Humanities desk
< April 4	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 6 >

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.

April 5[edit]

Mongolia Map[edit]

Hi there,

I could see the Mongolia Map on the Mongolia page. that was really detailed with all the 3xx 'sums' included. However I would like to see the map of UlanBaator, the capital, as well. According to the Ulan Baator page, it was said that UlanBaator has 9 districts. can i have the map of these districts (like that of the 'sums' and 'aimags') on the UlanBaator page or the Mongolia Page?

thanks!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.18.170.43 (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If it isn't on commons:category:Maps of Mongolia, then there's a probability that it doesn't exist within Wikipedia... AnonMoos

Infallibility of the Church?[edit]

I have four questions on the so-called infallibility of the Church in Roman Catholicism:

1. Couldn't some bad and un-Christian Popes and bishops decide, or have decided, to make up false, or at least fallible, messages, claims, and teachings which they claim and lie that they are infallible and from God but really aren't? Or could they decide to change, distort, or not tell messages from God in the way they like to suit their own purposes?

2. Do we really need some kind of special person like a Pope to interpret the Bible for us? The Bible is clear enough for us to know what it means ourselves. Also, to know more information about how to interpret the Bible, go and see the article Principles of Bible Interpretation.

3. Is Saint Peter really the Rock on which the Church is built on? I thought Jesus is. In John 1:42, Jesus said to Peter, "You shall be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a stone." This shows that Peter is only a small "stone", not the huge "Rock" on which the Church is built on. To know more, go and see the article Peter as the Rock.

4. If the Church is infallible, then there wouldn't be any of its teachings that contradict the Bible. But are there? The answer is probably yes. For example, the Assumption of Mary probably contradicts John 3:13 which says, "And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."

The Anonymous One 03:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already done so, you might get some value out of reading Infallibility of the Church, and Papal infallibility, particularly the section "Common Alleged Misperceptions About Papal Infallibility". As for John 3:13, I believe the Church's position is that Mary died and ascended a long time after those words were spoken, so there's no conflict. However, IANAT. JackofOz 04:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anonymous One, what exactly is your question? What kind of response do you wish? A Catholic response? There are numerous Catholic apologetics sites to which you should refer. And to start, a large directory is here.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question, what need of a question, Kirby? This is just the latest instalment in a relentless and tiresome anti-Catholic manifesto. Clio the Muse 05:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, no need to bite him. Let's assume good faith. Looking at his contribs, he seems to be a good editor when it comes to non-religious articles. Some people just have their quirks, I guess.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dog may growl, but it never bites! My assessment was based both on a reading of the above and past experience. For my part, I have already answered some of these points, when I assumed that genuine information was being sought. This now does not seem to be the case. Clio the Muse 05:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes the growl is worse than the bite =P. This is getting off-topic, perhaps a talk-page "debate" is in order? --Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dog, now being quiet and introspective, has decided to grip this 'question' in the terms in which it has been pitched, and in the forlorn hope of some final resolution. I remember seeing a pocket cartoon in an old political weekly, possibly the New Statesman, published here in England, in which a well-dressed businessman comes across a tramp (a hobo, for the benefit of you Americans!) sitting on a pavement, with a notice beside him reading Prejudices Confirmed-£1.00 only. The said businessman duly drops his coin in the tramp's hat, and receives the following captioned response-Yes, I am on welfare; no, I have never done a day's work in my life. Anonymous One, it has long seemed to me that you are the businessman in search of your own particular tramp; so, for your benefit, let me take on the role, without any request for payment: yes, Catholics are not really Christians; yes, Anti-Christ could sit in the seat of St. Peter, and he would immediately be followed by the uncritical mass; yes, we do not need priests or the Holy Catholic Church, and we should all interpret the Bible for ourselves; yes, St. Peter is not a rock, merely a little stone. Does that satisfy you? I could attempt to finish on a slightly more sober note by saying that the Bible is a rich and complex document, that requires intelligent and informed interpretation, and we live in an age where we must all be acutely aware of the dangers of the literal reading of sacred texts. But, what the hell, why bother? It is time for the Protestants among you to get out there and start burning 'All of them Witches.' Clio the Muse 07:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I believe that the use of the word "stone" in John 1:42 meant something different in 1611 English (in which the KJV was written) than it does today. And furthermore, who cares what the KJV says? The KJV is a translation. The apostles didn't write in English.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 09:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Koine in which the gospel of John was written John 1:42 has "κηφας ο ερμηνευεται πετρος". The word πετρος ("petros") is generally seen as a masculinization – more appropriate for a man, like Simeon was – of the feminine word πετρα ("petra"), which can definitely mean "rock".[1] That word is used in Matthew 16:18: "thou art Πετρος, and upon this πετρα I will build my church", confirming the πετρα meaning. Actually, it is perhaps of more interest what Aramaic kefa meant in Biblical times in Palestine. There are various claims, the most common ones being that the word means "rock" or that its meanings can range from "stone" to "rocky hill". For an unusual interpretation, see Kefa. I could not find the word in an online Aramaic lexicon; it did not help that I don't know how it is spelled in Aramaic. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

raising short-term interest rates[edit]

How does FRB's raising short-term interest rates affect our daily life? Kymotegi 04:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Kyosuke[reply]

Raising interest rates is likely to raise local currency, take investments from stocks and place them in the cash market. It dampens demand, encourages saving. It is occasionally useful in strong economies to raise interest rates so as to prevent economic bubbles, where growth is created from growth, and not from legitimate wealth creation activity. DDB 11:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it reduces inflation. But how does an interest rate hike take investments from stocks and places them in the cash market? --Khunter 18:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When interest rates rise, the disparity between stock offerings and bank returns is less. It is rarely worthwhile to leave money with banks, but always safer. The result of higher interest rates, then is for people to take money from stocks and put money in banks, who in turn put the money into short term cash. To provide an example, in 1991, Australian interest rates were 19%, far exceeding the return of the stock market. Many put there money into 90 day term deposits, wiser people put there money away for five years at lesser rates of 16%. DDB 08:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are various kinds of interest rates out there such as 1-year deposite rates and mortgage interest rates. Can the FRB control all the interest rates through raising or lowering the federal fund (short-term interest?) rates? If it's not possible, is the monetary policy really effective? Kymotegi

Dirty dancing carried to its logical extreme[edit]

Has anyone ever danced (for instance) a ballroom tango nude and with genital insertion? Is such a thing possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.183.116.25 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There are over 7 6 billion people in the world, so chances are that someone has tried that at least once.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that's how many people there are today. You asked "ever", so all people that have ever lived are included in the calculation, which makes it all the more probable.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's probable that someone has tried. But is it possible without coitus interruptus raising its ugly head? JackofOz 06:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, our article on world population (and pretty much every other source i've ever seen) disagrees with your statement of "over 7 billion". Do you have a source for that value? Or just a mind blip? Capuchin 11:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 21:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to be very skilled to dance in that fashion!! Think outside the box 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ [69.183] Yes. (see also Frottage Grinding (dance)). dr.ef.tymac 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's only rubbing though, what about the genital insertion? 212.159.16.175 17:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article links give context. The details and proof are documented elsewhere. I will defer to the capacity of your imagination and discernment to flesh out any other specifics. dr.ef.tymac 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago, a veteran Finnish tango singer anwered an interview question about the weirdest event in his long career with quite a memorable anecdote: It was a dance night at a small-town restaurant, and the house was half full but the people were having a good time. One particular middle-aged couple really hit it off with each other, at first they were just kissing passionately as they danced, but soon their dancing got more and more physical, and after a while they lowered their pants just enough and performed the entire act standing up, at a corner of the dance floor, and they even were discreet enough that few people noticed. The singer however had the best view, and all he could do was to try to concentrate on the singing. According to the story there was no commotion, and the couple did soon leave for a more private place. 84.239.133.38 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has happened at the local high school during one or more dances. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but were they dancing while having sex? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.142.149 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Poppy pomegranates at the Metropolitan Museum[edit]

The Opium article states At the Metropolitan Museum's Assyrian relief gallery, a winged deity in a bas-relief from the palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Nimrud, dedicated in 879 BC, bears a bouquet of poppy capsules on long stems, described by the museum as "pomegranates". Can somebody tell me who is correct? Are those poppy capsules or pomegrantes?--202.164.137.91 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim familiarity with all varieties of poppies and pomegranates, but according to what I see in today's Israel: the poppy is indeed a long-stemmed flower that develops a seed pod, whereas the pomegranate is a fruit attached by a short stem to the branches of a small-leaved bush. The pomegranate shape, however, is a popular folk motif in the Middle East symbolizing fertility due to the fruit's many seeds; I don't know if the shape of poppy seed pods is as familiar. So perhaps the museum curators were conflating the two images? -- Deborahjay 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article here [2] on The Pernicious Opium Poppy, says that 'the two fruits, which have a similar outline, have often been misinterpreted.' This does not really take us that much further forward; sorry. I've looked through some material on Assyrian mythology, and all I can find is a reference to the godess, Nisaba, who is often depicted with poppies growing out of her shoulders. I suspect that the only way you will be able to get a definite answer to your question is to contact the museum directly. There is, however, a wider mythological connection between the poppy and the pomegranate, though this belongs to the Greeks, rather than the Assyrians. Persephone, the daughter of Demeter, the godess of fertility, was obliged to stay in Hades for part of the year as the wife of the god, Pluto, after she ate six pomegranate seeds. To forget her grief, Demeter went into hibernation, bringing on the winter. To aid her sleep, and forget her grief, she ate poppies. The poppy plant then became one of her symbols, often depicted alongside corn. The poppy-head is to be found in the hands of various of the Greek gods, and because of the number of its seeds is associated with abundance and fertility. Eastern cults have a tendency to transfer from one culture to another, so it is possible that the Assyrian deity depicts an earlier example of this practice. Clio the Muse 01:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advancing the article to legitmate status[edit]

Pjt48 15:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I'm stymied about how to get my article to meet the WIKIPEDIA standard of submitting it for other to edit. I was trying to convert my particular on a poet to an American poet stub with no avail. If there is a clear step I can take to advance my article to take it to a legitmate standing, please advice me. I've tried reading about WIKIPEDIA'S templates and formats hoping to incorporate my article into these frames but I'm simply overlooking the steps. Where my article stands now, it still has unhidden codes that I can't seem to rid it of in order to make the article clean and professional. I see no evidence that I've made any contact with other users. I think of my userpage of being in a state of isolation and wonder how long does it stay in this state.Pjt48 15:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The help desk is probably a better place to ask about this. I'll answer the question here, though. The "unhidden codes" are probably signatures. If you type four tildes (~) in a row, or press the button on the edit toolbar that looks like a signature, that's what produces your signature. I'll send you a welcome message (on your talk page) that gives pointers on how to edit pages and all of the other stuff. In the meantime, since you wanted to create an article entitled Robert Peters, I moved your user page to the Robert Peters article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data on women in paid workforce in the states of the US[edit]

I am looking for data on what percent of women (or, if possible, mothers) are in the paid (i.e. out of the home) workforce, in each state in the United States. I have heard that my state is the highest, but I can't find anything to confirm this.

Thanks,

206.176.19.201 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Robb Campbell, Spearfish, S.D.[reply]

According to the table on page 4 of this document, which draws on 2000 census data, South Dakota had the 7th-highest labor force participation rate for women over 16. At the top of the list is Minnesota. Despite much searching, I could not find similar data broken out by state for mothers. Marco polo 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Tucker article[edit]

The Wikipedia article about Preston Tucker needs cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.61.38.108 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Never fear -- Wikipedia is a work in progress! If you're informed enough about the topic to clean it up some yourself (and you're not Preston Tucker, or some other biased observer), click on "edit this page" at the top of the Preston Tucker page to get started. (On the other hand, if you just need some info on him right now, might I suggest Google?) Jfarber 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which Corporations sell these:[edit]

Which Corporations sell these:

--Khunter 18:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the data on the image page the one on the left was built by Advance corporation, but I haven't found which of many corporations of that name it would be. The one on the right is from McNeilus. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just looking for corporations that sell "Concrete transport trucks". Does wikipedia have an article regarding "Concrete transport trucks"? Does wikipedia have an article regarding the corporation McNeilus? --Khunter 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McNeilus is a division of the Oshkosh Truck corporation. Marco polo 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Mixers are apparently made by Terex, formerly part of General Motors, per this page. Marco polo 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article concrete transport truck redirects to concrete mixer where there's a section on the trucks. Whenever you're looking for an article, your best bet is usually to try the "Search" field on the left side of the page. It would have gotten you an answer even faster than the reference desk. --JayHenry 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McNeilus does sell them, or at least they try to.[3] Although we don't have an article on McNeilus, the company is mentioned in the articles on Oshkosh Truck, Dodge Center, Minnesota, and Morgantown, Pennsylvania. Oshkosh itself also sells mixer trucks.[4] --Lambiam ^Talk 20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very gratefull for the answers provided, thank you; --Khunter 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last name (family name) conventions in Mexico[edit]

I am often bewildered when reading articles about Mexican politicians and celebrities. For instance, I've seen articles that referred to former President Carlos Salinas de Gotari as both Salinas and as Salinas de Gotari. Likewise with Andrés Manuel López Obrador. I've seen him written up as both López and López Obrador. Can you please clear up my confusion regarding the proper usage of last names (family names) for Mexicans?Jimbofromwilco 18:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Spanish naming customs and Family name#Spanish Language areas. The two components making up the surname are the (first components of) the father's and the mother's surnames. For every-day use often only the first of the two is used. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus and unanimity[edit]

What is the difference between consensus and unanimity? Even if there's no short answer, I'll be glad if people post any good information about the subject. A.Z. 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your question relates specifically to Wikipedia, then Wikipedia:Consensus is probably the best place to start. --LarryMac 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but it's not about Wikipedia. I want to learn more about consensus and unanimity. A.Z. 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is less strong than unanimity. It implies that there is some discussion, bargaining and compromise involved. Clarityfiend 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post. I think an unanimity could have discussion involved. It could even have been reached only after a lot of discussion. For instance, if there was a group of 100 people and only 99 supported something, and then all of them worked together to convince the dissenter of the rightness of their opinion and the dissenter was eventually totally convinced of it, then it would be a unanimity with discussion involved. A.Z. 20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Unanimity on some issue means that every individual agrees with, or at least does not oppose the majority, without a single exception. Consensus is the agreement resulting from a group decision making process. Normally this does not require unanimity; there may be some dissenters. However, just a simple majority is not enough; you can use the term only if there is broad agreement in the group. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that, Lambiam. But who decides how many people a "broad agreement" takes? And is then consensus the same as a qualified majority? A.Z. 20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose you're chairing a meeting, and as chair, next to making sure that the discussion on some item on which a decision should be reached proceeds in a fair and pleasant manner, you also have the task to promote conclusions being reached, rather than the discussion continuing interminably; after all, there may be more items on the agenda, and there is a limited amount of time, and, furthermore, endless discussions are demoralizing. So, when, after some time, no further new arguments or new compromise proposals are being introduced, and no-one appears to be inclined to change their positions anymore, the time has come to try to reach closure. If everyone agrees with each other, that's easy. If it is close to fifty-fifty, you probably have to call a vote – or have the decision postponed, if possible. But what if there is a clear majority? You could call a vote, but (a) that takes time; (b) it puts the minority of opponents in a visible position of being losers. Instead you say something like: "I think that the consensus is to ... Do we all agree?" The opponents, knowing that they are going to lose anyway if it comes down to a head count, can now just refrain from voicing disagreement, thus not losing face nor (further) goodwill from the majority. This notion of consensus, which plays a role in group dynamics, cannot be expressed in terms of a qualified majority. It is not a numerically expressible requirement agreed upon in advance. What also plays a role is the strength of the conviction of the participants; if the majority has a weak preference for A, but a sizable minority finds A totally unacceptable, then don't suggest that the consensus reached is A. If the same majority as before has a strong and deeply felt preference for A and further has made some serious compromises to satisfy the minority, while the same minority as before thinks that A as amended, while not bad, is not a real improvement, then you can reasonably suggest that a consensus position has been reached. Note also that consensus means the agreement itself, and not the criterion by which something is decided. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to compare with the term plurality, which means the largest group (not necessarily the majority) supports this candidate or view. Also, see quorum, which is the minimum number of people needed for a vote to be valid. This is used to prevent occurrences like only 10 legislators showing up to work during a hurricane and rewriting all the laws. StuRat 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a political scientist, so this is more of an etymological view than a technical one, but my sense is that unanimity is when everyone agrees (is of one animus), while a consensus is when everyone consents (which is weaker, since while each member might not agree, s/he doesn't disagree strongly enough to deny consent to the group action). --TotoBaggins 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of consensus is often contentious, no rhyme intended. Some people complain about the commonly heard statement of a scientific "consensus" that humans are contributing to global warming, because there are a few guys out there who disagree. Merriam-Webster gives two main definitions for consensus: unanimity, and majority opinion. -- Mwalcoff 01:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked my wife about this. The consensus is that we are entirely in agreement, on all points, and so unanimous. She is right and I was wrong. DDB 08:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will have a long and happy marriage. Bless you. JackofOz aka Jack the Guru

I complement you, DDB, on your perfect comprehension of the feminine will! Jack is right: you will indeed have a long and successful marriage. My regards to your wife. Clio the Muse 09:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What were Samuel Beckett's political views[edit]

What were the political views of Samuel Beckett author of Godot? --Gary123 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Continental Op Detective Agency! 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Samuel Beckett: Damned to Fame, James Knowlson writes: "He was deeply committed to human rights; he firmly and totally opposed apartheid and was hostile from an early age to all forms of racism; he supported human rights movements throughout the world, including Amnesty International and Oxfam; he supported the freedom movement in Eastern Europe; and, although as a foreigner living in France he was wary of having his residential permit withdrawn, he was involved in a number of specific political cases." I don't think Beckett subscribed to any specific ideology such as socialism. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In The Cambridge Introduction to Samuel Beckett, Ronan McDonald says that he was 'an opponent of totalitarianism in all its forms.' Although he was involved in the wartime French Resistance, largely dominated by the Communist Party, he appears not in any way to have been politically compromised, or to have been attracted to Stalinist doctrines. Like Lambiam, I too have never come across any evidence that he had any specific ideological or party political commitments. I have to say, though, as a general observation, that the pessimistic tone of his major work is about as far as it is possible to get from the left-wing aesthetics of his day. In addition to Damned to Fame, Knowlson's Beckett Remembering: Remembering Beckett: Unpublished Interviews with Samuel Beckett and Memoirs of Those Who Knew Him is also quite useful. Clio the Muse 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]