Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 June 27

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.

June 27

Supreme court - correlation between member's votes

Is there any study of the correlation of votes between current members of the Supreme Court of the United States? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Of who is likely to agree with whom? I've seen some, but can't give you any sources offhand, but they are out there.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Right - that is what I'm asking about. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Found this, but its about 9 years old. No idea if it has been updated. But its a start. --Jayron32 02:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

here for 2012. --Jayron32 02:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a study done in 2011. --Jayron32 02:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, the one from 9 years ago is more of what I want than the one from 2012. I'd heard that Thomas always votes the same way that Scalia does, but the one from 9 years ago show that it is not that pronounced. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

[1] End of the page. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice that they also have a link to previous "stat packs", so you can see how things change over time. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Checking standing to sue in the Supreme Court

A recent U.S. Supreme Court case was dismissed (or whatever the term is) because the folks bringing the suit to the Supreme Court did not have standing. Is it normal for the Supreme Court to accept a case for review and then decide not to act on it due to standing? Or is it more usually the case that the Court checks the standing first before accepting the case? RudolfRed (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that Standing (law) is something one can merely look at a checklist and decide quickly if it applies. Sometimes the matter of standing requires careful analysis and discussion and debate, and if it does, I don't see why the court wouldn't accept a case and then decide in the normal course of their debate that the plaintiff did not have standing in the first place. It may not be so obvious as to be able to be decided before it gets to the court. --Jayron32 02:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is more common for issues of standing to come up when the Court is deciding whether to accept a case, but that doesn't mean they can't also come up later. Looie496 (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We have an article List of United States Supreme Court cases involving standing, which I'm pretty sure is fairly incomplete and in any case only targets cases significantly affecting the concept (and some of course established that some part did have standing) but from what I can tell, in most cases the case went for review rather then simply being denied. This is also discussed in the article linked by Jayron32 which also links that article. I'm pretty sure I've read other cases before, ones that don't seem that significant and a simple search also found this recent case. [2]. While I assume that Looie and Jayron are correct that most cases where the plantiffs lack standing are simply denied with a full hearing by the SC, I presume the cases where the SC actually reviews are more likely to be significant because they will have some sort of considered decision and so may help establish precedent on who has standing. I also came across [3] from before the decision where it was suggested the eventual outcome was a possibility. Edit: I was reminded by some searches that those Obama citizenship conspiracy cases were ones were standing often came up but there were others and I can't recall if the SC actually considered any of the Obama ones anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't find Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004) on that list, but I thought it was worth a mention. Gabbe (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the replies. RudolfRed (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Evangelical Christian Subculture"

I am just wondering about the "Evangelical Christian Subculture" in American society. How is this subculture different from mainstream American Christian culture? How may a person fit in, if he/she is not born in this subculture? Are there any lingos and gestures that make this subculture unique besides conversionism, activism, biblicism, crucicentricism, or are those four things the only four things? The bold question is the main question. Sneazy (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Define "subculture". That term typically has a negative connotation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? As a proud adherent of several subcultures myself, I beg to differ. A subculture is simply a distinctive cultural grouping that exists within a wider culture. Goths, gamers, IT geeks, knitters, crossword-buffs... AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the Wikipedia editing subculture.:) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they used to call those hobbies. Now they have a pseudo-Latin word to make it all impressive like. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that there's a fairly distinctive set of linguistic conventions within this subculture which would be alien to other Christians. They reflect the four main points you mention, but they filter into other things as well. Someone who is closer to the movement than I am might be able to give more instructive examples - I've mostly encountered this as a perpelexed outsider. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Evangelical Christians regard the word "Prosperity Theology" as insulting while outsiders may use the term liberally. Sneazy (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm an outsider, and I'd definitely use 'prosperity theology' or 'prosperity gospel' disparagingly; I think that's not a linguistic difference, but an accurate reflection of the people's opinions (evangelical and otherwise) of that movement. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if "I met Jesus" would be considered one of the Evangelical Christian lingo. The phrase is referring to the way the Evangelical Christian expresses the religious experience of being saved or committing one's life to Jesus or treating him as "lord and savior". Sneazy (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I also broadly identify as an Evangelical Christian, but find prosperity theology to be unsound. It's insulting, but certainly not to me. I use it disparagingly to describe a type of unsound theology. --Jayron32 13:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you are an insider, have you noticed any linguistic and behavioral barriers that separate you and non-Evangelicals? Sneazy (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know why you think an emphasis on Jesus on the cross is in any way unique to Southern Baptists or whatever. Jesus dying for our sins is a central tenet of Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

After watching Who was Jesus? (Discovery channel feature documentary) on Netflix, I noticed that the film portrayed Jesus as aiming to change society, not just individuals. As a man of his era, he saw the great disparity between the rich and the poor, the injustice of his childhood inflicted on him and his family and people of his social class, and free Israel of foreign oppression. The film seemed to really focus on the historical Jesus or Jesus' humanity with an emphasis on the historicity of the gospel narratives. Sneazy (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's rather impossible to change society and leave every individual within that society unchanged. How do you propose that happens? What society do you know of that consists of no individuals? --Jayron32 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I don't think I mentioned a society that that consists of no individuals. What I had in mind was a collectivist approach to change, not an individualistic approach to change. Sneazy (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, if you're going to confuse "belief in" with "emphasis on", you probably should sit on the sidelines for this one. Note also that Sneazy isn't conceiving of crucicentricism himself, but is rather referencing the work of David Bebbington, a noted historian. — Lomn 14:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to get confused here, since there's no definition of what "crucicentricism" is supposed to mean. So before I consider obeying your vacate order, maybe you could link to something useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking broadly, I think it's worth noting (yet again) that there are not agreed-upon monolithic objective definitions of social or religious groups like this. The broad tenets in the original post are reasonable, but they are neither exhaustive nor exclusive. For example, Jayron echoes my personal position as an identifying Evangelical who disdains prosperity theology, but it's my observation that many who adhere to prosperity theology also identify as Evangelicals. As for Sneazy's question to Jayron regarding "linguistic or behavioral barriers" -- no, I don't observe any. I observe linguistic or behavioral distinctions at the personal level. I observe distinctions and disagreements (often with vehemence) on what at least one party considers a critical matter even within given membership groups. I do not observe the universal "these people think this way, but those people think that way" separation that you seem to want to find. — Lomn 14:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

So, does that mean that the only way to be like them is to attend all their worship services and absorb all their teachings? Sneazy (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Be like who? --Jayron32 16:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Be like the Evangelical Christians or a subset of the Evangelical Christians? Sneazy (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are saying "To be considered the member of a group, does one have to do what the group does and be accepted by it" the answer is yes, but this is uninterestingly true of any group, whether it's skateboarder culture, the communist party, Oprah's book club, etc. Evangelical Christians are a large group, and you'll find many people who self-identify as "Evangelical" that hold a wide variety of theological, political, and social attitudes and beliefs on any number of subjects. --Jayron32 17:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think, from a UK centric point of view, what separates Evangelicals from other more mainstream forms of Christianity is the "accepting Jesus Christ as your own personal saviour" idea, involving a public commitment to Christianity together with an altered lifestyle - by that I mean, different to the life you lived before. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I misspent part of my youth as an evangelical Christian in Northern Ireland, and aside from the idea of accepting Jesus as your personal saviour and becoming a "new creation", the big ideas were having a "personal relationship with God" (praying and studying the Bible on your own and in your own way, within certain limits), being "baptised in the Spirit" (a second event, distinct from the initial conversion, where the Holy Spirit would come upon you and give you the ability to prophesy or speak in tongues), and "spiritual warfare" (the idea that we were, metaphorically at least, footsoldiers in a cosmic war between God and the devil). Aside from attending church services on Sunday, we would have midweek meetings of small groups in each others houses, where we would pray, study the Bible, discuss issues, and sing (which was a great help for me in learning to play the guitar). Outside of a church setting, we were expected to be clean-living - no drinking, smoking, swearing or pre-marital sex (although there were obviously breaches), and generally trying to be a good example of a Christian so that others could see our commitment. Despite the "evangelical" title, we didn't do much actual evangelism that I remember. It was mostly about the intensity of the spiritual/emotional experience. Most of us joined from other, more traditional churches, and stayed for the music (worship was accompanied by a band, with guitars and drums and so on, and was much more exciting to a teenager than boring old hymns to the organ) and the attractive members of the opposite sex who hugged freely, at least when you were new. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re behavior changes: As an American observer, I usually don't see that much difference in the lifestyle these days, except that they choose more establishment-approved religiously-themed entertainment, including concerts on Sundays at establishments called churches (some of which lack religious symbols and have their own cafes). If there is a lifestyle change, it is more concerned with being more dignified (avoiding drugs, drunkenness, lots of sex and/or pornography), than with trying to help the poor or disenfranchised. See the lyrics to Everybody Wants to Go to Heaven, particularly the stanza "I said, "Preacher maybe you didn’t see me / Throw an extra twenty in the plate / There’s one for everything I did last night / And one to get me through today," which barely anyone properly went Martin Luther over. Granted, the song is more representative of Moralistic therapeutic deism, but I've only found mainline Christians who are offended.

More to the general point: In the past couple of decades, there's been an increased two-way exchange between American evangelical subculture and mainstream secular subculture (in part because of the vocal nature of evangelical Christianity), but go back to the 80s or earlier, and it was a bit different. That said, there are still some extreme fringes out there who demonstrate a few classic (though no longer held to) evangelical beliefs. Many Evangelical Christians used to (and some older Evangelicals still) believe:

• Hollywood movies are spreading immorality (when my mom was being raised by her Baptist minister father and equally pious mother, she was actually taught to be offended when someone compared her with a then famous movie star; and to this day it's pretty hard to get my granddad to watch movies made after the 1960s)
• playing cards are immoral because they lead to gambling or even divination (my mom would have her cards for solitaire and go-fish taken away because of this)
• rock music was a tool of the devil (mostly mitigated by the Christian rock industry, though Chick Publications still maintains that rock is evil)
• fantasy entertainment leads to devil worship or at skepticism (mitigated somewhat by the revived popularity of Lewis's Narnia series, though a few of the same individuals going to see that will condemn Harry Potter in the same breath)
• Catholicism and Seventh Day Adventism are heretical, if the form is not outright occult or even pagan or Satanic (thankfully less common, though the remaining individuals who still adhere to it are more stubborn and blind than they used to be)
• most jewelry (except maybe a simple necklace, wedding ring, and perhaps a single bracelet) was un-Christian vanity, if not actually occult
• there are Satanists hiding in every city who sacrifice animals or even people to Satan, using drugs for magical purposes and to lure people into their activities
• alcohol, not merely drunkenness, but all alcohol consumption is immoral (my grandfather still has never tried it, thinks my mom gave it up years ago, and would probably not believe that I can down a bottle of moscato and still be sober enough to work at certain retail chains)
• only the King James Bible is uncorrupted
• Halloween is a pagan or even Satanic holiday, instead of a Christian attempt to take over Samhain.

Some things that are still common or at least not rare in American evangelicalism:

• the end of the world is going to happen soon, and often that the rapture is going to happen sooner.
• Freemasonry is heretical, occult, atheistic, pagan, or Satanic (my granddad is still a bit uncomfortable with anyone joining them, even though his father-in-law, a man whose faith he cannot impugn or criticize, had a rather good relationship with Jesus as the Great Architect of the Universe)
• universalism totally undermines Christianity (still common, though Billy Graham has made some rather universalist statements)
• evolution is false (perhaps more common now than it used to be, my Young Earth Creationist Baptist minister grandfather didn't have much of a problem when my mom came to accept evolution via Old Earth Creationism)
• homosexuality is sinful (still quite common)
• abortion is murder (still quite common)
• any religion besides Christianity or Judaism is a cult (the list is a little longer, but this attitude can still be found among some Evangelicals)

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Holy Sonnet 10

Besides the version we have for Donne's Holy Sonnet #10, what other versions exist for the punctuation? When I memorised it some years ago, I'm pretty sure my text didn't use the punctuation given here; I didn't have the trouble that I'm now having with parsing lines five and six:

From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow,

"From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be, much pleasure" isn't a complete thought, but I'm pretty sure my previous text didn't have that problem. Perhaps people have updated the punctuation along with the spelling? I memorised it with what was apparently the original spelling, e.g. "And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell". The text is all over Google, of course, but most appearances are people's blogs or other pages that are definitely nowhere near being authoritative witnesses. 2001:18E8:2:1020:3515:C2E4:3225:AAF4 (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be, much pleasure" is indeed a complete thought -- tersely expressed. A less poetic translation would be from rest and sleep, which are only imitations of death, one obtains a great deal of pleasure. Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking further, the original edition of the poem is apparently not available online, but an edition from 1719 uses the same punctuation as our article. Looie496 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Books recommendations for internalizing what you learn

There's plenty of books about self-improvement: how to improve studying efficiency, motivation, social skills, health habits and what not. But implementing it is a whole different matter. Most of what you learn is forgotten or insufficiently internalized to implement at the moment of truth (for instance, it's not easy to control yourself when you're angry). I have only managed to find a few tips on the subjects ("summarize", "put into practice", etc.). Can you please recommend a comprehensive guide, preferably a book?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.248.221 (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Start with How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the article "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

—Wavelength (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this book is what I'm looking for. How to Win Friends and Influence People teaches social skills, and I wanted to learn how to effectively internalize what it, and many other self-help books, teach. 84.109.248.221 (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth considering whether any book will have your answers, or whether trying to remember someone else's "rules" for life might be distracting you from life itself. It's not a book, but this may be something you'd like to mull over. It's a bit crude and irreverent, but Penn and Teller are among the foremost experts on bullshit in general. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hussein bin Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan

If his father died, would he become the youngest World leader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelebrity One (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the youngest head of state is Kim Jong-Un who is ~30 (his actual birthday is unverified). So yes, if the King of Jordan died, the Crown Prince, who is 19, would become the youngest current head of state. uhhlive (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that supports these statements? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not Uhhlive, but here are two :

• Kim is youngest, at 30 : TIME magazine, April 18, 2013. "North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un is the world’s youngest head of state".
• Hussein bin Abdullah’s age (he actually turned 19 today): Embassy of Jordan to the US, "Born in Amman on 19Muharram 1415H, 28 June 1994AD". 184.147.144.173 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We have a Lists of state leaders which includes both (combined) heads of government and heads of state. Kim is still the youngest current. List of youngest state leaders since 1900 includes more info on recent historic leaders. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Books written by pioneers of Industrial Revolution

Want to know some examples of books written by pioneers of Industrial Revolution and earliest examples of textbooks in Mechanical Engineering. Additional question:

• Twelve Books That Changed the World lists Patent Specification for Arkwright’s Spinning Machine (1769) written by Richard Arkwright. Was it a book or just a document as described in here. If it is a book will appreciate relevant info. The Legend of Zorro 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You could check the people listed at List of mechanical engineers. For example, here are some books by Charles Babbage and here's a book by Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Childbirth Changed

How has childbirth changed from what it was from beginning of time until doctors/hospitals come along, going into the future until end of time? How can it be changed, if at all?

Think thats it for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Natural childbirth gives you some ideas of what has happened historically, but it's a very culturally loaded question and Category:Childbirth would be well worth exploring.

However, we cannot know what will happen in the future - not even next year, let alone at the "end of time". As for your final question, that would be speculation, which we don't do here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you give us more detail around what you want this information for? StewieCartman (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"In the year 6565 / Won't need no husbands / Won't need no wives / You'll pick your sons, pick your daughters too / From the bottom of a long glass tube." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: The above comment relates to the song "In the Year 2525". Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bugs, we all know that Zager and Eger Evans were about 4k years off on that estimate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Note: he means Zager and Evans. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Yes, I did. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If so, the issue is the biological process of human reproduction, rather than childbirth. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

What the OP's really asking about is unclear. He needs to clarify that for us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

At the beginning of time, nobody actually existed. When humans started to populate this planet about 13 billion years later, the infant mortality rate was higher than it is now. After we invented doctors and hospitals and got into the 20th Century, many developed countries experienced a drop in the infant mortality rate. In the future, it is hoped that we can drop it even further, as well as in developing countries. At the end of time, nobody will actually exist, just like at the beginning. I hope this answers your question. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation required on "At the end of time, nobody will actually exist". Maybe we'll just keep on continuing as a species into the far, far, far distant future, and then, one day, without warning and for reasons nobody would ever understand, time will run out. All the clocks will stop, and everybody alive at that moment will live forever without ever getting any older. There will be no crime, because people will have eternal patience, and any period of imprisonment will have ceased to have any meaning. Not to mention legislative terms, so politics and government would also be out the window. I can hardly wait. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

And we'll discover that God's real name is Wickwire. Or possibly McNulty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything has an end, Jack, except the sausage, which has two. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Will the universe ever end? And if so, what will happen to all the matter? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• No matter, Jack. No matter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

For a serious citation, see heat death of the universe. --50.125.164.47 (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)