Humanities desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 15

Ride of the Valkyrie

Resolved

This is probably a good one for Jack, who's the resident classical music expert. Does anyone know just what German words Kirsten Flagstad is singing here?[1] They don't seem to match the libretto from the opera.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's from when we first meet Brunhilde in Act II, see libretto here (basically, from Brunhilde's first words). It's not the Ride of the Valkyries, which starts off Act III. I think that's the introductory music to Act II, arranged to cut out Wotan's part, and leading into Brunhilde's first vocal appearance. (given that this is the opera from which I take my name …) --Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just as long as you don't start wearing a metal, conical bra... :-) StuRat (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

That's it exactly. Thank you! P.S. I hope you enjoyed watching Bob Hope introduce Kirsten Flagstad. That's not something you would see every day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly OK; it was my pleasure. 'Twas nothing, really. Please don't mention it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

new constitution in kenya

what are the impacts of new constitution to education sector in kenya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.89.10.241 (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One immediate effect has been the launching of a public education program to inform Kenyans about the constitution [3] Sh 1.3 billion ($15 million US) has been allocated for it.

Another is probably the Universities Bill just recently signed into law [4] which will increase oversight. The article about the bill also says students will be able to take the degree programs of their choice (apparently not possible now?).

You can read the constitution here. It outlines who is responsible for education (mostly the national government as opposed to the county governments) and that everyone has a right to an education. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will enforce that Kenyan children will do their homework themselves, and not post it on the Internet for others to solve. Indeed, it will become a criminal offense not to do your homework in time. The impact will be quite positive, both for the pupils as well as for the Internet users, who will be left alone. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Très drôle. Alansplodge (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Courts

I'm looking at a Court Disposition for the state of New Jersey in the USA. Under the secion 'plea' they have '9' but the disposition didn't come with a decoder. What does plea 9 in New Jersey mean? 65.69.34.2 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't assume all courts in NJ use the same codes, but if this is a municipal traffic case you could look at [5] and see if it makes sense. According to that file, '9' = 'not applicable'. - Nunh-huh 01:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteenth century clothing

In our article it shows an image apparently of ca 1259 of Llywelyn the Great and his sons in some sort of "robes". How would these "robes" have been made (i.e. material makeup). Is there more than one piece? Overclothes? Underclothes?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do 1200–1300 in fashion and 1300–1400 in fashion help at all? --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It looks like they are wearing an undergarment and an overcloak. My guess is that the undergarment would have been made of linen and the overcloak of wool. Since they were royalty, cotton is a possibility, but it was very expensive and hard to come by at that time. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks. From this I get the idea that the undergarment was a tunic or version thereof and the overcloak was a toga or version thereof. What would the belt around the toga (if there was one) been made of?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could the undergarment have been made of silk, since they appeared wealthy?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged me, I'll reply even though I don't really know anything. All I really know about this topic is that linen and wool were by far the most widely used fabrics in Britain at that time, and wool would not have been great for an undergarment because it is rough-feeling and nonabsorbent. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since silk was so expensive it wouldn't have been used for undergarments at that date. Cotton would have been rare too. For the most luxurious garments, furs and metallic thread. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replies. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity & tolerance

I realize this question will be controversial and somewhat opinion-based, but I'll try to be as respectful as possible. Why are most Christians today so tolerant? As far as I can tell, the vast majority of Christians believe that all non-believers will be doomed to hell, from which there is no escape. Yet most of them don't try to force non-believers to convert to Christianity, and might even fight for the rights of atheists and people of other religions. Why is this the case, and is there any Biblical basis for this belief? If I were Christian, and I believed that my friends were doomed to hell, I'd do everything I could to force them to convert, up to and including torture. After all, what's the harm of a few years or decades of pain, if it prevents an eternity of torture in hell? If a liberal Christian heard that his friend became insane and wants to jump off a building, wouldn't he try to stop his friend, even if it means using physical force? --140.180.249.27 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Liberal Christian view is that living in a way that attempts to live up to the Christian ideals is a better way of bringing people round to your views than any use of force. The "non-believers go to hell" doctrine would be probably be considered rather medieval by many Christians in the UK, although I'm sure that there are still parts of the world where it still has currency. Alansplodge (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any Christian denomination which believes that forced conversions have any validity. Forcing someone to make a Christian confession, from a Christian perspective, does not make them a Christian, so it would be quite useless and only create fake Christians. - Lindert (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant forcing the non-Christian to read the Bible, study Christian theology, and the like, in the hope that she will start to truly believe in Christianity. The typical Christian liberal is likely to oppose this, by opposing mandatory Bible studies in public schools, for instance. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that that would be an effective strategy (not to mention the moral implications). If anything, people would be repulsed by Christians behaving in such a way, and be driven away from Christianity. In any case, though attitudes towards evangelism vary, there is widespread agreement that evangelism should be in conformity with the morals taught by Jesus, and imitate his apostles. Furthermore, many Christians recognize that while they are called to preach, they do not have the power in themselves to convert people, because that is the work of the Holy Spirit. - Lindert (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The values of secular liberalism have been extremely influential in predominantly Christian areas of the world (e.g. Europe and the Americas, among other places) in the last three hundred years. This has generally led to a lot less fundamentalism and a lot less insistence on the use of the secular order to enforce a cosmic order. One needs to see this not as inherent to Christianity (much of Christianity prior to the last 300 years was not at all like this, and there are still Christians who feel this way, but they are definitely in minorities, no matter how loud they sometimes sound in American politics) and not as inherent to changes to world thought in general (there are still many people in many parts of the world who are just as rejecting of secular liberalism; consider how different most of the Muslim world is in this respect). The short answer is, most people in Christian nations don't really believe that using state power to force religion onto people is the right thing to do. Asking why that is the case necessarily leads you back to the Enlightenment, the wars of religion it came out of, the history of thinking about just government, and so on, and historically it gets quite complicated very quickly if you want to look into it in a non-glib way. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the OP has it right. As someone who has been aggressively attacked here by conservative Christians, been the victim of their attempts to silence me, and who has seen the nonsense they want to add to articles like Evolution and Richard Dawkins, I have serious doubts about their tolerance. Maybe such Christians are only a minority, but they're a powerful and bloody annoying one, and if more liberal Christians are more common, they would do well to condemn the bigots in their ranks. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that there are indeed fundamentalist, extremist Christians, on the whole they are far less common than moderate ones. In places where the loudest megaphone wins (internet debates, American political radio, etc.) it is easy to exaggerate the prevalence of such strains of religion, but systematic surveys of these things show such people to be firmly in the minority. A loud minority, but a minority. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that even the conservative Christians would have physically abused you if they had the chance. The same can't be said for the Islamic world, for example. Try going to Saudi Arabia and expressing anti-religious sentiments there, to see what happens to your head. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attempt to paraphrase that... "I think it's OK for conservative Christians to be aggressive, dishonest bigots because some Muslims are worse." Please stay on topic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think this is the start of a long, controversial debate. By "here", I assume you mean WP, rather than "here" as in "there", where you live. I think the OP is talking about being tolerant in a physical sense, ie. not trying to force conversions, so it is about tolerance relative to beliefs. One might argue that the beliefs are intolerant, but if they are what they are, then the behaviour is presumed by the OP to be tolerant relative to these beliefs. It is a reasonable premise, at any rate. IBE (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant range of tolerance and intolerance across most any religion. It really comes down to individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I suspect the problem is that the less tolerant members of any religion get the bulk of the publicity, and try harder to exercise power, sometimes successfully. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, yes, I heartily agree. I've even suggested this to Christians, that one of the problems with their beliefs in public life is that they don't really have a voice - they have to sound a bit outrageous to get any attention. They tend to agree. In Australia, that means the spokespeople go haywire about eg. gay marriage. The Christians I know oppose it, but the Christians who get to talk to the media use weak logic, and a dash of extravagance. I have heard saner voices arguing that this will only make them look bad. IBE (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant "there", meaning in the Western world. I'm asking about the general public, because I'm not that interested in the opinions of Wikipedia editors. That said, thanks to everyone who have taken a stab at my question. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]