Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 28

Human Responsibilities

One big and important thing, issue, and matter people often talk and campaign about is human rights.

Rights. What about responsibilities? Human rights. What about human responsibilities?

What are human rights' activists' answer to this question? What are human rights organizations' answer to this question? What are the answer of the people who originally developed and thought up the idea of human rights to this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue is discussed at the Wikipedia article titled Moral responsibility, and probably several others. The question of personal responsibility is a major focus of many schools of philosophy; you can find such threads in the article I just linked. --Jayron32 02:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

One issue where I often think of this is with population control. In areas of the world where there are regular crop failures and periods of starvation, those who choose to have a dozen kids, with no corresponding food security, seem seriously irresponsible, to me. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See Negative and positive rights, Natural and legal rights, Positive liberty, Negative liberty. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Free will and Determinism. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite common complaints that the emphasis is all on rights these days and not on responsibilities, I believe that people across the political spectrum do in fact believe strongly in social and individual responsibility. This is one of those political truisms which is so often said to be 'unspoken' that it is, on the contrary, ubiquitous. StuRat, you might wish to recall that in areas with regular starvation, people may have more children in order to ensure that at least some survive to the next generation, and that there will be enough hands to work the land. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That logic only applies if they aren't able to cultivate all the land due to labor shortages. If they currently have enough people, and had fewer children, then the death rate from starvation and disease and war would go down, and they would still have plenty of people to work the land. And, if for some reason the population ever fell below the level needed to cultivate, they could always import people from many of the overpopulated areas nearby. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What does "responsibility" mean depends of philosophy. VHEMT believes it is the responsibility of an individual not to have child and save the Earth from the disruptive creatures (as they put it) called Homo sapiens, social conservatives believe in social responsibility to prevent moral decay and social harm, liberals believe in social responsibility to redistribute wealth, libertarians believe in individual responsibility, Marxist-Leninists believe in class responsibility to protect oppressed class from oppressor class, religious fundamentalists believe it is the responsibility of every person to follow their religious codes and promote their religion, etc. etc. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with nearly all those things is that they all have to do with what they want someone else to do. The libertarian view has to do with individuals taking personal responsibility for their own actions, rather than trying to blame someone else, as happens all too often. In Richad Armour's It All Started With Columbus, a satirical history of the US, he has quizzes at various points. His final quiz question has the ring of seriousness: "How can you become a better citizen? What's stopping you?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Duty to rescue and Good samaritan law are also interesting; countries like France have laws enforcing responsibilities to each other, whereas in the US you don't have to help a child who gets trapped in into your machinery (see Duty to rescue) and have no responsibility to brake if a blind man steps out in front of your car[1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Driving laws are different in each state. Some states (New Hampshire, for one) require cars to yield to pedestrians at all times. In general, trying to help someone who's seriously injured can result in screwing things up worse and/or lawsuits. That's why the advice usually is "call 911" and let the experts take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As BB has hinted at, your statement doesn't seem to be supported by your source. Your source discusses whether or not you have a duty to stop a blind man stepping in front of a car. Unless I missed it, it doesn't discuss whether or not you have a duty to stop (if you safely can) if it's your car. That's a fairly different thing because it may be you have some resposibility as a driver to attempt to avoid of collision, perhaps even if other parties have sole responsibility for the initial risk of collision. In other words, in the case when you're driving, it's not about a 'duty to rescue'. Instead it's about your responsibilities/duties as a driver, which may include avoiding collisions and avoiding running over people (and also to pay enough attention that you become aware of any risks of such in a resonable amount of time), regardless of whether you caused the initial risk. Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

An interesting aside is whether any countries have suicide legislation which require a random person to intervene but without any general duty to rescue. So for example, you're not generally required to stop a blind man stepping out in front of a moving car (without a pre-existing relationship or somehow having caused the blind man to act in that way) but if the blind man says 'life isn't worth living, good bye cruel world' and then begins to step out you may be responsible if you don't try to stop him. Most countries mentioned in our article only prevent aiding, counselling etc and perhaps with laws protecting those who intervene, rather then specifically requiring intervention where it's possible (countries where it is a requirement seem to be ones with a generaly duty to rescue, see also suicide) but it's possible some exist. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Every right implies a dual responsibility to respect others' claims to the same right. For some of the more sophisticated rights in, e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, upholding such rights often involves fairly expensive duties which comprise unfunded mandates in many signatory countries. 70.59.24.75 (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides that, every right is tied to a responsibility. And indeed human rights activities do campaign for obligations towards certain responsibilities. XPPaul (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

French cities with significant population Muslim African francophonie arab

Which cities of France have significant population of Arab Muslims from Lebanon, Syria, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, Mauritania and Muslims of Africa from Mali, Chad, Niger, Djibouti, Comoros, Senegal, Guinea and Burkina Faso? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.48 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Define 'significant'. And unless geography has undergone a complete revision since I last looked at an atlas, Algeria, Morocco,Tunisia and Mauritania are in Africa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Arab world is generally considered to consider the North African countries of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Mauritania (and Egypt). See Arab Africa - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All major French cities have non-trivial immigrant populations from the countries you list. --Xuxl (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

To quote our Marseilles article: "Because of its pre-eminence as a Mediterranean port, Marseille has always been one of the main gateways into France. This has attracted many immigrants and made Marseille a cosmopolitan melting pot." The breakdown of population by religion gives: "Major religious communities in Marseille include Roman Catholic (600,000), Muslim (between 150,000 and 200,000), Armenian Apostolic (80,000), Jewish (80,000), Protestant (20,000), Eastern Orthodox (10,000) and Buddhist (3,000)." Alansplodge (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What does this Eton College statement mean?

An excerpt from Eton College's statement of Spiritual Values: "College Chapel dominates the Eton landscape both physically and spiritually. ... And so the school requires boys to experience it, whatever their persuasion..." What do they mean by "requires boys to experience it"? Is there some thing they do there with required attendance, or (and I get the feeling this is it, but am asking because I'm not sure) are they just saying every person has to see the building there and know its religious significance, whether or not that means anything to them? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds as though attendance of certain religious services are mandatory for the school's students to me, no matter their religious persuasion.  Omg †  osh  13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The college's Religious Provision page goes into a little more detail on the requirements. In particular it says "As well as the regular chapel services, there are numerous optional opportunities for worship.", suggesting that the regular chapel services are not optional. I get the feeling that students are required to attend services on a regular basis, although not necessarily required to believe what is said there. Maybe one of our Old Etonians will see this and be able to give some more information - I sense that the school's own website expresses the subject in slightly unclear language. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Th+e "Guide to Independent Schools" website (page here) says "Compulsory chapel attendance unless parents request otherwise"; at a guess, that's a relatively modern opt-out. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yoenis Céspedes travel documents

The Oakland Athletics and the Seattle Mariners played a regular-season Major League Baseball game in Tokyo this morning. One of the Oakland players is Yoenis Céspedes, who defected from Cuba. What sort of international travel documents would someone like him be able to use to travel overseas, to Japan and then later in the season, to Toronto? I would imagine the Cuban government would have revoked any Cuban-issued travel documents he might have had. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. State Department may, in cases like this, expedite the proper residency papers for being a legal permanent resident of the U.S. Once those papers are established, whatever Cuba has to say on the matter is moot; the U.S. State Department can issue the relevent passports/visas whatever (such documents essentially mean the U.S. is "vouching" for him); it doesn't really matter where he was born. The article Asylum in the United States may be relevent for you to read through. In the section titled "Application for resettlement by refugees abroad" has a bit on Cuba. --Jayron32 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Cuba could always claim he committed some crime, and try to extradite him. However, I doubt if many nations regularly visited by US baseball players have extradition treaties with Cuba. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Canada? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the link at Extradition Treaties the US has a treaty with Cuba so they could have asked for him back. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks StuRat. See this. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

According to [2] [3] [4] [5] the treaty was pre-1959 and has never been used since the communist takeover. As per the Guantánamo Bay case, I presume the US considers it still in force but it doesn't sound like Cuba does (although they may be willing to sign a new treaty). I didn't check the US-Cuba treaty, but many treaties have exemptions for political offences and even in the absence of that a number of treaties and similar such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights impose limitations on countries extraditing people [6], Luis Posada Carriles. Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see the CNN link says there is a Cuba/US treaty. But I doubt there much chance of it being enforced and the US/Cuba one in Article VI does exempt political people. Article V is interesting as well if they were to make Yoenis Céspedes a citizen quickly. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. and Cuba signed a new agreement in the early 1970s promising to either return or prosecute airplane hijackers from the other country; not sure if anyone was actually returned... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Luis Posada Carriles was never extradited. --Soman (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that if there were any doubts about Céspedes' immigration status, likelyhood of being refused entry to Japan or Canada, or likelyhood of being arrested and extradited back to Cuba, then he wouldn't travel. He wouldn't be the first sports star to be left at hoem due to travel problems - Dennis Bergkamp was often left at home due to his fear of flying. Astronaut (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As to the actual travel document he'd use in lieue of a passport, it would be a Refugee travel document issued by the USCIS. Most governments issue those to people who are granted the refugee status in the country, as well as to those who have a permanent resident status and are either stateless or cannot obtain a passport from the country of their nominal nationality. (The US Refugee travel document application form is quite explicit in that it's available to refugee and asylees [there is a legal distincation of some kind between the 2 groups], as well as to permanent residents who have achieved the PR status via refugee/asylee status.) Those things are internationally recognized as travel documents, and one can apply for a visitor visa or admission with such a thing instead of a passport. They used to be colloquially called "White passports" at some point, although of course they are neither passports nor white. -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

March 29

watch trials in florida online

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17544660 IT looks like this trial was filmed Where can i watch the whole thing online?? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.8.118 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a specific legal term

Let's say that I go out and commit a horrific crime, and then I write a book about it that becomes a massive bestseller; when I'm released from prison, I'm instantly a millionaire, and I live happily ever after on the royalties. In much of the world, this would be impossible: many jurisdictions have laws prohibiting one from profiting from illegal activities, so I wouldn't be able to take possession of the royalties. What's the standard term for this kind of law? It runs in my mind that it's Latin, but I don't have any better idea than that. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Usually its called a Son of Sam law.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, not quite what I was looking for. The context is copyright — I've seen such a law used as an argument against the idea of photos of graffiti being potential copyvios: the argument was that this kind of law prevents graffiti vandals from benefiting from rights over the image they created (and thus wouldn't have grounds to sue the photographers) because the graffiti was illegal. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Various countries have laws stopping criminals being able to receive what they call "the proceeds of crime".

We have 2 articles on such laws: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (UK), Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 (Ireland). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What happens to your royalties, if you're a writer before you commit the horrific crime?
Sleigh (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

They're unaffected (though you might be a little hard pressed to spend them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I found Ex turpi causa non oritur actio which fits the graffiti copyright example, but doesn't fit the mass murderer's autobiography. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess there could be an equity principle that would apply... not allowing someone to benefit from crime, or to use the courts for that purpose. That certainly exists in the contract law context as a matter of law (I think) and also in an equitable sense. I'm not saying it wouldn't, but I'm unfamiliar with it in the copryight context. Now there is a provision of the U.S. Copyright Act that prohibits infringing works from gaining copyright themselves... as in infringing derivative works. But as far as a a classic latin term to apply, I don't know of one that's not associated with the broader concept of Equity (law). Shadowjams (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The maxim in Equity that you refer to is the maxim of "clean hands": "equity must come with clean hands", or "those who seek equity must do equity". It applies only in the context of equitable remedies, and is not directly relevant to criminal law.

As JackOfOz said, the law depriving criminals from enjoying the proceeds of their crime is usually called a "proceeds of crime" law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about criminal law? Unclean hands is one of those... there are others too. Shadowjams (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The opening words of the question are: "Let's say that I go out and commit a horrific crime ...". That's where criminal law gets into this discussion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... but what's stopping him from publishing is presumably civil law... I give up. Seriously though... Shadowjams (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for inciting all the confusion — Tagishsimon found the article that I wanted. Murdering lots of people would stand out more than minor graffiti, and I thought that the legal treatment would be the same; that's why I went with a horrific crime to get at the copyright law question. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

humor production under Marx

in the transition toward Communism, during the Socialist period things are mostly state-run. Under this system what is the supposed means of production of humor - a National Joke Institute?

(This is a theoretical question, of course - in practice every government agency was a joke institute) 188.6.83.253 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure Marx was too concerned with idle entertainment of the masses. --Jayron32 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends... are we talking Karl... or Groucho? Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See "The humour of Karl Marx". [7] I'd also recommend The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte for an excellent insight into the part played by the garlic sausage in the history of france:

The “Society of December 10” was to remain the private army of Bonaparte until he should have succeeded in converting the public Army into a “Society of December 10.” Bonaparte made the first attempt in this direction shortly after the adjournment of the National Assembly, and he did so with the money which he had just wrung from it. As a fatalist, he lives devoted to the conviction that there are certain Higher Powers, whom man, particularly the soldier, cannot resist. First among these Powers he numbers cigars and champagne, cold poultry and garlic-sausage. Accordingly, in the apartments of the Elysée, he treated first the officers and under-officers to cigars and champagne, to cold poultry and garlic-sausage. On October 3, he repeats this manoeuvre with the rank and file of the troops by the review of St. Maur; and, on October 10, the same manoeuvre again, upon a larger scale, at the army parade of Satory. The Uncle bore in remembrance the campaigns of Alexander in Asia; the Nephew bore in remembrance the triumphal marches of Bacchus in the same country. Alexander was, indeed, a demi-god; but Bacchus was a full-fledged god, and the patron deity, at that, of the “Society of December 10.” [8]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In market economies, humorous books are produced by privately owned publishers, comedy plays are produced by privately-owned theaters, comedy films are produced by privately-owned movie studios, etc. In command economies, humorous books are produced by state-owned publishers, comedy plays are produced by state-owned theaters, and comedy films are produced by state-owned movie studios. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) In the Soviet Union, literature was never state run - there was always room for freelancers, although there were censors and it was very hard to get published if you didn't write in the Socialist realist style. Nevertheless, comedy writers did get published - the most famous being Ilf and Petrov. The film studios, which were government run, also produced lots of comedies. Indeed, Stalin's favourite film was supposedly the musical comedy Volga-Volga. Soviet TV also produced comedies, such as Yeralash and Fitil (and jokes could also travel by word of mouth, of course - see Russian humour). In other words, humour was produced in the exact same way it was in America, it's just that the people telling the jokes worked for the state, not private companies. See Soviet film, Soviet literature. Smurrayinchester 14:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is likely as close as we'll ever come to an excuse for me to link to an article I developed a couple of years ago. It's about a film called (in English) the forgettable Bed and Sofa. You could probably picture a Hollywood movie being made today that featured marital infidelity and abortion. You could probably even see it being released as a comedy. What you probably couldn't see is it being a Soviet silent movie whose proper title is more properly translated as Ménage à trois that was released in 1927. Featuring abortion, polygamy and the harsh realities of the Soviet working poor. And was a comedy. Matt Deres (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

YouTube

I understand one could possibly earn money off one's YouTube videos. How does that work? Is there a good chunk to be made with so many views?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See YouTube's partner program also see the YouTube creator page, the section near the bottom titled "Monetize your content". --Jayron32 14:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ya but, does anyone REALLY make any money with their videos? How much? How much does it pay for how many thousands of views? Need some simple answers for an airhead blond. Thanks guys.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This was asked and answered before, but here's a Telegraph article listing the top 10 for 2010, with 22-year-old Californian Shane Dawson as the top earner, making $315,000 for nearly 432 million views. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So that's roughly 7 cents for every 100 views. In my experience though it does vary quite a bit with ad programs as they usually pay you differently for "click through" and things of that nature (e.g. does anyone actually interact with the ads, much less buy anything). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That may be hard to research since the advertisers may not be very forthcoming with actual numbers. I know I never look at the ads on YouTube videos. Though I've been conditioned to move the mouse over to the right side of the video to click the "X" to get rid of them as soon as they pop up about 30 seconds in. Dismas|^(talk) 01:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Beryl Cicely Cholmeley Tyacke

I recently bought something from the South African Painter Beryl Cicely Cholmeley Tyacke. If I google him, I can see some info on artfact.com, but nothing more than the birthdate; 22 februari 1929. How can I find more info on this painter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.133.55 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Both the given names Beryl (a decorative mineral) and Cicely (a flower) suggest this person is a woman. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes: from the name, I'd think the painter is a 'her' rather than a 'him', but otherwise, if Google draws a blank, you are unlikely to find much more online - though this looks likely to be a genealogy of close relatives: [9]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

all planets shine, right?

so the Greeks, who named them Venus, and Jupiter and so on, and Mars, though I guess these are Roman, not Greek, because the Greek names are Aphrodite, Jove, and Ares. So anyway the Greeks or Romans or whoever named these planets - to them they were just bright stars, right? I mean during the day you don't see rock there or gas or whateve,r do you, just like the moon never looks like a rock, it always shines or is totally dark (crescent, to the point that superstition attached significance to a star inside the horn of the crescent moon - an obvious impossibility). So, did the Ancients think these were the same thing as a star, just a God? what were the Stars then? Smaller Gods? Or, did the Ancients know that these are astronomical things ('planets') by calculating their movements (like in the copernican view of the solar system) with Earth at the center, and just as mnemonics give them the name of Gods - in fact having quite distinct ideas of who the Gods were and what these planets were. (i.e. the same as naming them after the seven dwarves, but still knowing they have nothing to do with the seven dwarves and are kept totally separate in the mental landscape). To the ancients, what was the connection between the planets and the Gods bearing their names? Were more Gods thought to have planets that came with them, but just couldn't be observed yet? Or maybe were thought to only come out during the day, when they were too faint to be seen? Thanks for any (historic) insight you have onthis subject. I'm mostly interestedd in past attitudes and how we come to have plaents with the names of Greek or Roman Gods and Deities. 149.200.72.244 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Classical planet has a partial answer. They were a little bit confused to the nature of planets, but not so far to confuse them with any star, since they certainly noted that they moved differentlyXPPaul (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Greek word Πλανητης literally means "a wanderer"; in the broadest sense, anything which moved relative to the the background of fixed stars could be a "planet" (including comets, etc.). However, persistent entities whose recurrent motions could be partially predicted mathematically were perhaps considered most deserving of the name, eventually resulting in the meaning of the modern word "Planet"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Greek astronomy is probably your most useful article. A few things to take away:

1. There isn't one classical Greek understanding of the planets. There were lots of different ideas about them floating about. It's hard today to say which was most popular at the time because we don't have tons of sources on that. But one shouldn't necessarily search for one "classical Greek" model — there isn't one.

2. The reason the names of the planets in English are based on Roman rather than Greek gods is because the Romans picked up the Greek system and renamed it, and they were, on account of their empire-building efforts, fairly influential.

3. You seem to be thinking of this is strictly mythological terms, but this is fairly misleading. Their astronomical and philosophical discourse on the cosmos was a lot more sophisticated than thinking they were literal gods or anything like that. There is also astrology, though, which was not distinct from astronomy until relatively recently.

Hope that helps. Again, the Greek astronomy article is useful both in describing the various currents of thought, but also making it clear that you're talking about literally centuries of highly sophisticated thinking when you say "ancient Greek understanding" — and unsurprisingly there is a lot of variety there. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

wait - let's get something clear. Did Greeks believe their Gods existed? Did they think the planets were these Gods? 188.156.249.197 (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As Mr 98 said, "ancient Greece" is a long period involving many people. Some clearly believed in their mythology, others clearly did not. Pfly (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well we all shine on, like the moon, the stars and the sun John made no mention of planets, however!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have been kind of hard to work "and the planets" into that rhyme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Some ancient Greeks believed that "the classical gods" existed. Indeed, they often also believed that many other gods of other places and people existed, sometimes identifying them with Greek gods and goddesses, and sometimes accepting them as independent neighbours. Many of the more enlightened Greeks did not share this view, but believed in no gods or very abstract concepts like that of a prime mover. Socrates was convicted for propagating some kind of atheism ("not believing in the gods of the state" - that phrase has something positively 1984esque to me), and Plato suggested a perfect abstract being emanating lower gods (this entered early Christendom as part of gnosticism, where the god of the Old Testament is one of the lower gods, and Jesus is send by the original perfect being to reclaim the splinters of it that formed the souls of some humans). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

completely not answering: did they equate the points of light with the Gods? like, for weekdays obviously "NO"

You guys are completely not answering whether the Greeks equated the points of light with the Gods. (OP here). The linked WP article says that the days of the week were NAMED AFTER the Gods. Nobody thinks saturday (latinate form) actually IS the God Saturn. So as for the Planet SATURN did they look at it and say "Look, there's the God Saturn!", in a way they would not point to a calendar and say "Look, there's the God Saturn!" pointing at Saturday. Or, was it exactly the same as Saturday: Look, there's the point of light called Saturn!! (And not "Look, there's the God Saturn!"). WHich was it? "Named after" or "Look, there's the God!" 188.6.83.253 (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Mr 98 precisely answered. If you are expecting somebody to give you a simple "yes" or "no", then you will not be satisfied. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr. 98 did not so much as HINT at whether the planets were considered TO BE the God's (by ANYONE, even a single adult). Obviously NOT ONE SINGLE ADULT IN ANTIQUITY CONSIDERED ANY WEEKDAY TO ACTUALLY BE THE GOD UNDER QUESTION.

Let me do it line by line: "1. There isn't one classical Greek understanding of the planets." -- okay. Did anyone consider the planet to BE a God?

"There were lots of different ideas about them floating about." Any evidence that ANY of these views is that the God is himself/herself the planet in the sky?

"It's hard today to say which was most popular at the time because we don't have tons of sources on that. But one shouldn't necessarily search for one "classical Greek" model — there isn't one." Not popularity question. Did ANYONE consider the bright 'star' e.g. Jupiter to BE the God himself?

"The reason the names of the planets in English are based on Roman rather than Greek gods is because the Romans picked up the Greek system and renamed it, and they were, on account of their empire-building efforts, fairly influential." Here you hint at: "the reason the NAMES of the Planets". So are you saying that we are talking about stars that were NAMED AFTER Gods, as opposed to having (by anyone at all) being formerly considered to BE Gods?

" You seem to be thinking of this is strictly mythological terms, but this is fairly misleading. Their astronomical and philosophical discourse on the cosmos was a lot more sophisticated than thinking they were literal gods or anything like that." So NOBODY at ANY point thought that they were Literal Gods? (Like they see the bright Saturn in the night sky and think that it is literally the God Saturn in the night sky. I'm not asking about sophisitcated understanding, but rather the man in the street - or rather ANYONE AT ALL.

"There is also astrology, though, which was not distinct from astronomy until relatively recently. Hope that helps. Again, the Greek astronomy article is useful both in describing the various currents of thought, but also making it clear that you're talking about literally centuries of highly sophisticated thinking when you say "ancient Greek understanding" — and unsurprisingly there is a lot of variety there."

Fine. Astrology developed into astronomy. In the past 2000+ years that Saturn has been named after a God, did anyone in any culture think that they saw Saturn-the-God when they looked at Saturn?

To make an example. Obviously no one at any point said: "Every seventh day Saturn turns from his usual shape into the shape of a day. That's why you can never see Saturn on the night sky on a Saturday." because nobody EVER thought that Saturday was literally a God, Saturn. Everyone always knew it was a question of naming. Now, as for the PLANE T Saturn, did anyone ever think it was LITERALLY the God Saturn, and if you saw him up there ,he couldn't be anywhere else?

I'm asking about the time since the planet has been called Saturn. Not asking about ancient egypt or mesopotamia or whatever.

my question is super-simple and you are not addressing it in the slightest.

my question is literally as simple as the question "We TALK ABOUT the sun moving across the sky - but did anyone ever think the Sun moves across the sky? Until it dips under the horizon in the west, whereupon it changes direction, travels all the way to the east under us during nighttime, - west to east - and reaching the eastern edge of the world rises up, changing direction again, and once more goes east to west?" The answer to that question is, Yes, yes some people used to think that, even adults.

I don't care if it's a few people.

Did anyone ever think "That bright point is Saturn, the God himself. If you can see it, that's where he is at the moment." Super-simple question here. I don't care how many people thought that way, I'm asking if anyone did. (Just like the question "every seventh day the God saturn turns into the form of a day, and can't be in any other shape for the duration of Saturday, since he's a day" has the answer No, not one adult ever thought that, maybe a confused five year old.--188.6.83.253 (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. People think all sorts of things even now, but without extant sources it is all just hypothetical. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a shame nobody has deciphered ancient Greek or Latin. Like some runic mystery, perhaps the world will never know what those people thought or wrote. --188.6.83.253 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was made quite clear to you above that none of the extant sources contain any specific evidence of that kind. By the way, good work on the arrogant attitude, I am sure it has made all the ref deskers eager to answer all your questions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking, "are there any writings preserved of Latin/Greek scholars which indicate that any of them believed that literally the planet called Jupiter/Zeus was indeed the same as the god Jupiter/Zeus?", the answer, so far I know, is "no." (I could be wrong — I'm no expert on ancient history. But this was certainly not the common view and the vast output of ancient astronomical writings did not believe in this.) They didn't believe they were the planets. At their most literal, the believed the planets were sacred to these gods (which is similar to the days of the week issue). But not that they were the gods. See also Planet#Mythology_and_naming which describes how the naming system of the Greeks is actually borrowed from earlier cultures as well. Now it's a very different situation between the planets and the sun/moon, for example, which had more literal mythological importance. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The practice of naming planets after gods was actually borrowed by the Greeks from the Mesopotamian civilizations and ultimately from Sumer. For example, Venus was known as Ishtar in Babylon. The planets were associated with these gods and perhaps considered sacred to them, not identified with them. Marco polo (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

THank you for taking the time to read my frustration, sorry for the tone, and thanks for finally answering the question. I would have liked it to be a bit more broad than what the scholars thought, i.e. if anything points to the population thought, but I will take this answer. Thank you. 188.6.83.253 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The is a source limitation for talking about the opinions of those other than scholars — they weren't carving Gallup polls into tablets. (I'm a historian of much later periods, so I consider 99% of what we claim to know about ancient Greece to be probably nonsense and based on the sheerest of evidence, but that's just me.) The odds are that over those centuries there were no doubt a few people who thought they were literal something or another (there are probably people TODAY who believe the planets are gods of some sort, just because people believe nearly everything imaginable), but again, I don't know that we have any evidence of that. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

but everyone knows what the planets look like - we have closeups from probes that landed. back then, they were shiny points of light ONLY at night when the sun reflected them, much bigger than stars and not simmerinjg. Calling THAT jupiter is much different from calling what everyone knows is a big round planet jupiter... so thats why i wondered if it was a namesake or a personification. Don't be silly: not one person on Earth believes that any planet is LITERALLY its namesake God, just as literally not one person on Earth believes that every 7 days, Saturn takes on the form of 1440 minutes. as for whether astrologically saturday has significance associated with saturn, that's an entirely different question. but we all know that it's just a namesake thing, not literaly a god. everyone knows that about planets (that they aren't LITERALLY the namesake God in specific; not "a god" but Jupiter in specific, i.e. the deity himself.) I guess I got a pretty conclusive answer however that nobody believed this in the past either. 94.27.164.10 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are people who deny that the closeup photos are even real, so I don't know if you can make sweeping claims about what "everyone" believes today. There are some people who think the Earth is flat, despite a rather large body of evidence to the contrary. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You can deny the photos, deny the Earth is real, but anyone who thinks these planets exists has been used to them being called 'planets' since Birth, and in no culture is Saturn personified anymore in current usage. Sorry, not one person calls the planets the individual Gods they're named after. This makes sense if you think about it, since Greek mythology has such little pop culture currency that you pretty much have to be literate to know who Saturn even *IS* and by that time you are thoroughly in our own culture of planets with fixed orbits, and absolutely no mention of them turning into the form of a...a nd coming down to Earth, disappearing from their orbits for the day. You will not find one person on Earth who is not a child and thinks that Mars the Planet is a God: the God of war, taking on the form of a planet. You can Google all day long, you might find people who think Mars is a God, but nobody who thinks that Mars is "mars" (ares). 188.157.21.8 (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I bet they didn't think of talking about the planets as Gods. If you write to them, you can get at least some people to SAY they think so. You can get them to say that NASA is sending probes to this or that God, and how does the God of War feel about us landing on Him? If they are very committed to this fake movement, maybe 10 years from now one will have a 5 year old child who actually believes this, not realizing that her daddy doesn't believe any of the BS he's spouting. But I'm 100% sure that at the moment, it hasn't occurred to them that NASA is sending the God of war anal probes, and maybe that's why we've had so much war in the past ten years. Write them, they'll eat this stuff up. (correlate American Mars probe with American wars). 188.6.83.253 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

March 30

Pleading "not guilty"

This past weekend, a local woman, Melissa Jenkins, was killed. The police caught a couple of suspects, <names removed as claim does not appear supported by source and for BLP reasons I'm not sure if they should be mentioned anyway Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)>. They both filed a plea of not guilty though the man has also admitted to the crime. So, why plead not guilty but also admit to the crime?

Note: I'm looking for information as to why someone would admit to the crime but plead not guilty. I am not related to the case at all. It's simply a local murder case. We don't get too many murders per year around here, so it's a big deal around here. I'm not looking for legal advice because, as I said, I'm unrelated to the entire case. Please do not delete this question. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, without having read your link at all, I'd just point out that "not guilty" doesn't always mean you dispute the overt facts. For example, the prosecution might have charged murder, but you think it was manslaughter. In general "not guilty" just means you insist that the prosecution prove its case. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean 'admit to the crime' since unless I missed it the source doesn't seem to mention anything like that. But speaking in general terms, presuming you mean someone confessed to the crime but later plead not guilty then it would seem there are many possible reasons. It may be the original confession is being withdrawn claiming it's a false confession perhaps given under duress or similar circumstances, or they confessed because they wanted to protect the real killer. It may be they're not denying they killed the person but claiming they are not guilty of the specific crime they're being charged with (this may seem unlikely in this case since the victim was strangled and the charge was second degree murder but there may still be possibilities, e.g. insanity or the person who confessed was forced to kill the victim by someone else). And remember that a not guilty plea can generally be fairly easily changed to a guilty one whereas it's more difficult to withdraw a guilty plea, so it may be they're trying to reach a plea bargain or even simply that their lawyer has advised them to plead not guilty for now while they familiarise themselves with the case. It may also be that the person who confessed is somewhat psychotic (many killers probably are to some degrees) and so wants to fight the case even if they have no hope of winning and have already confessed; remember a lawyer can't force someone to listen to their or plead guilty advice and ultimately has to follow what their client wants provided they aren't doing stuff which would violate their professional ethics or the law (like Subornation of perjury). You could basically ask the same thing in other cases without a confession. Why do people fight a case even when all parties likely including their lawyer would agree they have no hope of winning? Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

N.B. Given what I mentioned about the admission of guilty not seemingly being supported by the source, I've removed them. Even if you provide a source supporting the claim, I suggest they stay out for WP:BLP reasons as they don't seem to matter to the question Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The source says "But <male suspect's name>, 30, told investigators he and his wife committed the crime, according to the detective." There is, of course, more than one news story about this. I supplied the link to provide some background and so that people may read at least something about the case even though it may not back up every bit of what I said. The affidavit is online somewhere as well. Dismas|^(talk) 01:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• One thing one should note in a situation like this: admiting to committing an act is not the same thing as admitting to committing a crime. For example: Killing a person is an act, and even if I fully admit to killing someone, I may still claim to be not guilty of the crime of murder (for example, if the act was an accident, or in self-defense, or if I claim insanity, or some such thing). --Jayron32 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Zimmerman-Martin case in Florida is a stark example. That Zimmerman shot Martin is not at issue in any way, shape or form. The issue is whether a crime was committed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Helpful link to the case User:Baseball Bugs is talking about: shooting of Trayvon Martin. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 21:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I find it remarkable that (according to the linked article) the police managed to search the defendants' residence without killing their dogs. —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Old Testament

In this article, there is no mention of when the book was written? If we don't know then someone should have written briefly in the article that we don't know. I'm sure some scholars have some kind of estimated guesses for when it was written. Hope someone would add that info into the article. I'm also curious about it too!65.128.165.20 (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not just one book; it's lots of books, and they were written at different times. Read the article more carefully and you'll see at least some discussion of that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Authorship of the Bible probably provides a clearer summary of the information. It's disappointing that we don't have a timeline. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are times given at Old_Testament#Composition_of_the_Hebrew_scriptures. For the Pentateuch, there are also Documentary hypothesis and Mosaic authorship. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also note that many of the writings may be based on much older fictional or real events. For example, the Black Sea deluge hypothesis is one possible source of the Great Flood myth. StuRat (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And also that those who wrote-down the earlier books may well have been just recording an older spoken tradition, rather than actually composing them. Alansplodge (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Note — besides what's mentioned above, there was obviously some specific dates when the various forms of what's considered Old Testament (remember that Catholics and various types of Orthodox use an Old Testament different from that of the Protestants, whose Old Testament is the same text as the Bible of Judaism) were put together as a unified form for the first time. It's vaguely like an anthology: "when was this anthology written?" may mean "when were the individual stories of the anthology written?" or "when was the anthology put together?" Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Japanese strike

What is a Japanese strike? (Note that the link is a redirect to strike and thus not very helpful). I'm gessing it doesn´t have anything to do with huelga a la japonesa. 85.55.197.138 (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Labour law says "Strikes may be pursued by people continuing to work, as in Japanese strike actions which increase productivity to disrupt schedules, or in hospitals". That sounds a bit like a work-in. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like it is indeed huelga a la japonesa - the only place I've found a reference to it, apart from mirrors of our article, is a blog post that seems to have been translated from Spanish. The idea seems closer to work-to-rule, where workers stick to over-rigid rules that are normally ignored, than a work-in: the idea is to do the absolute maximum for a short period, but to cause problems with storage and distribution rather than to demonstrate the abilities of the workers. I can't find any evidence that a Japanese strike has ever actually happened, though. Japanese industrial action seems to be a bit feeble by European or American standards (generally consisting of short disruptions and brief pickets rather than drawn-out shutdowns), but otherwise ordinary. Smurrayinchester 18:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the redirect should be deleted - or at least redirected elsewhere. The article currently redirected to, doesn't mention Japan at all nor does it mention the type of strike described by Finlay. Astronaut (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, if nobody objects, tomorrow I will redirect Japanese strike to huelga a la japonesa and I'll delete the unreferenced bit that appears mentioned in labour law as there is no prrof it actually exist.85.55.195.46 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Journey audiobook

Is the Audiobook of The Journey by Tony Blair actually read by Tony? It seems to suggest it is but I can't imagine it. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it says "Read by the Author" on the front cover.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Purely for curiosity, AJP, why couldn't you imagine it was Tony Blair, given that as a professional politician he is by default a trained and experienced public speaker. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

None of us was in the recording studio to be able to see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears who did the actual reading. We're told Blair did it himself. Like virtually all historical events, we have to trust what we're being told, unless there's some good reason to doubt the veracity of that statement (e.g. the voice sounds more like that of Sharon Stone ...). Are you suggesting they used a voice double? What's your evidence? (Btw, distrust of anything a politician says does not count as evidence.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone else reading Uncle Tony's deathless prose FreeMorpheme (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you watched The Hunt for Tony Blair? 86.167.12.239 (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If it says "read by the author" on the front and it wasn't read by the author, then that's fraud. It seems unlikely they would commit fraud over something like that... --Tango (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A man called Jesus

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

---

Where in the Gospels does it say specifically that Jesus is physically a man?--LordGorval (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to what? A fish? A mushroom? A two-week holiday in Benidorm? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You've heard of John Q Allegro's The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, then? :-) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it says he had a human mother, and they didn't record anything unusual physically about him. Of course, the supposed fatherhood of God and his ability to do miracles would imply that he was at least part god, right ? StuRat (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because Jesus had a human mother does not confirm a human man. Looking where it actually confirms a human man. To imply is NOT what I am looking for.--LordGorval (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Biologically, I believe having a human mother does indeed make you human, as we aren't close enough to interbreed with any other species (although with recombinant DNA, some unholy offspring might now be possible) . StuRat (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In the first sentence of the New Testament: Matthew 1:1 "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."[10]Anonymous.translator (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of "son" has a meaning of "offspring" - so it could be the offspring of David, etc. It hasn't actually confirmed a physical human (blood and guts).--LordGorval (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Hebrew word for son used in that passage, υιου, is generally used for the male offspring of men. Although it does carry the "offspring" meaning as you mentioned, that usage is very rare. Of course you can argue this is not a strong enough evidence, but the people who believe he was a human male generally do not require strong evidence per se.Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Hebrew word would have been בן, but I don't believe anything in the gospels was written in Hebrew. Greek, in fact. --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Jesus had a human mother, and there are many indications that his appearance was undistinctive. However, his exact nature was a central issue in Christianity for centuries; you can start with our Christology article. John M Baker (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As suggested, reading over Christology it says the "tender image of Jesus" as a friend and a source of love and comfort was developed. It also says Jesus as a loving figure "who is always there to harbor and nurture those who turn to him for help and take delight in his presence". Does NOT say anything of a physical human being. --LordGorval (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

LordGorval, my point was more that the exact nature of Jesus is a long-standing area of dispute within Christianity, especially in the early centuries. I don't know that we can really draw more conclusions from the evidence in the New Testament than that he was the son of Mary and was entirely human in form. John M Baker (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A counter question could be where in the Bible it is attested that Abraham was a human being or that Jonah was or the disciples or any other Biblical person. Jesus is commonly assumed to be a human man because he had a human mother, he's described as appearing physically human (or at least had a beard, hands, feet, legs, blood, flesh, etc.), and there's no direct evidence to the contrary. However, I suppose you are correct in that there is no particular verse I can think of that specifically discusses Jesus' genetics or whether there was anything about him physically different from any other person. Certain variants of Christianity might believe he wasn't actually a man, but the predominant assumption, at least among most Protestant groups, is that he was physically a human. 151.163.2.8 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Stepping away from those who believe, since that sounds religious to me, I am looking for some phrase that specifically says he was human or a physical man. Why couldn't "Jesus" be something else. Why couldn't Abraham" be something else? Why couldn't "Jonah" be something else besides human or a blood and guts man?--LordGorval (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why couldn't Barack Obama be a lizard? Why couldn't Cyril Nutter of Guatemala (1738 - 2011) have written all of "Shakespeare"'s plays and his wife Dyspepsia have written his sonnets. Such questions verge on trolling. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate said "Ecce homo", meaning "Behold the man" or "Behold, a man". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Verse?--LordGorval (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

John 19:5, as Ecce Homo states. That's from the Vulgate; as I'm not a Greek scholar, I can't assist you in comparing it with the original Greek. 151.163.2.8 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Homo" in Latin means both "human being" (e.g. Homo sapien) and "male human being".Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No - "homo" means a human being of either sex, a person. The word for a male human being is "vir". The Greek equivalents are anthropos and aner respectively. The phrase in question from John 19.5 is "Idou ho anthropos", meaning behold THE man. ---rossb (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you answer Andy's question - a man as opposed to what? The word "man" has a lot of meanings, what are you suggesting Jesus might have been if he weren't a man? --Tango (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A definition.--LordGorval (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not a definition. That's a list of biblical names starting with J. Please be more specific, or we will treat you as a troll and stop feeding you.--TammyMoet (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Jesus, savior; deliverer,[ref]Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names[/ref] The Greek form of the name Joshua or Jeshua, a contraction of Jehoshua, that is, help of Jehovah or saviour. Latin: Jesus, Iesus, Iesu, Josue. Greek: Ieous from Hebrew Yeshua. Also means safety, victory and who's help is Jehovah or it may be from the verb "Yasha", "to save," and = Jehovah Savior, or simply Savior; a late form of Hebrew "yehosua", the meaning of which is "YHWH is salvation" or "YHWH saves/has saved." Online definition of "savior." Latin term drove out Old English "hæland" which means "healer" as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus. --LordGorval (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Abraham, father of a great multitude--LordGorval (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Jonah, or Jonas, a dove; he that oppresses; destroyer.--LordGorval (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

When Jesus was presented in the temple to Simeon, Simeon said "Behold, this child..." Luke 2:34 Why would Simeon have used the word "child" if Jesus wasn't a child? The "Ecce Homo" reference is John 19:5. I too wonder what else Jesus would have been. I think the OP needs to complete his reasoning here. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Luke 2:21 says Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day after He was born [as customary for Jewish males]. That's a clue. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is said that God originally made man in his image, so even if God was Jesus' father, one would still expect his and Mary's offspring look like an ordinary man. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mary = Miriam = rebellion, rebellous, bitterness, their rebellion.--LordGorval (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

LordGorval has entirely missed the point of the Christology article. That is, this question was of deep concern for religious scholars for hundreds and hundreds of years, and minor differences in interpretation are basically responsible for some of the different denominations of Christianity that still exist today. The question was whether he was a human man, a completely supernatural being, some combination of the two. (So, if this trolling, which it probably is, it's a particularly stupid kind, since this is actually a very interesting question.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to hear his rationale for how a non-male would be given ritual circumcision under Jewish law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Bugsie, I would like to answer your question. The Biblical names are NOT people. They are meant to be the definitions of these names. Just my belief. As they say: "Everyone is entitled to their belief." Some believe in Christianity and other do not. I say the answer is that you use the definitions of these Biblical names. Just an idea. Definitely a new idea! I won't discuss this new idea anymore, since it looks like the Christians want to throw me to the lions. You all have answered my question.--LordGorval (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't care if His name is Charlie Brown. The Bible says He was circumcised. Unless you've got evidence that Jewish ritual circumcision involves anyone other than males, that basically settles it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

LordGorval -- This is really not a "new" idea. In fact, the idea that Jesus did not have a physical human body was the heresy of Docetism, which was condemned long ago... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

But every name has a meaning, aside from being someone's name. Cicero was a human male, but his name means "chickpea". In any case, why didn't you just say that's what you believed to begin with? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In John 15, Jesus refers to himself as "a man": (v12) "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. (v13) Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (v14) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." (KJV) We also have an article on the phrase Son of Man which Jesus repeatedly uses. Alansplodge (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this question is starting from the wrong place. In how many novels (fantasy novels aside) does the author bother to tell us that the protagonist is a 'real flesh-and-blood human'? Some, but not all. We are expected to infer from the character of the narrative that that's the case; it goes without saying. And the expectation that the Bible provides literal answers to all such questions is mistaken. Moreover, several people have provided good answers to this question, and the OP has responded by proposing counter-intuitive metaphorical interpretations of those verses. This obviously undermines the insistence on a literal statement in the text.

But since the question has been asked, here are some verses which do carry the required meaning:

In John 9:11, a man cured by Jesus says: "A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes";

"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2:7);

"And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" (John 6:42);

And in Acts, which is not part of the Gospels, but is thought to be by the same author as Luke's Gospel, we have "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles" (2:22).

But I rather think that the church fathers who gathered at the Council of Chalcedon had thought of all of this; because they were the ones who decided that the church would acknowledge the true and full humanity of Jesus, at a time when competing views depicting him as God and not human, or as some kind of demigod, were widespread. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

However, most of those early arguments, such as Nestorianism, were about the exact relationship between Christ's human nature and his divine nature. LordGorval (the OP) seems to be sugesting that Jesus wasn't human at all, which is a rather novel approach as far as I can see. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's only novel insofar as it doesn't fall under Docetism or related tired old heresies... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! I missed your link above. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

new novel idea

When you say, 'The Biblical names are NOT people. They are meant to be the definitions of these names', what do you mean? Or more specifically, to what is that "they" supposed to refer? Anyway, at Luke 24:19, Jesus is described as "ἀνήρ", the standard ancient Greek term for a male human. Also, I wouldn't be so afraid, there aren't so many Christians here, and the ones that are cannot actually throw you to lions. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 11:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Atethnekos: It looks like you have an interest in Philosophy and you asked a logical quesion, so I will attempt to answer your question. There will be a lot of controversy since it is a new novel idea.

• First: let me say that as I see it (remember, everyone is entitled to their beliefs) the New Testament was NOT written some 2000 ago as some believe, but perhaps in the fifteenth or sixteenth century. So that means that any definitions of any ancient Greek has no meaning.
• Second: Jesus as a definition is "saviour" (not religious) or "deliverer" (a vehicle to deliver something). The Biblical names of the New Testament each have a definition.
• Third: The story of the so called man of "Jesus Christ" is just that, a fiction or myth "story". Now we just have to figure out from this what the real story is - which has nothing to do with any ancient Christianity. I believe the real story is behind the New Testament story. How's that for a philosophy? It certainly will get you thinking.--LordGorval (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you display some strong ignorance there -- no one has EVER claimed that the New Testament was written "2500" years ago, since the events which it recounts occurred ca. 2000 years ago and less, and many even among strongly Bible-believing scholars believe that some books (such as the Gospel of John) weren't written until near the end of the 1st. century A.D. Furthermore we have basically-complete Greek New Testament manuscripts whose paper and writing dates from the first half of the 400s A.D. (and substantial excerpts from the 300s and fragmentary manuscripts from even earlier), so you're a thousand years off there, too... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew it would be controversal, especially to those that lean towards being a Christian. First, I never said "2500" years ago. Have no idea where you got that. I believe I said fifteenth or sixteenth century. No, do NOT believe you have basically-complete Greek New Testament manuscripts whose paper and writing dates from only slightly after 400 A.D. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.LordGorval (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you about 2500. However, Codex Alexandrinus is a substantially-complete Greek New Testament manuscript from the early 400s. This isn't about Christians vs. non-Christians, it's about you stating emphatically-assertive opinions on subjects which you unfortunately seem to know rather little of... AnonMoos (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I accept your apologies. All of us make mistakes, especially in the heat of passion. I see you are very passionate about protecting Christianity. I fully understand this of the Christians, so won't get in depth with it. I'll just say I understand why you make the remarks you do. The idea is so novel that I imagine it will take some time to take a foothold. FYI: I have been aware of Codex Alexandrinus. The article says The manuscript's original provenance is unknown. I am aware also what lengths people will go through to try to prove to others how old a document is to increase its value (to make money). The only provenance I see that can be confirmed is: The codex was brought to Constantinople in 1621 by Cyril Lucar. Keep calm and I'll be delighted to talk to you about this.--LordGorval (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The only provenance of Codex Sinaiticus came to the attention of scholars in the 19th century at the Greek Orthodox Monastery of Mount Sinai.--LordGorval (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You say you have New Testament substantial excerpts from the 300s and fragmentary manuscripts from even earlier. Are you an expert in proving the dating on these "fragmentary manuscripts"? I'll bet you are taking the word of another person (whom you don't know). Can you even read the writing on these "fragmentary manuscripts"? Do you know these ancient languages? Myself, I just use logic to figure this out. I do NOT take the word of another, but just do extensive research to find the answers. There is NO New Testament "fragmentary manuscripts" of the 300s. I'll need proof in the form of research to believe that. You do NOT have that. All you have is the Christian "faith". I put no faith in that.--LordGorval (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an epigrapher or philologist, but I am a linguist and have a fairly substantial knowledge of the grammatical structures of ancient Greek, Latin, and Hebrew (without being able to fluently sight-read long passages without the aid of a dictionary). So I'm not an expert in everything you're asking about, but I have some useful background knowledge to be able to judge the plausibility of certain hypotheses, which you seem to lack. Looking over the New Chronology (Fomenko) article, it's interesting that no linguists are listed as supporting it, which I don't think is an accident, because those who have a real knowledge of how languages change over centuries will have a deep intuitive feeling for just how impossible the whole thing is. How could someone ca. 1500 A.D. make up a form of Greek which would be suitable and plausible to be spoken 1,500 years earlier, and which would stand up as such during subsequent centuries of increasing linguistic knowledge?? For a point of comparison, J.R.R. Tolkien basically devoted his entire life to making the constructed languages Quenya and Sindarin seem to have a linguistically-plausible relationship between diverging languages with many centuries of literary history, and he never really managed to complete this task in a fully-consistent manner, or to his own complete satisfaction. How could someone in 1500 A.D. attempt such a feat with even the remotest chance of success, when most of the necessary knowledge wasn't discovered until the late 19th century? It really doesn't make too much sense (and the spirit in which I've approached this discussion is what makes sense in the light of historic knowledge, not that of being a militant "defender of Christianity").

Furthermore, you seem to be confused as to some of the basics involved in dating historical manuscripts. Strict rules of "provenance" and unbroken chains of custody from the original creator to the present are strongly required for some types of relatively modern artworks; however, they have a rather limited role in establishing the authenticity of thousand-or-more years-old manuscripts. Scholars will always be interested to know whether a manuscript has passed through the hands of Firkovich, but many manuscripts are basically unanimously accepted among scholars as being authentic without the comprehensive paperwork which you seem to feel necessary. Therefore you can look at List of New Testament uncials for accepted manuscripts of the 4th-10th century (the earliest containing an almost-complete New Testament apparently being Alexandrinus), and List of New Testament papyri for more fragmentary (but sometimes even earlier) manuscripts (Rylands Library Papyrus P52 having attained some degree of fame). AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the names Jesus and Joshua are closely related in Hebrew (with Jesus ישוע being a slightly shortened variant of Joshua יהושע favored during the exilic and post-exilic periods), so I don't really understand your name-etymology determinism. In the Old Testament, ten individuals are referred to by the Hebrew version of the name "Jesus", including Joshua son of Nun in Nehemiah 8:17; were they all "saviours"?? In the New Testament, the name Ιησους refers to several other individuals in addition to Jesus (including Joshua son of Nun at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8). AnonMoos (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you replied on this, I have since come across the article Jesus (name) - which is pretty much what I just said. I said "deliverer" (a vehicle to deliver something), while the article says (to rescue or deliver) and the Hebrew noun "yesua" (deliverence). I believe we are saying the same thing.--LordGorval (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Hebrew name Yeshua/Yehoshua actually seems to contain a shortened form of the Tetragrammaton, and so is more commonly understood as "YHWH is salvation" etc. However, I already knew all that; it's your apparent name-etymology-determinism theory which is unclear... AnonMoos (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll use a little logic here. Let's say I have a really bad cold. I go to the doctor and he gives me a prescription for a medicine to help. This piece of paper with the prescription is the "deliverer" of a medicine that is my "salvation". The prescription is my "salvation" as without it I could get sicker and sicker and perhaps die. So bottomline, I think we are saying the same thing. Remember, keep calm as otherwise it raises the blood pressure and you will need some sort of "salvation" in the form of a prescription medication.--LordGorval (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of pure curiosity: Where (if anywhere at all) is it seriously argued that the NT was written in the era of the Ottoman Empire, some centuries after Mohammed had included Isa Ibn Maryam as a prophet in the Quran ? I have never heard or read of such a claim, novel or ancient. Of course, it may be an idea for a novel:) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That is basically the idea behind the "New Chronology" of Anatoly Fomenko. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the real New Testament story behind the myth story of "Jesus Christ" happened in the fifteenth century.--LordGorval (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous. The Bible played an extremely significant role in world history between around 200 AD and when you are saying it was written. The conspiracy you describe would be enormous. I would find it easier to believe that we're ruled by lizard people than that the Bible wasn't written until 1,200 years later than is usually claimed. --Tango (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. If you believe in lizard people I won't argue with you. But there is one correction I would like to make to your statement. I did NOT say Bible (as a whole) - I said the New Testament was written somewhere around the fifteenth century. Another correction is that it is NOT a "conspiracy", but a method as to how it was written as a coded book with a hidden story behind the scenes. What is that real story. I believe Church related history of around the fifteenth century (not Christianity as in the "Jesus Christ" myth).--LordGorval (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So, then, I guess all of those those New Testaments which existed before the 15th century, what of them? What of all of the people, like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo who wrote extensive, detailed commentary regarding the New Testament? Did they have a time machine? Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that also means that everyone else is entitled to ridicule the rediculous... --Jayron32 22:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the comments from those that want to protect Christianity. I see that you are also very passionate on this. Interesting how a new novel idea creates such a fire storm- but I understand it from those of the Christian "faith". This Thomas person made remarks about the New Testament? This Augustine person made some remarks of the New Testament in the 5th century? Research material??? I use logic and that would be my "belief".--LordGorval (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm passionate against exposing the silly. Look, De doctrina christiana contains direct references to several New Testament works, extensive commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans. Jerome has several important New Testament commentaries. The Ambrosiaster (whose actual authorship is unknown), dates from the 4th century. Your speculation that the New Testament was invented in the 15th century is so wholly rediculous as to defy direct confrontation. To dismiss the evidence that it did exist before such date, which is copious to the point of lunacy, is direct evidence that you are either trolling us, or so dilusional that it would be pointless to refute you further. --Jayron32 00:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I say, I understand why you speak as you do. Apparently it is some sort of threat to the viewpoint of Christianity. I do believe this concept will take some time before it gets a foothold. I'll give you one more hint, but no more: "Jesus of Nazareth" I see as "The deliverer of sanctified" or "The approved rescuer" or "The deliverer that is special". Fits right in with my "cold" story above. Remember, keep calm. If I were you, if you think I am trolling and these are not legitimate good faith responses - then I just wouldn't respond. I can see it raises your blood pressure and I wouldn't want any harm to come to you just because I am introducing a new novel idea. Cheers.--LordGorval (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who here is a Christian and who is not, but I don't think that matters. I'm not a Christian, so I don't perceive this as a threat to Christianity; it's just manifestly absurd and irrational. And as we keep telling you, this idea predates you by a couple of thousand years. It's not new. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Adam dear, calm down. Its raising your blood pressure too - way too much! For a person with a Doctor's degree in philosophy, it sure seems to be very disturbing to you also. What, you don't like philosophy? I would recommend then that you don't answer my remarks. I believe I will just keep this special knowledge and insight to myself as I can see it is too hard for you all to consider as a new novel idea. I won't give you any more details. Have a good day.--LordGorval (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if Palestine, as per Anatoly Fomenko is a medieval reference to the German Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate), it would at least explain why Pantera is (possibly) buried in Bingen (ibid). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

To my original post: Where in the Gospels does it say "specifically" that Jesus is physically a man? nobody yet has come up with an answer. The closes answer is "faith" and they "assume" on something. I do NOT believe the New Testament is a real story of a physical person named "Jesus Christ". It is a coded book of a series of books that have a story behind the scenes. One of the "keys" to unlock the real story is the definitions behind the Biblical names. That makes sense to me, however the story of the "Jesus Christ" myth does NOT make sense as one has to have "faith" in the myth and use no logic. So like I said a long time ago, you all have answered my question - as nobody has given a logical answer, only a "Christian faith" answer. --LordGorval (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You've been told about several places, you just choose not to accept it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So...you're challenging us to provide proof against a Monophysite Christology? Your words are very confusing; if you see the biblical accounts as codes for other things, rather than as narratives that are either historically accurate or historically inaccurate, you're not going to be able to find what you want. FYI, people who are trained in paleography and have become experts at it are the people from whom those of us at this board get the idea of these manuscripts being nearly two millennia old; if you reject them, I don't see why you think that we'll be able to provide you with the type of answer that you'd like. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank's for providing the answers. That's all I needed to know.--LordGorval (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be of soivice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciated your service and must admit Bugsy you gave the most logical answers that made the most sense. You were not quite as rattled as most.--LordGorval (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

New Testament verses

Moved to keep thread in one place to easily understand:

KJV Matthew 17:8, Mark 9:8, John 9:11, John 19:5, Romans 5:15, 1 Timothy 2:5 Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss my edit above the sub-header? Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed them. It shows to me that you also don't have a clue how the New Testament was written to be able to know the real fifteenth century history behind the scenes. Your viewpoint is from a Christian viewpoint assuming Jesus is a physical man. I read these verses in an entirely different way. Remember in my remarks above I see "Jesus" as "deliverer" (a vehicle to deliver something) - vehicle is a term that describes a means of conveyance. So from that point of view the verse comes out entirely different than the conventional Christian viewpoint of the "Jesus Christ" myth. --LordGorval (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm not making any assumptions, but taking the verses at face value - they state that He was a man explicitly, not implicitly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem: taking the verses at face value. The verses were NOT meant to be taken at face value (a Christian viewpoint, a lazy layman's way out) but have another way that they should be read. By the way you worded your response (i.e. "He" with a capital h) shows that you have a strong Christian lean, so would NOT be receptive as to how it was actually meant to be read. I'll hold off on giving up the secret as it would be a fire-storm of controversy. Its too premature to give it out.--LordGorval (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Matthew 17:8 (only hint I think I should show for now, as it alone will make a fire-storm)

KJV: And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. (Christian's viewpoint)

KJV: And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw men, save deliverer only. (intended viewpoint)--LordGorval (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Then your original request cannot be fulfilled, because you wanted a verse that literally said Jesus was a man, and now you're insisting that the literal meaning of any verse provided cannot be taken seriously.

But in any case, as an historian rather than a theologian, I ought to point out that your entire proposed history of the text is not even wrong - it is so delusional that it is difficult to rebut. I was at the British Library last week, looking at their fourth-century codex (open to the page which omits the story of the woman taken in adultery). In order for that book not to be what it ostensibly is, we'd have to call into question not just theology, but the entire history of the western world, a substantial chunk of nuclear physics, chemistry, palaeography, and probably other subjects I'm forgetting. This is not a localised issue. Whatever applies to that text must be applied to (for example) the Oxyrynchus Gospel of Thomas, the Nag Hammadi fragments, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so on. The NT codices are not treated differently by historians; many of the experts in this area are not mainstream Christians, and have nothing to gain by falsifying their results.

But then, 'Lord' Gorval, I expect you are from North America (or perhaps Australia). Come over here to Europe, where we have a continuous archaeological record from the present day back to the time of Christ, with extant buildings alongside buried strata of the same age. Study Carbon-14 dating, dendrochronology, and all the other techniques we use for assigning new discoveries to their place in the timeline. See what a building looks like that was built before you claim the NT was written. Observe the biblical scenes painted on the walls of medieval buildings, and set in their stained glass. See the pre-Norman copies of the NT made by the monks of Lindisfarne. (Hint: if they are early medieval, the NT cannot have been created later than that.)

Then look at yourself in the mirror, and say honestly, "Whoever Jesus was, I was a schmuck." AlexTiefling (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This whole discussion has become a soapbox for LordGorval's original views of the Bible, albeit it appeared to start as a genuine question. He is clearly trying to be provocative:"Ï'll hold off on giving up the secret as it would be a fire-storm of controversy. Its too premature to give it out." I suggest this be hatted at least, or even deleted as inappropriate to the Ref Desk. Bielle (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not if he has a reliable source for the "intended viewpoint", if not then would tend to agree with policy about soapboxing. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to kill the spirit of curiosity, but I do not like to encourage the distribution and advocation of (unsourced) viewpoints. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew it was going to be very controversal. This is all the further I am going to go as it already is starting up a fire-storm. All I can say is to look at the method as to how Matthew 17:8 was "translated" from KJV. That's the other key, besides using the definitions of the Biblical names. Its against the common Christian viewpoints, so I can understand why some would want to remove from the Ref Desk. That's fine with me, as I already know the special knowledge which gives me certain advantages. I'll hold off saying anything further - since it looks like the Christians want to throw me to the lions. I have as much proof as those that can prove the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus are qenuine. They can not prove these are genuine (as related to New Testament speciments) and one just have to take their word on "faith". From the knowledge I have, I know they are NOT true New Testament speciments.

The original question was: Where in the Gospels does it say "specifically" that Jesus is physically a man? The answer I received from everyone is no one knows where it says that Jesus is a physical man. You just have to assume it from something - which is the basis of the Christian "faith". Of course its inappropriate to the Ref Desk, because its inappropriate to the Christian "faith". I won't give up any more secrets, because it means one has to use logic and not "faith". Cheers.--LordGorval (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My proof is the provenance here: http://faithofgod.net/NTcompare/Matthew.htm

I know most will not understand this, but its a better provenance than they have for Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus. Cheers. --LordGorval (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to show your working, I'm afraid. That page is not a provenance at all. It's just a comparison of the varying forms of Early Modern English used by various translators. The question of which of those came first (which I think is actually pretty settled) is irrelevant in the broader scheme of things - they are all demonstrably translations either of the Vulgate, or of the Greek texts from which the Vulgate is drawn. We have manuscripts of the Greek, and of the Latin with and without Early English glosses, which can be dated by physical means to many centuries before any of the EME texts.

So unless you've got something truly remarkable to share with us - and have proper sources to back it up - I'm going to call shenanigans on this entire thing. It's not necessary for me to demonstrate that Jesus lived, or that he was this or that kind of being, or did this thing or that. It's readily demonstrable that your claims are both extraordinary and false. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, it's not out job to sort through your sources to decipher your theory. A side by side comparisson of M 17:8 shows no difference between the versions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The OP's original question was whether the Bible says Jesus was a man. That question has been more than sufficiently answered in the affirmative. The question of whether the Bible is factually/historically true is a totally different question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Costs for the government to defend itself in cases regarding the Establishment Clause

I need some sources that mention the amount of money it would cost for a local or state government to litigate defend itself in a case involving the separation of church and state. I am not in need of a general study but rather specific instances. For example, the Cranston, Rhode Island school committee said that the city's attorney fees would push upwards of $500000 if their case (Ahlquist v. Cranston) went to the Supreme Court. Can I also get some sources that report the success rate of local/state governments have in defending themselves in such cases? This is to back up a bill in a mock legislature program. --Melab±1 ☎ 20:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is going to depend a lot on the circumstances. The article you linked to says a charity provided legal representation for the school without charge (although it doesn't say whether that would have continued through the appeal stages). That could easily happen in other cases as well, in which case the cost to the defendant themselves could be fairly low. The cost could also be fairly low if you are willing to accept reasonably cheap lawyers, although your chances of winning would then be reduced. --Tango (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

March 31

Reasons for Italy's Unification

What were some of the reasons that Italy wanted to unite? I read that they wanted to immediately after the Napoleonic Wars, but what were the reasons for it? 64.229.204.143 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't imagine their reasons are any different than anyone else (United States, EU, Germany, Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, NATO, etc.). That is, unification helps ensure common defense, improves trade, reduces internal strife, etc. This balances against the desire of each group to remain independent. StuRat (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Romantic nationalism was very strong in the mid-19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Elimination of tolls and reduction of taxes. To have a high status king but the Pope and the Emperor of Austria would have a higher status. To have a king who spoke Italian.
Sleigh (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Italian unification may be helpful. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

before the merger with Delta Air Lines

Did Northwest Airlines do something for the relief efforts following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, or both disasters?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for the Tsunami, according to [11] RudolfRed (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nyamdorj, Mongolia

I met a Nyamdorj in a so called Consulate of Mongolia in Jakarta, Indonesia, whre I wwanted to apply for a Visa for Mongolia. However, althought the Mr Nyamdorj I spoke to in this office pretended it was a consulate, it appeared that Mongolia has no Consulate in Indonesia. I would be interested to know if the Nyamdorj I met is the same as the one referred in Wikipedia as being former Minister in Mongolia, and forced to resign in 2007.

Does this [12] look like him? Anonymous.translator (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

American penny magazine

Who is the author of this [13]? It says Messrs. Editors of the American penny magazine. Is it Theodore Dwight? And what is the American penny magazine?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not Theodore Dwight. The report is presented as a letter to the editors of the American Penny Magazine, which like most such publications consisted of contents that were picked up from all over the place—mainly snippets reprinted from other published works but also poems sent in by readers, correspondence, etc. The "Messrs. Editors" at the beginning is the salutation of the letter, not a byline. I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the "Best. Atlas." at the end of the piece; if one assumes that the first period is a typo for (or a bad printing of) a comma, it would be the letter's complimentary close, with the author being someone writing under the pseudonym "Atlas". If you want to reference it here, I'd suggest treating it as you would an anonymous newspaper article. Deor (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Theodore Dwight is the editor of the American Penny Magazine, not the author of the article. I tend to agree with Deor that "Atlas" would be a pseudonym, although it could also be an acknowledgment that the article is a reprint from another magazine, where "Best." is a shortening of a word and "Atlas" is the second word of the title of the magazine. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on further consideration I think that it's almost certainly an acknowledgment that the letter was picked up from the Boston Daily Atlas or Boston Weekly Atlas, which were published in the 1840s–1850s (later becoming the Boston Atlas and Bee). The letter following the B, which I was assuming to be a broken-type e, is probably rather a broken-type o. The italicization should have been a dead giveaway—cf. "Boston Post." near the top of column 1 on page 5 of the same issue—but I was set on the wrong track by the use of the pseudonym "CYPRIAN" in column 1 of page 6 (and because the reading in this Internet Archive uncorrected scan of the text is "Best"). In any event, if Kavebear wants to cite the piece, he'll still have to treat it as an anonymous reprint in the A.P.M. unless he wants to try tracking down the original in some 1845 issue of the Atlas (apparently avalable on microfilm in the Boston Public Library). Deor (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Psychology of lynch mob

Throughout the history, we have seen examples of lynching incidents where a person is victimized in a kangaroo court and then murdered by a mob. I want to know what motivates those perverted people in a sadistic act like lynching? What is the psychology of the persons who take part in an organized homicide? Is there any article available on this topic? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See Crowd psychology. Dru of Id (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The usual motivation is the feeling that the government/courts won't mete out "justice". In some cases, this is actually a correct assessment, in that the accused has some form of protection from prosecution. For example, some courts have granted so many protections to criminals, like with the exclusionary rule and insanity defense, that a suspect who obviously committed the act can still get away with it. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, while I do agree that is true for dictators, their are numerous incidents where the crowd get pleasure by murdering someone. In India, where I live, it is an established mob culture to brutally assault a driver whenever they hit someone in road. in Kolkata, even there is incident where a taxi driver was beaten to death by a mob after he accidentally ran over a street dog. Lynching of Jesse Washington was a kind of celebration to the onlookers. It was certainly not similar to the death of a dictator like Gaddafi. The way Washington was killed clearly shows the crowd got pleasure by killing him. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dru is right, crowd psychology is the article you need. A crowd will often do things that none of the individual members would even consider doing. The fact that you are in a group gives you a feeling of reduced personal responsibility. We have also evolved to enjoy being part of a group as our main defence mechanism (safety in numbers). --Tango (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just hang out on the internet for about 5 minutes and I'm sure you'll see something comparable. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

How is internet flaming comparable to a lynch mob killing people? That's a ridiculous claim. Plenty of people will happily insult other people without being part of a crowd. Very few would kill someone. --Tango (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for seizing on some ambiguity to make a ridiculous point. Very courageous stand you're taking against lynching. Seriously... wtf. Are you actually claiming that was my point? Is that actually how you read it? I know it's fun to seize on some little turn of phrase, but next time you feel inclined to slander... why don't you pause for a minute. Shadowjams (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO: The internet - as does an immersion in a mob - hides the individual responsibility. Being faceless and traceless may allow a person to "execute" aggresive traits which are blocked when you are identifiable. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: Now, if there was a biblical SMITE button on you keyboard, which would promptly cause total organ failure to <insert name of EVIL Wikipedians here>, would you never be tempted to use it? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I heard Kim Jong-un is quite internet savvy, I wonder whether he uses WP? Anonymous.translator (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this what we have video games for, particularly violent first-person shooters? One can spend an hour or two wiping out wave after wave of monsters/aliens/nazis, then turn it off and go back to a normal, quiet life without the need to go out and lynch somebody. Astronaut (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there is exhilaration experienced in overriding one's fears. Our fears keep in check violent impulses, but we are emboldened by the presence of supporters. SupernovaExplosion asks about the apparent "pleasure" of those participating in such acts. I think it is exhilaration or "release" that may be experienced by shunting aside those fears that have kept our behavior in check for so long. I'm just trying to explain why "pleasure" may be seen as a state of mind in someone committing mob violence. Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

April 1

Biblical figures whose existence is confirmed by contemporary non-Biblical sources

It's Palm Sunday today (and April Fools' Day), and as Christian, I have to go and remember Jesus' great sacrifice. However, I have long wondered who among the Biblical figures (like Solomon, David and Joseph) have been confirmed to exist by contemporary extra-Biblical sources. I think that there is some evidence for Solomon, controversial evidence for David, and a theory that Joseph is either based on or is actually the Egyptian politician Imhotep. I also read somewhere that recently, evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate was discovered. But what about the other biblical figures, both from the Old Testament and the New Testament? Are there any people from the Bible whose contemporary records, if any, have survived? I'm not saying that those without evidence do not exist, but I'm wondering who among the Biblical figures were mentioned in contemporary non-Biblical sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Joseph = Imhotep theory seems to me dubious, given that – insofar as we can attribute dates – Imhotep flourished something approaching a millennium before Joseph plausibly might have, which in turn was over half a millennium before the likely literary origin of the Story of Joseph. However, that Joseph was some other real Egyptian official of Hebrew origin seems plausible (unless the story has no historical basis at all, which is also quite possible). I am minded to delve into this further, so thanks for the spur. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.103 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

One classic hypothesis which has been debated and redebated since Josephus is that the Biblical Joseph was in some way connected to the Hyksos... AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See Mesha Stele, a Moabite text that refers to Omri. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III is one of multiple Assyrian sources for Jehu. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most of the Herodian dynasty directly mentioned in the New Testament are directly attested by many sources. Several members are charcters in the Gospel narratives. Pope Clement I also wrote about Paul and Peter and is an extrabiblical source contemporary to some of the bible writing. --Jayron32 02:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There are some people such as Belshazzar and Merodach-Baladan who were only known from the Bible until inscriptional discoveries were made in the 19th century. Omri seems to have been the Israelite of pre-Maccabean times who made the largest impression on non-Israelites, to judge from surviving records (the northern kingdom of Israel was sometimes known to Mesopotamians as bit-ḫumri or "House of Omri"). David and Solomon kind of fall into a gap, because the only reason why the United Israelite Kingdom could exist and expand was that both Egypt and Mesopotamia were rather weak and uninvolved with Canaan during that historical period; however, "House of David" appears on the Tel Dan stele... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Pilate Stone, discovered in 1961 in Caesarea Maritima, indicates that Pilate was an actual prefect of the Roman province of Judea. Astronaut (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This would actually be a good idea for an article. There actually are very few people with genuinely contemporaneous evidence, since there is very little surviving evidence of any kind from the Old Testament period, while the New Testament mostly addresses people that mainstream writers considered peripheral and unimportant. But there is evidence of at least some figures from the Old Testament, including Jeconiah, Nebuchadnezzar II, and Cyrus the Great. From the New Testament, there is Caesar Augustus (who is mentioned in passing), as well as the previously mentioned Pilate, Herod the Great, and Herod Antipas. John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth are both mentioned in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, but that was written more than half a century later and is not strictly contemporaneous. (One of the references to Jesus is probably spurious, but there is no reason to doubt the other.) I wouldn't count conjectural evidence, such as the suggested association of characters from the Pentateuch with possibly analogous figures in Egyptian history. John M Baker (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There is actually a Wikipedia article about exactly this question: List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources. -- Lindert (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE! Thanks for the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we kill all humans to save the Earth's ecosystem?

I'm asking this question to all non-human participants here.

My analysis of the situation on Earth is as follows. Humans are destroying the environment. They've known about the damage they are doing for many decades, yet they are continuing on the same line. So, it seems to me that the only way to save the planets lifeforms is to kill all humans. If we don't intervene, the ecosystem will be wrecked and all humans will die anyway. If we kill all humans, the ecosystem will be saved. Count Iblis (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be an April Fool's joke or not? If serious, I'll try to answer it. Actually, if we changed our own lifestyle (as a species), we can save the ecosystem without killing ourselves. If we stop using fossil fuels and start using clean energy, the effects will be similar to if we left the Earth. Of course, if we killed ourselves, then New York City will become a literal urban jungle. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Humans are a part of the ecosystem... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

In my opinion, if all human targets were terminated, then the topic would be muut. Since concern for the ecosystem is a human principle, there would be no concern, should all human targets be terminated. In short, if all humans were killed, no one would care enough to give a hoot. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There's someone who beat the OP to the punch. See Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. --Jayron32 03:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

VHEMT advocates not having kids. OP is asking for the slaughter of human beings. One is voluntary and peaceful, while the other one is kinda bloody. There's definitely prior art out there though, that I can agree. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep them alive until the zoo ships arrive from the homeworld. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Count Iblis, you do realise that someone whose sense of humour/humor has been removed will now be looking to block you for making death threats. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a funny joke. So stereotypical for an american, to take offense at the most benign and least of things said. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't quite figure out wher you hail from, but it's still a true observation in general. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking the question at face value, and expanding on Plasmic Physics' reply: it is absolutely false to say that humans are destroying the environment (or the planet, another fatuous claim that is often made). It is almost certainly true that human activity is causing huge changes to the global ecosystem, which might bring about the extinction of many species, possibly including humans. It is a peculiarly human bit of hubris - or perhaps solipsism - to identify "the planet" or "the environment" with "the world as we know it". But the K/T event was not only a huge change in the global ecosystem (without any human contribution!) but arguably was one of the factors which ultimately led to the appearance of humans. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this makes Bender, who on occasions expressed the desire to "kill all humans", the ultimate ecologist? Astronaut (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case someone would care, but I am almost certain that he doesn't appreciate the effects on the ecosystem. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Never knew we had so many non-human editors here (see OP's first sentence). I'm still waiting for User:RjwilmsiBot, User:MiszaBot II and User:RFC bot to reply so that we have a more balanced discussion. Happy Palm Sunday (Gregorian Calendar). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The changes in the environment caused by humans are not bad for all life. In fact, a warmer planet should, overall, be beneficial to most life forms, and might lead to a new round of evolution (if it last long enough), as plants and animals adapt. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Any human who supports the extinction of humanity is totally free to do himself in. He has no right to do others in, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it is illegal to commit suicide. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It usually is. But you're still free to do it. What are they going to do? Arrest your corpse? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Illegal where? It's not in parts of Australia, most/all? of the UK, most of the US, Ireland and possibly India, see Suicide legislation. Note that not all countries with laws against attempting suicide have laws against committing suicide, perhaps recognising the futility of such laws. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've wondered about that. Can you get charged with attempted suicide, just like attempted robbery? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You used to be charged in the UK, but this was changed by the Suicide Act 1961, the first section of which says: "The rule of law whereby it is a crime for a person to commit suicide is hereby abrogated." Alansplodge (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the crime of attempted suicide should be punishable by the death penalty. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are there still OLD people in OLD pictures?

I THOUGHT EVERYONE WAS YOUNGER IN THOSE DAYS!

I look at pictures made MANY DECADES AGO, and there are STILL, OLD PEOPLE IN THEM?

Whatever happened to EVERYONE BEING YOUNGER decades ago? Why were some people STILL OLD in, say, a picture made in 1990, if everybody was supposedly 22 years younger then?

This is a photo of two old people... IN 1990! <-- See that? Why don't they look younger if everyone was 22 years younger that year??? Something is obviously wrong here. *shakes head* --Tergigress (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You should see them now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Living is younger than dead. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this an April Fool's question? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Pope German? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, see Donn Pall. Frankly I'm surprised you had to ask given your personal interest and nickname. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, is the Pope a Catholic? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Most likely not, Catholics as a rule don't seem to generally take to the modern day street preacher concept although there are a few [14] so it can't be ruled out in the absence of more information (and there's no way I'm going to watch TV wrestling to find out). Nil Einne (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

travel routes and times

So, how would one get from England to Joplin, Missouri? And about how long would it take to get there. I hear there's no trains in the state and it's a long bus ride from the airport.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

England the country, or is there a place called England in the USA? If it's the country, then one way or another you'll end up in Jefferson City, a drive to Joplin according to Google Earth could take 3 hour and 47 minutes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I was told Kansas city airport, is that any closer? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

American Airlines offer flights from London Heathrow (LHR) to Joplin Regional Airport (JLN) via Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW). For flights later this month, prices are £315 or more one way and, for example, a 11:45 departure can get you to Joplin by 20:50, later the same day, with 4 hours hanging around at DFW. Joplin airport is 6 miles north of downtown. I'm sure there are at least taxis and likely a bus route but no bus as far as I can tell. Astronaut (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A drive from Kansas City Airport to Joplin according to Google Earth could take 2 hours and 40 minutes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Travel my way, on the highway that's the best .... You go through Saint Louis; Joplin, Missouri; and Oklahoma City looks mighty pretty.... —— Shakescene (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well according to Google Earth it's about 297 mi (478 km) from England to Joplin, Missouri and takes about 4hrs 45mins. Unless it's the small village in Nordstrand, Germany in which case GE can't figure it out. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The person asking the question doesn't mention the possibility of driving so probably can't or won't drive himself or herself. I can't find any scheduled bus service from Kansas City Airport to Joplin, though there are shuttle services (shared taxis) that you can arrange, but they are probably somewhat pricey and time-consuming. It doesn't make sense to go through Jefferson City, as its airport is no better served (and no cheaper to fly through) than Joplin's own airport. You might look into prices for flights to Kansas City (MCI). There might not be many direct flights there from the UK, but you can easily connect from most major US airports to Kansas City. Then find out the price of an airport shuttle from Kansas City to Joplin and keep in mind the time required for that transfer. Finally, find out the price of flying directly from the UK to Joplin, which might involve two changes of plane. It might be faster and not much more expensive to fly there directly than to fly to Kansas City and take a shuttle. Joplin does not have any scheduled bus routes that serve its airport. It has an on-demand minibus service, but it is apparently available only to city residents. So you would have to take a taxi from the airport into town. Marco polo (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, a good website for researching flights is Hipmunk, though that should not be viewed as an endorsement by Wikipedia! Marco polo (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Cost Overheads

What is meant by cost overheads while calculating the total production cost of a product? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.184.58 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A simple answer is here. Let us know if you need more detail. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Being the owner of yourself

Is there a reason to explain why we are the owners of ourselves individually? Besides the tautology: that if it were not so, we could be or have slaves. XPPaul (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Henry David Thoreau wrote Walden which gave the impression that men all men are free. Yet he was fortunate enough, because of his inherited fortune, that he could do and indulge himself in what ever took his fancy. If however, you want to truly own yourself, then approach me for a mortgage (at very favourable rates that my lawyer will ensure that you'll never be able to discharge) to buy your freedom from those that currently own you... Until which time -you remain a slave; and just toiling for whomever will keep you off the bread-line and obeying whatever they decree.</sarcasm off>--Aspro (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the prickly fundamental issues that underlie your questions is the question "what do you mean by ownership?" To take a very real example, think of owning a house or piece of property. Many people that own a house have a mortgage on it. Does the fact that a third party have a financial/legal interest in the property mean that the "owners" of the house don't "own" it? Even if the mortgage is paid off, they're likely to own the home through fee simple (or local equivalent). Does that count as "ownership"? Could they even "own" the land if they had allodial title, given that any strongman with enough hired muscle could force them off it? What does it mean to "own" something? - In a certain sense, you *don't* own your self. Looked at a certain way, part of ownership is the right to transfer/sell such ownership to another party. In most modern countries, you're legally prohibited from selling yourself into slavery, so can you truly be said to "own" yourself? Of course, that means no one else can own you either. That's my understanding of most modern legal conceptions - people are things which cannot be owned, either by themselves or by others. Not everything has (or has to have) an owner. (e.g. who owns the sun?) - That's all for slavery-like legal owning, though. If you're talking "owning oneself" along the lines of "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.", that's a different animal all together. -- 67.40.209.83 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Truth to tell, everyone is ultimately "owned" by Mother Nature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Collapsing discussion, irrelevant to my question:

Extended content

Christians would argue this assertion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC) No matter what you would like to do on this earth, you are restricted by your mortality, as well as other factors. Although the Bible says that humans have dominion over the earth, it is actually microbes that have dominion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC) That is not what I'm talking about. The Bible says that our lives were purchased with inocent blood, and that a Christian's body is not their own, but the Lord's. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Christians believe they are far more than just a mortal body. Their essential being is an immortal spirit or soul; their body is is just the spirit's temporary house while on Earth. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Sure, that squares with conservative Christianity. I don't recall the OP saying anything about Christianity or anything otherwise religious. His question seemed secular. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Actually, that's not quite the orthodox Christian position on the body and soul: see Resurrection of the Body. Christianity has generally (but not universally) rejected Cartesian dualism. 86.161.110.210 (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Actually, an immortal soul is not a Christian doctrine, it is not supported anywhere in the Bible. It is a concept inducted into Christianity from other religions and beliefs. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Right, because the Gospel of Matthew has nothing to do with Christianity, to whit, Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." It is kinda hard to have eternal life which is not immortal. --Jayron32 01:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Not what I meant. I mean the assumption that the soul is inherently immortal, and that no conditions or terms are requisite to obtaining this right. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC) That is the reason why it is called a testament or a covenant. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Right, because all of those people who aren't accepting of the covenant who the Gospel of Matthew assigns to "eternal punsihment". There isn't any mention of a third group of people who get to escape eternity. --Jayron32 01:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC) So, there is no possible self-destruction in Christianity? You could "suicide the body", but not the soul? 186.206.247.208 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Yep. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) But that's not to say the body is unimportant, or can be dispensed with at will. It is a part of the overall person, and a part that should be looked after and respected, but not the essential part. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Are you sure that you know what "eternal punishment" means? It does not mean unending punishment. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC) I'm pretty sure I know what eternal means, as in perpetual, ceaseless, lasting forever. Unless you know of some other meaning of eternal. --Jayron32 02:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC) It is written: "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." and "This is the second death." If the punishment is unending, then there can be no second death. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Eternal also means: non-reversable, non-repeated, final. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Just to clear this up, Plasmic Physics is maintaining the Adventist position on the soul and the afterlife, which is why is differs so radically from the view that Christians are used to seeing. When Plasma Physics says "Christian", they mean "Seventh Day Adventist", as all other groups are considered to have been corrupted by Pagan beliefs. Hence "is not a Christian belief" really means "is not a Seventh Day Adventist belief". Why this also mesns an attempt to redefine the word "eternal", without even a link to a phrase from an obscure out-of-print dictionary, I leave to the reader's imagination. I hope this clears up the otherwise baffling disagreement. 86.161.110.210 (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Besides, perpetual punishment by burning is against the character of God - it is not an act of mercy. It also indicates that the universe will never be rid of evil, how can New Jerusalem and hell coexist on the same planet? I became an SDA because the denomination and I use the same looking glass to study the Bible, and come to the same conclusions. With one difference, I do not hold E. G. White's writtings with the same high regard as they do. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC) I don't want to take this too much in to soap box territory, but think it's questionable if punishment of any form is really an act of mercy, more so punishments like burning. If you have a faith or belief system where a merciful god can allow or even encourage such punishments, then it's not that much of a stretch to move that into perpetual punishment. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Aargh. Punishment is a form of justice, conclusion of punishment is a form of mercy. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Basically, everyone is due the capital punishment for breaking the Law. God is perfectly just, and requires that such a sentence be carried out. However, He is also perfectly merciful, He let His Son undergo the sentence of capital punishment our instead. All who accept the conditions of this bargain and accept it's legitimacy will be found not guilty of all sin. Those that refuse the conditions and deny it's legitimacy will be found guilty, and naturally undergo the sentence. Essentially, the lives of the accused that are found to be not guilty were purchased with the death of one innocent Person. So their lives are assets of God. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC) You haven't said anything to contradict what I said, in fact what you're saying appears to concur with it. Either god is truly perfectly merciful in which case they won't allow any punishment (which they have the ability to disallow) and won't impose restrictions which need to be met before they disallow punishment. Or god isn't truly perfectly merciful in your belief system instead only partially merciful (you can call it 'perfectly' merciful if you want, even if it doesn't concur with the everyday understanding of the word 'perfectly' which I prefer to use similar to the way others prefer to use the everyday understanding of the word 'eternal') but also demanding justice or whatever you want to call it. In which case, the concept that god won't do something because it means they aren't merciful is an arbitary restriction, so ultimately anyone can come up with their own variant of said restriction, and there's no intrisic reason why a merciful god can't allow perpetual punishment. (Only perpetually burning someone instead of some worse form of perpetual punishment/torture can also be a form of mercy just the same as ending the punishment after allowing it for a trillion years can be.) P.S. I'm ignoring the possibility of god not being perfectly merciful at the moment, but becoming perfectly merciful later since AFAIK, this isn't a common belief. If under your belief system, god only becomes perfectly merciful later then you could disallow perpetual punishment but not punishment since it means god can't become perfectly merciful (but they aren't before, so the fact they are allowing it isn't an inherent contradiction). Similarly although this was implied, I should clarify if you don't believe in an omnipotent god then you could perhaps come up with the idea of a perfectly merciful god who negotiated with some other party and they reached a deal which god felt was the best that they could reach but it allowed punishment in some circumstances. Of course even in such a system, there's no reason why god couldn't be perfectly merciful but the best deal they could reach allowed perpetual punishment. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Where in the Bible do we find that God is merciful towards ever single person? If you read Romans 9: "For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” (...) So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." (Romans 9:15-18) this seems to say that God shows mercy only to a particular group of people: those that He chooses."~-- Lindert (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC) The story of the rich man and the beggar(Luke 16: 21 - 23 and following) illustrates the concept of individual mercy. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You all surely agree, that I'm the owner of it. (even if I still don't understand why, although comments above were of use. But, why I am not the property of my parents? Or partially of the government?

XPPaul (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you would be better off talking to someone who is involved with medical ethics in what ever legal jurisdiction your living in. Ownership, is a human concept and where as 'rights' can be assigned to mortal flesh and bone, ownership to the whole or any part of the body, as far I know – isn't one of them. This BBC article delves in a bit to how it is in the UK. [15]. I think it is very similar to the rest of Europe and the US & Canada etc. Example: If you have to have a gammy leg amputated, you might find it very hard to get the hospital to pass it on to you, should you want to keep it so that it can be buried along with you on your eventual demise - because even you don't own your leg. --Aspro (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Good old google, never disappoints. Amputees demand their legs back from hospital.--Aspro (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. And before anybody else chips in: The sale of 'hair' by tradition, is a legal exception in most part of the world. Neil Armstrong ran into this problem a while back.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical Alliances

I have a question (technically two) about historical military alliances in Europe.

1. Just before the French Revolution, were the alliances UK-Prussia-Netherlands and France-Austria-Russia?
2. After the Napoleonic Wars (immediately after would be helpful), what were the alliances that sprang up? Was France allied to any?

Any help would be great! 64.229.204.143 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding question 2 see Holy Alliance. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

For your first question, we have an article on the Triple Alliance between Britain, Prussia, and the Netherlands. I don't see an article here about the France/Austria/Russian alliance, but we do have one on the Franco-Austrian Alliance. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, during this time period there was not any Franco-Russian alliance; those alliances sprung up a century or so later (see Franco-Russian Alliance). During the years leading up to the Revolution, France's best alliances were likely with Austria (see Franco-Austrian Alliance) and with the Ottoman Empire (see Franco-Ottoman alliance). France and Spain also had a natural affinity, given that during this time Bourbons sat on the thrones of both countries. --Jayron32 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Also very important, the system of alliances and coordinated diplomacy that came to Europe following the Napoleonic Era was the Concert of Europe which attempted to prevent French Revolution-style problems and institute "conservative" (in the Metternichian sense) international relations and maintain traditional monarchies whenever possible. The system lasted from the Congress of Vienna which followed the end of the Napoleonic Era in 1815 until the Revolutions of 1848 returned "liberal" ideas to many European countries. Officially, the Concert of Europe lasted until 1914 or so, but in reality, after the Revolutions of 1848 caused a resuffling of European alliances, and from the middle 1800s until WWI, you get the pre-WWI alliance system (the Triple Alliance (1882), the Triple Entente, the League of the Three Emperors, the Entente cordiale). If you want to understand Europe in the immediate post-Napoleonic Era, however, start with Metternich and the Concert of Europe. --Jayron32 20:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2

Greek Mythology Question - Tantalus

Who was the girl who gave water to Tantalus once and then forgot about him, making his suffering 'worse?' --66.188.121.218 (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Our Tantalus article doesn't mention this girl, and either do my web searches. So, alas, the answer to your tantalizing question remains just out of my grasp. StuRat (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Was there such a girl - where have you come across this? No mention in Odyssey XI, Graves Gk Myths 2/108.8 (could check on Perseus Project for Diodorus iv.74, Plato Cratylus 28, Ovid Met. iv.456, Pindar Olympian i.60...) Not in Lucian Dialogues of the Dead... Or Dante, I think. Some later misogynst misprision? 77.96.78.61 (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

According to this piece of fan fiction the answer is Persephone, but I can't find anything else that says so. --Antiquary (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

High-net-worth individual

As I can see from the article, HNWI is a person who has "investable finance (financial assets not including primary residence) in excess of US$1 million". Does "financial asset" include shares, bonds, jewellery, cars, antiques, movable assets etc? Or does it mean only hard cash? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It obviously means more then 'hard cash' otherwise it wouldn't say 'financial assets not including primary residence' (unless you seriously think it says that in case your primary residence is built out of cash). Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that any person who met the $1 million threshold only by including jewelry and every car or piece of furniture that he or she owns would be perceived as at best a marginal HNWI. People who are indisputably HNWI would be those with $1 million or more of purely financial, easily tradable assets, such as shares, bonds, other financial instruments, and probably precious metals. Marco polo (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"High net worth individual" does not have a universally accepted definition, so its exact interpretation will depend on the definition adopted in the specific case. Our article is pretty awful; among many other problems, there is nothing special about the Capgemini report it cites. Taking it at face value, however, "financial assets . . . excluding collectibles, consumables, consumer durables and primary residences" at a minimum would include cash, shares, and bonds, and they may contemplate including other resources as well. For example, the reference to the exclusion for primary residence implies that other real estate may be included. John M Baker (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The term sounds like those used internally by banks, as an internal threshold, to grant access to those seen as valuable enough for a specific service level. In this case, it would imply having $1 million of assets which can be traded through the bank. XPPaul (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hölderlin poem - "The gods have fled"

Which Hölderlin poem contains the phrase, "the gods have fled"? -- noosphere 18:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)