Humanities desk
< August 17	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 19 >

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.

August 18

In what order should one read Asimov's Greater Foundation series?

I already read

in this order and now I wonder where and how to continue. Perhaps I should have read something before reading the above? The answers to these questions would probably make sense in Isaac Asimov as well. -- RichiH 00:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Seiler's Isaac Asimov FAQ addresses this question here. Scroll backwards from that question to the previous one to see details of the two orders.

P.S. The captcha that I had to pass to anonymously post the above URL was "storywhen". How appropriate is that!? --Anonymous, August 18, 02:20 (UTC).

I particularly enjoyed my first ever captcha, which was 'yourrules'... Skittle 01:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economics -- Inflation / The Cost of Living

As time progresses, inflation occurs and the cost of living rises. Therefore, a quantity expressed in "dollars" (e.g., the price of a new car, the average salary, etc.) will steadily increase over time. However, dollar figures from various years can be "equalized" through some index or formula or weighting mechanism. So, for example (just using hypothetical and "fake" numbers): In 1900, a car would cost only $100 but the average salary was only $1,000. Today, a car would cost $15,000 but the average salary is $40,000. In the year 2200, a car will cost $100,000 but the average salary will be $500,000. (These are all just hypothetical "fake" numbers.) So, as time progresses, what seems like a very low price in 1900 needs to be weighed against the fact that salaries were much lower than today. What seems like a very high price in 2200 needs to be weighed against the fact that salaries will be much higher than today. So (I think?) it all "equals" out. So, when comparing apples and oranges (i.e., the value of a dollar in 1900 versus the value of a dollar in 2007 versus the value of a dollar in 2200) the cost of expenses like a new car will be somewhat proportional or related to the income or salary typical of that time era. In 1900, even though it seems like $100 is a cheap price for a new car, we need to remember that those are 1900 dollars and not 2007 dollars. So, buying a car in 1900 is, pound for pound, more or less the same as buying a car in 2007 ... or in 2200. The dollar numbers change (increase), but they still maintain some proportion of expense to income. Just as buying a car in 2200 for $100,000 seems like a lot of money (when we think of 2007 dollars), it will not be a lot of money when we think in terms of 2200 dollars. Ultimately, the price of expenses creeps up slowly but surely (the dollar prices in absolute terms increase), but at the same time, the income / salary also creeps up slowly but surely (the dollar salaries in absolute terms increase). So, essentially, when you factor out the cost of living and inflation, that $100 car in 1900 costs about the same as that $15,000 car in 2007 and about the same as that $100,000 car in 2200. The question is this: why can't "they" (whoever) just keep the numbers stable and constant? In other words, why make the 2007 car cost $15,000 when average salary is $40,000. Why can't "they" (whoever) keep the cost of a car at $100, but keep the salary at $1000? If it is all "equalized" in the end, anyway ... why fudge with and play with (and increase) the numbers year after year after year? In other words, why can't the value of a 1900 dollar be held constant and the same as the value of a dollar in 2007 or in 2200? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Whatever the answer, it should definitely be used to improve the article about inflation. A.Z. 02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiscal policy. Public expenditure is partially financed by printing money; the increase in the amount of money in the economy leads to a reduction in its value. However, over time, people demand salaries in such a way as keeps their actual income in terms of stuff constant. So over long horizons, the amount that stuff costs will appear similar.

That being said, cars cost a lot less now as proportions of average salary than they did in 1900. Hornplease 10:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question—essentially, why inflation occurs—is complicated. Inflation is a result of both fiscal policy and monetary policy. It would be possible for a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve System in the United States, to raise interest rates and sharply limit the money supply such that inflation would be eliminated. However, raising interest rates and limiting the money supply in this way would tend to make it harder to pay debts and would tend to lead to insolvency among individuals and corporations carrying debts (such as home mortgages or bonds to finance capital investment). This would tend to make lenders very wary of lending and businesses wary of borrowing, while at the same time causing employment to drop. These are undesirable consequences, and they would have the additional likely consequence of causing deflation, which is the opposite of inflation, a process in which incomes and prices drop. One of the effects of deflation is that it makes sense to hold onto money (which rises in value) and to delay purchases, which perpetuates economic contraction and stagnation. Because policy makers want to avoid these consequences, they aim to maintain positive inflation at a low, but steady rate. This leads to a slow but steady rise in prices and incomes. The steady rise in prices, especially if it is not much greater than interest rates, is a spur to consumer spending and profitable investment. Therefore a steady rate of inflation, kept below a level where it causes economic harm, tends to promote economic growth. Marco polo 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your original point, which doesn't necessarily have any bearing on inflation, is valid. In fact, France did just what you suggest in 1960, when 100 "old" francs were replaced with 1 "new" franc, and this, of course, is not a devaluation, but a revaluation.Asav 14:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist views of homosexuality.

I would like to learn about baptist views of homosexuality, but Wikipedia doesn't have an article about it. A.Z. 01:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question is too general to answer. There are many different denominations that are all considered baptist, some of which have widely varying views about homosexuality. Accordingly, I'm disinclined to think there should be an article with your suggested title. 1
Mrdeath5493 02:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think there should only be an article about the views of a specific denomination if all people who claim to belong to it share the same view? If there's controversy, show the controversy. If baptists are too special somehow and it's impossible to define their views, then explain why in the appropriate article. Among the articles that do things like that are Anglican views of homosexuality, Christianism and homosexuality, Religion and homosexuality, Homosexuality and the Bible, Lutheran views of homosexuality. I believe the article about baptists is possible and I would very much like to read it. A.Z. 02:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section Ordination_of_women#Examples_of_specific_churches.27_ordination_practices, linked from that section that you linked to as a proof of the impossibility of an article being written about baptist views of homosexuality deals with ordination of women in baptist churches the way I think the article about baptist views of homosexuality should deal with homosexuality in baptist churches. A.Z. 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course such an article is neither impossible nor out of place in Wikipedia. So why don't you start it yourself? That's the way things work around here. Be Bold! --Halcatalyst 03:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article using the information on this thread. It's just a stub, though. A.Z. 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably looking for the Southern Baptist Convention, if you want the SBC. There is a central problem with asking for "Baptist views," though, because the Baptist churches are congregationalists. They emerged from the "Independents" in England and believe in a somewhat extreme form of the priesthood of all believers. Therefore, they reject(ed) any official dogma. The Southern Baptist Convention broke with hundreds of years of that tradition in 2000 by issuing a set of views that established an official dogma. Some Baptist churches reject it, and some don't. It's within that that you will find statements about sexuality. I don't think the other Baptist churches have any enunciated single view on the matter, although, of course, individually they do seem to agree, generally, with an Old Testament interpretation. Geogre 12:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Our article on Baptists says:

"Organizationally, Baptist churches operate on the Congregational governance system, giving autonomy to individual local Baptist churches. Baptists traditionally have avoided the "top-down" hierarchy of Episcopalianism which is found in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and many other churches.".

In other words, you won't find a single "official" Baptist view on homosexuality - each Baptist church will have its own individual view, influenced by its location and the background and preferences of its minister and members. I am sure that anyone who looked across all Baptist churches throughout the world would find a very broad spectrum of different views. Gandalf61 12:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The largest component of the Baptist movement in the US is the Southern Baptist Convention, and they have issued "official" statements. It has been quite the controversy among the Baptist churches, whether to agree to their statement or not, and churches have been ejected or removed themselves from the SBC over the issue of homosexuality. The (don't know if this will be blue or not) Olin T. Binkley Baptist Church, for example, was only one of many attempting to set up a moderate convention in distinction to the SBC. Geogre 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just rewritten the article Baptist views of homosexuality, which was a copy-paste from this discussion. The article now emphasizes the diversity in Baptist views and the autonomy of local congregations and gives examples of views of specific baptist denominations. C mon 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Baptist views on dancing slowly while thinking about premarital sex article?

A friend of mine in the old days of the late 1980's coined the term "Baptist Playboy" for the Victoria's Secret catalog. Fortunately, we didn't know about "memes" then, except in literary theory, and so no one tried to get it on YouTube. Geogre 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Congress went to the five day work week at the beginning

2007, do the Republican Party Congresspeople make partisan motions to adjourn on Mondays and Fridays during the work week? I have heard that they do, I would like to know how to check this claim out. I know that many Republicans protested changing Congress' work week from "three days a week" to "five days a week," claiming that this is unnecessary and keeps them from remaining in contact with their constituents.

Could anyone tell me how I can find out if this is true? --66.41.144.14 04:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider looking in the Congressional Record or searching THOMAS at http://thomas.loc.gov/ (which coincidentally has digital and searchable copies of the Congressional Record). I don't know how successful you'll be in searching for this--assuming it's true--but you might try starting at the beginning of the term in January when it's more likely this happened as an irritation factor (by now, I'd doubt they're still doing it). –Pakman044 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting something you hate

Whats the word for forgetting the name of something you hate? Like forgetting the name of a school because you hated the people who went there when you were younger? --Candy-Panda 05:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repressed memory or dissociation? ---Sluzzelin talk 06:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trauma is Freud's term that has gone into common usage. Geogre 12:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological or emotional trauma refers to the overall damage which can manifest itself in a number of physical, emotional, or cognitive symptoms, one of which is dissociation. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther and Anti-Semitisim

Hitler praises Luther in Mein Kampf and he is viewed by many as one of the precursors of Nazi anti-semitism. What is the evidence?Bagration

Martin Luther has a section on anti-Semitism; the evidence centres around his pamphlet On the Jews and their Lies. The article on that is fairly detailed, but if you really want all the evidence you need collated analysed, dissected, and attacked in a manner worthy of the Reformation itself, read the fourteen pages of archives on the two talk pages. Hornplease 11:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bagration, if you ever read Von den Jüden und ihren Lügen you may possibly feel that you have entered into a world inhabited by the likes of Julius Streicher: the language is vicious, the imagery unrestrained in its ugliness. But look more closely; you will find none of the preoccupations with race and blood that were the key feature of the forms of anti-Semitism promoted by Hitler and the like. For Luther a Jew who converted was no longer a Jew. It's even more basic than that: for the salvation of the Jews was a precondition for the salvation of all. Luther's world was one of imminence; a world poised on the threshold of the Second Coming. In anticipation of this the forces of Anti-Christ, whether they be Jews, Muslims or Catholics, were gathering, threatening to prevent the final victory of Christ. This was a danger for all, faithful and faithless alike. If the Jews would not convert they must "driven out like mad dogs, so that we do not partake in their abomniable blasphemy...and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them." It was this fear that explains Luther's explosive sense of frustration at Jewish intransigence, and all of the venom and malice that erupted thereafter.

So, you will find him in the Nazi pantheon, admired by Hitler and the like, with his work displayed in a glass case at each and every Nuremberg Rally. At the time of the Kristalnacht, Martin Sasse, a Nazi and a Lutheran Bishop, was to express satisfaction that the pogrom had occured on Luther's birthday, and that the founder of his church deserved to be remembered as "the greatest anti-Semite of his time." And yet Luther was a sixteenth century Christian, a Reformer, a man who set German against German in a way that did not sit comfortably with Nazi ideology and racial politics. Rassenpolitik, published in 1943, specifically targets Christianity as an enemy of the National Socialist world view. From this perspective the churches are guilty of building walls were none should exist; of dividing German from German; a place were the marriages between 'Aryans, Jews and Negroes are blessed'. The Reformation started as a 'German Revolution', but degenerated into a battle over dogma, where "Luther finally bound the conscience to the Jewish teachings of the Bible." And thus the real distance is displayed in all its clarity. Clio the Muse 01:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in French we distinguish between anti-Semitism, which is "racially" motivated, and anti-Judaism, which is religiously motivated. Rhinoracer 19:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luther's writings manifest both aspects, except, to him, the appalling character traits inherent in Jews would vanish like magic if they saw the light and converted. Hard to ascribe such illogic to such a genius, but Luther was a product of his time and his culture, like every historical figure and it's tough to judge his ethics by the standards of today. --Dweller 06:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

financial regulatory agency

what is the financial regulatory agency? waht is also their function? Akinmusi 12:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)akinmusi[reply]

In what country? Bielle 14:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Tudor's persecutions

Did they have the effect she desired? Hope and Glory 12:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, clearly not, though one has to suppose that at the time they gave Mary the idea that she was getting somewhere. The article Marian Persecutions looks a little shaky, but see also Foxe's Book of Martyrs. We can hope that when Clio gets home from burning up the Great West Road, she will give you the Rolls Royce answer. Wandering off the point, I have always thought that in the end most of the English would have taken to the tragic Queen Jane far better than they did to Mary, if in 1553 Jane had had enough support to survive. Xn4 18:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here she is, off the road! Rolls Royce? Let me try a Mazda!

There is an understandable tendency, I suppose, to read history backwords; to assume, in other words, a given set of outcomes; that what is is what had to be. But do remember that when Mary came to the throne in 1553 Protestantism was still a fairly recent graft on to the English tree, and not all that popular, if the Pilgrimage of Grace can be considered as an accurate measure of the national mood. The ease with which Mary swept aside the challenge of Lady Jane Grey and her tiny Protestant party provides additional confirmation, if any such is needed, that there were no real fears of a Catholic restoration.

So Mary was very well placed at the outset of her reign to return England permanently to the Roman faith. Most people had little in the way of deep emotional attachment to the reformed religion, and were quite happy to observe the outward and conventional forms of belef. Even at their height the Marian persecutions only embraced a tiny proportion of the population. But the persecutions and the burnings, as is the way with these things, were completely counter-productive: they did more to foster anti-Catholicism than any Protestant propaganda.

As early as October 1553, Simon Renard, the Ambassador of the Holy Roman Empire, wrote that "It is easy to forsee that there will be difficulty in repressing heretics without causing scandal...The thing most to be feared is that the Queen may be moved by her religious ardour and zeal to attempt to set matters right at one stroke, for this cannot be done in the case of a people that has drunk so deep in error." The subsequent burnings were to confirm all of his fears, as the dominant mood among the thousands who witnessed these auto-da-fe seems, for the most part, to have been one of sympathy and anger. Foxe's later accounts of the martyrdoms is undeniably biased; but it finds support in contemporary accounts by Catholic observers. Giovani Micheli, the Venetian ambassador, who witnessed the burning of Rowland Taylor, wrote that the people were so angry that they planned to set fire to the houses "and raise a great tumult; not merely to release the Doctor from the stake, but to punish and revenge themselves on those whose religion was opposed to their own." When he left England in 1557 he noted that "the public mind is more than ever irritated."

It wasn't just ordinary people who were repelled by the burnings. A reading of the Acts of the Privy Council uncovers many examples of local officials less than enthusiastic in the enforcement of the heresy laws. Action had to be taken against jailers who allowed Protestant prisoners to escape. In 1557 letters were sent out to sheriffs and baliffs throughout the home counties, asking why sentences for heresy were not being carried out. Sir John Butler, the sheriff of Essex, was fined £10 for allowing his deputy to reprieve a woman sentenced to burning. Some, like Thomas Causton, were inspired by example-"Ye say that the Bishops lately burnt were heretics. I pray God make me such a heretic as they were."

Even some of those close to the Queen could see that things were going badly. Stephen Gardiner, the bishop of Winchester, had believed that if an example was made of a few of the leading Protestants that the rest would be frightened into conformity. When this failed to happen he ended burnings in his own diocese. Those who were frightened into conformity elsewhere observed only the outward forms of Catholic belief, as Micheli and others made note, which explains why the Marian counter-reformation was so easily and quickly put into reverse when Elizabeth came to the throne.

But there is also another factor to be drawn in here, the one thing above all others that explains why Mary's policy was so counter-productive. Persecution had worked elsewhere in Europe, particularly in Catholic Austria, in reducing the appeal of heresy; but only when force was accompanied by persuasion; by an active evangelical mission. In England this simply did not happen, or at least not to any significant degree. Quite simply the church lacked the means. All of the land and wealth lost during the Dissolution of the Monasteries was not returned; for to do so would have been a challenge to the interests and power of the nobility; and that, even for Mary, was a step too far. Reginald Pole, had pressed for this, with no success; for the beneficiaries of the redistribution had included many Catholics, as well as Protestants. There was no money, so there was no mission; only the terror-and the example-of the burnings.

Mary lacked money; she also lacked time. Her early death from cancer in 1558 ended the counter-reformation. More than that, the failure of Mary's reign, the examples and the lessons it provided, were to be the foundations for the Elizabethan Reformation, more complete and lasting in every way. Clio the Muse 03:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Clio. That's really great.Hope and Glory 12:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

devaluation of currency

what are the eonomic implication on devaluation of currency? what are the effects of the policy on marketing?

When a currency is devalued, debts held in foreign currencies rise and become more difficult to service. (The United States, incidentally, does not face this problem, as virtually all of its debt is denominated in its own currency.) Also, imported goods become more expensive in a country with devalued currency. On the other hand, the exports of a country with devalued currency become cheaper in terms of the currencies of its trading partners, and export industries may enjoy a rise in demand for their products. I'm not sure what "policy" your second question refers to, but I will assume that you mean that the country has pursued a conscious policy of devaluing its currency. In that case, marketers would want to focus their efforts on the export market, where they should be able to win sales by offering lower prices in foreign currency terms. Domestically, they would have a price advantage over imported goods and could win sales by exploiting that advantage. Marco polo 15:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Devaluation will also help you. Remember that within living memory (just), money had some intrinsic value, as it was based on silver, gold, or both. Money is now essentially a confidence trick: it only has value if we have confidence in the government or bank which issued it, and issuers often need to support their currency's value by various means - all of which cost them money, of course. Often, the cause of what is called devaluation is simply that the issuer can't sustain the cost of its support policy. Xn4 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swords

Could you, please, tell me the name of the swords shown in the image on the top of this page [1]? Thanks. --Taraborn 14:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the left the first three are generic swords (Arming sword), the next is a rapier type, the right one is a scimitar type.87.102.92.28 15:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and notice that the hilts of the first three swords are a Crecent, a Cross, and the third has a Swastica on it. Of course these would represent Islam, Chistianity, and the NAZIs. I don't know what the symbolism of the rapier in the context of antisemitism is, and I thought that the scimitar was often used to symbolize Islam, which seems redundant to me. -Czmtzc 15:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third one reminds me of a Claymore.

The "Claymore" sword would be representitive of the beginning of the First Crusade when pro-Christian (or anti-anti-Christian) sentiment was so high early pilgrims didn't bother discerning between Muslim and Jew and started annhialating Jewish societies in Europe. It was a holocaust on the scale of the Nazis. It took a while for the Vatican to firstly recognize the problem and then to communicate to the people the difference between Jew and Muslim and the significance of hating and persecuting the right one... because Muslims were in control of the Holy Lands, most importantly Jerusalem.

Beekone 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history of the Great Depression in Great Britain

I want to learn more about the origins and economic consequences of the Great Depression (1929-1939), particularly as it affected Great Britain. Can anyone recommend sources (particularly scholarly sources) on this topic? Thank you. Marco polo 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at this book somewhere and it seemed pretty solid and well referenced. The next volume covers 1939-1992. Xn4 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am embarrassed to admit that I did not review this list before asking the question. Thanks to XN4 for suggesting a source that did not appear in that list. I now have more than enough sources to get stared. Marco polo 15:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt the source: Fergus Mór and St Senán

Rather a long shot. In this edit to Fergus Mór, I added the comment "The early part of Fergus's ancestry is shared with that given for Senán son of Gerrgenn in the Betha Shenáin meic Geirginn from the Book of Lismore; compare Rawlinson B. 502 ¶1696 Genelach Ríg n-Alban and the Betha Shenáin, at line 1792 and after." This is true, but it's not verifiable as I can't find a publication remarking upon it. I do know that the source is not Anderson's Early Sources, or Mrs Anderson's Kings and Kingship, or Broun's Irish Identity, or Campbell's "Were the Scots Irish?", among others. It's always possible that I happened to read the Betha Shenáin and a little light went on in my head when I read the genealogy (i.e. the whole thing is wicked original research). It would be nice if someone could prove otherwise by finding a reference in print. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I have hunted and hunted but have to report, sad to say, a total lack of success. I think this kind of question can only really be answered by diving into the deepest recesses of a good research library, if even then. I will try again next month, when I go back up to Cambridge, though I am not too hopeful. I suppose this whole comment is really quite fatuous; but I simply hate people who pose historical questions to be left with the impression that their request has been ignored. Clio the Muse 01:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, thanks for the reply. I can come up with several superficially plausible theories, not that I'll be putting them on Wikipedia, but please don't waste your time on what is likely to be a wild goose chase. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity

Who said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed (unsourced) to q:Albert Einstein, according to wikiquote. Algebraist 22:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be one of those apocryphal quotations that are attributed to more than one person and have several different variations. This quote has also been attributed to Benjamin Franklin and "folly" or "stupidity" is sometimes used instead of "insanity."--Eriastrum 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]