Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< January 6 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 8 >
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.

January 7[edit]

She named a crater on Venus - but who was she?[edit]

The craters on Venus is named after different famous women in history, of which many has articles here. But who was the "M. A. Fernandez" who is listed under F in the List of craters on Venus? Her full name is not there, it only says "M. A. Fernandez, Spanish actress (18th century)". Does any one know? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is odd that all references online to "F. A. Fernandez" are from Wikipedia mirrors.
The information for the Fernandez crater derives from the International Astronomical Union (entry for Fernandez) which gives the source of the name as "List of famous women provided by the National Organization for Women". This does not help answer the OP's question, however. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 05:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is one possible answer: According to a poster here, the namesake of the Fernandez crater of Venus (the poster refers to Mercury, but check the context in the original article there) is es:María del Rosario Fernández (Spanish Wikipedia); the initials do not match perfectly. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 05:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Ay Caramba!, I suspect this is it. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah that's the only 18th century Fernandez in the "stage actors from Spain" category at es.wikipedia. This is not my first encouter with imperfect documentation from the IAU nomenclature folks.--Cam (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I didn't see Jack's link, thought he was referring to Hasirpad's candidate. Yeah maybe La Caramba is more likely.--Cam (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! This was excellent. Can we conclude that this is correct rather than simply very likely (though I suspect that it is)?--Aciram (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As I was given so good help, I should take the opportunity to ask if another woman in that very same list, Maria Lullin, have her name correctly spelled? She does have an article here, but it is not much bigger than her entry at the list and need to be expanded, and as I have not found much on google, I thought that her name was perhaps misspelled, or that she is more known under a different version of her name? Does anyone now? --Aciram (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like her name was actually Marie-Aimée Lullin. The "Aimée" part of her name is important to include, it's part of a two-part name like the "Luc" in "Jean-Luc."--Cam (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I have the answers I wanted!--Aciram (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How accurate are home appraisals?[edit]

I am hoping someone can help me resolve a family dispute. My father passed away last year and we need to sell his house. We've had 2 appraisals done. The first appraisal said that the house is worth $256,000 and another appraisal said the house is worth $260,000. Two of our 4 of my siblings are insisting that the estimate is way too high, by over $40,000. One of these siblings has a conflict of interest as she would like to purchase the house. So, my question is, how accurate are house appraisals? I don't really know much about real estate. I've Googled it but haven't come up with anything definitive. Thanks. AnonComputerGuy (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE 1: I live in the United States. The estimates were done by professional appraisers, not real estate agents. AnonComputerGuy (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE 2: I don't think the problem is the lawyer, it's that my family is crazy. They fight about anything and everything, no matter how petty. I once watched in horror as my one of my brothers and one of my sisters argued for a month about which one of them should have to pay for the cost of printing out a document. The ink and paper probably cost less than a dollar. AnonComputerGuy (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is the obvious "we cannot give professional opinions, consult a professional" realtor... but, seriously? I can't see your house, you didn't mention who appraised your house... how can I tell you anything? You could have a hovel in the urban wastes of Detroit or a mansion in the Upper East Side of New York for all I know. If two independent (assuming they are) appraisals give you about the same value (which they have) it's a good bet they are accurate, more so than any a random stranger on the Internet can give you. If you had the appraisal done by a professional realtor, they do not stand to benefit at all by lowballing you because that means they collect a smaller percentage. (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
AnonComputerGuy - you don't say where you're from. Where I live, Victoria, Australia, real estate agents have a reputation in some places for organising inflated appraisals. This could be related to trying to convince a potential seller to sell, and maybe to the fact that agents are usually paid on commission, so the bigger the selling price, the more they make. It's in their interest to inflate the value. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Does that reputation have any evidence to support it? Most people would only get an appraisal if they had already decided to sell, and the commission on a few extra grand isn't going to be a significant amount. Freakonomics covers this subject and finds very clear evidence (in the US) of estate agents understating prices, not overstating them. The goal being to get a quick sale so they can move onto the next property. --Tango (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Where I live in Massachusetts we have professional appraisers who just value properties but don't sell them. I would assume they'd have less of a conflict of interest. Hot Stop (Talk) 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
But only within a certain limited tolerance, HiLo. They know, better than anyone, that properties that are priced too high just don't sell, and end up being either dropped in price or withdrawn from sale altogether. Nobody wins that way. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 03:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The standard approach in such cases is to have your lawyer offer the sibling who wants to low-ball the estimate exactly what she says she's willing to pay to buy her out. She should be happy to get what she thinks it's worth, and you should be happy to underpay her. The difference might even cover your legal fees. Which makes me wonder who your lawyer is? Maybe what you really need is better legal advice than you can get from random people on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This makes the huge assumption that the OP is in a position to buy out the complaining sib. If not, then the only way to settle it amicably may be to sell the house outside the family and divvy up the sales price. StuRat (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
So long as I am giving free advice, the lowball sibling signs an agreement to accept the lowball amount once the property is sold at whatever price, within a certain period. If she's right, she gets a guaranteed better price than she could otherwise expect. The others should be happy to take that offer, sell for more, and pocket the difference. Or they could take your advice. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Why would the lowball sib agree to that ? I do like the concept though, like parents who refuse medical treatment for their kids, saying "Only God can decide who lives and dies". I'd like to shoot them in the head and say "God will decide if you live or die, not me". StuRat (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have heard of people using set procedures for things like this, like agreeing to taking three appraisals and taking the average, or taking the middle one. That works fairly well in England where sale prices are close to appraisal prices (estate agents are on percentage so don't want to underestimate, but want a reasonably quick sale), but in Scotland the appraisal prices are usually lower than sale prices. (Sale is by sealed bid with the offer price traditionally seen as a starting price I think, Scots feel free to correct me). Presumably they would have some sort of adjustment there, like average price +5% . -- Q Chris (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this varies with region in the UK. Where I live, estate agents typically give a valuation some 30% higher than the actual sale price (sometimes years later!) They might be more realistic if paid to make a valuation for non-sale purposes. Dbfirs 09:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
@ StuRat, maybe she wouldn't take the offer. But that's the whole point. In fact, I'd be surprised if she were to take it given how such dynamics usually work. The point is to force her to make a good-faith action, or shut up and stop bothering the other siblings. Unfortunately in a lot of cases like this the lowball sibling is more interested in the power of controlling the process than in actually settling for a lower amount herself. Offered the lower amount that she had said she would be happy to take she will reject it because she can't also force the others into a lower amount. Or she could be right in her estimate, in which case she should take the offer. But by making the offer they effectively castrate any spite and controllingness as a factor in the negotiations. (A good lawyer would know all this, which is why the OP should get one.) μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

St. Jude Children's Hospital[edit]

If it's totally affordable for anyone (the commercials say "No family is ever turned away because they can't pay") and high quality care, is there a long line of people trying to get in and do large numbers who want to get in not get in for lack of opportunity due to the long line? (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

According to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the hospital doesn't charge (above and beyond what insurance pays) for "medically eligible" patients. Presumably, children with a bad sniffle aren't admitted. AFAIK, St. Jude's isn't the kind of hospital that you just walk into and admit yourself; patients who are admitted are done so by referral from another doctor, and they usually have a type of severe illness that local doctors near where they live can't treat. That is, if there is a nearby hospital which can treat the illness, then the child probably wouldn't get sent to St. Jude's. That probably keeps the waiting list lower than the average emergency room. --Jayron32 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hence the symbolism of Jude the Apostle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
"...nearby hospital which can treat..." Then that would give local Tennesseans preference? Lucky for them financially. "...medically eligible..." Now modulating in policy the level of rarity of cases for which patients are admitted such that the statistical incidence of said admissible diseases that happens to happen minus the number of other centers of excellence that can share the treatment load across the country is lower than the capacity of the hospital to treat seems pragmatic from a business perspective. Though I'm sure if some working class family living on $20,000 a year with crappy insurance has a child with a rare disease that needs a $250,000 operation but lives 500 miles away from a hospital that can handle it (but they'd have to pay) and 600 miles away from St. Jude's, the family's going to push hard for their doc to petition a referral to St. Jude's. With a population of over 300 million across the US, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that even rare diseases are happening to poor people (as well as more fortunate) regularly. (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've misread the title of this part of Wikipedia. This is the Wikipedia:Reference desk. What you want is the Wikipedia:Start a debate desk. --Jayron32 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm honestly interested in finding out how free high quality health care that could easily cost upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars is filtered down to organizational capacity. Anyways, I think I found my own reference answer from the source. You "win" a bed by being selected for one of their research studies. From the section "What if my child is not eligible for a St. Jude research study?" it says "...If your child is not eligible for a St. Jude research study, we can help you identify a hospital near you offering an appropriate treatment program and we can provide ongoing consultation with the medical team caring for your child at that hospital." So kids have to be "lucky" enough to be sick with something with an ongoing study in progress and eligible for that study. (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears that you have an emotional connection to the issue. This board is designed as a dispassionate source of information, not as a place to express your feelings towards a particular situation. --Jayron32 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
My feelings regarding how normally very expensive things that cost more than some houses are offered at no cost would fairly be described as not dispassionate, but those of wonder and curiosity. I have nothing to do with hospitals or health care at all. (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I never said you did. However, you're using language and writing like "scare quotes" and phrasing which indicates that you disapprove of something. This is not the correct forum to do so, even obtusely. --Jayron32 04:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll work on my writing style, sir/madame. (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is communism still tried?[edit]

So one thing popped up in my head. So far, every socialist country that tried to transition to communism failed to truly implement communism (notably Kampuchea (now Cambodia) and China). Except for North Korea and perhaps Cuba (I'm not sure), all "communist" countries now have more or less capitalist economies, notably China, but also Vietnam and Laos. And of course, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia collapsed. Despite this, around the world, why are there still people who want to try communism? They've seen the failure of "communist states" throughout the last hundred years or so. Also, history, as well as several studies, works, and experiences, have shown that communism, while a laudable concept on paper, is just difficult if not impossible to implement in the real world. So why are there people who still believe in communism? Are they pursuing a utopian ideal? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

An interesting question. I read somewhere that the problem with communism is the implementation and control, ensuring that people do work for the common good and that they don't exaggerate their needs. I wish I can remember where I read this, because an interesting observation was that communes can work at sizes where everyone knows everyone else, so peer pressure is enough to avoid free-loading - I think they said that groups of up to 100 people were possible. Above this number you need a "privileged group" to organise and enforce, and every system seems to require that these be "self policing" as they have powers to give themselves disproportionate power and reward. In every practical case this has failed. I think for anyone to try communism again they would need some new method of enforcing motivation and fairness without having a class that just have to be trusted - which may not be possible. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd say Cuba was a better example of a surviving Communist country than North Korea, which has long since veered off into a weird personality cult called Juche. Czechoslovakia broke up after the end of Communism, bringing an end to a political experiment that had predated it. Yugoslavia's more violent collapse had a lot more to do with the end of communism, but the unification of Yugoslavia was a monarchist project. Plenty of other political systems have failed in specific cases, and yet remain popular - democracy produced the Dreyfus Affair and McCarthyism, allowed the Nazis to gain control of Germany, and shores up one-party government in Singapore. France has so far had to scrap four republics, two empires, and two attempts to restore the monarchy. I think the lesson is that all forms of government are difficult. What people seem to want is a government as enfranchising as modern American democracy, as direct and transparent as ancient Athenian democracy, as spectacular as early Roman imperialism, as effective as Enlightenment-era benevolent despotism, and as effortless as the life of an Arcadian shepherd. Even the best form of government in practice will fall well short of this. I will go along with Winston Churchill's preference: "Democracy is the worst form of government that has been tried, apart from all the others." AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is capitalism tried? Shouldn't capitalism be abandoned as soon as it becomes evident that the rich or powerful are able to subvert democratic processes? That the poor become a victim of for-profit prisons, are a product to be sold to lawmakers in the form of prisoners? If I can prove to you that the direct consequence of capitalism is that in ever capitalist country, private prisons (and analogous institutions) will jail innocent people by selling their services where not required, would you agree that in this case we should abandon capitalism? In fact, I disagree: although capitalism "doesn't work", it does not need to be abandoned. Like communists, I too believe in the system in which I have seen some measure of success - for me, this is capitalism. Naturally, communism only "works" for a few people. So communist leadership is usually chosen from these. Anyone else can see it's a fools errand, but these people can't. It really is not so simple as you suggest, by viewing yourself as my fellow capitalist in spite of strong arguments against capitalism, I hope you will agree with me. (That said, I may be to the left of you on many issues, and believe one in every ten service dollars should go to the state and be provided by the state, including for many basic things like schools, medicine, security, etc.) ---- (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Capitalism isn't a system of government; it's more an attempt to run an economy through benign neglect. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I added the parenthetical last sentence while in edit conflict with you. If capitalism is benign neglect, then why do we still do it (to any extent) where it obviously doesn't work? (Such as lack of medical coverage causing early deaths where these same people would have easily paid for this up-front cost in taxes paid after the incident.) Arguably, many aspects of capitalism "obviously" don't work - yet we still do it. (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The modern approach is kind of a mix of capitalism and socialism, retaining the parts of each that are considered to "work" optimally. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 -- It's an oversimplification to say that North Korea is "communist". For many years, Juche was more significant than Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, while in recent decades Songun seemed to be eclipsing even Juche. The newest Kim seems to be preparing for yet another shift; I'm not sure anyone but himself knows exactly what it will end up being, but it's unlikely to be a simple variant of classic Communist theory... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  • For an argument that North Korea's government uses a race-based nationalism, rather than Marxism-Leninism, to justify its control, see the book The Cleanest Race by B.R. Myers. Shrigley (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Communism provides a convenient excuse for brutal, power mad dictators to consolidate their power while pretending to care about the people they crush on their path to power. --Jayron32 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Communism is not unique that way, but it's funny how every Communist government has turned out to be like that. Definitely a trend. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The communist system, albeit in various forms, is alive after 103 years and working well in the Kibbutz movement. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Kibbutzes are small communities centered around communal agriculture, which has about as much to do with Marxist communism as an apple does to a motorcycle. --Jayron32 14:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The OP asked about "communism". Our article opens with this definition:
"a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production"
For many Kibbutzim today, the only element from that depiction that is irrelevant is the "stateless".
As such your hyperbole is incorrect. --Dweller (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be a debate. I sometimes wonder why we bother. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Dweller -- the more strictly communal aspects of Kibbutzim have tended to be somewhat in retreat in recent decades, and Kibbutzim never were fully "moneyless" in the first place... AnonMoos (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the OP would like to consider the state government in Kerala (a state on the southern tip of India) as an example of communism working. The state government alternates between the communist led LDF and the Indian National Congress-led UDF; since the 2011 elections the UDF has held power. Astronaut (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
As usual, a discussion like this has produced a flood of words within a day, and as usual, I certainly can't contribute a referenced answer. Still, I have often discussed things with extremists, and spent a while listening to them. The question title asks why people still try communism, and the question text asks why people still believe. Slightly different. I'm only focusing on the second, which is easier (the first could do with an expert). Having spoken to communists, and read their opinions (mostly around uni) they are certainly aware of the failure of their system. Most would probably define themselves as "democratic socialists", which I know could be changing the question, but at the time, they struck me as essentially pretty close to communists. They related the problems to Stalinism, rather than communism. I have found some that promote revolution, but when you challenge them on this, they come out as a bit more moderate in their considered judgements. Apart from blaming things on Stalin, the only other concrete thing was that someone blamed the problems on the emergence of communism in just the Eastern bloc. He said his Socialist Alliance (I think that's what they were called) was promoting a worldwide workers movement, so we could all go communist together. Look up Socialism in one country for some background. In short, you could say that this means they have reflected on history, which does not make them necessarily less utopian. IBE (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The stated goals of communism are laudable, if it's ability to achieve them falls far short. And, in many cases, it was better than the alternative, which was a population virtually enslaved by a few rich families. Of course, better yet is a mix of capitalism and socialism, where people have an incentive to work to improve things, but we also put some limits on how badly to rich can abuse the poor. StuRat (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe your question can be divided into two parts: (1) Why do supposedly "communist" countries still exist? and (2) Why are there still people who believe in communism?
For the first part, when you have an established elite or order in a society (in this case the Communist/Workers' Party) who enjoy boons not accorded to the general population, they generally want to remain in that position. It works better if you try to disguise that with a positive ideology so the people will be less likely to try to revolt and overthrow you. I would argue that North Korea has abandoned mostly the ideal of Communism as Marx envisioned it (people generally aren't allowed to read Marx anymore, for that matter), while Cuba is trying to hang on and no longer actively pursuing Communism (though they remain a socialist state).
For the second part, Communism does sound like a good idea... in theory. I am reminded about something The Tiger Clemenceau once said (brutally translated), upon learning that his son had become a Communist: "Of course he has! If he had not become a Communist at twenty I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at thirty, I will disown him then." (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that quote? Versions of it are variously attributed to all sorts of people [1], most commonly George Bernard Shaw [2]. IBE (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Various sources actually, including several biographies of him that give it in different forms. I've seen the Frenc original but can't seem to find it. q:Clemenceau. (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I get the feeling tons of people have said it, and made it seem like their own. Your link gives a very plausible suggestion of the original author, François Guizot. IBE (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
People has limited knowledge so when their surrounding is not working according to their preferences they pursue their goal with different methods. So when some people in US or any other country think Capitalism is not working they might think Communism is better and therefore try to implement it. roscoe_x (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they does. They only knows what's in their best interest. That's why Communism is not selected by the people, but rather is imposed by force, and by the time the people gets wise, it's too late. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
From a socioeconomic angle, try reading Agency cost to explain the reason why people work selfishly in a collective group (except for bumblebees, bats, and ants) the Tomato expert1 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"why are there still people who want to try communism". I'd answer this by noting that most people in the world today are working class, they subsist entirely off income earnt by labour in capitalism. As such, a revolutionary or utopian communist consciousness is one of the class consciousnesses generated in workers by capitalism. Regarding the criticism of actually existing socialism as not being "communist," I think we have a good article on State capitalism that explains that a very significant body of the Marxist and Anarchist movement has always criticised attempts by bourgeois intellectuals to seize state power in the name of the workers and repress them into socialism (a number of other alternate explanations, also critical of the Bolshevik style project, are also available linked either in text, or in see also, from state capitalism). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Pursuit of power is another reason. Communist revolutions have often been successful in throwing out the group in power and putting in their own group. Also, the personal power that can be achieved within a communist organization is enormous compared to a reasonably well run democracy with all its pesky checks and balances. FDR was one of the more powerful US Presidents at a time when the US was becoming one of the most powerful nations of the world, but compared to Stalin or Mao? (See also Jayron's answer.)--Wikimedes (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Jayron, and your answer, about personal motivation aren't particularly useful given the impression people have of the potential to become the "leader" of a Bolshevik style party, and (to the extent that the information is available) the actual costs involved of doing so. Much better would be to look at any of the actual studies of the nomenklatura in soviet-style societies and note the constrained powers available (Djilas, Fitzpatrick, Aczel and Meray)—but to then also note the impossibility of achieving such economic power within capitalism for the petits-bourgeois intellectuals who so dominated central European and Asian communist parties. For the nascent nomenklatura the only way to class power was through a communist party. Djilas is particularly good on the level of constraint on power of such functionaries. We can contrast this with, for example, Gyula Háy's Born 1900 which talks about the motivations amongst such petits-bourgeois intellectuals who genuinely desired workers power. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sodom and its sexual interpretation (or lack thereof)[edit]

I understand that the Bible is a complex, difficult book. I checked the wiki article on Sodom and Gomorrah and looked into the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic interpretations. Apparently, the Islamic interpretation is portrayed as primarily about sex. The Christian interpretation has both sexual and non-sexual interpretations, and the Jewish interpretation seems to be very similar to the Christian interpretation, but is a combination of the sexual and non-sexual: that homosexual rape was an act of inhospitality during Old Testament times. How do scholars know that Sodom is about sex or not? What if the story is just a story without any deep meaning? Like one of those spooky stories that parents sometimes tell children at night? I think the Book of Proverbs is supposed to be educational. (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Proverbs has to do with anything. As to the rest, I think there's some merit to your suggestion. So much of the Bible has become enshrined in religious dogma over the years, that it's hard to stop and recall that much of it may only ever have been intended as history (whether literal or mythic) and not as instructional material at all. It's worth noting that the story of Sodom forms part of the story of Lot. Lot's narrative is one long disaster. Despite the attempts of God to get Lot and his family to help themselves, they stumble from one hair-raising tragedy to another: their home is threatened by a gang of rapists, Lot's wife disregards a warning and is turned into salt, and then Lot himself is made drunk and raped by his own daughters. Despite the occasional use of this narrative by critics of religion to demonstrate the badness of the Bible, there's nothing in the text to suggest that anything here is praiseworthy or positive. It's all just a miserable slog. This is placed in contrast to the story of Abraham, who accepts God's blessing trustingly, and duly prospers. That might be considered a lesson in itself, but it could just as easily simply be a dramatic device.
All I will say about the positive use of the story of Sodom for teaching is that it's very easy to get 'rape is bad' as a lesson from the whole story of Lot, including this bit; it's pretty easy to get 'the world is a nicer place when we welcome strangers instead of inhospitably trying to rape their house-guests' too; and it's really quite hard to get 'all male-male sexual contact is bad' from this passage alone. The text seems less judgmental about Lot's attempt to hand his daughters over to the rapists instead, too. But the text itself does not specify any of these messages. And thus scholars cannot reasonably know any of these things.
Of course, the use to which scholars and teachers of each faith put this text is rooted not just in the words themselves, but in the existing history of the text's reception by their respective faith communities. In some cases, this includes the testimony of other bits of scripture: Jesus, as might be expected from his as a rabbi of his era, teaches that the lesson of Sodom is against inhospitality. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is one of the most popular topics of all time here at the ref desks, and has been discussed as recently as last month. I suggest you read the archives and then let us know if you have any more questions that need a source to be answrered. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Like you said, it's a complex issue and it depends in part on whether you read the story in isolation or consider references to Sodom elsewhere in the Bible. One important passage that addresses the sins of Sodom is Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it (NASB)". The reference to not helping the poor and needy can be understood to imply inhospitality. On the other hand, the 'abominations' (תּוֹעֵבָה) (which apparently were the final cause of Sodom's destruction) could well refer to sexual sins (the book of Leviticus in particular uses this word for sins like incest, bestiality and homosexuality). In any case, it's not a matter of hard facts, there's a lot of interpretation (and sometimes speculation) involved. And you are right, I think, that sometimes too much is read into the story that isn't actually there. - Lindert (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think perhaps the most important thing in interpreting the Sodom story is the very similar one of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19-20. In this story the outrage is committed by the people of Benjamin, and the rest of the Israelites make war on the Benjaminites because of it, nearly wiping them out. The point of this story may have been to justify the eclipsing of Benjamin by Judah, in other words, politics. Richard Elliott Friedman thinks both episodes were part of the J Document, which was a Judahite text. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I would speculate that Sodom and Gomorrah were real towns, destroyed by volcanism, earthquakes, or a meteor. Afterwards, in an attempt to explain it, the stories of it being a place of evil likely developed. However, it seem unlikely that everybody but one family would be "evil" in a pair of towns. No doubt, if San Francisco is destroyed by an earthquake, "Christian" fundamentalists will all claim it's punishment from God for homosexuality. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
You may find the references at Sodom and Gomorrah#Historicity more useful than speculation. --Tango (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


What would a typical Easter Sunday be like for a practicing Christian? After reading about the wiki page on Spring Break, I came to read Easter and then about Easter games, and I am trying to figure out how a person might cram so many things on one day. A person might prepare beforehand to finish all schoolwork/coursework/office work, so on Easter day that person might spend the whole day doing things related to Easter. Or that person might spread things out a bit during the whole Lent period, including Holy Week. It would also be important to do some grocery shopping BEFORE Easter, because on Easter many businesses will probably either be closed or open part of the day. The Easter games part might not seem very important, so those might be cancelled for a person's own schedule, but the church attendance would probably be strongly favored. How long is the church service anyway, and at what time do churches typically observe Easter? (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Which country? HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It is easy enough for us to state which country we are talking about, and confine our answer to that. In Australia: when I was a Roman Catholic, church was just the ordinary length service, I think (maybe a bit longer, but unremarkable). I know a lot of very enthusiastic Evangelical Protestants, and it's about the same. I don't think they do much else. Generally, Good Friday and Easter Sunday are the main services. I've never heard of anything else going down. IBE (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
How long is "ordinary length service"? (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Always in the ballpark of an hour, but now that I think about it, the Catholic one might have gone for two hours on Easter Sunday. It was certainly a bigger production, but that's all I remember. The Protestant one is also about an hour, no longer at Easter. Most of the time is taken up by the sermon. With reference to Lomn's post below, I would call them extra-low church (the minister wears jeans). They're not into ritual, just devotion. IBE (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
My typical Easter Sunday is that the church service runs about 15 minutes longer than usual. Due to (lack of) proximity to the church, I tend to skip the additional early (sunrise) service. For my experience (US Protestant, low-to-medium in terms of "high church"), that's about all that's out of the ordinary for a practicing Christian in terms of things specifically relevant to practicing Christians. That is, church attendance isn't out of the ordinary (though for many Christians who don't regularly attend services, it would be), and something like "Easter dinner" might be unusual but isn't particular to practicing Christians. — Lomn 20:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Usual time length? (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
For that category (US Protestant, low-to-middle church), normal service length is roughly an hour. Sunday school is additionally roughly an hour, but participation in that is at a lower rate than the service proper, and whether participation is the norm varies more widely within the US -- my wife grew up in a region where adult SS participation was functionally unheard of; I grew up with adult SS being at roughly the same participation rate as child SS. An Easter sunrise service length will have more variance, but 30-45 minutes is a reasonable estimate. — Lomn 20:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no single answer to this; Easter ceremonies vary from one local church to another, and more between denominations. My own experience as a High-Church Anglican is representative only of that tradition within that denomination; but it also reflects quite widespread practice within Roman Catholicism. So with all that said, here's how it works for me:
We begin before the start of Easter proper. Lent has been spent in self-discipline and prayer (in theory!), and Passiontide in contemplating the coming mysteries. (In Anglicanism, Passion Sunday is the Sunday before Palm Sunday, and in some places statues and pictures may be veiled from then on, and the colour of the vestments and altar cloths changes from purple to red.) On Palm Sunday there will be a procession - possibly through the streets, but just as likely to be round the inside of the church - with the people waving palm branches or palm crosses. If they use small palm crosses, these are saved to burn for next year's Ash Wednesday ashes. There may also be a dramatic reading of the Passion from one of the gospels, in which the narrator and the various characters are played by different members of the congregation, or if sung, by different choristers. I have seen performances where the priest played Jesus, and others where the priest played Judas. I prefer the latter; the Passion should challenge our expectations, not reinforce them.
Holy Week begins quietly. On Maundy Thursday, I aim to leave work at noon, and go to a lunchtime eucharist. When I was a British civil servant, I was helped in this by the traditional award of a half-day 'privilege day' on this day. The Maundy Thursday service is a much closer commemoration of the Last Supper itself than usual. After communion has been shared, the priest takes the remaining wafers, and ceremonially removes them in their pyx or ciborium to a small separate altar, generally elsewhere in the church, called the Altar of Repose. While this is done, the anthem Pange Lingua Gloriosi Corporis Mysterium is sung by the choir (if in Latin) or everyone (if in English). After the first four verses, the wafers should be in the tabernacle on the Altar of Repose. The priest then intones the first line of the fifth verse: "Tantum ergo sacramentum"/"Therefore we, before him bending", and the anthem is sung to the end while the priest and servers prostrate themselves. Then they return to the main sanctuary. Many of the normal closing prayers are not said. Instead, the choir sings Psalm 22 ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?") while the priest and servers strip the altars. Every last thing is removed, until the altar is bare, the priest and servers are in their plain cassocks, and the main tabernacle stands empty, open and unveiled. Only the Altar of Repose is left. Then the priest announces "The disciples forsook him, and fled", and the people 'depart in confusion', although in practice they may stop and eat hot cross buns on the porch. Some people may remain and spend an hour keeping vigil at the Altar of Repose, in commemoration of the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Good Friday is a bank holiday in the UK. Compared with how much happens on Maundy Thursday, church is comparatively restrained. The church remains stripped bare. One church I know has Mattins, the Litany and Antecommunion, none of which require a priest or any ritual objects. Some churches distribute the wafers from the Altar of Repose in a ceremony called the 'mass of the presanctified', but this seems to me to go against the general presumption that Good Friday is the most solemn day, and no eucharistic actions whatever should be performed. Another typically Catholic ritual is Veneration of the Cross, dubbed 'creeping to the Cross' by Protestant critics. In this, a single plain unveiled cross or crucifix is brought out, and members of the congregation go up one by one to make personal devotion: some kiss the cross, or the 'corpus' figure on it, while others simply make silent prayer. While this is done, it is customary for the hymn 'Faithful Cross' to be sung.
Holy Saturday is pretty much a day off in church terms. This will, for me, generally be the first opportunity to do anything except eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours.
In theory, nothing should now happen until first light on Easter morning. However, in practice, some churches have the first service of Easter sometime after nightfall on the Saturday evening. In this, a brazier or other source of fire is lit outside the church, and a new paschal candle is lit from it. This candle will be used at every baptism that church celebrates for the coming year. The light is brought into the darkened church, and other lights lit from it, gradually revealing the glorious white and gold decor which has replaced the barrenness of Good Friday. The Easter hymn, the Exsultet, is sung. This will be the first time that the word 'Alleluia' will have been used in the church since before Ash Wednesday. The service that follows is of a joyful character, with bold, major-keyed hymns and anthems. The gospel is usually the story of the empty tomb: "Early in the morning, while it was yet dark...", to match the theoretical timing of the service. If actually done at dawn, the light of the sun should illuminate the church more fully shortly after the paschal candle is brought in. New sacred elements are consecrated for communion, and there may be the 'great blessing of the waters', in which a font of water is blessed, and the people renew their baptismal vows while the priest sprinkles them with the holy water.
Later on the morning of Easter Sunday, there will be another communion service for everyone who finds the other one too early, either theologically or practically, which will follow the same basic model, but without the candle procession. Then it's time for lunch, and the afternoon off, followed by another bank holiday, for tourism or DIY or anything else.
I hope this is a sufficiently complete account of just one way to do it! AlexTiefling (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
PS: Each communion service lasts about 1h15; the Good Friday services are shorter. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
AlexTiefling, you can't eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours? Not sure if there is a typo, or you really can't relax and sleep in 36 hours. Fasting is understandable, but sleep deprivation? That's like more than a day, and you'd be sleep-deprived by the end, if that were true and not a typographical error. Can you consume a large meal afterwards? (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
No - I mean that those four things are just about all I do between lunchtime on Maundy Thursday and the end of Good Friday. Not a typo; please re-read. I don't fast strictly at any time, as my metabolism isn't strong enough. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
"This will, for me, generally be the first opportunity to do anything except eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours."
Grammatically speaking, I interpret this as the ability to "do anything EXCEPT eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours." In other words, grammatically speaking, you can do anything EXCEPT (excluding, not including) eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours. It may be an English dialect thing. (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This may be a dialect thing. I parse it as follows: except does mean excluding, so 'anything except X, Y & Z' means all actions other than those things. And I say that this is the first opportunity to do anything except those things - in other words, that I can't reasonably do other things, but only those things, in that time period. I think it may be the anything/nothing bit, rather than the meaning of 'except', which is the problem here.
I'm also happy to answer non-grammatical queries about my lengthy narrative! AlexTiefling (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to add the this: the Saturday evening service in the Catholic Church is the Easter Vigil, which is a huge sprawling service lasting about 3 hours and containing all sorts of little ancient relics of Christianity throughout the ages, from the blessing of the fire and the Paschal Candle, to the Exsultet, to the epic Liturgy of the Word which is supposed to cover the whole of salvation history and the great Gospel Acclamation in several verses. It is supposed to start after dark, and so the beginning of the service is lit only by the candles that everyone holds: "the flame divided, but undimmed". If adults are being Baptised or Confirmed, this generally happens at the Easter Vigil, which has a special bit of liturgy set aside for it, including the full Litany of the Saints. This goes back to when Christianity was underground, and catechumens were slowly introduced to basic ideas before joining at the Easter Vigil, which would be the first time they were allowed to remain for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Of course, nowadays anyone is allowed to witness the whole Mass.
Also, I don't think Alex mentioned that the Maundy Thursday service usually includes footwashing, with the priest washing the feet of parishioners. And a wrinkle to the "Passion Reading" (the reading of an account of the Passion from a Gospel, with different people reading different lines) in a Catholic church is that normally only the priest or deacon reads the Gospel during Mass. For passion readings, lay people read the Gospel during Mass, but Jesus's words must be read by a priest or deacon. The usual parts are "Jesus", "narrator", "Other person" and "crowd" (everyone present). (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I had forgotten the foot-washing. Traditionally, the British monarch performed this at the Royal Maundy service. I don't know off hand if that is done any more. And yes, the Anglican Easter vigil is about half the length of the Catholic one. As to who may read the Gospel: in the Church of England, anyone may, but it is normal practice for a priest, deacon or licensed lay reader (a kind of minor order, I suppose) to do so when Holy Communion is celebrated. Consequently, it is possible for the lay reader to read the Jesus part, and for the priest to be the narrator or another character. Also, Anglican priests tend to sing the liturgy more often the Catholic ones since Vatican II and Novus Ordo, and thus in the case of a sung Passion, the priest may still be a strong enough singer to take a role. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
According to the Royal Maundy article Foot washing by the monarch died out in the 18th century. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me give an answer for the US. On the days before Easter, egg dyeing and egg decoration may occur (kids enjoy this). Some foods may also be prepared in advance for the Easter meal, like pies.
"Christians" will go to church, usually in late morning, for about an hour. In some communities, especially African American communities, women and girls often wear special outfits for the day, which include pastel dresses and large, floppy hats. Here's a toddler in such an outfit: [3].
After church it's time to go back home for Easter dinner (which often features a ham) and, if there's kids, perhaps an Easter egg hunt. StuRat (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
StuRat, why do you put "Christians" in quotes? (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Because many who profess to be Christians in the US don't actually believe in the teachings of Christ, such as pacifism. They believe in Old Testament, pre-Christian values. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Why would a pacifist ever recommend that people sell their cloak and buy a sword? - Lindert (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
See "Sell your cloak and buy a sword". Jesus wasn't perfect, and did have a few incidents of rage, such as overturning the money-changers' table at the temple. However, his core message was pacifism. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Jesus's core message was about love, not pacifism. I don't think love is the same thing as pacifism. Some parents do occasionally spank their children or scold their children, when their children do something inappropriate or wrong or socially unacceptable or socially unproductive. For back-up support that Jesus's core message is about love, please read Dr. Jeffrey B. Webb's book, "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Exploring God", which looks into many different religious perspectives of God, God's nature, and God's behavior in the world. In the introduction, the author confesses that he is a Christian, but attempts to portray the different religions in a good light and as accurately as possible. (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
He can have more than one core message (belief in God would be another). Also, spanking isn't the same as violence, as spanking isn't designed to cause permanent damage to children or kill them. StuRat (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that use of 'Old Testament values' rather unfair to millions of Jews who use the Tanakh - Christians' Old Testament - as a guide to life? I'd suggest that the un-Christian behaviour of Christians has less to do with the Old Testament, and more to do with typical human ignorance and malice. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in Old Testament values, those just don't happen to be the teachings of Christ. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
OK... what do REAL Christians do during Easter? (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There aren't very many of them, perhaps including Quakers, and the Amish/Mennonites. I'm not as familiar with their Easter traditions. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's not try to sort the sheep from the goats ourselves. That way lies madness and the closure of this interesting thread. Suffice it to say that you will find 'real' Christians in pretty much the same places as the, er, 'less real' ones. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Can non-Christians participate during Easter vigil? If Christians renew their baptisms during Easter, then perhaps, during Easter prospective Christians are allowed to be baptized? Do churches baptize first-time non-Christian visitors? (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, you can't be baptised by accident; baptism isn't any sprinkling with holy water, but (outside the small Jesus-only movement) is specifically having the water poured over you, or entering bodily into the water, while another person says "I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit".
I believe some places baptise willing converts between the blessing of the waters and the sprinkling of the congregation, but generally adults or older children who wish to be baptised will have preparatory classes - sometimes integrated with the church's Lent study group - and will plan their baptism. In some places, they will be asked to wait until Low Sunday (the Sunday after Easter), in order not to prolong the first service of Easter too much. Or else the sprinkling will be at the first Easter service, and the baptism at the second. (I think this is what my church is planning this year.)
So non-Christians are generally welcome to come for the Easter vigil, and participate in the lighting of candles, and get free Easter eggs, and so on, but will not be baptised, either accidentally, or deliberately but without planning. A Jewish relative of a regular congregant used to come regularly to our first service of Easter at my previous church; he basically ignored the splash of holy water, and enjoyed the show.
However, all of that being said, if someone approached a priest before the vigil and said "I've never been baptised - could you do me today, please?", the reaction would vary from priest to priest, but many would leap at the chance if the person appeared sincere. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
If you said that to a Catholic priest, I think he'd want to talk to you at length about your desire to convert, and have you go through formal religious instruction to make sure you understood what you're getting into. To the question above about non-Christian participation, I've "read somewhere" (therefore it's true!!!!) that the Catholic Church approves of non-Catholics participating in the Ash Wednesday ritual where the priest rubs palm-leaf ashes into each person's forehead while reminding him in verse that he will die some day. But the rules strictly limit circumstances in which non-Catholic Christians can receive communion. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Receiving communion generally requires more than baptism: in most Anglican churches, it requires confirmation, and in most RC churches acceptance at First Communion. I take your point, but I think you are eliding the difference between baptism and other stages of church membership. And my speculation was, in any case, just that - speculative. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly the case that there's no restriction on who can be "ashed" on Ash Wednesday. It's probably why turnout is so high on a day that is not a Holy Day of Obligation: often higher than turnout on Maundy Thursday, which is. Catholics who know that they are not in a state to receive Communion, and may not be for a long time, can still be ashed and show their repentance and faith, despite not feeling able to come back into Communion. And equally, non-Catholics can be ashed, although I don't see why you'd want to be unless it meant something to you. (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Norman Rockwell did a classic illustration on Easter Sunday for the cover of the May 16, 1959 issue of the Saturday Evening Post; see here... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oddly enough, my family's tradition includes eating a mid-day meal Sunday that resembles nothing more than a deliberately non-kosher Passover seder including maror but also challah bread that's been blessed by the priest (not unleavened matsoh) and a ham (!) instead of lamb. (Butter pressed into a lamb-shaped mold with peppercorns for eyes is also used.) There's also a salad of bitter greens with onion and vinegar and those pysanky which have lost at epper (played immediately after the three-hour mass) are also sliced and consumed with copious salt. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What is a legacy payment system?[edit]

Various things on the web like this use the phrases "legacy payment system" and "legacy system" in ways that assume the reader knows what it means. Wikipedia seems to have no article about whatever this thing is. What is it? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That's because it isn't a specific thing. It's not a system for the payment of legacies; it's a payment system that's a legacy of some earlier time. Payroll systems are often left like this, but it can affect all kinds of corporate IT. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
In this context "system" means "collection of computers, software, and practices that do a given task". "Legacy system" means "old-fashioned system we wish went away but on which our business really depends". A "payment system" is a system by which banks transfer money (or some magical money-equivalent) to and from one another, or to other entities like retailers or people. "Replacing legacy payment systems" means "behind our bank's fancy modern website there is a core of antique Tandem mainframes and clunky IBM minicomputers which do all the real work, whose function is arcane and complicated and understood only by ancient wizards who have all retired due to stress - so we're terrified to change anything in case our business implodes." -- Finlay McWalterTalk 23:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd characterize it another way: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". That is, if some critical system works just fine now, even though it's old technology, upgrading to a new technology is rather risky, by comparison. StuRat (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
As the PDF Michael linked notes, they still need to be able to change the legacy system (new banking laws, new markets, new types of business). Much as they'd like to leave the scary thing alone, outside effects mean they have to, but do so without breaking something. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, now I see that there is a Wikipedia article titled legacy system, and it's not specifically about payment systems. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A common joke around such systems finally being replaced usually goes along the lines of "Why is the system finally being replaced? The last remaining support person who knew anything about it has died/retired." Dismas|(talk) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
User resistance to such changes can be considerable. One such impasse, where the users had promised to switch to the "new system" for years, was only finally broken when we demolished the building with the hardware of the old system still in it (it was large enough to be physically built into the basement). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

When I was first exposed to the term, I was sent down the garden path very nicely. The organisation I was working for was bringing in a new system. I hadn't worked there very long, so I was still taking many things at face value. People were always talking about features of the new system (whose acronym-based name I forget but I'll call it Whizzbang) and comparing them with those of what sounded to my ears as "Legacy". For example, "Our capacity for farnarkling our grommets will be far greater under Whizzbang than under Legacy". For some considerable time I believed the actual name of the existing system was Legacy. A perfectly reasonable conclusion, since I'd never heard the expression "legacy system". I forget now how I was finally disabused of this notion, but I remember that feeling of "How come I'm the only person in the room/building/organisation/world who doesn't know that the system is not called Legacy; it's just a legacy system". We live and learn. I console myself with pointing the finger of blame at those around me. They could have called the current system "the current system", or "the existing system" or "the old system", or whatever its actual name was. But nooo. They all had to jump on the stupid IT-speak bandwagon, and then compound their error by shortening "the legacy system" to just "legacy". It's a wonder anything ever worked with communication practices like that. <end mini rant> -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)