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

Today's report is that the Jordanian pilot was probably killed a month ago, and that the ISIS guys never had any intention of freeing him - it was all a ruse. That's what you're dealing with here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something of a ruse, but also a purely personal "fuck you" to a guy who tried to bomb them. And a scary (compared to beheading) public message to would-be bombers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

February 1

First press conference ... ever

Press conference leaves me in the dark. I do find Mrs. Roosevelt in 1933 and first press conference from space, but - according to media history - which was the more or less first press conference recognized as such ? I am also interested (as above) in "first press conference of its kind". THX! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 12:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found First presidential press conference happened by accident which describes a briefing by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, first government press conference delivered by a robot: Pentagon's Unmanned Spokesdrone Completes First Press Conference Mission. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Mass Media in the United States: An Encyclopedia says Theodore Roosevelt is usually credited with starting presidential press conferences, while Aida Donald's Lion in the White House: A Life of Theodore Roosevelt says he was giving twice-daily press conferences during his Governorship of New York (1899-1900). I also find a reference to Augustus Van Wyck giving a press conference in 1901. Doubtless it all depends on what precisely you mean by a press conference. Alan's first link refers to Roosevelt giving press briefings while being shaved, which may be what we're talking about here. --Antiquary (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a US Presidential press conference, or any press-conference in general? LongHairedFop (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the press conference is an invention of the US Presidency - in the UK, favoured journalists used to be briefed in the Central Lobby at Westminster, or over a drink in one of the many bars, or they had to wait for a speech to be made in the House of Commons. The idea of getting the press together to announce the doings of government is relatively new over here. Unless you know different.... 22:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Press conferences aren't just a governmental thing; private citizens will occasionally call press conferences. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be premised on the modern notion of a journalist, which implies the existence of the printing press. The Greeks had the agora and the Romans their fora and senate, where public announcements were made and recorded by various writers. If were just talking about Americans on the radio, it's Warren Harding. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some Google searches, first, looking for mentions of Thomas Edison holding press conferences—yes, he did—and second, looking for the words "press conference" together with numeric ranges to try to capture various years from 1750 to 1900. It was tricky because there were a lot of false hits where the 4-digit number was not a date but a time (24-hour clock), a room number, a company name, etc.; and there are also hits about fictional press conferences that Abraham Lincoln might have held. However, these hits look genuine:

This page says: "The First Spanish Republic was established in 1873, paving the way for the foundation of conservative and liberal newspapers, such as Don Simplico, Don Cándido, La Verdad, El Avisador del Comercio, El Semanario Puertorriqueño. With the Spanish American war ensuing, Primo de Rivera’s [sic] delivered a press conference in 1873 stressing the importance of the press, yet asked for moderation to avoid alarming the population or offending the U.S. government." This was in Puerto Rico, which was a Spanish possession at the time. (The reference to a "Spanish American war" must mean the Virginius Affair, not the actual Spanish–American War of 1898; the given date of 1873 fits both with those events and with the dates when es:Rafael Primo de Rivera y Sobremonte was governor.)
Several sites taking the position that the supernatural is a real thing, such as this one, say that Thomas Edison was a believer and "On November 29, 1875, when Edison was just 28 years old he called a press conference because he thought he discovered a 'new force', described as an 'etheric force'..."

I did not find any earlier examples that appeared genuine. Which is not to say that there weren't any, of course. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting findings! Thanks a lot. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 10:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate, perhaps: March, 44 BC... --Jayron 32 02:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to go there: [[First Philippic]|351 BC]]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 14 Shevat 5775 02:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iran a parliamentary democracy?

According to the intro of its article, Iran's government "combines elements of a parliamentary democracy with a religious theocracy". Parliamentary democracy? As far as I can tell from its politics section, the president is paramount among the non-clerical officials, so not purely parliamentary, and the legislature doesn't appear to have much authority over the executive, other than approving vice-presidents, so not semipresidential on the French model, either. It sounds much more like a presidential system than anything else. Am I missing something, or is the intro wrong? Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best overall term might be "Guided democracy"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm attempting to address. Take out the religious theocracy, and what do you have? Or in other words, if you had another state with similar arrangements of legislature, executive, and judiciary, and if they were the only real branches of government, what would you call it? Would it be a parliamentary system, as the Iran article's intro seems to be saying, or would it be a rather thoroughly presidential system, or something else somehow?

February 2

SNP post-referendum bounce

Hello, everyone. The Scottish National Party may have lost the independence referendum, but it has managed to bounce back, has seen a membership surge and is now polling stronger than ever for the UK general election, where it seems poised to take almost all Scottish seats. Is this sheer luck, or can it be plausibly attributed to certain measures taken by the party in the post-referendum setting? Thanks a lot.--Leptictidium (mt) 08:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A phenomenon also seen in the past in Quebec inter alia. People will vote for a "protest party" seeking secession far more than they would really vote for secession proper. Collect (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any study that deals with Wikipedia's entries on fiction?

hi everyone, let me please give it another try: a new day, new people, new opportunites, and maybe some spot-on-results this time :-) Does anyone know any research results on Wikipedia entries about fiction? see here for previous roundabout answers in section "Sought: study on a certain group of entries (fiction)" --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone knows of such studies it would most likely be the folks at WP:WikiProject Literature, try asking them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Roger (Dodger67), alas, no replies last time, so I thought I'd better opt for another try here :-) --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few academic research studies that at least mention fiction on WP [8] [9] [10]. The last is a short review, so there should be plenty of refs within. A complicating factor is we don't know what kind of study you want. Do you want a statistical analysis of word counts and coverage? Do you want a humanist review of literary techniques discussed in our articles? These will be very different papers, in different journals, with different sets of terminology. But they will both "deal with WP's entries on fiction." Maybe you just want anything at all related to WP articles about fiction? If so - do you know how to use google scholar to go through forward and reverse citations? This is a bit of a tricky thing to search for, so I think you'll do better off linking through references than repeated word searches. Anyway, google scholar is your friend here :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, good hints. Am looking for any kind of study, really. Mainly, I am interested in finding out what experts might say about theoretical slants in articles on literary works (NPOV slants, you see ;-), and since there seems to be none yet that has been made known (meaning: to the brand you name above) that deals with this topic heads-on, I was wondering what might be known (searchable/ retrievable) more generally. Thanks, SemanticMantis. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzania Youth Empowerment Group( TAYEG)

Hi,
My name is NURU CHRISTOPHER NZOYA, Am a Tanzanian with 24years old. In Tanzania there is humanity problem especially to youth between 15yrs to 35yrs, which is POVERT which mostly caused by lack of empowerment and intrepreneurship education. As my wishes i dicide to create a volunteer group to provide education on different issues concerned with intrepreneurship, empowerment, and agricutural improvement to Tanzanian youth. My request to your foundation is to ask for the support mostly financial and equipments in order to make our group plan implementations. Please help the human as much as possible can, order to make the joyful life to every one.09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)~~ Thanks,
It's TAYEG Secretary,
NURU CHRISTOPHER NZOYA
email: [redacted]
phone:[redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.77.192.135 (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the place to ask for information to help your volunteer group, not money and equipment. The Wikimedia Foundation is the place to ask for those things. (Do they have a page for such requests ?) StuRat (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julian calendar date needed for Third Crusade

In Third Crusade#King Richard and King Philip's departure it says Richard entered Limassol on May 6 and met with Isaac... Is this date of the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar, since it is 1191 they are speaking of? If it is not of the Julian calendar, then what date is that in the Julian calendar? An approximation is O.K. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in the Gregorian calendar it will be a week later. You would need to go to the source because some historians change all dates to the Gregorian. The medieval year started on Lady Day, but that isn't a problem for a date in May. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to convert the dates to the Gregorian calendar for 1191, since there was only one calendar then. It was May 6 in England and France and Cyprus. All dates are the same for everyone until 1582. As Itsmejudith says, we do need to adjust the year sometimes, since different places started the new year on different days, but May 6 was in 1191 for everyone. (Well, actually, for Isaac it would have been the year 6699 in the Byzantine calendar, but it was still May 6!) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that answered my question = May 6 it is.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Itsmejudith is right, you need to see whether the source used the original Julian dates or converted them to Gregorian dates. Although the Gregorian calendar didn't exist and wasn't in use anywhere in 1191, it is possible for a modern historian to make the conversion. I think most historians don't make the conversion, but it's a valid question. Marco polo (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source here seems to indicate May 6.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

Marco polo, any modern historian worth his salt would NEVER convert Julian dates earlier than 15 October 1582 to Gregorian. The Gregorian calendar was never meant to apply retrospectively, period. Sure, it's possible to convert dates to what they would have been if the Gregorian calendar had been introduced earlier than it was, but it's also possible to work out what my age would be now if I had been born in 1903. Both exercises are pointless and meaningless. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any reason anyone would ever do that, unless they were programming a time machine. I don't think I've ever seen an historian convert a Julian date from the Middle Ages. For the sources we're talking about here, the primary sources from the crusades and the modern history Doug is using, I can guarantee that none of those dates have been converted to the Gregorian calendar. That would make no sense at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be any good reasons any historian worth his salt would do it, but the difficulty is that people do things for bad reasons as well as good, and it's not always possible to know if a given historian is or is not sodium chloride-worthy. That various people have found and do find a use for the proleptic Gregorian calendar is testified to by the fact that it has a name and an article :) Actual primary sources of course, as Adam points out, don't use proleptic dates. People who edit Wikipedia articles seem quite prone to inserting proleptic Gregorian dates where they have no business being, so it's good to raise the concern from time to time. Especially in the context of saint's feast days, which frequently undergo this sort of "modification" because of someone's idea about what celebrating the anniversaries of a death should mean.- Nunh-huh 19:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take May 6 as the Gospel truth.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, my son. :)

Yes, Nunh-huh, some people do confuse things. The classic one is Orthodox Christmas. Orthos tend to say "We celebrate Christmas on 7 January", and others understandably wonder why. The answer is that they've given only half the story. The truth is that they celebrate Christmas on 25 December like everyone else, but unlike everyone else they use the Church Calendar, which is a slightly modified version of the Julian Calendar. Their 25 December just happens to correspond to 7 January in the Gregorian calendar, but that's not the calendar they're following when it comes to Church events and activities. I suppose they have to make it relatable to the rest of the world, for whom Christmas is now just a distant memory and who are now busy eating hot cross buns in readiness for Easter, which is still at least 10 weeks away. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that Orthodox kiddies find a way to parlay this into a few extra presents, at least ;) - Nunh-huh 05:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I introduced an unecessary worry. It's always a good idea to look at the methodology your sources used (I hope). Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how is a scratch-off ticket not just hard cash without all the security features, times a probability?

I don't get that if you can convert a scratch-off ticket into money at location, how is a scratch-off ticket not the same as an actual currency, just with far fewer security features, and multiplied by a probability? Please help me understand the distinction or what I'm missing - i.e. is there a centralized aspect, where scratch-off ticket numbers are checked against a central database? If so then is a winning scratch-off ticket (anything redeemable for cash) actually a stored 'secret' (in the cryptographic sense) that can be used once? Or is there some other centralized feature that makes this different from my mental model. Thank you. I am also interested in other aspects or qualities of bearer instruments of all kinds, centralized and decentralized. --91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't redeemable everywhere. Most restaurants won't take them, for example. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euros aren't redeemable everywhere either. Most restaurants you're thinking of won't take them. (I assume you have the US in mind or another English-speaking territory none of which are on the euro, to a first approx.) But all money exchange centers will, and give you dollars - just like scratch-off tickets.

For something to be useful as a medium of exchange, it needs to actually have a (more or less) known value. Though this is arguably true of scratch-off lottery tickets in sufficient bulk, it is demonstrably not true of individual tickets. Indeed, if it were true, logic would suggest that nobody would buy them in the first place, since their value (their expected mean payout) is less than their purchase price. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply incorrect. A 1% chance of $1,000 has an exact value of $10 per the argument expressed in my subject line. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently people who purchase lottery tickets think otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a typo. $10 is not an "exact value", rather it is an expected value. And while the math of expectation is incredibly useful, it has to be used carefully to give meaningful results. The expected value of a single roll of a fair six-sided die is 3.5=(1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 -- but you will never roll a 3.5 on a six-sided die! And as Andy points out, an expected value is not a known value of a specific item. A dollar bill is always worth exactly a dollar, but no lottery ticket that only pays out $1,000 or zero is worth exactly $10. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply wrong with "no lottery ticket that only pays out $1,000 or zero is worth exactly $10". To see why you're wrong, consider that obviously a lottery ticket that pays out either $1,000 or $0 with some probability, where that probability is 99.99999999999999999999999% the former, is worth exactly $1,000 not one penny less. (Due to the number of 9's I included, which is 25 or less than 1 in 100 sextillion chance of being worth $0.) Now in your mind decrease 99.99999999999999999999999% chance slowly but firmly toward 0.00000000000000000000001% and you will see that the value becomes worth exactly $0.00 - not even close to $0.00000000001 or even a trillionth of a penny. As you do the push you can't help but reach arbitrary values. You are just not thinking logically enough with your mind. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking (with my mind!) quite logically about this. What you've illustrated is that you're conflating expected value with real value or nominal value or purchasing power or some other type of value. The former is clearly defined mathematically, the latter terms depend on all sorts of economic considerations. Take care, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer in sequence: 1) does a lottery ticket with 99.99999999999999999999999% chance of being worth $1000 and 0.00000000000000000000001% chance of being worth $0 still have to be scratched off to be redeemed? 2) Why does it have to be scratched off? 3) Under this scenario what is the exact value after scratching and seeing a winner, and after scratching and seeing a loser? Are both possible? Finally 4) Under this scenario what is the ticket worth before scratching, after scratching and seeing a winner, and after scratching and seeing a loser? Can a ticket be in any of the above three states under the described scenario? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most lottery tickets have a serial number, on a small-scratch off panel. You shouldn't buy a ticket if the serial number is visible. When you redeem a winning ticket, either the ticket is sent by the retailer back to the lottery, or the serial number is. If it's serial number, then it's unique, and the lottery only allow it to be redeemed once. This is similar to the bar-coded event tickets you get now - if you print of the ticket twice, and give one to a friend, then you shouldn't be able to use both. LongHairedFop (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it is a secret embedded in a 'bearer currency'. How is this even remotely secure? For example, since nobody checks serial numbers if the scratch-off shows no prize, what is to stop someone from buying rolls of tickets, manufacturing all the losing numbers onto a second roll (with covering over serial numbers) and redeeming all the winning ones? Is there any independent verification that this isn't being done - for example, if 10% are supposed to be winning, does anyone randomly check rolls in grocery shops to see if in fact it isn't 5% in a statistically impossible way? (Over 5000 tickets for example). 91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be simpler just to forge real currency? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forging of lottery tickets might not attract comparable penalties, however. The US Constitution permits Congress to punish people for "counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States", but it doesn't permit Congress to punish forgeries of anything else, and probably your average state would consider this kind of thing some sort of fraud, and its punishment might be significantly different from federal punishment for counterfeiting. There's presumably no Secret Service analogue for lottery tickets, so you might be less likely to get caught. Put all these together, and the chance of "losing" is probably less for forging lottery tickets than for forging money. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, in California, creating a fake lottery ticket is defined as forgery, which is punishable only by imprisonment from one to three years. A far cry from the federal penalty for counterfeiting currency. No Matter How Dark (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, how many lucky $1 winners can you really pass, even at every store within driving range, before everyone recognizes you as the guy who only cashes tickets, never buys them, right as somebody at the lotto office is noticing an issue with the serial number? Not a chance, I think. The big money should be for store owners who move a serious volume of tickets, if they can do forensic-style imaging to see which ones are the winners before the ~~idiots~~customers have a chance to buy them. See also It's not ethical to gamble unless you have a way to cheat! Wnt (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A treasury note is a treasury note as long as it wasn't forged, and as long as it was issued, regardless of deficiencies in printing. Lottery tickets have no guaranteed value, and are routinely discredited at the sole discretion of the issuer. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

followup question

what keeps a government from issuing a currency with very few security measures (versus a US Dollar) but being centralized and containing a 'secret' that was scratch-off evident? (OP here) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of such a currency. From an end user perspective, I don't see how it reassures me that the currency is safe to accept because the government can verify if it's genuine when I have little way to do so. Unless you meant the currency to be only used one time and the person with the currency and the person accepting will verify against a database at the time of acceptance but that would add great expense and time and is needless complicated compared to all the other things you can do with a centralised system. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't the central one-time verification method be open to everyone? Then an unused secret could instantly be verified and transferred to another unused secret at which point only you would know that you were 'safe' with the piece of paper now in your hand - a fresh scratch-off ticket that still has a secret and that you just transferred a verified and used-once currency unit into? Then all you would need to know is that you have a genuine roll of scratch-off secrets that are scratch-evident and hadn't been scanned (scammed) yet, i.e. a roll you get from the government. Regarding 'what would be the point', have a look at Superdollar to see some of the massive amounts of physical security that have been put into US currency, which is a bearer instrument. It's just a piece of paper, and if you can manufacture it for less than $1 you can start scamming people, and people do (and go to jail, and the secret service is involved, etc). Tamper-evident scratch-off secrets are obviously relatively super-cheap to manufacture. I was wondering if this solution actually works or what I'm missing. Let's say for example that a very tiny organization wanted its own currency, without being able to afford good physical security for it - doesn't this work? If not why not? Why isn't it used if it does work - am I the first to think of it? Probably not. Scratch-off tickets are listed under bearer instruments. I must be missing something. This is just a hobby of mine. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the question of the confidence of users in your substitute currencies. For example, the value of your lottery ticket with a 1% chance of winning $1000 would be much below $10 to me because I don't know you, you live thousands of miles away, and it would cost me much more than £10 to redeem my $10. This is why many currencies in the past were backed by gold. Scratch-off currency would be much more expensive to print and distribute because everyone would need to check the serial number and be issued with a replacement by the issuers. It would also be much more inconvenient because people would need to check the validity before accepting it. You might be interested in our articles on Bitcoin, Virtual currency, Alternative currency and Private currency if you haven't already read them. Dbfirs 09:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you're suggesting. Once the panel has been scratched, it's no longer a secret. So you can't transfer it or anything to a third party. You could require a new note for every transfer, but as I already mention that would be expensive, time consuming and fairly pointless considering the plenty of alternatives which would work better since you are after all relying on a centralised system, or at least some networked system. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Have you considered that very often with a modern high security currency a lot of counterfeiting is actually detectable even without fancy equipment and without needing much training, it just succeeded because no one bothers, at least partially because it's time consuming? [11] And you're proposing a person accepting a 10 $10 bills will need to scratch each one individually, and then check the number against a database (or alternatively not bother but have even less security than they do now)? Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was more interested in the provable aspects, i.e. not the practical ones. like the scheme could be that, assuming you can check centrally, and assuming you can be sure a secret is still contained and hasn't been revealed, you can check and transfer a possibly already-used secret to the new secret, assuming you can establish a connection to the central Db that is secure. In other words you can go from unverified money to verified money using an ssl conection and a $0.02 piece of paper that's scratch evident. I'm sure dollars and other real currency cost considerably more than that. I'm just asking in a cryptographic sense, not the common use of the word 'secret'. it's just a mental exercise, I'm curious if such a scheme with such (pretty mild IMO) assumptions would have provably secure aspects. I'm also interested in this for crypto currency reasons, as a hobby, since obviously in some sense the network/blockchain is an 'authority' that you 'connect to'. so would this be a way to create bearer instruments (cash) based on such a concept? Maybe this is the wrong reference desk for it though! would math or computer science be better? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might like our article security printing. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bless the Maker and all His Water

In Dune (film), Liet-Kynes (Max von Sydow), upon seeing the Sandworm, utters: "Bless the Maker and all His Water. Bless the coming and going of Him ..."; see e.g. [12]. Where does this blessing / prayer come from? Is it something Frank Herbert made up de novo? Or is it borrowed from -- or referring to -- some prayer or quote in an existing Earth religion or tradition? It sounds oddly familiar yet I can't remember where it comes from, and it's driving me crazy o_O . Dr Dima (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a conflation of two biblical verses:

Genesis 1:2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Psalms 121:8: The LORD shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore. 86.179.203.104 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert intentionally created religions for his universe which were syncretic in some way, List of Dune religions covers the major ones. The idea is that the religions in his time were evolved versions of religions we know today; they have some familiarity to the reader, but they have all cross-bred to create hybrid religions. Check out the Wikipedia article List of Dune religions and you get a sense for how this worked (with religions like Mahayana Christianity and Zensunni). --Jayron 32 15:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote alert. Any mention of Dune reminds me of the three hours straight that I sat on a bench outside Museum of Contemporary Art Australia waiting for my brother and sister-in law, who had missed their flight to Sydney and had to catch the next one. I left my mobile phone at home, of course, but I did remember to bring a book. And thus three hours of "Paul Muad'Dib" and "Bene Gesserit", and the Dune universe syncretic religions, as Jayron explained. Is it only me, or does the "Butlerian Jihad" bring to mind this Butler? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara de Lempicka's boarding school in Lausanne

I'm having trouble tracking down the name of the boarding school(s) Tamara de Lempicka had attended in Lausanne. Anyone know (or can anyone dig it up)? Thank you in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Itinerarium Cambriae

I see Gerald of Wales appears to have written a works by the above title. I assume it is a history. Would Matthew Paris have used this or any of Gerald's works as a reference for any of his works? Which ones?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Itinerarium is sort of a history, but is actually an account of Baldwin of Forde's trip through Wales (accompanied by Gerald), trying to raise money and men for the Third Crusade. I don't think any of Matthew's writings covered that period, did they? The parts of his history book that he wrote himself start in 1235, so he probably had no opportunity to refer to Gerald's works. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your answer Adam. It gets me doing a little more research. As I get looking into this further our article says: After admission to the order in 1217, he inherited the mantle of Roger of Wendover, the abbey's official recorder of events, in 1236. Paris revised Roger's work, adding new material to cover his own tenure. This Chronica Majora is an important historical source document... In the Chronica Majora article it says: The work begins with the creation of the world and contains annals up to 1259, the year of Paris's death. To me it looks like perhaps material from Gerald of Wales could have been worked on by Matthew and at least put into one of Matthew's works = Chronica Majora. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, although I don't know the extent of the additions that Matthew made to Roger's book. Matthew himself wrote in the Chronica that everything before 1235 was copied from Roger. Another possibility is that Roger used material from Gerard which Matthew then copied into the Chronica. We will have to investigate further... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in anything you find along these lines. I see our article does say, ...Paris revised Roger's work... which to me indicates that he used Baldwin of Forde's work as reference material for Chronica Majora. Perhaps time and further research will verify this.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There were dozens of historians in England and on the continent that he could have used as a source. We don't know what parts he revised. It's a big history, touching on centuries of European history. We have no idea if any of relates to the Itinerarium Cambriae or not. (That is, me and you don't know - I'm sure someone has written about it.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. Yes, he could have used dozens of historians in England for reference material and I suspect he did for his Chronica Majora. Matthew Paris was a very good historian and quite thorough.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely believe in the historical work of Matthew Paris and believe he did an outstanding job on his historical works. He gathered material from many sources to get his historical records very accurate. He would be a reliable source. Agree?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would say he's generally quite reliable. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

As a result of this question, I have created a stub article at Itinerarium Cambriae. Feel free to build on it. What's the tag for the talk page, to show it was prompted by a Ref Desk thread? --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it: {{WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration|LINK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION}}

Origin of the archetype of the immortal beautiful man

It seems like every year there are a few different television series running which have the same general premise: there is a beautiful man, muscular with long dark hair, who has exceptional capabilities because he has died, and come back from the dead not quite human. Other immortals of his kind exist who lack his humanity, and he fights them in battles to the death. Usually, the loser takes the winner's head, and perhaps with it, his power. He relies on his human companions for key assistance, and spends his life helping those in peril. There can be only one... or at least, I'd say that if there weren't so many of them. I'm thinking The Crow series, The Highlander, Angel (TV series), Sleepy Hollow (TV series) and (more dubiously on the attractiveness, but to each his own) Doctor Who (TV series) and Forever (TV series). On the fringe, Supernatural (TV series) (with two, who started off human) and Vampire Diaries (without the heroic part). I'm sure you could name many more.

I feel like I'm seeing the same archetype illuminated from many angles until it seems almost to have a reality separate from its implementations, and so I wonder at the explanation. Is this an adaptive radiation, where TV screenwriters each copied the same basic idea because it worked, each putting their own little spin on it? Is it convergent evolution, because when writing a story the screenwriter finds that he has to eventually kill the character, who has to come back, that he has to look a certain way for the best audience, that decapitation is the only plausible way to kill an immortal, and because the need to establish conflict requires others of his kind and so forth? Or is there some sort of collective unconscious aspect to this, tapping some Dreamtime revelation, or reassembling the elements which unconsciously permeate our society from some ancient epic like that of Gilgamesh or Orpheus? Wnt (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: The Hero with a Thousand Faces and Jungian archetypes; perhaps also The Golden Bough with this partial explanation. And I've almost finished The Count of Monte Cristo which comes quite close to the trope that you set out. --86.179.203.104 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of some good ways to kill an immortal besides decapitation. How about a nuclear bomb ? Or will the atoms reassemble themselves from wherever they are blown ? StuRat (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

I would like to understand the Chinese perspective on spying

Hi, I'd like to understand the Chinese perspective on spying (which I'm generally against, by all countries - I think in general there are better ways to use resources together and grow as a world economy). Besides replying here (from wherever) obviously I'm interested in any books or references by current or ex-Chinese spies detailing their perspective, and also organizationally how China feels and what they're like. This information is quite easy to find and skim through in half an afternoon on most countries but I haven't heard much about China, perhaps due to a lack of translations. Any references would be appreciated - my goal is genuinely to understand the Chinese perspective. Thank you. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did find Chinese_intelligence_activity_abroad just now, which is an interesting article. However, it doesn't have any material on perspective or philosophy, other than mentioning bolstering the economy through industrial espionage. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if you will find much from the Chinese perspective, since they just deny that they do any economic spying. Hard to say why you would do something you claim not to have done. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't stop them giving perspectives on other aspects of spying, the OP mentioned resources and world economy, but they didn't say they were only interested in economic spying. Anyway even in China people are often able to publish stuff which doesn't toe with the official line and of course, ex-spys living in other countries are sometimes able to sometimes get away with publishing stuff they aren't supposed to publish. So the fact that China may deny they do any economic spying doesn't stop people offering perspectives in support of the idea and, in fact it may not completely stop people publishing stuff claiming they were involved in it. (Of course, it's always wise to read any claims with a grain of salt. Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Everything StuRat says applies just as well to the spying by every country (obviously they will deny it) but it is quite easy to read about other countries' perspectives in an afternoon. Obviously there were large revelations such as the fact that everyone was surprised by Snowden's specific revelations about the scope of spying by America on Americans and details thereof, but everyone knew what the NSA's mission and general MO was or philosophy, i.e. vacuum (hoover) up everything, sort later as appropriate. Of course the official perspective was that nobody should know any of that, but it didn't stop it being 'in the air' so to speak. I didn't ask for details, just general Chinese perspectives and what's hanging in the air and philosophically around their foreign spying and general things, nothing specific. The kind of thing you could read in a well-researched spy novel that doesn't actually say anything specific enough for anyone to even bother to keep it from being published, such as the fact that Le Carré (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy etc) was an actual ex-spy giving a certain perspective. So I'm just looking for the same, fine acceptabe perspectives from the Chinese side, nothing they would even bother to keep from being published. (Everyone likes to express themselves and be understood, and also dialogue always helps everyone in general - it's the distinguishing thing about humanity, and of course of all economic and industrial progress from ancient times through today.) I'd just like to understand their attitudes etc a bit better when it comes to spying, and welcome any kind of reply or speculation or what-not, general resources. I'm not looking for facts here, which for obvious reasons would be buried or gainsaid. Just perspectives, philosophy, etc. References to read for half an afternoon, or anyone's reply or speculation here :) Really, I'm open to anything. The article I linked was super-short and didn't help. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference. The US (and other countries) admit to spying, in general, although they may deny specific instances (or give a "no comment"). The CIA has a "covert service", after all. China, on the other hand, completely denies any involvement in economic spying. Part of the reason is democracy. In a democracy, transparency is important, so they couldn't just deny that the CIA or MI6 exist. StuRat (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the OP talking about government spying, or industrial spying? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're kind of one in the same in China. The government spies on foreign industries, and gives the info to their own industry, to give them a competitive advantage. StuRat (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure. It's just that the OP is talking about the world economy, which suggests more directly to do with industrial spying, as opposed to trying to find out troop deployments and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. I'm not picky, just give me large references or summarize them at length or synthesize your own opinion based on knowledge or readings. I would have liked the article I had linked if it had some of the questions I raised answered. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused here. Why do you keep referring to economic spying? The OP never said, and seem to have confirmed above they are just interested in economic spying. China may be somewhat more secretive but AFAIK, they admit to spying with the in general with the Ministry of State Security (China) etc, just as the US and other countries do. As AnonMoos said below, depending on your definition the US likewise denies involvement in economic spying, although particularly with recent revelations I think many would call that in to question. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. even if they admit something it doesn't really give me a perspective. for example I'm sure the department of agriculture in the united states admits everything, it's just a boring old government division, I picked it to be a boring example here. reading United_States_Department_of_Agriculture is filed with tons of facts nobody has any reason to deny but just doesn't tell me what it's like to be an employee there or what their perspective is. if you google https://www.google.com/search?q=what+it%27s+like+to+work+for+department+of+agriculture+united+states nobody has bothered to write that, because who cares. I picked this department as the most boring thing I could possibly think of. I'm sure I could skim a book on it though if someone wrote one, but in this case it's not my request. in this case I'm asking about china's foreign service stuff, I'm sure parts are just as boring. but in this case I'd skim a book if someone has written one. I'm really not looking for facts here, and they wouldn't help me. I wouldn't even read it if we had as detailed and long an article as my boring example. By the way it could just be my impression that in general spying is boring thankless work, obviously books would be about the exciting parts. so did anybody write any? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

212.96.61.236 -- Some of the recent disputes between the US and China on the subject are because the US draws a clear "red line" around government spying as industrial espionage for the benefit of companies not directly part of the government, while China doesn't see why such a distinction is important... AnonMoos (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks I guess but this gives very little flavor. I'd just like to know what it's like for them, in practice, etc. there's tons of spy books about other countries, some written by ex spies, and they all read the same (and are pretty boring). so if they're all the same, it gives a good flavor to how things are done. but do you have a book recommendation with a chinese perspective, for example? might be interesting. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this sound like it might be along the right lines? Some of the results here seem like they might help too. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sure. I'd just prefer for someone else to do that reading. could you summarize those books? I'll reply with my personal details. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleveraging and the World Wars

Hello, I know that when I ask this question there will be a torrent of "we don't answer 'what ifs' on the Reference Desk" [NPA], but I was hoping one of you might help me find some resources which could answer. I understand that Britain underwent a massive debt reduction programme during the 1800s. My question is, if Britian hadn't of done this, would it have fallen into economic collapse during the World Wars? 203.96.131.17 (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's an important note at the end of this response.

I'm not an expert in the 1800s, but have a firm answer for you based on economic analysis you will find very useful, and almost certainly has all the predictive value you asked about. In general unless the debt was over 100% of GDP, it was almost certainly quite manageable and would not have led to collapse. Over that amount would have been extremely problematic and very likely would have led to a collapse if there was no bailout, debt reduction, or external factor. This is to be taken seriously, and I would like to demonstrate it for you. Have a look here: List of countries by public debt and sort by the sixth column, "Net government debt as % of GDP (IMF)" from highest to lowest. As you can see the list starts (after you have sorted it):

List

Country	Average of CIA and IMF data^{[note 1]}	Public debt as % of GDP (CIA)^[1]	Date	Gross government debt as % of GDP (IMF)	Net government debt as % of GDP (IMF)^[2]	Date	Region
Greece	158.339	161.3	2012	158.546	155.378	2012	Europe
Japan	174.3125	226.1	2013	237.918	134.325	2012	Asia
Lebanon	131.04	127.9	2012	139.527	134.18	2012	Middle East
Grenada	111.2835	110	2012	112.567	112.567	2012	Central America/Caribbean
Portugal^[3]	115.628	129	2013	122.985	111.556	2013	Europe
Italy	114.654	126.1	2012	126.978	103.208	2012	Europe
Ireland	110.162	118	2012	117.122	102.324	2012	Europe
Cape Verde	90.176	83.1	2012	103.353	97.252	2012	Africa
Antigua and Barbuda	109.575	130	2010	89.150	89.150	2012	Central America/Caribbean
United States	80.18	72.50	2012	106.525	87.859	2012	North America
...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...

Notice anything about those countries and the sixth column?

This is a Backtesting exercise to prove my point. This column is from 2012 data, and obviously the countries in the news about dire economic straits (Grece, Italy, Portugal, and at the time Ireland) are at the very top of the sorted list, all above 100%. After you move past 100% to lower levels you get some of the largest current economies that have particularly rosy outlooks this year. (Click through to the actual list and sort it and look through it yourself.) I would say that debt up to a large percentage of GDP is absolutely manageable, but over 100% becomes problematic. (This is not only my own opinion.)

Secondly, note the similarity with "Buffet's key metric" (Google this phrase) -- i.e. in that it is also based on GDP. For why you must pay attention to his most important metric, recall that Warren Buffet went from personally being worth a few thousand dollars working for a paycheck as an investment salesman, to generating double-digit returns (leading with a 2 or 3) for 5 decades until his company Berkshire Hathaway was the fourth largest in the world, he was personally worth $73.8 billion and being among the top couple of richest people on investment alone. Which is approximately 738,000x growth in his personal wealth made via investment, over 50 years, i.e. 1.31x (31% annual) growth sustained for 50 years. (Give or take, this is rough and not inflation-adjusted etc.) He knows how to invest for sustained growth. He has become the world's second richest man - around and annually vying with Bill Gates who founded Microsoft, a 338.65B company and top 35 in America and who personally built it to this size. In Buffett's case, this was made with pure investment, (that's his personal wealth, his wealth under management is much larger) with those returns being sustained year over year over year.. So I would just say, I would look at his feedback extremely carefully. That is how you get to 31% growth for decades to come, as he did. Look at Buffet's key metric, notice it is based on GDP, and look also at debt ratios based on GDP size. You can comfortably deal with any debt up to very close to 100% of GDP. Regarding what this figure was in the 1800's, you will have to investigate. If it was over 100% it would have fallen into economic collapse based on all available evidence, all of which is to be taken quite seriously.

Important note: by the way the questioner sounds like they're interested in history, which is a humanities subject. If they could in exchange try to research the prevoius question above this one and give a summary or any references they could find it would be appreciated. Just general things, nothing specific or that would cause a problem or hasn't appeared elsewhere already. Things I would find out anyway from public sources if I had a lot more time - I just think a lot hasn't been translated or well-researched novels haven't been published by people who know. That sort of thing. Any speculation or general ideas based on a quick reading would also be appreciated. I took quite a bit of time to prepare this response, so a similar quick look by OP at some sources and a general summary of what they say for my question would be appreciated. I don't really have so much time or, as I mentioned, such an interest in history. General impressions would be fine too. Thanks for any time you have for this, it would be very greatly appreciated, and, as mentioned in one of my responses above, I am sure even the mainland would not mind once they realize this public information "is the distinguishing thing about humanity, and of course of all economic and industrial progress from ancient times through today", as well as being public and nonspecific anyway. Thanks again, and I will be happy to answer more questions if you help me with the above. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that dictates that debt levels greater than 100% of GDP are problematic. It depends very much on the growth rate of the economy in question. As long as the economy is growing faster than the stock of debt, debt will decrease as a percentage of GDP. Debt exceeding 100% of GDP may be problematic in times of recession, but those have typically been short lived in modern times. According to our article History of the British national debt, the national debt of the UK exceeded 200% of GDP after the Napoleonic Wars. However, because Britain was then the world's leading industrial power, with a steadily growing economy, it was able to reduce its debt as a percentage of GDP steadily during the 19th century. Its successful record of economic growth and debt repayment certainly helped the UK borrow the funds it needed to fight the world wars in the 20th century. Even if Britain had not been able to reduce its debt level during the 19th century, it would have had other options entering the world wars, such as instituting a command economy involving some nationalization. Such a policy arguably could have left the UK economically weaker after the world wars, but would not necessarily have entailed "economic collapse". Repudiating debt would have meant a financial crisis and losses for Britain's wealthy elite, but redistribution and a reduction in economic inequality, which could have resulted from a command economy, could also have resulted in renewed economic vigor if, say, the country's capital had been privatized by granting shares in firms to employees. Marco polo (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio alone isn't that important. As long as the borrowed money is put into adventures that create more profit than the interest on the loan there is really no problem. The table that was placed above isn't very important because it fails to mention the estimated future gdp-debt ratios and debts owned. Some countries, like Canada, owe over half a trillion in debts and continually run deficit budgets, but when you see that the economy is growing faster than the debt and that the interest rates paid out are low and that the country loans out more money at higher interest rates then you see that everything is fine. And back to the WWI context, after Britain won, well to the victor goes the spoils, either flex your obvious military might or tell them to collect what is owed from the Axis. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation isn't causation, but if you get the top 5 developed countries that are IN HUGE TROUBLE out of the top 10 when sorting 100 datapoints on a field, then maybe that field is worth paying attention to as a predictor. (Though there could be a data bias of only troubled countries having their debt listed in that field, since lots of countries were blank.) You don't have to be tall to be in the MBA but if you get the 3 top scorers out of the top 5 sorted by height of 50 players, well, it does tell you something. It would be like the 5 most expensive buildings in the world being in the top 10 sorted by height of 100 expensive buildings. You would have to concude that height is a great predictor of most expensive. Debt/GDP is a great predictor of dire straits with a few exceptions (including bailout.) It really is a real rule. As for whether height is, just sort all MBA players by height and see if the top scorers are in the top few. I don't know the answer (which is the point, it's experimental) but if so, then height (probably) really does matter. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to just be making it up as you go. You don't seem to realize that most investors don't loan money to nations which are IN HUGE TROUBLE. Many debt free nations are that way because no one will loan them money. Like people, countries have credit ratings, and similarly, a person with millions in debt often is, or will be, wealthier than an average debt-free individual. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. We are not using debt to predict wealth. We are asking what tends to happen when extraordinarily high debt exists and is retained. (The question asks about this scenario explicitly.) For an analogy about the difference, obviously height doesn't predict MBA playing ability all that well, as it's a sport and skill. you can't just measure heights. But if you're 7 foot tall (very rare), you have a 17% chance of playing in the MBA. If you have over 100% of your GDP as debt (very rare), your odds of impending ruin are high, as I showed. I didn't mean to go too far beyond the OP's question to try to apply it to other scenarios, i.e. more average levels of debt. sorry if I gave that impression. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A nation could very well hold a 100:1 Debt:GDP ratio without any problem so long as it maintains a credit rating of AAA. Of course the nation would only keep the AAA rating if it was wisely using the borrowed money to create profit over the interest paid. If Britain during the 1800s did not have many profitable adventures in which to invest the money it was borrowing than it would be very important to pay down the debt. If Britain had opportunities to use borrowed capital to increase their GDP by more than the interest cost than keeping the debt would be wise. If you look at a world map of debt:gdp ratios you will see nations like Canada, Japan, and Ireland, borrowing money to increase their GDPs (infrastructure, research, re-lending) and nations like Norway, Saudi Arabia, and PRC holding no debt as all the profitable adventures for them are already fully funded. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what you've written about 100:1 ratio is true. But only in the same way that a 12-person unincorporated community can become the world's leading economic superpower in 108 minutes if it is allowed to borrow unlimited money at -0.5% interest rate in any currencies.

^{(still massively tricky, because the created cash has to be locked up so as not to spoof the market, which is massively difficult to set up in 108 minutes without being an actual entity even if several of the 12 knows exactly what they're doing, there's instant agreement on independence and interim government within seconds, in perfect philosophical alignment on all issues. then quadrillions have to be locked up and inaccessible with a few trillion to spend now and $50 trillion due as interests payments, for 1 example (another is simply no plan to repay). still won't have real economic output until it spends tons of that cash - which here is essentially redistributory seigniorage from all 196 countries, not any real output. very tricky, 99% chance of failure, huge chance of devaluing entire world economy massively - but more surprising things have happened, it's easily in the realm of possible within 108 minutes for them to become the world's leading superpower.)}

But anyway, I think the OP was interested in realistic scenarios, not 100:1 debt:gdp ratios retaining AAA rating or unlimited cash in any currency at -0.5% rate to 12 random people. I would say the two are about equally realistic, and in fact QE (quantitative easing) means the world has a lot more experience with this second scenario than yours, and the 12 now-bankers are a good analogy for how many people feel (in this scenario how the 'rest of the world' would feel) about Wall Street over the last few years, and their views on its real economic contribution. Bet you didn't expect that connection! :) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much all those contributors who answered! 203.96.130.148 (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short story about soldier ants

As a young teenager I read a short story about a devastating army of soldier ants. I loved it, but can't remember much about it, other than they were a ruinous threat, possibly considered a danger to people and this - the most specific memory - that at one point someone needs stitches and they use soldier ant heads to do the trick. It might have been in a Reader's Digest book and at a guess I read it c.1984. Any help identifying it? --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking "Leiningen Versus the Ants"... I recall reading that when I was younger. Scared the daylights out of me (though I'll admit I didn't recall the title). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could be! I've scanned it and it does seem familiar, though I must have synthesised the memory of the ant-head-stitches. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, ant head stitching is a real thing, not fiction. See the end of Dorylus. I'm guessing this was fiction, because ants aren't generally a threat to human communities (though it is true that a toddler can get pretty damaged playing in a nest of fire ants). Also, "soldier" isn't the name of an ant species or family. You might be thinking of driver ants or army ants, which are new world and old world variants on the same theme. "Soldier" usually refers to a caste of sterile worker ants, see Ant#Polymorphism. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's about 30 years ago, so details are somewhat fuzzy. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the same story, it was most likely in the late 70's, but could have been published any time before that. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The book I found could have been a few years old. Do you remember ant-head-stitches, Medeis? --Dweller (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was in grade school, perhaps four decades and a 1,000 novels ago. I remember it involved an ingenious farmer whose farm was overrun in Africa or South America, his animals killed, and he had to abandon the site. I remember the ant-head anecdote, but can't say it was part of the story. It would have been in a book or a collection that I got from an elementary school for kids 6-12 years old, but they weren't very censorious. Basically, if you could and wanted to read a story you were allowed. The story sticks out because I almost only read non-fiction back then. Of course I have nothing more useful to say than that I read such a story in the same era. Having just read Leiningen Versus the Ants I am quite sure that it was that story I read. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take your stinking mandibles off me, you damn dirty ant! Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the film adaptation, The Naked Jungle, and remember thinking how stupid he was to stay, when the natives told him to flee. Unfortunately, his actions got many people killed.StuRat (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nobody tells Charlton Heston what to do (except Chuck Norris). They can have the plantation when they take it from his cold, dead hands. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

name of germanic tribe

Which germanic tribe cut off the aqueducts of ancient rome during the sixth century when they sacked it? Also, what was the background surrounding this invasion of rome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.87 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Siege_of_Rome_(537–38)#Water_mills --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angels/Demons

In Kabbalah there are angels of sacred prostitution, which are the first vampires. – True/False? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Sacred prostitution doesn't have much to do with vampires. Lilith, often associated with those angels, but not one herself, is often confused/associated with Lamia, famous for drinking blood. Which (if any) of these demons/angels existed first is virtually unanswerable, but the stories of Lamia predate those of Lilith and crew. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Vampire folklore by region is sort of interesting. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks InedibleHulk!

-- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved

Prophet Moses

"In one case, an angel wrestled with Moses and was going to kill him, until Moses's wife saved him." – true/false?

Does anyone know the story? A definition would be sufficient as this is not something for me to learn. The original sentence is as follows: “In one case, an angel wrestled with Moses and was going to kill him, until Moses's wife threw a foreskin at it.” I believe the gentleman/lady was trying to throw humour.

(Russell.mo (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

See Zipporah at the inn. Nanonic (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The story is recounted in Moses: A Life which is a rather skeptical and irreverant work. It implies she saved him from what was the equivalent of a demon (nephilim?) by circumcising him and providing his foreskin as a blood sacrifice. It is implied that much of what became Judaism was inherited from Moses's father-in-law. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nephilim are half god, half human. The nephalem are the half demon, half angels. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

I just found the Kirsch in storage, but am reading Almond's The Devil: a New Biography. The latter doesn't strike me as the most careful of sources, but it implies that some of the Nephilim were fallen. In any case, Kirsch argues that the circumcision story is far older than most of the Bible, with the Nephilim only mentioned in the 4th-2nd centuries BC per Almond. I just happened to be reading this now, and have no expertise. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, me neither. I've read a little bit here and there, and there are a lot of twists on the story. Ancient giants tend to stir people's imaginations more than regular-sized legends. First I've heard of anyone tossing a foreskin, in any book. Cool tale. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a confused combination of Zipporah at the inn and the story of Jacob wrestling with an angel. In Genesis 32:22-30, Jacob is about to cross a river when God appears in the shape of an ordinary man. Jacob wrestles with God and wins; his name is then changed to Israel (meaning "he who wrestled with God"). --Bowlhover (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Its not me InedibleHulk, the statement is from Rationalwiki. Someone has to be mad (crazy) to write such thing... Thank you all, and Medeis

. I've saved the links, I'll read through the links when I get some free time... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved

February 4

Objectivity of law

How can the discipline of law be objective if the legal reasoning of the courts on certain cases is always overruled?

Theoretically speaking, if a legal interpretation is valid, it must remain in force until the law itself is repealed or amended. But, in some jurisdictions, the overruling of earlier decisions is a habit.

Law is said to be whatever the Supreme Court think it is. There seems to be a kernel of truth in this statement given that court decisions, no matter how reasonable they may be, can be overruled. Indeed, there are several accounts where the court’s sudden deviation from its earlier decision is influenced by emotion or politics. We can see this in the manner by which the justices or judges twist the law to absurdity, or the way they reacted when confronted with controversial cases that may tarnish their reputation. The problem is, in most jurisdictions, these decisions become a binding precedent that would inspire faulty interpretations of the law in the future.

Again, how can the discipline of law tolerate these subjectivities while maintaining academic objectivity at the same time?

What do legal scholars say to defend the objectivity of the discipline of law? 49.144.214.198 (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of law, Statutory interpretation and Precedent might be useful starting points. Tevildo (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's the minor point of laws being changed, new facts being discovered, and mistakes being found in prior reasoning.

But you don't seem to be asking for objectivity, you are asking for absolute certainty. An analogous question might be, how can we hold Einstein to be right, when we thought Newton was right, but he was later proved wrong? The answer is that certainty is contextual, there is no such thing as certainty that isn't the result of the reasoning of some individual in a certain context with a finite understanding of a limited number of facts.

“Certain” represents an assessment of the evidence for a conclusion; it is usually contrasted with two other broad types of assessment: “possible” and “probable.” . . .

Idea X is “certain” if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for X is conclusive. In such a context, all the evidence supports X and there is no evidence to support any alternative . . . .

You cannot challenge a claim to certainty by means of an arbitrary declaration of a counter-possibility, . . . you cannot manufacture possibilities without evidence . . . .

All the main attacks on certainty depend on evading its contextual character . . . .

The alternative is not to feign omniscience, erecting every discovery into an out-of-context absolute, or to embrace skepticism and claim that knowledge is impossible. Both these policies accept omniscience as the standard: the dogmatists pretend to have it, the skeptics bemoan their lack of it. The rational policy is to discard the very notion of omniscience. Knowledge is contextual—it is knowledge, it is valid, contextually. --Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 6, [13]

For governments to work, decisions have to be made, and they are made by individual politicians, and enforced by guns. It's that or anarchy and civil war. The price is the occasional injustice, assuming there's no overwhelming evil like slavery corrupting the system. Unfortunately just as people sometimes die from routine surgery, the law is an ass. In the course of human events, everyone decides for himself. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing sympathy at the death of a Muslim

Is it acceptable for me as a non-Muslim to say something like "May Allah the merciful grant his soul eternal peace"? I have noticed that "Allah the merciful" seems to be a standard phrase, is it appropriate in this situation? The deceased is a murder victim so I wish to emphasize the "give him peace" part. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're saying the whole thing in Arabic, "God" might work better than "Allah". And you should only say it if you mean it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I do not speak Arabic so saying "Allah" might seem pretentious. The widow is a former work colleague, not a close friend, and I only met the deceased briefly on a few occasions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't that close, and if the guy's murder had to do with some sinful living, it might not be right to bring the mercy part up. That's sort of personal, invokes thoughts of judgment. But eternal peace is always a nice sentiment. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

There are countless ways to express sincere, heartfelt condolences without misleading people into thinking you're Muslim, or accidentally offending people who actually are. Just be true to your own religious beliefs and your words will be appreciated. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Roger, your first idea was good and will be appreciated, just say it in English that way: "May God the merciful grant his soul eternal peace", or simply "May God grant his soul eternal peace". Akseli9 (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. (Just for the record, he was killed in his shop by robbers, no "sinful living" involved - except for the verminous scum who did it.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim reburial practices

Sorry, but I've a related question. If a Muslim's burial is disturbed is there any special ceremony that should be done for the reburial so as to show proper respect to the dead? Say, if hypothetically a Muslim was buried in a site and you unearth his bones without realising it at first, how should you go about doing right by him? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 08:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, it's OK to dig them up if they're not in sanctified ground, or in a place the landowner doesn't want them. I assume you're not unearthing things without realizing in a cemetery. Just treat it with common courtesy (no puppetry) and give a proper Islamic funeral. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Well I'd never do puppetry with human remains, a sheep-goat, yes, but never human remains. It's more like you'll be happily, but carefully, digging away in what you think is ancient soil and then start coming upon bones that are exceptionally spongey (and which you've hopefully not licked to determine if they're bone). Swears will be said and then you'll excavate more quickly as you realise the Roman drain you've been excavating (a gold mine of ancient trash) apparently was reused by well-meaning Palestinian villagers at some point in the last few hundred years as a burial spot and is therefore contaminated. Would the washing aspect include human bones though? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 22:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tax wedge / tax burden by country

Hi,

1.

I'm interested in the effective official tax wedge or tax burden by country, i.e. list of countries and the value for each one. I can't seem to find any such article on WP.

I'm looking for a chart like this one http://view.samurajdata.se/psview.php?id=9d6f999f&page=1 (the pdf is from http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/36371703.pdf which I put into the top Google query for 'online pdf viewer') but as you can see it's a decade out of date. Where can I find our current data?

2.

By the way, I realize in some countries with very high taxes effectively not all income is reported - otherwise much of the income would not occur at all. (Especially countries with, a high underreporting index.) But I'm interested in official figures where everything is done as it would be in a highly-reported country. If there is any significant deviation (more than a couple of percentage) then are the official figures inflated vis-a-vis actual practice? I mean, I can imagine a country operating just fine with a 150% tax wedge (you owe the government $1.50 for every $1 you receive from any source) as long as people drastically under-report. How can I understand this distinction?

3.

Also, I just realized that average figures are quite meaningless without knowing income level we're asking about, but I'm not really sure what question I want to ask that would let me understand this. Is it "marginal tax wedge by country" or something, and then I can just see a chart (rather than value) for eachcountry, for where the jumps are as you go from $0 to $mm? I mean I think I can imagine such a chart but don't think I've seen one. If anyone knows what I'm really asking here it's appreciated :). For starters let's find any of our charts at all.

Thanks for any help, especially I think #1 should be a list we have somewhere, I'm sure. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a direct answer to your Q, but those articles you linked to focus on the negative effect on businesses of taxation, but the positive effects must also be considered. If those taxes are used to provide a good infrastructure, a well-educated workforce, police and fire department protection, and health and retirement benefits so your business doesn't have to cover all those expenses, your business will do far better than it would without taxes. If you look at countries with high taxes (say the Nordic nations) versus low (say African nations), businesses tend to do better in the higher tax nations. StuRat (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wasn't thinking of it in normative ("should") terms at all, just in descriptive ("is") terms. I think your observations are good ones but I wish I could come to some of my own conclusions based on looking at different data. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I only felt the need to add that bit because "burden" seems to be a rather loaded word. I'd ask about "business tax rates" to keep it neutral. StuRat (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it as a term of art - okay, wow, I just found what I was looking for by Googling "tax burden" in quotation marks!

List of countries by tax rates.

As you can see, the article starts by using the term 'tax burden', but in a neutral way: "Comparison of tax rates around the world is difficult and somewhat subjective. Tax laws in most countries are extremely complex, and tax burden falls differently on different groups in each country and sub-national unit." I literally just found what I was looking for based on trying to defend the term of art :) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this philosophy?

Consisting of turning everything into joy or pleasure, even frustration, even suffering? It is not Hedonism, it is not Fatalism, I know there is a specific name, what is it please? Akseli9 (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Epicureanism. Paul B (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rose-colored glasses if you're being cynical, or, more generously: optimism. Being constructive. Positive thinking. Looking for solutions and enjoyment rather than finding flaws. Some people like to suffer and love conflict, others love when people work together and help and grow the world. Both are necessary in the world, and I've given a few words for the one you're asking about. People should have parts of both aspects in their personality, I feel. It is important to be critical. it is also important to be constructive and take and share joy and pleasure in accomplishments, even in bad situations. The only thing that all successful, joyful, happy people have in common is working toward positive visions and solutions, not just reactively (to 'frustration, even suffering.) That is an easy cycle to get into but it would never break. This is just my opinion though. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pollyanna principle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting developments and ideas, thanks. The person who asks this, is looking for a name from back the philosophy class we French have during the last year of our secondary school. "Possibly Epicureanism" was a good guess, but sorry, this one doesn't ring a bell? Akseli9 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eudémonisme? (see also eudaemonism, Philosophy of happiness, Eudaimonia, Augustine of Hippo, ..). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these exactly fits, but mindfullness is a Buddhist practice where one observes that one is suffering an emotion without being controlled by it. (That's very close to Stoic ethics, which hold that externalities like health and wealth are mere facts (which, while they may be preferable or not) are without moral value, that only that which is under your voluntary control (your judgments and commitment to reason) is truly good.) And Catholicism has redemptive suffering. Epicureanism holds that happiness is the absence of suffering, which is simple to obtain if one has the basic necessities. In extremity an Epicurean can escape unbearable suffering by suicide. Eudaimonism is literally "well-spiritedness", based on balance (nothing in extreme) and magnanimity. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that pleasure, joy are long-term happiness are three different things. A mother who has lost a child, and is again expecting, will not feel pleasure when the new baby kicks, but she will feel joy. A gambler might feel extreme joy at a temporary winning streak, but he won't be said to be a happy person so long as he feels he is out of control. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey (archbishop of York)

I'm a little confused as to which offices Geoffrey held in the 1170s. I see the article says,

1 - Geoffrey was Archdeacon of Lincoln in the diocese of Lincoln by September 1171.

2 - In 1173 and early 1174 Geoffrey fought a military campaign in northern England = military position?

3 - He also held a prebend, an income from land owned by a cathedral chapter = landlord?

4 - There are some indications that he studied canon law at a school in Northampton = lawyer?

5 - he taught in Paris during the early 1170s = teacher?

6 - He also acted as a papal judge-delegate at that time.

7 - Bishop of Lincoln in July 1175.

Can someone help me to establish exactly which offices (positions) Geoffrey had in the 1170s? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Yup. All of those and a few others besides. He was a busy youth much in favour with his father, Henry II, by the looks. I think that father-son relationship is the best single explanation for his diverse job portfolio. Neither are any of the combinations all that surprising; large overlaps between church and state and law and and acadamy. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography gives the following:

Archdeacon of Lincoln by 1170/71, at say age 19 or 20.
also held the prebend of Mapesbury (attached to St Paul's) until 1173 - it's normal for an officer of a cathedral to have a prebend which provides a stipend. I tend to think the Church is the 'landlord'.
appointed by Henry II Bishop-elect of Lincoln 1173 - gives up prebend (presumably gets paid for the new post)
confirmed as same by pope 1175 (against his better judgement, I tend to think)
During all this period - doesn't put much effort into his day-job, and instead is studying & teaching law. Does occasionlly act as a papel-judge delegate, a role which goes with the Archdeacon job.
1173 - war in France, and so not unreasonably Geoff takes up arms for his father, which goes down well with Henry.
He is never consecrated as bishop of Lincoln, and spends his time up to 1181 studying. Does not entirely neglect Lincoln, but, you know, not often there.
1181 - seems to be pressure to either get consecrated as bishop, or resign as bishop elect. Resigns.
Daddy makes him a Royal Chancellor in 1181, but he seems to be mostly absent from the court, very likely in part moving & shaking on his father's behalf throughout Europe, and studying.
1187 - more war, more soldiering
1189 - Henry I dies, Richard I takes over
1189 - Meets Richard, resigns as chancellor
1189 - Richard makes him made Archbishop of York
1189 - 1208 - Spends 20 or so years getting into & out of ecclesiastical disputes (bringing together all of his talents ;)
1208 - Flees to France, having quarreled once to often, this time with King John.
1208-12 Monk
1212 - dies, presumably exhausted by the above.

So in all of that, we have him doing four sequential jobs (archdeacon, bishop-elect, chancellor, archbishop), whilst learning on the job (studies throughout Europe, including teaching), taking time out to fight wars. Acting as a judge or a landlord are incidental features of his roles.

--Tagishsimon (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What an outstanding answer. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LEGO's itsy-bitsy little brother

https://www.dropbox.com/s/64lpz13xb0luudg/bricks.jpg?dl=0
- Length: 15.88 mm
- Width: 7.92 mm
- Height: 3.06 mm

(measured using an digital caliper)

I found this little 2 x 4 thin brick at a 2nd-hand LEGO seller's place. She was pretty busy selling bricks by weight so she answers no questions.

This 2 x 4 brick is roughly the same size as a 1 x 2 standard LEGO brick but a little thinner. Its color is very close to LEGO's dark gray. However, it is incompatible with the LEGO.

Has anyone ever seen this kind of brick? -- Toytoy (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading your measurements and understanding the pictures correctly, they look similar in size to Nanoblock [14] [15] [16]. Our article notes one distinctive feature compared to Lego is the underside and your image shows a similar underside to the Nanoblock examples in the earlier links (or also our article description). Of course just as there are plenty of generally at least partially compatible Lego clones, I'm sure there are Nanoblock clones, or even similar concepts that may have been invented independently (perhaps less likely once we consider the underside, but the general idea of smaller bricks about half the size of lego for the same number of studs isn't hard to come up with). This mentions one example of a similar brick system [17] although these look to have the a Lego like underside. So it may be difficult to be certain what your brick is without careful comparison (perhaps from an expert with sufficient experience to notice any oddities), or perhaps even destructive analysis. (I thought I'd seen them before 2008 but according to our article, I guess it must have been something else, perhaps the Microblox as per the other source and/or with remembering when I did see Nanoblock wrong. Anyway since Nanoblock appears to be that new, it's possible it may still have patent protection. But I'm not sure that the underside or any other aspect was sufficiently inventive to be eligible for patent protection, or if the makers of Nanoblock even tried. If they didn't then it's likely clones could appear quite similar. As our Lego clone article attests, patent protection is likely the only legal protection the brick could have against difficult to distinguish blocks, if it doesn't have the brand name or sign.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Lego Specifications". Orionrobots.co.uk. 26 February 2011. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
^ Dimensions Guide (13 December 2010). "Dimensions of a Standard Lego Brick". Dimensionsguide.com. Retrieved 3 October 2011.

Number of presidents

In the timeline of presidents of the US, George Washington is the 1º, Barack Obama is the 44º, and so all the others. In the infoboxes at their articles they are listed as "1st President of the United States", "44th President of the United States", etc. I have a doubt: is that just a manual convention arranged here in Wikipedia and other sites that talk about the timeline, or is there some official regulation in "the real world" about the numbering? Can someone come up with another numbering scheme, such as including Jefferson Davis in the list (president of the Confederate States of America during the civil war), and then counting Obama as the 45th? Cambalachero (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The count is official. There have been 43 men that have served as PoTUS, but Grover Cleveland is regarded the 22nd and 24th President because he didn't serve two consecutive terms (he lost his reelection but then won when he ran again the next go-around) and so it can be a bit confusing, but the count is 44 and you can verify this by going to the White House page on Obama where it's the first line that comes up.[18] Jefferson Davis was president of a different political entity and so there's no reason to include him as a US President even if he was President of a country within the geographical United States. I hope this answers your question, but if you were thinking that the List of US Presidents article needs a change, then this isn't the right place for that discussion. This page is. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 16:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also had several people with the title of "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" under the Articles of Confederation, which was the unsuccessful first form of US government, prior to the current US government under the US Constitution. History classes tend to skip over that failure. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those people were not Chief Executives of the nation as a whole; one of the many weaknesses of the AofC was that it lacked a central executive system outside of the Congress itself. The people who held the title "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" did not wield power as either head-of-state or head-of-government. They were presiding officers of the Continental Congress, a position more akin to the role of Speaker of the House or perhaps the role of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court within the Supreme Court. --Jayron 32 17:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is why George Bush Sr. and Jr. are often called "Bush 41" and "Bush 43". As regards Davis, the Confederacy is not recognized as a legal entity, and he doesn't figure into the count. The "president" under the Articles of Confederation was not the same office as the president under the Constitution, despite having a similar name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the office of the President now is really not the same as it was in Washington's time, either. For example, the President now has the de facto ability to declare war. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's better said that the War Powers Act gives the president the de jure ability to begin hostilities, which has so far always de facto resulted in the Congress's unwillingness to challenge or gainsay him. Even John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's like a "blanket pre-declaration" of war, authorized by Congress, but it's not carte blanche for the president. Also note it was passed during the Nixon administration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not amount to the office being now a different one to the one Washington occupied. The powers of the office have changed, that's all. Any office worth its salt will undergo significant evolution in 240 years. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "president" under the Articles was more like speaker of the house. The specific authorities granted to the president under the Constitution have evolved, but it's still the same office, i.e. the executive branch. The "president" under the Articles had no independent executive authority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but this Q was about "Presidents of the US", not "Presidents of the US with independent executive authority". StuRat (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing, despite using a similar term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Q was also ambiguous as to whether the guy wanted to know for his own edification or for changing an article. The latter being a Fringe interpretation at best and original research at worst. If that's the case, of course. Not saying anything against the OP. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 18:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Davis as President of a part of the area of the modern U.S., there were also four Presidents of Texas. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davis was not a legitimate president of any part of the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and California had one. StuRat (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have been commander not president. Rmhermen (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But only New York once had the national capital and so it wins the Game of States (Philly doesn't count ). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 18:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the OP should consider that President is an office and may have (has) "slots". So saying someone was the third pitcher in a series of games (let's say each one has 1 pitcher) is ambiguous: there was a first game, a second game, and a third game, and each one had a pitcher. You could simply be saying, by saying "Who was the third pitcher" - 'who was the pitcher in the third game', or you could say, 'who was the third person to ever pitch'? It's quite ambiguous. Ordinarily in ordinary language if you heard 'who was the third pitcher' wouldn't you think, "who was the third person to pitch"? (in sequence) rather than, out of everyone that has pitched who was the third such person? (e.g. A pitches, B pitches, A pitches, C pitches, D pitches, wouldn't you think that the answer to 'Who was the third pitcher' would be "A again"? It's quite ambiguous. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my question is just for informative purposes, not for changing an article. It has been proposed to use a similar number scheme for the articles about the presidents of Argentina, and before having a clear opinion in the discussion I wanted to know more about the background of the presidents of the US (which already use this system, and are watched by far more users). My idea was to see which things may be similar to the Argentine context, which ones would be different, and organize my ideas from that point; but that part (organizing my ideas) is up to me. I know that most users will have just a superficial knowledge about Argentina at best, so making the question directly may be less useful. And yes, of course that counting Davis as a US president would be fringe, that's precisely the point of the question: if someone can make his own numbering scheme by using a creative interpretation, or if Obama is formally declared to be the 44th president in some formal or legal way. Cambalachero (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah now I see. I meant no offence and you have my sincerest apologies for any offence caused to you. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 22:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad that there's people around trying to detect and prevent the inclusion of original research in articles, and if someone tried to actually invoke it (I made that reasoning on the fly, just as a example for the question) I would revert it as well. Cambalachero (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd caution you against applying the US Presidential numbering system to the heads of state/government of any other country. At least, not without a definite consensus in each case. I could be wrong, but I think it's only in the USA that someone like Grover Cleveland is counted as both the 22nd and 24th president. In Westminster-type countries, they're given the ordinal the first time they occupy the office, and that ordinal re-applies no matter how many times they re-occupy it after leaving it and someone else has stepped in. See List of Prime Ministers of Australia, for ex. We've had 28 different people in that job, and the current one is counted as Number 28. Numerous PMs had non-consecutive multiple terms (most recently Kevin Rudd - 2007-10; June-Sept 2013) but we ignore that when numbering them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's how we do it in Canada too - William Lyon Mackenzie King is number 10, despite his three non-consecutive terms. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When we use numbers at all, which is pretty rare in practice. It seems from where I sit that Americans are particularly fond of numbering things that way. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) --65.94.50.4 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a purist may well argue that what the USA counts is not the number of presidents (as the term implies), but the number of non-consecutive presidential terms, which is is quite a different thing. There have also been a swag of consecutive terms, but any of those after the first is ignored. I have never seen much logic in this system. I mean, if it's fair enough to call Cleveland the 22nd and 24th president, why wasn't Washington called the 1st and 2nd? And so on. Just because there wasn't a gap between Washington's two terms doesn't mean he didn't have to get elected all over again and sworn in all over again etc, just like Cleveland. That's what a purist may think. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Two consecutive terms implies a continuity of an administration. Not so with Cleveland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I would only use the US context as a starting point for comparison, setting apart which things are similar and which things are not; and thus which conclusions may shared and which ones not. So yes, I take your advise in consideration. Cambalachero (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's genuinely ambiguous, but we go by terms. President is an office and term, not only a person. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generating a List of History Majors

To Whom It May Concern:

Is there any way to search Wikipedia to generate a list of the people listed in wikipedia that have majored in history? Is there a way to customize that search to find people of color that majored in history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.237.145 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues: 1) 'Majored in' is a specific term, which doesn't apply to a lot of education systems, would need to be expanded to 'studied history at university'. 2) Same issue with 'people of color', that odd term that is completely meaningless, and needs definition. Do you mean black people, Asians, etc, or all non-whites? Need to be more specific! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People self-identify in certain ways using WP:USERBOXes. It's entirely voluntary, someone might identify as anything he likes, so you might get people identifying as black, African-American, African, a history buff, a Historian, or whatever. It's totally unscientific. But for any specific user box you can click "what links here" and you will see a list of people who have put that box on their account. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can get this information (a real name) for the price of a sandwich. Offer a sandwich to the first innocent 18 year old in a library who will read up for 4 hours and type a 1-2 page report on what they've found. link the report and you'll get a username and maybe even a real name. you can literally follow this, from anywhere in the world, and get a name. it costs you a sandwich, what's not to like. if going to the library is too much trouble you can fake it. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between a tribe and a state

A big and powerful society conquers a smaller and weaker one. Both societies apparently have a lot in common, with a small group of powerful rich people ruling over poor masses. Yet often the conquered one is referred to as a "tribe" and regarded as somehow not as advanced as the big one. I can understand calling such a small society that one meets every other member often a tribe. But none of the groups I hear referred to as tribes are like that. What is a tribe anyway and how is it different from a state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.222.210 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I'd say a tribe is smaller, although one tribe can span more than one nation, too. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope the article on complex society and social complexity. You're asking a question deeply-rooted in anthropology and one of the many that's earned anthropologists the fun title of "racists with hats". Basically a state has more complex social institutions than a tribe, delineated borders, social hierarchy, all that good stuff. That's my half-baked answer. I have about 15 absolutely impenetrable books that could give you a solid answer on some more specific bits. This is question though is a bone of much contention. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 00:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might sound like one of those condescendingly simple solutions, but have you read tribe and state? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

I was worried mine might sound that way whereas I was really just stating my annoyance over certain bits of anthro. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 01:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "States" have more fully developed international relations than do "tribes". Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Japan during the Tokugawa Shogunate, The People's Socialist Republic of Albania, and Ming China? I'm not sure international relations are a good thing to go on as they're dependent on other polities. For a long time in Egyptology, egyptologists treated Egypt (regarded as the pinnacle of Ancient World civilisation by them) as if it were alone in the world and above the people outside of it. Nowadays we're well-aware of their extensive contacts, but these ideas of what makes a tribe, a state, etc. were all invented a long ways back and though they've been refined, they still have the same base elements (which is very ambiguous on my part, yes, but like I said, complex). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes simple is just best. Like you say, the bigger picture is pretty hard for one brain to grasp. Too many cooks. My simplest answer is a tribe is a "savage" state. As that disambiguation page attests, polite society doesn't use that word the same these days, but still gets the gist of it, like with "polite society". When a civilized (or civilised) person sees a tribe, she just sort of knows it's not a state like hers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about those classifications either as the savagery - barbarism - civilised ladder is kind of out-moded. It was replaced by a five-tier system whose name escapes me right now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bit dated. I sometimes forget if we're supposed to study history thinking like a new age man or the authors. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As an archaeologist and historian, I'll say it's best to try and study history attempting to apply as little of our own world today and trying to think more about their situation back then in our interpretations. A lot easier said than done though. In other words, take a stab at historiography, but reconstructing how people thought is next to impossible. It's on yet another scale which deals with difficulty in interpretation and is also five-tier (archaeologists are obsessed with threes and anthropologists and socioligists with fives, I guess). No, I don't think that was it. It only covered what we've seen so far in societal development. I did give that a look over after seeing Interstellar for obvious reasons. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775

For the record, Petrie's saying it wasn't the Kardashev scale, which I mentioned before deleting that terrible guess. He's not imagining things. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that, but I may very well be imagining things. I am quite mad you know. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, the Lombards were a tribe, but the Kingdom of the Lombards was an early state. Seems to suggest a state is a geopolitically succesful tribe. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tribe did have a different meaning back then. I don't recall if the tribal system of Allies from the Roman Republic was still in effect back then. It can also just mean a group of people sharing extended kinship. One of my best friends is from the Sudairi tribe of Saudi Arabia for instance, and there a tribe is your extended family. They and the AS-Sauds are the two most influential tribes in the state that is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, haha. It's just a whole bunch of forms of complexity that determine which of these tiers a polity is placed on, but even then they're rigid definitions applied in a world where things are rarely so clear. Just ask any archaeologist or anthropologist actually in the field who isn't trying to push an agenda. Such is the problem with theory. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, blood ties seem to be a part of it. Like a clan. But that word's tricky, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, especially when it's got 7.000 people in it. In my case with clan, I could claim to be part of the MacKinnons, but that's 1/32 of my blood and who knows what reception I'd recieve on the Isle of Skye Wasn't one's demos in Athens meant to be like a tribe?

Deme dere? Seems like land to me, not people. Maybe thinking of a phratry, phyle or genos? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, haha. Apologies as it's been a while. The whole Athenian system was last covered extensively for me in Ian Morris's The Greeks back in undergrad and has mostly been forgotten (even though I've never read a better history book). I think a problem in the US is oftentimes when we think of tribes it conjures up old perceptions of American Indians and the idea that they were 'primitive' (a term that's kind of loaded as it was often based on type of weaponry and religion). I don't know how people in Britain or other European countries react to the word (what pops into their minds). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 03:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd even heard of those things, just followed the Wikilinks. "Primitive tribes" means "Jungle Jitters", to my Canuck ears. I mean, automatically. I'm more openminded after I start thinking. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

A state is a tribe with an army and navy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And alliance with or tribute from other tribes. Though tribute is etymologically for tribes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

I think a "tribe" would tend to have a greater degree of cohesiveness than a "State". Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

Proof that proto indo europeans lived in eastern europe.

What archaeological and genetic proof is there that indo europeans were originally from eastern europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.201 (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Indo-European is a hypothetical language which gives identity to a hypothetical group of speakers who didn't leave any written documentary evidence to link them to the term. So, to my knowledge, we don't have any archaeological evidence for such a group, but someone better read on the subject than I am could probably tell you what archaeological evidence has been found there. I think it's in the region of the Ukraine you're thinking, right? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about genetic proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.201 (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also a tricky one. I mean one thing you could do is to find certain genetic similarities in various groups of people that are most prevalent in people from that specific area, but that's about all I remember from those types of studies. Someone with a far better understanding than I have would have to comment on this. Again though, this is a language-based identity and without written examples you can't do the best thing which would be to tie material evidence to human remains. Then you have a shot at having found a 'Proto-IE' person, but even then you'd need more than one example to get anything concrete. I think it's more an archaeological question than a genetic one and the material evidence likely isn't there (Though absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Lego Specifications". Orionrobots.co.uk. 26 February 2011. Retrieved 3 October 2011.

[2] Dimensions Guide (13 December 2010). "Dimensions of a Standard Lego Brick". Dimensionsguide.com. Retrieved 3 October 2011.

[1]

[2]