Humanities desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 18[edit]

Arabic language in Israel[edit]

When was the last time that a Arab-Israeli knesset member ever spoke Arabic on the podium? I only think that Arabic was the official language of Israel because of the Arab-speaking Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews, Arabs-Bedouin, Christians and Muslims in urban areas and because of Palestinians in the occupied territories of West Bank and Golan Heights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.121 (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's the most recent, but one recent occasion was Taleb el-Sana in July, 2012 (see Ynet's article) ---Sluzzelin talk 01:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic has been an official language of Israel since the beginning (almost 20 years before 1967)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And is it de facto at the same level of Hebrew? OsmanRF34 (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only about 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, among other factors, so the uses of the two languages are not fully parallel, but Arabs can have their children educated in Arabic-language medium-of-instruction public schools, interact with local governments (in the areas where most of them live) in Arabic, and watch channel 33... AnonMoos (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An expanded overview: almost all of Israel's residential communities are either Arab or Jewish, and the public school system is segregated by language of instruction (and among Jews, by religious stream). Hebrew and English language are mandatory subjects in all Arab and Jewish schools, while the Arabic language (literary, not spoken) is taught for a few years in Jewish secondary schools if at all. Hospitals advise non-Hebrew-speaking patients to provide their own interpreters. Courts of law conduct sessions in Hebrew and (possibly? - need to check this) are obligated to provide interpreters for Arabic speakers, though there are no regulations or certification for interpreters to assure the quality of their services. The page on Languages of Israel has an interwiki link to a more comprehensive and focused page in the Hebrew Wikipedia, "Language policy in the State of Israel," which has Featured Article status there. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC) -- (then redacted to qualify a few points at 12:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Black majority cities in US[edit]

According to Mike Duggan article, he became the first white mayor of the majority-black city (meaning Detroit). I am just curious. How many cities are black majority in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.121 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anyone has done a count, and the number is constantly changing with the population statistics, but the number is surely in the hundreds. Marco polo (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our list says 19 cities over 100,000 population with a black majority. Rmhermen (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see Martin O'Malley in Baltimore which had a black majority when he was mayor. Rmhermen (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are the 19 cities with black majority?

Ballots in Crimea[edit]

When watching news about the 2014 referendum in Crimea, I realized that the ballot boxes are transparent and the ballot papers are just folded or even not, so often an observer could spy the vote of a person. In other parts of the world, the boxes are opaque or the ballot papers are in envelopes. What was the usual practice in Ukraine or Russia? Don't Crimeans find it odd? --Error (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is not uncommon in that region. Here are photos of transparent Ukrainian ballot boxes,[1][2] a Russian one,[3] and just for good measure a Kyrgyz one.[4] Maybe a leftover from the days when there was only one party to vote for? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As our article mentions, transparent or clear ballot boxes are intended to reduce the possibility of fraud. Most countries who use them also provide for secret ballots, which was supposed to have been provided for in Crimea [5].

Using an envelope like in France who also apparently use clear boxes in some cases, has minimal additional risk (in such systems if the envelope has two papers it's usually a spoilt vote so there needs to be further fraud during the counting). So I'm not sure why it's not done although it does add additional cost, and complexity for the counter. (Perhaps not the voter since they need to make sure they fold for a secret ballot without an envelope, so both systems have their own complexity.)

Translucent boxes are an alternative, making it more difficult to see anyone's vote but sufficient visibility to make ballot stuffing (whether at the beginning or later on) or other dodgy business difficult.

Either way though, it depends on the perceived risk from a folded ballot. If a person didn't fold their ballot than I don't think that's really a risk any more than a person holding up their ballot for all to see which I'm pretty sure is allowed in many places. (The only risk to any of these is if it becomes seen as wrong to take advantage of the secret ballot guarantees.)

Not to mention with high resolution recording allowed in some places, I imagine if the person doesn't fold their ballot before they leave the polling booth, they may have to be very careful to not expose it unintentionally even without a transparent box.

BTW from what I can tell from our article, Haiti is another one with a transparent box and no envelope.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW in a number of countries like NZ and the UK with numbered ballots, there's much more potentially for secrecy violation. In other words, as with most things relating to elections, it depends a lot on how much you trust those in charge [6]. Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot box says: "Transparent ballot boxes may be used in order for people to be able to witness that the box is empty prior to the start of the election (i.e. not stuffed with fraudulent votes)." There are of course many other ways to manipulate elections. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. --Error (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Bible Verse[edit]

I am looking for a bible verse that says something like the following: Answering a question on when a woman goes to heaven who has married twice or more, Which husband is she married to in heaven. I think the answer given is something like, "neither as you will be a spirit being in heaven and any relationships like spouse, children will not be the same in heaven" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.222.102 (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a story where the Sadducees were asking Jesus about the resurrection, found in each of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. The passages are Matthew 22:23-30, Mark 12:18-25 and Luke 20:27-36. Here is the version of Matthew 22 from the NIV:

"²³That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. ²⁴“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. ²⁵Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. ²⁶The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. ²⁷Finally, the woman died. ²⁸Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” ²⁹Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. ³⁰At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." - Lindert (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of Crimean annexation on disarmament treaties[edit]

According to the background I've seen in news reports, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for guarantees of its territorial integrity. Russian annexation of Crimea therefore seems to be a direct breach of a disarmament treaty, and one can't help but wonder if Putin's peculiar faux legalism reflects the standards by which they count, say, the size of their nuclear arsenal. Which leads me to wonder:

1) Are the most recent disarmament treaties affected by a lack of trust? Are "verifiable" aspects considered to be truly verifiable, regardless of the status of relations? Does everyone already cheat on the non-verifiable aspects to the maximum degree possible?

2) If the U.S. cancelled one or more disarmament treaties, how much would it cost? Does the U.S. have the industrial capacity to rebuild the nuclear weapons?

3) Yet the market has seemed to react favorably to the Crimean annexation. It makes me wonder if they know something we don't. For example, can we rule out (or find evidence for) a secret treaty or annex that has already specified exactly how much of Ukraine the U.S. is willing to see Russia take, so that the annexation is not seen as a breach at all?

Wnt (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I added numbers for ease of response.)

2) There really isn't a need for more nukes, as the US only mothballed obsolete nukes, and kept all the good ones. And the US can produce replacement nukes as needed.

3) The market doesn't much care who owns Crimea, as long as there is no war or crippling sanctions. Thus, an orderly succession process is seen as a good thing, even if not quite legal. StuRat (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At point 3), at Putin made it very clear in his speech that he doesn't want to incorporate any parts of Ukraine into Russia, that only Crimea was an execeptional case. This may have reassured the markets that a huge conflict some feared may break out isn't going to materialize. Count Iblis (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he also insists that no Russian troops were deployed to Crimea as a result of the crisis, and that appears to have been an outright lie. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they weren't wearing insignia then under the conventions they were unlawful combatants and their nationality is irrelevant. Arguably. —Tamfang (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The memorandum is a legal agreement but it is not a treaty, and thus the various considerations surrounding treaties that you're asking about don't apply to it. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, this is not a treaty. The USSR sanctioned the reunification of East and West Germany after receiving the similar guarantees from the NATO that the alliance would never expand eastwards. Such guarantees tend to be forgotten when it suits a national interest. Another quote from Putin's yesterday speech: "Let me remind you that in the course of political consultations on the unification of East and West Germany, some nations that were then and are now Germany’s allies did not support the idea of unification. Our nation, however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity". This parallel is also obvious to Mikhail Gorbachev who hails the reunification of Russia as a "happy event".[7] The joy that they now feel in Crimea is a once in a lifetime experience. Many Russians rush to the peninsula to experience it for themselves. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One can only note the inconsistency between Putin's extreme resistance to any part of his country (e.g. Chechnya) desiring independence, and his enthusiastic acceptance of a part (Crimea) of another country (Ukraine) illegally declaring itself independent and wishing to join Russia. Annexation of the Sudetenland Mark II. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putin has explicitly recalled the precedent of the Hague (?) tribunal allowing the independence of Kosovo against the Russian position. And Cristina Fernández has noticed an inconsistency between the West accepting the 2013 Falklands referendum and rejecting the Crimean one. Putin has also claimed that the Ukrainian independence was illegal. He also claims that the current government in Kiev is the product of a coup. It seems that rule of law has lost a lot of prestige lately. --Error (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much resemblance between Slobodan Milosevic's administration of Kosovo and Ukraine's administration of Crimea except in phoney feverish Russian propaganda. And the Falklands have been continuously administered by Britain since 1833, except for two months in 1982, so there's not too much resemblance to Crimea there either. The supposed "anticolonialism" which disregards the expressed will of the majority of the inhabitants (Falklands, Gibraltar) is a slightly strange phenomenon... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both the United States and the Ukraine emerged as independent states through secession, exactly in the same manner as the Republic of Crimea has done. That's what Putin said yesterday: "They say we are violating norms of international law. Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never. Secondly, and most importantly – what exactly are we violating? As it declared independence and decided to hold a referendum, the Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter, which speaks of the right of nations to self-determination. Incidentally, I would like to remind you that when Ukraine seceded from the USSR it did exactly the same thing, almost word for word. Ukraine used this right, yet the residents of Crimea are denied it. Why is that? Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent – a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why. We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism."[8] --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The core of the issue really is that by saying that some action is justified "because it's a special case" one reserves the exclusive right for similar unilateral actions. Basically, it's the West saying that they are the World's boss and nothing important can be allowed to happen in the World unless they agree with it (which they can do on an ad hoc basis). And this is really that drives the dispute between the West and Russia on these sort of issues. The discussions about the details are not so relevant. One may indeed find flaws in the way the referendum was organized, but the bigger picture is that the West would never have agreed to Crimea becoming part of Russia and because the West has more strings to pull than Russia, Russia's hand was forced on this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo -- Ukraine seceded from the USSR under the provisions of the 1977 Soviet Constitution which specifically permitted such secession. There is no corresponding provision in the Ukrainian constitution allowing Crimea to secede. And Kosovo was the subject of special intervention only after it had been conclusively empirically proven over ten years that the Slobodan Milosevic regime was completely incapable of ruling over Kosovo Albanians in a remotely just manner, and as Milosevic was on the verge of expelling hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanian citizens of Yugoslavia to Albania and Macedonia. There is no valid parallel with the status of ethnic Russians in Crimea over the past ten years. Declarations of independence which lead to independence are a very different thing than being annexed by military force by a neighboring power, and I don't see what the two things have in common. An attempted analogy between the United States War of Independence and Crimea over the past month would be rather bizarre, since Americans achieved independence basically through their own efforts (with significant foreign intervention only in the last year of a five or six-year war), and were not annexed to any neighboring non-British power. And it would be better for you not to mention the Crimean Tatars, since all indications are that the vast majority of them don't want to come under Russian rule. AnonMoos (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting a bit sidetracked, but that's OK because I'm curious about these issues also. It seems to me ridiculous that the U.S. is making such a big deal about Crimea seceding when (a) they never got a plebiscite to decide if they wanted to leave Russia, b) they never seemed to want to leave Russia, c) they mostly chose Russian citizenship, d) nobody is even claiming the plebiscite wouldn't have favored secession in any case, and e) nobody in the U.S. or Europe is willing to do anything meaningful about it. It seems to me that if they'd known this from the start, the smart thing to do would have been to just schedule the referendum and agree to abide by the answer, with international observers and a well chosen wording. The thing is, they still could do that in Eastern Ukraine, where the vote might go their way - it seems like they'd be a lot better off doing that then waiting for gunmen and troops to work out the details. Give every province that was handed over by Khrushchev a straight up or down vote, see where the dice land. The only things that seem scandalous about the invasion are a) the denial of human rights throughout Russia, including Crimean media censorship and book burnings (and I don't understand why those haven't alienated the Russian residents. Does the possibility of maybe being able to beat up a gay guy sometime in your life really make up for losing your freedom??) and b) the "political agreement" with the U.S. I don't really understand why that doesn't count the same way as an arms treaty would, but admittedly the article seems to say that it is something lesser just as was said here. Wnt (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some Ukrainian politician has called for Ukraine regaining nuclear weapons. From memory, Ukraine gave the local Soviet nukes to Russia in exchange for border stability. However, I don't know how relevant that politician was or whether Ukraine has the capability to rearm itself. --Error (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As regards economy and statehood, the Ukraine is a basket case. The country lives on remittances sent from abroad, either from the EU (in the case of Western Ukraine) or from Russia (in the case of the Russophone regions). --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghirlandajo: I was hoping someone more knowledgeable would refute that, but just look at Economy of Ukraine. The country has a $330 billion GDP, including $70 billion in exports. Its total external debt is $140 billion according to www.tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/external-debt (blacklisted site for some reason) and its total central government debt as a percentage of GDP was 27%. [9] (Compare to 78% for the U.S.) So your statement about living on remittances from abroad seems completely unjustified and inappropriate, especially compared to other countries. Wnt (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sephardic majority cities in israel[edit]

According to this article, http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Analysis-Shas-dealt-a-blow-in-Israel-municipal-elections-329567, it says that El'ad is a Sephardic majority city. How many cities are there that are Sephardic majority, in Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.121 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the population and demographics information available from the Israeli census, see the first External link under Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, the CBS official website in English, and read the material on the link "Definitions, Classifications, and Explanations." You'll see that there's no census parameter for "classifications" Sephardi, Ashkenazi, and Mizrachi. Deborahjay (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were there really twelve disciples of Jesus?[edit]

Did Jesus really have twelve disciples? What about Mary Magdalene or Mary, the mother of Jesus or Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha? And why do people believe that the disciples lived decades after his death? How old were they at the time of Jesus' death, and how long did the average man live during that time? 140.254.227.101 (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to all indications, Jesus died in his 30s. In ancient times, there was a much higher rate of infant mortality than in developed countries today, but if you made it to adulthood, then you had a reasonable life expectancy, and in favorable circumstances people could live just as long as they do today. So there's nothing problematic in the belief that followers of Jesus while he was alive could live decades after his death... AnonMoos (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 12 disciples, different gospels enumerate them to 12 and name the disciples. Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:14-19, and Luke 6:13-16 . The only small snag is of course that the different gospels did not give exactly the same names. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke 10 mentions 70 missionaries appointed on a specific occasion... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Seventy disciples. Paul B (talk)

The reference to twelve disciples does not mean he only had twelve followers and no more. The number is usually understood to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. Paul B (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be interesting to note, in addition to the comments above, that there's a passing mention of the twelve apostles in Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:5), which many scholars today would date earlier than any of the four gospels (ca. 55 AD), and which was definitely written by a contemporary of Jesus. - Lindert (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that passage also implies that the "twelve" were the inner-circle of his followers, but only a small proportion of the whole, according Paul: "he appeared to Cephas [St. Peter], then to the twelve. Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James [i.e his brother], then to all the apostles". Paul B (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 apostles are generally taken to be Jesus's inner circle, those who were his primary assistants in his ministry as he went from place to place preaching and performing miracles. They were not the totality of his followers. There would have been a retinue of people who followed him around just to hear him preach; there would have been other people who became believers and stayed put where they lived, they were all "disciples" of some sort. The 12 were set apart as his direct lieutenants, if you will. The twelve are treated as a specific organizing principle, so much so that when Judas Iscariot is cast out, he's replaced by Saint Matthias to keep the number at 12. However, even within the twelve, there's a heirarchy; the "inner-inner circle" includes disciples as outlined in the Calling of the Four, being the two sets of brothers: Simon Peter and Andrew, James and John (the sons of Zebedee). Simon Peter would be Jesus's designated successor as leader of the church. Jesus takes only Simon Peter, James and John to witness the Transfiguration, and the four are named specifically more than any of the other twelve as being either involved directly in Jesus's ministry, or with whom Jesus consults with or asks for special tasks, and had prominent roles in the Church after his passing. Simon Peter is traditionally named as the first Pope, while Andrew is traditionally named as the first Patriarch of Constantinople, perhaps both semi-legendarily, but also largely because of the prominent role each played in the early church. John has more books of the bible traditionally attributed to him than anyone except Paul. --Jayron32 17:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sweden norway denmark elections map results which gave most votes to which parties[edit]

Which counties or municipalities in Sweden gave most votes to sweden democrats in the previous elections? Which counties or municipalities in Denmark gave most votes to danish peoples party in the previous elections? Which counties or municipalities in Norway gave most votes to progress party in the previous elections? Are there maps to show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.121 (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want parliamentary elections or just whichever type of election was most recent? [10] gives percentages for Denmark in the previous (2011) parliamentary elections, but there were local elections in 2013. In the Region dropdown box you can select "Opstillingskredse" (constituencies) which is not municipalities but reminds of it. The columns are sortable when you click the heading. Danish People's Party is DF. The website also has election data for Sweden and Norway. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]