Humanities desk
< July 25	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 27 >

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

July 26[edit]

Jews and Christians[edit]

If Jesus Christ was Jew, then why there is so much hatred between Jews and Christians? -- 07:17, 26 July 2019 Rocketracoon456789

Read Antisemitism and the New Testament. "James D. G. Dunn argues that the various New Testament expressions of anger and hurt by a minority puzzled by the refusal of a majority to accept their claims about Jesus the Jew reflect inner tensions between Jewish communities not yet unified by rabbinical Judaism, and a Christianity not yet detached from Judaism."

Christianity is thought to derive from a Jewish apocalyptic sect, whose claims were rejected by the other Jews as heretical. The New Testament includes various Antisemitic stereotypes to reflect Christian resentment over this rejection. Which later fueled Antisemitism in states and cultures dominated by Christians. Dimadick (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Start here: Antisemitism#History. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Martin Luther's life for this syndrome in its full development -- he made appeals toward several groups to bring them under the umbrella of his reforms, but if any group rejected his leadership, then he wrote a ranting and raving hate-filled diatribe denouncing them at great length (not only Jews, but revolting peasants, etc.). The odium theologicum in the text of the New Testament itself is fortunately somewhat limited (mainly a few passages in the Gospel of John). AnonMoos (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is a troll and his que!stion should have been deleted on sight. It's unfortunate that it received good faith replies before I was able to see it and delete it, but we are where we are. --Viennese Waltz 11:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever became of the edit filter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trollery or not, refencing the historical reasons for racism (or any manifestation of individual supremacy) must be a valid aim of this reference desk. If references sprinkle doubt upon the preconceived opinions of some this is constructive. Pretending that racism does not exist (delete > invisible) is not. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, all's well that ends well (could've started much worse, too, by troll standards). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that the best way to deal with trolls here on the ref desks is to simply point them to an article or source without further comment. They quickly get bored and go away if we don’t give them the outraged reaction they expect. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Alansplodge (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's what I call playing a straight bat. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could try engaging them in discussion, such as asking them a simple question, for example, "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's rich, coming from the Trollfinder-General. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That torch has kind of been passed to a new generation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a potential troll a question only speeds up the process of discovering if they are trolling or not. Trolls generally do not weigh in again for the duration of the discussion. Bus stop (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's precisely the point, and the strategy. Although, sometimes apparent good-faith OP's don't come back and answer questions raised. So be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we worry too much about whether a particular question comes from a troll? I mean yeah, fuck trolls, but even if this particular question is tuned to be provocative, it's also a pretty good one--and the refdesk is a source that'll never 404 and it might turn up high in google results about a particular question.

Have Christians been shitty to Jews? They have, and a lot. I won't get into it--I'm not an expert.

The question as worded seems mostly about the first century or whatever. There was a lot of contention among all parties. What survives, and has had strong influence in antisemitic thought, is mostly the stuff that's in the canon. The antisemitic stuff is prominent there because antisemitism was pretty much the same as pro-Roman in that political context. anti-Roman speech could get you killed.

This is a very large topic and I'd like to go on, but it's all too much. Temerarius (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands[edit]

I'm starting to wonder if the Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands ever existed. Our page says it existed from 1853 to July 1863, when it, along with Stikeen Territory, was added to British Columbia. However:

I have found no act or order-in-council proclaiming a Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands;
The act forming British Columbia in 1858 states that it "shall include Queen Charlotte's Island";
Literally the only official-sounding reference I can find to this colony is [1], dated 1853, which contains a proclamation from "James Douglas, Governor of Vancouver's Island, and Lieutenant-Governor of Queen Charlotte's Island and its Dependencies".

Do we have any hard, first-party documentation that this colony existed? Or was it just a part of Vancouver until 1858 (and not, as our article says, 1863) when it was explicitly added to British Columbia? --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(By "part of Vancouver", Golbez of course means "part of Vancouver Island". The city of Vancouver didn't exist until the 1880s. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, yeah, I've been knee-deep in this in working on an extension of Territorial evolution of Canada. --Golbez (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page 95 of the external link from the WP article you linked quotes Douglas as saying in his 1853 proclamation: All mines of gold, and all gold in its natural place of deposit within the colony of Queen Charlotte's Island,... Loraof (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible this was a colony proclaimed unilaterally by Douglas? And even if it was, why do we say it existed until 1863, when it was clearly included in British Columbia in 1858? It's very mysterious. --Golbez (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[2] page 50: "..on July 29, 1852, a commission was issued to James Douglas as Lieutenant-Governor of Queen Charlotte Island." Still nothing about being a separate colony, though... --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from our Lieutenant governor article (in the case of New Zealand), that an officer of that rank could be the head of a dependency of a Crown Colony. Otherwise, a lieutenant governor is the deputy of a governor or governor general. Alansplodge (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jury damage award[edit]

I frequently see news stories like "jury awards $8 gazillion damages to plaintiff so-and-so". Then a while later there's another story, "judge decreases $8 gazillion award to 0.03 gazillion". Recent example: [3]. My question: if the judge is going to unilaterally set the damages anyway, what is the purpose of having the jury set a number? Can the judge increase the damages too, or just decrease them? Decrease happens all the time, which makes the initial jury award just look like theater rather than a legal decision. Question about increase is inspired somewhat by Ross Ulbricht sentencing affected by dropped murder-for-hire charge Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that "happens all the time" is a mistake for "is reported in the news media whenever it happens". Curiously, I don't see any mention of "news" or "reported" in the article list of fallacies. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Why Judges, Not Juries, Should Set Punitive Damages. Alansplodge (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So as to prevent punitive damages from actually being punitive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]