Humanities desk
< December 27	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 29 >

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.

December 28

Technical term for "part of the story" (drama)

What is the technical term for describing whether an element of a drama is part of the action of a story or is for the audience's benefit only. For instance, much of the music composed for films is not heard by the characters, but is played only to enhance the emotional response of the audience, such as emphasizing the suspense of a scene. On the other hand, a scene in a nightclub might include music that is heard by both audience and characters. I've previously run across the term in some wikipedia article, but I can't remember it now. 58.147.52.66 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds in film which can be heard by the characters are diegetic; those heard by the audience only are termed non-diegetic (or, rarely, mimetic). Similarly, in a stage or film musical, songs performed by characters and experienced by them as song are termed diegetic, while those songs which only the audience experiences as song are non-diegetic. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hollywood types are more likely to call it "source music" (see Film score etc.) rather than "diegetic"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nunh-huh, diegetic (or diegesis) was the term I was looking for. And thank you AnonMoos, as it was interesting to learn that the term "source music" is used in the film industry to refer to "diegetic music" as it is music whose source is in the story. 58.147.59.58 (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but elements of a plot are called "tropes". See TV Tropes - a website that discusses said elements. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A trope is a common pattern, and may refer to character, setting or theme as well as plot. Not all plot elements are tropes. The normal term for an element of a plot is "plot element". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "exposition" is dialog, flashbacks, etc., which has the sole purpose of getting the audience "up to speed" on the plot:

"Say, Bob, I haven't seen you since your identical twin brother George, who wears a beard and glasses, divorced his unfaithful red-haired wife, Karen, and won custody of their adopted cross-dressing Korean son, Kim-sung."

"Yes, Susan, and wasn't that right before your bald Uncle Gabriel was killed in the bombing of the abortion clinic run by your father, Michael, who now uses a cane to walk ?" :-) StuRat (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shudder to contemplate the script writer's task if asked to introduce the characters of Days of our Lives (or any long-running soap, for that matter) to someone who'd never seen the show before. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Aussie soaps might be easier, since I get the impression nothing ever happens during them. I tuned in to Neighbours once, accidentally, and a couple was making up up a grocery list. Well, I was sick then and need to get some sleep anyway. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your powers of deduction are amazing, Stu. Tuning in to one show, once, by accident, only for as long as it took you to realise you'd got the wrong program, enables you to claim that "nothing ever happens during them". Very impressive, Sherlock. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I thought the standard of soaps was that nothing ever actually happens, but only keeps building up and up with every episode, so that people will watch for years in anticipation of the eventual payoff. Which doesn't come. Matt Deres (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

That seems to be the received wisdom among those who, like me, don't watch them. But what does happen is fantastic, all-but-impossibly complex relationship development. I've had people try to tell me briefly who's related to who now, who was related to who before, and why it changed, and why Fred is now his own ex-grandfather-in-law, but after 30 seconds my eyes start glazing over and I just can't take any more in; but they've only just started on their 15-minute potted history. So, never one to be impolite, I mentally rehearse my List of Governors-General of Bombay, while nodding and inserting the occasional "uh, huh". :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Are these essential features of Gnosticism?

In the lead section of our article at Gnosticism, the identified features of Gnostic belief systems include, among others:

That there exists a supreme being (Pleroma) that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
That gnosis comes from revelations, rather than from empirical observation and/or reasoning.

Are these beliefs essential attributes of Gnosticism, to the point that a belief system lacking them cannot properly be called Gnosticism? Neon Merlin 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the 17:13, 25 December 2009 version of the article right now, and I don't really see where it says that... AnonMoos (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While they aren't explicit in the article, I think the second at least is an essential point. The Gnosis has to be 'secret' for the religion to have a point, and if it could be deduced then it wouldn't really be secret. Likewise a god of some kind is essential (otherwise you can't really have revelation), but I don't think he has to be omnipotent or omnibenevolent. The article makes a point of Gnostic gods being 'imperfect'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Portuguese Estado Novo

After the overseas provinces were incorporated into the Portuguese state in 1951, were these provinces given a majority of the seats in the National Assembly in accordance with their population? Obviously Portugal was a dictatorship at the time, but I'm curious as to how they crafted the image of a multiracial, pluricontinental state, in which a majority of the citizens lived outside the metropole. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But was Portuguese citizenship given to all residents of the overseas provinces? --85.228.202.72 (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a word for that, but I don't seem to know it...

There is a term for using an implement for something different than its intended use, for instance taking off your shoe and using it to drive home a nail-it works, but that's not the original purpose of the shoe. I can't find it. Anyone? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utilitarian? Pragmatic? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this one is specific and is not used for other things. Maybe an anthropology term. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the suggestions that came up when the same question was asked in August 2009. It was then first asked on the Humanities desk, and moved to the Language desk. --NorwegianBlue^talk 12:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tool substitution, or one of the terms used in that paragraph, e.g. repurpose? --NorwegianBlue^talk 12:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the specific case of prescription drugs, it's "off-label use". --Anonymous, 01:45 UTC, December 29, 2009.

The term is 'utilisation'. people confuse 'utilise' with 'use'.

Hitler

Did Hitler try to eliminate Jews in the religious or ethnic sense? That is, someone can be considered to be a Jew ethnically, but may have converted to some other religion, or also someone could be a of non-jewish ethnicity but converted to be a Jew. Which one did Hitler not like? XM (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick, unreferenced answer for the last part would be: All and any of them. I hope somebody can provide you with a link to a referenced elaboration, though./Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mischling would be a good spot to start to see what Hitler's definition of "Jew" was. - Nunh-huh 11:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Rosenberg was an early Nazi theorist promoting a racial view of antisemitism which the party adopted and implemented, culminating in the extermination program known as the Final Solution throughout Nazi-occupied Europe during WWII. This went along with the positive, "Aryan" model of white supremacy. Another consideration: Judaism doesn't proselytize and conversion to the Jewish religion is rare. On the other hand, those born Jews who converted to Christianity were sent to ghettos and Nazi concentration camps and extermination camps. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi approach to Jews was primarily oriented around the idea of Jewishness as a race, from which religious and ethnic activity flowed. So an assimilated Jew who had been raised Christian was still a Jew in the Nazi mindset. Converting to Judaism did not make one racially Jewish, but in the Nazi mindset it would indicate that you were acting in an un-Aryan way and could be lumped in with them, even if you were not, under their approach, actually Jewish. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geting out of the US

My question is 2 fold. First, what is the PPP of Brazil relative to the US? I saw a map on the article PPP, but it was dated as of 2003, which seems a bit out of date to me. Where can I find an updated map like this? Also, I want to leave the US and become a resident or citizen of brazil. What steps do I need to do this? And also, how can I get my car(s) to brazil? XM (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2007 PPP is 1.32 according to the same data source as the 2003 map. To get information on becoming a citizen of Brazil, contact the Brazillian consulate. To get a car to Brazil - just drive. Google Maps won't give you a route through Central America, but there are roads and they go all the way down to Brazil. -- kainaw ™ 13:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you've never heard of the Darién Gap. 89.242.213.201 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have. In fact, I've ridden on a truck in it - on a road (not paved - just a path, really). Our article makes it sound like it is a huge swamp with nothing in it at all. That was not true in 1991 when I was there. I doubt it is true right now as it is a major route for drug trafficking through Central America. -- kainaw ™ 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just how slow was you "ride"? From the article: "The first all-land auto crossing was in 1985–1987 by Loren Upton and Patty Mercier in a CJ-5 Jeep, taking 741 days to travel 125 miles (201 km), all on land. This crossing is documented in the 1992 Guinness Book of Records. In addition Upton returned in 1995 and became the first to drive a motorcycle, a two-wheel drive Rokon motorcycle, all on land through the Darién Gap, in 49 days." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We were riding around there for 29 days. Why 29? 30 days becomes a foreign deployment of military forces and results in oversight. We were on the southern side just "inhibiting" the flow of drugs through the gap. We didn't drive from the south side all the way to the north side. We just drove around from village to village on the south side along all the mud roads. I saw no reason to believe that it was not possible to drive though if (and this is a HUGE "if") you had the blessing of the drug cartels that pretty much run the entire area. If you didn't, you would probably have a higher chance of being kidnapped than making it through. Now... my advice to drive to Brazil sounds rather bad. I didn't think about how bad the area was until this discussion began. Hopefully it isn't as bad now, but I suspect it is worse. There are regular barges that ship from Panama to Columbia and Panama to Equador. When I was in the area, heading south was not a problem. Heading north was nearly impossible because Panama has a lot of restrictions on things coming into the country. Once you are in either country, it is possible to drive to Brasilia or Rio without trouble. I figure the OP is planning to go to economic/educational area of Brasilia or the party area of Rio. I strongly considered moving to Brasilia myself. -- kainaw ™ 19:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any roads, not even dirt roads, all the way through the Darien Gap. The reason is that there are several major rivers and swamps that would require expensive and intensive road-building and bridge-building efforts, which have not occurred. No doubt there are dirt roads extending toward the Darien Gap from the nearest paved road in Colombia, possibly even a network of dirt roads that would allow the Colombian government to police the fringes of the gap and apprehend smuggling through the gap (which would have to travel partly by boat across the various rivers). However, the Panamanian and Colombian governments have chosen not to build roads across the natural barriers that make the gap impassable to ordinary cars, and nearly impassable to any four-wheeled vehicle. To get a car from the U.S. to Brazil, you could ship it from a U.S. port to a Brazilian port. This would certainly be the easiest option. Alternatively, you could drive it to Costa Rica or Panama, then ship it to Colombia or Ecuador, then drive it through to Brazil. (See this page for shipping options from Central America.) This would be a time-consuming matter. It would almost certainly be more expensive than shipping direct from the U.S., because land transport requires more fuel than sea transport, especially over long distances, and you will have to pay the cost of loading your vehicle onto and off of a ship anyway. Finally, traveling through so many countries by road is a bureaucratic challenge, because every time you cross a border with your vehicle, you will need to deal with customs and often the local motor vehicle authority, all of which will involve fees, and the rules for which will vary from one country to the next. Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why it wouldnt be better to buy a car when you get there? The cost of a car could easily be less than the cost of shipping alone from the US. Plus you would avoid lots of bureaucratic hassle, a lot of waiting for the car to arrive, and you might be wise not to advertise being a former American through having US registration plates. If you are not set on Brazil then I've heard a lot of good reports about Costa Rica. Be careful that you don't end up in a favella in Brazil. 89.242.213.201 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than shipping costs... Brazil has state-mandated ethanol (25% minimum, I believe). So, if your vehicle doesn't run well on an ethanol/gasoline mix, you will have troubles in Brazil. -- kainaw ™ 22:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral Rights

If my neighbor has sold the mineral rights to his land and a company comes and is pumping oil/natural gas out of the ground on his property, how can I be sure they are not taking natural resources under my land? XM (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, and you should also be aware that in most countries of the world all mineral resources belong to the government. See this article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wrong. It completely depends on the jurisdiction. This is legal advice we can't answer anymore specifically than this: It's absolutely wrong to say that in all countries mineral resources belong to the government, from a legal perspective. Hire a lawyer. Shadowjams (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say "in all countries", he said "in most countries". As to whether it is possible to tell if someone is extracting minerals from under the OP's own land, that'd not a legal question but a mining one. It would be possible, but User XM would need to employ a mining surveyor of some sort to do this. DuncanHill (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The texas bar exam, for instance, is known for its oil and gas section. That means mineral resources. As a general academic answer it's not a problem, but as a specific "my neighbor" kind of question it is... not to mention even now, it's unclear what jurisdiction is at issue. I think this question, as it's phrased, is problematic. Shadowjams (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't asked for legal advice, he's asked how to tell if resources under his land are being taken. If he'd asked "Someone is extracting minerals from under my land, what are my rights and recourses?" then it would be a legal question, but he didn't and it isn't. DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question asked, you would need highly sophisticated scanning systems that would measure reflected radio waves, and that would make a map of your land geologic structure. Then if you run these scans regularly, you would be able to notice differences if they were significant (like a hole if someone is digging a tunnel). However, I believe the cost of such systems would be prohibitive, but I am really not an expert. But if you have a real concern, you should get a lawyer to help with the potential actions you may want to take before or while it is happening. --Lgriot (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrows vs musketts

My understanding is that the guns used in the revolutionary war were not rifles and didnt have much range due to accuracy. Wouldnt it have been better to arm soldiers with a long bow of sorts, which has a much higher fire rate and can be launched up in the air down on large concentrations of troops? For quite some time I have wondered how a division of soldiers armed with bow and arrow would have down vs musketters in the american revolution... XM (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which revolution do you mean please - the 1641–1651 revolution or the 1688 revolution? 89.242.213.201 (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP does specify the American revolution. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy of the musket did not matter. The tactic was to fire a lot of them at once, over and over, creating a steady stream of shot heading in the general direction of the enemy. Arrows could be used for the same thing, but arrows cost more to make than shot. I would expect the result to be that the army using arrows would be out of ammunition long before the army using muskets. -- kainaw ™ 13:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the American Revolution, both sides used some rifles and many muskets (and cannon and swords and bayonets), the Americans used more sophisticated rifle tactics in some situations than the British though. A perfect set piece battle would have consisted of cannon fire followed by marching close to the enemy firing only 3 or 4 shots and then bayonet charging. Soldiers carried only a dozen or two rounds each in pre-filled paper cartridges (not many more rounds than you could carry arrows.) Despite all the talk of the bows superiority to the musket, if we look at those who should have known best we see that European armies replaced them with firearms and Indians, as well, replaced replaced their bows with firearms as quickly as they could - even in light of the difficulty of obtaining shot and powder. The great Indian victories against Braddock in the French and Indian War or against Custer in the Indians Wars much later saw Indian use of firearms as well as bows. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the problem with bows and arrows is that they require a lot of training to use well. That makes individual soldiers more expensive and more valuable and means that untrained soldiers are just cannon fodder. A musket allows you to de-skill your militia dramatically, and used en masse, can be very effective at killing a similarly massed enemy. Any fool can point a musket in the general direction of an enemy and pull the trigger. It takes quite some practice to be able to use arrows effectively. Rifles are a different matter altogether as their accuracy is much improved and allows for skilled use. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mr. 98 has it. Bullets for rifles are of course more expensive than shot, but still much less than the time and cost to make a good arrow. Matt Deres (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With accuracy of rifles comes the "one shot one kill" strategy. So, the cost of ammunition isn't as much a concern. Of course, that strategy rarely plays out nicely. On the battlefield, soldiers tend to quickly revert to the "spray and pray" strategy. Quickly, they are out of ammunition and left wondering what they did wrong. Hopefully it won't be much longer before soldiers are completely removed from the battlefield. -- kainaw ™ 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. No matter how many robot tanks and RPVs you have, you're still going to need the PBI to go in behind them and secure the area. However, this is getting out of scope... Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of factors at play here, historically. Mass-production of ammunition and munitions played a huge role in how World War I played out—in individual days on the European front, most ammunition was expended than had been developed for previous wars. Training as to how to shoot has changed a lot in the last 60 years; Grossman's On Killing goes into some detail on how soldiers were conditioned to be better killers with their accurate weapons. It isn't the case that armies went from musket to rifles and suddenly became modern armies... there are a few more transitions in between, there! I highly recommend Keegan's A History of Warfare, it is really a fun read and he does an excellent job of synthesizing many centuries of developments quite cogently. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less important, but still noteworthy, is the effect on morale of a volley of arrows versus a volley of musketfire from closed ranks. The tremendous noise & smoke of the muskets can't be ignored. 61.189.63.130 (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...especially against cavalry. If there were hroses involved in the battle, and they weren't battle-hardened (and in this sort of war many of them wouldn't be), the noise and sound of the musketry would have a powerful effect irrespective of the damage done by the projectiles. Grutness...wha? 03:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key element is training. A skilled longbow archer can fire twenty aimed shots a minute, and can sustain that rate of fire for as long as he's supplied with arrows (something you never see in paintings: the wagonloads of arrows used to keep the archers supplied!). However, it takes around ten years to train someone to that level of performance. A crossbow can fire one aimed shot a minute, and requires a few months of training. A musket can fire one aimed shot every minute, and requires a few weeks of training. If you're in a hurry to raise an army, guess which you're going to use? --Carnildo (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfeiting

Obviously it would be illegal for me to counterfit currency of the nation I am in. Are there any laws that would prevent me from counterfiting (but not spending, as that would be fraud) other currencies? Also, if there are such laws, what would prevent someone from going to some country where it isnt illegal to do so, and printing a whole bunch of dollars with no risk of being imprisioned?? I dont think Iran would care if I were counterfitting huge amounts of US dollars. XM (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(It's spelled counterfeit, incidentally.) Each nation is going to have their own laws against counterfeiting. In the U.S., it is illegal to counterfeit foreign currency as well as domestic currency. I don't know why you think Iran would not want you to counterfeit U.S. dollars—what would stop you from trading them in for Iranian currency and thus taking money illicitly out of their economy? Now, it's true that some countries have promoted counterfeiting at various times for their national aims (North Korea reportedly does this; the excellent film The Counterfeiters concerns the Nazi's Operation Bernhard to do just this), but these are all done in the service of the state, not individuals. I doubt any nation is going to smile on individual counterfeiters, no matter what currency they are creating. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada's Criminal Code, the sections on counterfeiting are quite simple:

449. Every one who makes or begins to make counterfeit money is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

450. Every one who, without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on him,

(a) buys, receives or offers to buy or receive,

(b) has in his custody or possession, or

(c) introduces into Canada,

counterfeit money is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

It doesn't say "Canadian money" and it does prohibit importing the stuff. --Anonymous, 01:51 UTC, December 29, 2009.

Sorry for not quoting the law, but I think that US law also prohibits counter-fitting non-US currency too. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being desirous of stamping out Eggcorns, can I repeat Mr 98's point that the word is 'counterfeit', not "counter-fit." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "feit" part is from Latin "facere" via French "faire" meaning "to make". This relates somewhat to a current question on the language desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleves and Soissons

What are residences and people of Cleves called? Clevan? Clevese?
What are residences and people of Soissons called? Soissonian?

Soissonnais, Soissonnaise--Wetman (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to read our article on demonyms.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is a standard demonym for Cleves. The English conventional place name is itself a bit obscure, occurring mainly in history texts. It is probably nearly equally well-known today by its German name, Kleve. Since the name Cleves is derived from the French Clèves, it would be tempting to refer to the inhabitants as Clevois or Clevoise/Clevoises, which are the correct French terms but probably a bit obscure even in that language, as French people wouldn't often have much reason to use a demonym for the inhabitants of a third-tier German town. The other alternative might be Clever/s (pronounced like cleaver or cleavers), which would be closer to the German demonyms Klever (masculine singular and masculine and combined plural), Kleverin (feminine singular), and Kleverinnen (feminine plural). Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes such issues are sidestepped by basing the adjective on the Latin or pseudo-Latin version of a placename, such as Manchester - "Mancunian". (There are other examples, but that's the only one I can remember at the moment...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpudlian (Liverpool), Cantabridgian (Cambridge), Masshole (Massachusetts)... OK, one of those isn't from the Latin, but it is still semi-official --Jayron32 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jayron, 'Cantabrian' should be the correct one, not Cantabridgian. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biological family of Jesus

Can someone please point me at the passage in the Bible which talks about the brothers and sisters of Jesus? The one I'm thinking of has Jesus preaching in the synagogue, and some of the people listening are saying that he can't be worth listening to because they know his parents, and brothers and sisters, and he's not a priest. The family bit is phrased as a series of questions, e.g. "Is this not Joseph and Mary's son? And are his brothers not James and Joseph...?" I've had a search using Bible Gateway but drew a blank. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found it at Mark 6:3: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." AndrewWTaylor (talk)

Matthew 13:55. On BibleGateway. Tevildo (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the two passages mentioned are basically the same, as is not uncommon for the synoptic Gospels. And the OP's original search probably failed because she included "Joseph" - the phrase used in the text is "the carpenter's son". Tevildo (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of this verse as describing immediate siblings of Jesus is controversial- see Perpetual virginity of Mary. Someone who believes that Mary was always a virgin (for her whole life), as Catholics and many Orthodox do, will likely interpret that verse as describing close relatives (e.g. cousins) rather than actual other children of Mary. Staecker (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's desposyni... AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other references to Jesus' immediate family, such as Mark 3:32 (and it's paralllel, Luke 8:19), John 2:12, John 7:5. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that passage in Mark/Luke is the first thing that came to mind. Ignoring his mother and brothers/sisters in favor of his audience was kinda a dick move, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this peeps - I'd searched on "Jesus family" among other things. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Desposyni only really discusses Jesus' blood relations on his father's side of the family. On his mother's side of the family, besides Mary, there were, at least, St. Anne, Joachim, St. Elizabeth, Zechariah, Sobe and John the Baptist. Woogee (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did hand that bites just say that? I didn't ever think I'd hear about a wikt:dick move in the context of Jesus' family. And gees that's a redlink at Wiktionary, someone please create the entry, now!

Ahem, anyway, what I meant to say is that most secular or non-affiliated scholars take the word brother to be literal. At the risk of stepping on someone's religious feelings, there's something to be said about interpreting the verse to fit one's preconceived notions (i.e., virginity of Mary) rather than vice versa. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a certain Korean food

When I was visiting my friend in the US her mum (who is Korean) made these things. It's basically mince in pancake rolls deep fried. I can't remember what they were called. Can anyone help? Cheers, Joe^Talk_Work 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's one of these. Sorry, I guess that's not being super useful as there are 124 Korean food items listed there, but it's a start. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they were mandu? Marco polo (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandu! Yes! Thanks so much! -Joe^Talk_Work 04:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German PhD

In the company I work at (IT related, CRM to be more precise), one German employee insists on being called Dr. X. Surname. No one in the company has any doubt that he rightfully earned his PhD. Whether went he to a degree mill, nor bought it online. The only problem is that he doesn't have a relevant PhD (to the IT field). Clients, new employees and contractors get the wrong idea that he is a sort of computer science PhD, when in reality he is on the client service. Is his insistence normal in Germany or is he abnormal? Does he have a right to be called Dr. X. Surname in the EU?--Quest09 (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from personal experience rather than as a reliable source, insistence on "Doktor" rather than "Herr" is certainly very common. Using "Herr" is a faux pas on the level of using du rather than Sie - see T-V distinction. Tevildo (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he has a PhD then he is entitled to be called Doctor, whatever the relevance. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, he is entitle to call himself Dr. no doubt. But, can he demand that others address him by Dr. X. in any single mention about him as if it were his name?--Quest09 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anyone can "demand" to be called anything they want to be called - how others respond to the demand is up to them, as is the appropriateness of making the demand in the first place. "They call me Mr Tibbs!". I doubt whether such a demand would be legally enforceable, though. Tevildo (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany it is entirely normal, even universal, for someone with a PhD to be addressed as Doktor regardless of the circumstances. They even repeat the title if you have two PhDs. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether he can actually bring a legal action against you for calling him "Mr" or "Herr"? (And if you are, isn't that asking for legal advice?) Marnanel (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the greater question is one of protocol. If it is customary for someone of his culture and status to get to use "Doktor" then others should defer to that. For example, the United States has no royalty or nobility, but the Queen of the UK is still called "Your Majesty" when she tours the U.S. If he is accostomed by his own culture to using Doktor, I see no reason not to defer to that usage. Its harmless, ultimately, and it serves to purpose to not use the title he wants to use himself, if it is a rightful title, and it seems it is... --Jayron32 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but it's difficult to know whether the nomenclature of a person's birth culture trumps that of the culture they find themselves in. Here's a parallel example. I'm a British citizen, and I live in the United States. In my birth culture, my name is equally "Mr Thomas Thurman" or "Thomas Thurman, esq." I could call myself either of them. However, in the culture I actually live in, calling myself "Thomas Thurman, esq." would mean I was a lawyer, which I'm not; so even though it would be permitted by my birth culture, I don't do it. Marnanel (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, in the U.S., if he has a legal PhD of any sort, he is entitled to use Doctor in front of his name; that few Americans choose do to so does not mean they are not allowed to do so. It is not uncommon, for example, on college campuses to call all PhD-bearing staff "Doctor So-and-so". Religious leaders in the U.S. with a Doctor of Theology degree frequently use Doctor as well (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for example), but they are not mandated to do so. In the U.S., a country with a strong sense of individualism, such affectations frequently come down to personal choice. I think of the American sportscaster Dr. Jack Ramsay, who is ALWAYS called "Dr. Jack Ramsay" on the TV. I have several friends who have PhD's who prefer "Mr." to "Dr.", but again, that is entirely a personal choice. If he has a legitimate doctorate degree, and is entitled to use it, and wishes you to use it, then go ahead and use it. --Jayron32 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point of my analogy. In the OP's case, his German colleague is entitled in his birth culture to be called Dr So-and-so in all circumstances, but (at least as far as I can see) in his host culture it's expected that "Dr So-and-so" implies a relevant doctorate. For him to use the title would imply things in his host culture that would not be implied in his birth culture, and that are untrue-- just as it would for me to use "Esq.". Marnanel (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, a doctorate becomes part of the full form of address. Back in 2000, you were even required to register it and to get it into your passport and national ID card. I think they have changed this law since then, but any doctorate entitles you to the title. Usually, only assholes insist, but I don't think this is very different in the US or in Germany. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This phenomenon is not unknown in the U.S. Radio therapist Laura Schlessinger calls herself "Dr. Laura" even though she has a Ph.D. in physiology rather than one in psychology or an M.D. Maya Angelou's website refers to her as "Dr. Maya Angelou" even though she never went to college and has only honorary doctorates. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an American who happens to have a Ph.D., and my Ph.D. is in fact relevant to the field in which I work for a living. That field does not happen to be academia or healthcare, which are the only American professional fields where titles are normally used. I must say that I think it would be terribly pretentious to insist that people address me as "Dr." In the United States work culture (of 2009), everyone is on a first-name basis. Even when we use our full names (when communicating professionally with those who don't know us), we leave off titles such as "Mr." or "Dr." Based on my experience living in Germany in the 1990s, I believe that Germany's work culture is more formal and that Germans at work probably do insist that others use their "proper" title when addressing them. However, it is just as inappropriate for a German working in the United States to insist that others conform to his home culture when addressing him as it would be for an American working in Germany to insist that everyone call him by his first name when nobody else in the office does that. The cases of "Dr. Laura" and "Dr. Maya Angelou" are the exceptions that prove the rule. In both cases, I think their use of the title is a deceptive form of self-promotion that departs from the American norm. I think that this is also the case of your colleague, though it would really be up to his superior to tell him to conform to the cultural norms of his workplace. Marco polo (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work culture probably is somewhat more formal in Germany, but not that much. Formal forms of address are used only in formal settings - between people on very different levels of the hierarchy, or when being introduced for the first time (wether internally or externally). Between direct co-workers it's all Du and first name. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second wisest man in England

I have a memory of reading somewhere in Boswell's works that a man called Johnson the second wisest man in England, and that Johnson was delighted because unqualified praise would have meant less thought had gone into the remark. I cannot now find it anywhere in Boswell's writing. Did I dream it, or does someone here recognise the incident? Marnanel (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not 'wisest' but 'greatest': see the first paragraph of this [1]. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Thank you! Marnanel (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]