Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 9

Nootka Crisis

So I've read through the Nootka Crisis article and I understand it, but it leads me to a broader question. How relevant was the Pacific Northwest at the time, internationally? Was the Nootka Crisis really well known at the time be the general population of England, Spain, or even the US, who also apparently has stakes in the area (insofar as the general population has any knowledge of international events)? Mingmingla (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The US didn't exist at the buildup to the crisis, and had the Revolutionary War to worry about during much of that period, then the formation of a new government. So, what was happening clear on the opposite side of the continent wouldn't have been much of a concern, except perhaps for it's potential to draw British forces away. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Pacific Northwest was very relevant at the time, in terms of international politics in Europe or the brand new United States. There is a story (can't find a ref quickly offhand) that when the British Prime Minister, William Pitt, learned of the crisis at Nootka, he had no idea where this "Nootka" was. Being from the Pacific Northwest and interested in its early history, I've read a lot on this topic, and it seems to me that most people in Europe (and the US, such as it was at the time) had little to no knowledge of the Pacific Northwest, with a few exceptions. The region was of strategic interest to the Spanish and Russian Empires. The Spanish king and the Russian czar had many other things to worry about, and the details of expanding imperial control over the PNW was largely left to the Viceroy of New Spain and the Russian fur trading companies (later the Russian companies would be put under direct imperial control, but were not at the time of the Nootka Crisis). British and American (US) interest was mostly restricted to a small group of merchants interested in tapping the fur trade opportunities, word of which had spread only a few years earlier. Before the Nootka Crisis the Pacific Northwest was little known or cared about by most people. Except that the PNW was still believed to potentially have a Northwest Passage—an ocean link between the north Pacific and the Atlantic (perhaps by way of Hudson Bay). Even after the crisis a number of serious naval expeditions were sent to the region to search for such a passage. Spain and Britain were particularly interested in determining whether such a passage existed. If it did, it would be of tremendous strategic importance and both Britain and Spain were very eager to find it first, even as the possibility of its existence grew smaller and smaller.

News about the Spanish-British clash at Nootka Sound reached Europe in 1790 and sparked a major war mobilization. In England at least the event certainly became well known and used as a rallying cry for a general war with Spain. The whole thing was resolved peacefully and soon overshadowed by the Napoleonic Wars, but for a brief time the Nootka Crisis was common knowledge in England. I'm not sure what the average Spaniard knew or thought about it, although people must have known it had something to do with the impending war with England, I would think. In the US it was probably not widely known or cared about, except among the sea trade oriented companies of New England, New York, Philadelphia, etc. The emerging "North West Trade", and its links to the China Trade, was one of the few economically positive things during the general depression following the Revolutionary War. And the fact that Britain and Spain were caught up in war mongering made it easier for the Americans to take over the trading opportunities on the Pacific Northwest coast. Still, it was probably little known or cared about by Americans outside the sea trading companies. It was, however, of interest to the US government, especially people like Thomas Jefferson. The American takeover of the Northwest coast trade after the Nootka Crisis, along with things like Robert Gray's "discovery" of the Columbia River, laid the foundation for American claims to the Pacific Northwest and work to further those claims, such as the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

The Nootka Crisis and its resolution also became an important milestone in the international laws regarding imperial claims, and thus was known to people interested in such things. In short, it put an end to the notion that an imperial power could claim land simply de jure or "by prior discovery" (as Spain's claims to the Pacific Northwest were largely based on); rather, de jure claims had to be backed up with de facto settlements, land purchases, actual occupation, etc. Having lost the stand-off over the Nootka Crisis, Spain was forced to abandon its claims of the entire coast north to Alaska, ultimately accepting a boundary not too far north of its northernmost de facto occupation at San Francisco (actually Spain made a pretty good deal with the US, getting the boundary set at 42 degrees north, quite a bit north of San Francisco—in exchange for losses elsewhere). If I understand right, the Nootka Crisis was fairly well known in England not just as an excuse for war with Spain, but for its role in opening up the vast territories claimed but unoccupied by Spain. The ramifications of this change in what constituted a "legal" imperial claim was quite important for not just Britain and Spain, but all imperial powers (including the US). Thus it was certainly well known to people interested in such things, but not to the general public so much. In England the Nootka Crisis was big news for a couple years, when it nearly led to war with Spain. But political changes in Europe quickly overshadowed it. Before the crisis was even fully resolved Britain and Spain had become allies

Finally, the events at Nootka were important to the subjects of British North America (ie, Canada), to the point where Nootka Sound was incorporated into Canada's unofficial anthem, The Maple Leaf Forever. Pfly (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In my A Level history course in the 1970s, which covered British and European history from 1750 to 1950, the Nootka Crisis wasn't mentioned at all (in fact I had never heard of it until a couple of minutes ago). We covered many seemingly inconsequential colonial disputes, such as the War of Jenkin's Ear, the Dispoilation of the Begums of Oudh and the Don Pacifico Affair, but not Nootka. If it was well known then, it seems to be almost entirely forgotten now. Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Embalming heads of state for display

So apparently Venezuela's gonna put Hugo Chavez's body on display for eternity, just like Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Ferdinand Marcos and the Kims of North Korea. However, one thing that I noticed is that, in many of the cases where the bodies of heads of state were embalmed and put on display, this was against their wishes (for example, Lenin wanted to be buried in St. Petersburg, Mao and Ho Chi Minh wanted to be cremated, while Marcos' family wants him to be buried in the National Cemetery). However, some of those who had their bodies embalmed may have wanted it (like maybe Stalin, although he was later buried, and maybe the Kims, although I'm not sure).

So this is actually a set of questions regarding a similar topic:

1. Did Hugo Chavez ever state that he wanted his body to be put on display, or what he wanted people to do with his body after his death?

2. Did Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il request that their bodies be put on display at the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun?

3. Did Stalin request to have his body be put next to Lenin?

4. In the cases of Lenin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh, why did their Communist government decide to put their bodies on display despite being against their wishes?

5. Aside from the former leader of Bulgaria (whose mausoleum was later demolished), who are other notable examples of heads of state/government whose bodies were put on display in a mausoleum?

6. Why is this practice especially common among dictatorships? Does it have anything to do with cults of personality?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

6) Yes, with the cult of personality they are revered as if they were gods. So, just like we would probably do something special with Jesus's remains, if we ever managed to find them, so do they. This also gets to item 4, where the government does it to remind people that they are the successors to a "god". Since those governments frequently don't have legitimacy by having won votes, they have to find it in other ways. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hence the interest in alleged relics connected with Jesus, and especially with the Turin Shroud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

6. No. Nothing to do with socialism. (It's a shame you conflated that with cult of personality.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm perfectly aware that not all "socialist" countries are what the west normally calls "socialist" (for example, Scandinavian countries tend to have socialist governments and yet have good standards of living). I'm even aware of the fact that North Korea is actually "Juche" and not exactly communist. What I meant to say is that the practice is especially common among "communist" states (which are actually not yet communist, only socialist). I did not mean that socialism = cult of personality (Mussolini's Italy was anti-socialist, but he had a cult of personality) In response, I've edited my original question. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. It's not easy finding universally accepted, one or two word labels for different ideologies, is it? HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

While Mussolini indeed had a cult of personality, the people eventually got wise to him, and he and his pals were shot and then hung by their heels in a public place. Unfortunately, too many Commie countries don't display such wisdom. We can probably expect Castro to be put in a glass case also, once he croaks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer question 4, i suspect it is for propaganda reasons. People like Lenin were regarded as national heroes, and by being able to do a sort of 'pilgrimage' to visit the grave of a national hero is good for morale purposes. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

And for question 2, I doubt they had much say in the matter. The administration that takes over will decide what is best for propaganda purposes in places such as North Korea, and since the final wishes of these leaders aren't usually released, I doubt we will ever know for sure. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Juan Perón kept his embalmed wife Eva at the dinner table. See Eva Perón#Final resting place. Just to add to the list. Don't cry for me Argentina, indeed. --Jayron32 05:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Catholic churches in Bavaria and their bells

What's the point of having the bells toll 24 hours a day, every quarter of an hour? Such huge noise pollution disturbs the sleep of... well, almost the entire population without sound-proof windows and walls. Are the people there OK with that? --Immerhin (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

See de:Glockengeläut for more info. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I grew up with that, London suburbs, and the sound of trains. You get used to it all and miss it when it's gone. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The original point was that before mass-production, clocks and watches were for rich people, everybody else relied on public clocks. Now it's a tradition that most people (presumably) want to continue. If you really don't like the sound of bells, you could always buy a house out of earshot. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not that loud, and usually just one chime stroke per quarter hour. As Judith said, many people like it. When I lived in Bavaria some 15 years ago, there was much resentment among the population towards city people who moved to villages and then sued the churches to stop the chimes. — Sebastian 18:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: It's not a matter of personal preference towards the beauty of the sound of the bells. It's that humans need sleep to survive and the bells significantly reduce the quality of the process. --Immerhin (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it is a matter of preference, because if enough people petitioned the town council about the issue, there are probably statutory powers available to silence the bells. The fact that this hasn't happened suggests to me that most people, as Judith and Sebastian say, have grown accustomed to, or actually rather like the bells. One person's "huge noise pollution" is another person's heritage and birthright. Alansplodge (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I rather doubt —and that is not too strong a word— that someone may end up liking not being able to sleep properly. And how can that constitute someone's "heritage and birthright" is simply beyond me. But I guess people can be stupid in many ways. --Immerhin (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Your assumption is that the bells interfere with everybody's sleep. There is ample anecdotal evidence, and I'm sure reliable evidence can be found, that generally people get used to the noises which frequently occur in their environment, so that the noises cease to affect their sleep. Indeed there is also anecdotal evidence that people's sleep can come to depend on such noises, and suffers if the noises are silenced. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

See Effects of noise from non-traffic-related ambient sources on sleep: Review of the literature of 1990-2010 "Furthermore, the national inventory study of 1998 from the Netherlands was the only study displaying small detrimental effects on sleep emitted from bell and recycling (ie bottle bank) noise." Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If you manage to develop such a huge resistance to random ringing —very hard to believe— that you are able to sleep through the constant chiming and calls to prayer or whatever rituals are being summoned, then you won't be able to be woken up by an alarm clock or a fire alarm any more, for example. --Immerhin (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that's rubbish. What happens is that you filter out the noises that you have come to expect to occur, and wake up when you hear something unexpected. I used to live next to the East Coast Main Line and became very adept at sleeping through the noise of both local and intercity trains, but the noise of track maintenance trains would keep me awake. And I never (unfortunately) slept through an alarm. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all who answered. From the answers of two people here it is pretty clear that the reason why they do this is that most people are too stupid to realize they're not sleeping properly and when they forget what a good night sleep was they think they "got used to it". --Immerhin (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeees, the stupidity of the common people, that must be it. Eeeexcellent. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Do those bells help people remember their passwords so they don't need four accounts? If so I'm all for it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgotten passwords can be quickly reset. That is what most people who forget their passwords do. Some choose a different solution, one that requires them to relinquish their very identity. Some do this multiple times, and become the Sybils of Wikipedia. Some of these people are trolls. Others are just extraordinarily forgetful, but still manage to find it within themselves to comment on others who are "too stupid to realize they're not sleeping properly". The world is full of amazing things. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I used to own a clock that chimed every quarter hour. I am a very light sleeper, everything wakes me up, but I grew to be able to sleep through it. Anybody who visited me overnight complained about the clock, but I had so gotten used to it, it never bothered me. And it didn't interfered with my waking up to the alarm clock. RNealK (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

An issue not confined to Bavaria - see Couple demand church bells are silenced at night about a couple who bought a house next to an English village church. Their "plea has not gone down well with many of her neighbours in the East Sussex village. They say the chimes are a treasured part of village life." Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Harper's foreign policy

Why has he turned Canada's foreign policy so anti-Islam and warmongering? He has just said that "Islamicism" and "Islamic terrorism" is the biggest threat facing Canada today. Is it because he's Conservative or why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.173.79 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at short-term military threats, he seems to have a point. There have been numerous terrorist attacks attempted in Canada, or from Canada to the US, by Islamic militants. In contrast, what would be their next biggest military threat ? That North Korea tries to nuke California and misses, hitting them ? Now, if you consider non-military and long-term threats, you might come up with bigger potential problems, like China dominating the Pacific. And potential threats to the rest of the world, like global warming and peak oil, may actually benefit Canada. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem to be a pretty good take on it. Canada has so few enemies that a threat doesn't have to be very big to be the biggest one. One could conceivably bring up Quebec separatism, but that seems to have been absorbed almost entirely into the political process — I haven't heard of any violence related to it in quite a long time. --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

NO. "global warming...may actually benefit Canada" is simply wrong, according to the IPCC reports, Climate_change_in_Canada, and the Arctic_Climate_Impact_Assessment. These documents cover the loss of biodiversity, negative impacts on the economy and energy use/production, and positive feedbacks to global warming. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Do those sources only look at the negatives ? I see no mention of the opening of the North-West Passage to ships year round, for example. This could be a huge boost to Northern Canada's economy, as all these ships will need support facilities. Then there's the potential for new farmland and grazing land to open up (although some of Northern Canada has poor soil). There could also be an economic benefit from Americans buying or renting summer homes there to escape the heat back home. And oil access in Northern Canada may be made easier by warmer weather there. In addition, as has happened here in Michigan, wineries may now be feasible where they weren't before. There are many other ways Canada may benefit.

As for the negatives, they will be relatively mild for Canada. They are out of range of most hurricanes, for example, so damage is minimal. As for rising sea levels, most of their major cities are inland (Toronto, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa), so not affected, with a few exceptions, like Vancouver. An increase in tornadoes in the central plains might occur, but that area is sparsely populated. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at Canada-Iran_relations, as you can see from the article Iran isn't exactly friendly to Canada nor her citizen. Plus Canada is one of U.S' closest ally and there are lot of bad history between U.S and Iran. Royor (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Our deep cover mole is doing his best to shift our involvement in a certain event south of the border. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Iran? And what can Iran possibly do to Canada, besides screaming "I don't like you!" really loudly? Islam is certainly a major threat to the Middle East, but it's simply delusional to think that Islamic terrorists pose much of a threat to Canada, where it's killed precisely 0 people. See rally 'round the flag effect. The biggest Islamic threat to Canada are the barbaric values that some Muslims bring to Canada, but Canadian Muslims are much more enlightened in this regard than those of most European countries: [1]. Since McGuinty prohibited the use of religious tribunals to settle family disputes in 2005 after someone advocated a Sharia-based tribunal, there's been very little trouble from Muslims. The occasional story of a father killing her daughter for being too Western are the extreme exception, not the rule. --140.180.243.114 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Baha'is in Iran

close trolling by indef blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I am from Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia and I was thinking of traveling to Iran. I've been learning the Persian language for a while and I'm interested in its history but I am a Baha'i and some have told me that I better stay away from Iran. How true is that? FMicronesian (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC) See "Bahá'í Faith in Iran" and "voy:Iran#People" and http://www.experttravelanswers.com. —Wavelength (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC) You should check what your NSA (National Spiritual Assembly) has to say on the matter. In Australia, the NSA has discouraged travel to Iran, for reasons that I do not know exactly. I have been told there is no danger to the traveller, but it could cause other problems (I don't know exactly what). In Australia, they certainly don't forbid it. I am not trying to tell you what to do, but merely suggesting that it would be wise to find out what your institutions have to say. Yes, it is hard learning Persian, I agree - even though I have dozens of people to practice on, well, they all speak English. You might get exactly the same in Iran, though, for all I know - everyone practising their English on you. IBE (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Iran is a dangerous place for Baha'is at the moment. I'm telling you from inside Iran. --Omidinist (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

China in the 18th century

In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrote:

"China has been long one of the richest, that is, one of the most fertile, best cultivated, most industrious, and most populous countries in the world. It seems, however, to have been long stationary. Marco Polo, who visited it more than five hundred years ago, describes its cultivation, industry, and populousness, almost in the same terms in which they are described by travellers in the present times."

"The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations of Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing boats upon the rivers and the canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries."

Is Smith's description of 18th century China accurate? Did Europe really progress, in 500 years, from being incomparably poorer than China to incomparably richer? Or is Smith just saying that inequality was far worse in China, not that China's upper ranks were also not doing well? --140.180.243.114 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Europe did have more economic growth in the 500 years previous to his book than China did. However, I also detect a bit of cultural bias in his comments. For example, living on a house boat is not inherently worse than living in a fixed structure. And eating cats and dogs is not inherently less healthy than the meats Europeans tend to eat. In his own time, the Irish were increasingly forced to subsist on mainly potatoes, which was quite unhealthy, especially when the Irish Potato Famine later hit. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

140.180.243.114 -- There's an interesting layman's introduction to late 18th-century China in the book The World in 1800 by Olivier Bernier (ISBN 0-471-30371-2). I don't know that China was so much poorer than England, but one thing that was true was that productivity-per-worker was more or less stagnant in China, while England was just starting on a period of rapidly rising productivity per worker... AnonMoos (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind regarding China in the 1700s was that it was profoundly affected by the trans-Pacific silver trade driven by central and South American silver; the trade had profound economic, cultural, and social effects on China, which is not to place a normative value on whether China was better or worse than it was during Marco Polo's life; or that China hadn't economically progressed as much as England or other parts of Europe, but it is profoundly inaccurate on Smith's part to assert that China hadn't drastically changed in those 500 years. The changes my have been different than those in Europe, but they were no less profound. The book 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created as a very well written section on how profoundly the shifting tides of the world economy affected China. I highly recommend it as a refutation of Smith's thesis. --Jayron32 20:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

These questions are discussed in detail by the economic historians Kenneth Pomeranz (The Great Divergence) and Robert Allen. Pomeranz and Allen disagree about why the industrial revolution occurred in England rather than in China, but they agree that standards of living in China were comparable to those in Britain, possibly somewhat higher. Both take the Lower Yangtze as the main point of comparison, but the Pearl River Delta was also highly developed in the 18th century. Smith didn't have access to the same data; his argument is that gross inequality impedes economic development, which is still often argued today. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The 18th century is often regarded as a fairly crucial turning point in China's economic history. Unprecedented population growth driven by trade surpluses and general prosperity was one of the factors which paved the way towards poverty once global economic climates changed around the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Have Muslims, especially jihadists, ever been sceptical of Korans given by non-Muslims?

Like the ones given to them in Guantanamo and prisons. Do they ever get to keep Korans they brought in, after them being checked for contraband probably? Do they check the ones they're given out of distrust/paranoia? How far have they gone with this? Of course they know that anyone who's memorized it will know if a Koran has been altered. And it's only the length of the New Testament, they probably know the jihadist verses very well and the text rhymes, right? They would know that potential "Koran massagers" would be very likely to be discovered causing Islamic outrage to gain only a tiny iota of moderation. Though after seeing Tea Partiers I wonder if captured Islamists all have enough logic? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll get paranoid people everywhere and I'm sure there's enough paranoid jihadists who know the Koran by heart who would spot any problems. What's the point of this question? Why would anyone want to tamper with their copies of the Koran never mind that it would be spotted pretty quickly? What made you think this was a worthwhile question to ask? Dmcq (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That last sentence could apply to the preponderance of questions asked by the OP at the reference desk. --Jayron32 00:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

And to the preponderance of questions asked by anyone, ever, about anything. I can only link to curiosity and hope some people understand. --140.180.243.114 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No, some people ask questions because they seek answers. Others ask questions merely as a pretext to stir up trouble. --Jayron32 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way -- Some Muslims think that any version of the Qur'an other than its traditional Arabic-language form is at best an informal crib, and definitely not something which is reliable or authoritative on its own. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. If anything, the late 19th /early 20th Qur'an translations into English (Marmaduke Pickthall etc.) are Islamic-favorable, smoothing over what some see as problematic verses... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I like to talk irreverent sometimes. I just want to know how much they check them before they really get down to using it. Maybe they could tell if they notice them page turning idiosyncratically and then reading normally and acting more reverant, or if they usually read/chant it aloud (I don't know) but don't at first, something like that. I don't believe Koran or care really if their copies are irregular - well I don't want bloodshed, but there won't be any as I don't believe anyone tried it. But jihadists were brainwashed to believe that the West is the devil incarnate. If I were in their shoes, they almost killed me and then they gave me a Koran I'd be suspicious as to what the heck they were doing. I might feel a bit like Soviet POWs getting Nazi-provided Communist Manifestos or Nazi POWs getting copies of Mein Kampf. Maybe they gave me a sneakily softened one only 99.93% as violent as the original, and hoped I didn't notice? Or a blatently abridged one with all the jihad verses removed? Some psychological tactic I don't understand?

AnonMoos, many can read Arabic, right? Translation wouldn't be a problem for them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If they already know Arabic, they don't have to translate. And it can be very difficult to truly capture the essence of a written work when translating it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Translation issues wouldn't be a problem cause they don't need to do it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because one is able to read a language doesn't mean one gets the same message from what's written as another person. Otherwise there wouldn't be the spectacle of one lot of Muslims chopping off peoples heads and another lot saying how peaceable and non-violent they are. Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

March 10

NDE greatest proof that there is an afterlife?

Most seculars who experienced this left their skeptic positions. I do not know if they also believe in a personal God now. Are there any recent accounts, researches, studies that affirm or deny the existence of afterlife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you're refering to the Christian religion, there is no proof outside of Scripture. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Correction. There is no proof at all. It always has been and always will be entirely a question of faith and belief - or lack thereof. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not so much a correction, as it is an addendum. Potential proof within Sripture depends on the interpretation of the refered text. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

My point is that no text, no matter how sacred it may be regarded, can be "proof" of the afterlife, if all it does is assert there is one. If one happens to believe the Scripture, then one will probably believe in the afterlife. Not believing in the Scripture doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't believe in the afterlife - or does believe, for that matter. If it's proof we're talking about - and it is (see the OP's heading) - the Scripture has no standing. Mind you, the lack of proof - and there will always be lack of proof, no matter how hard people look for it - doesn't mean there isn't an afterlife. Many people who go looking for the proof do so to prove there isn't an afterlife (the "I told you so" effect), but they'll never do this, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Many others look for a proof to prove there really is an afterlife - but they're doomed to failure too. If you want to believe in the afterlife, it's simple: just believe in it. If we had scientific proof, belief would be irrelevant. But as I said above, it's all about belief and faith. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"If we had scientific proof, belief would be irrelevant." No, if we had scientific proof, belief would be justified, as opposed to a personal fantasy. Your absence of evidence claim is fallacious--we have no evidence that goblins don't exist either, but no rational person would believe they do. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Then you have no real concept of belief or faith. Religious faith is about believing something one has been told (in sacred texts or wherever) but without any independent evidence it's any more than a fairy tale. The whole point of religious faith is that all you have to go on is what you've been told is the word of God or someone who speaks on his behalf. People are able to make distinctions between the existence of goblins and unicorns on the one hand, and matters such as the existence of God, his creation of the universe, the life and works of Jesus, the afterlife, the existence of Heaven and Hell, reincarnation, the transmigration of souls etc on the other hand. None of these have any scientific evidence, but they're still treated very differently by millions of rational people. Why do you find this so hard? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"Religious faith is about believing something one has been told (in sacred texts or wherever) but without any independent evidence it's any more than a fairy tale."

Exactly. That's the very definition of credulity. "None of these have any scientific evidence, but they're still treated very differently" is the epitome of special pleading.

I don't want to continue this debate, but I do want to point out one thing to the OP (not to Jack). What purpose do you want your beliefs to serve? Do you want them to make you feel good about yourself, or to approximate objective reality as closely as possible? If the former, then by all means, believe in God, the afterlife, heaven, NDEs, etc. Use faith when it tells you what you want to hear. Maybe throw in young Earth creationism and geocentrism for good measure. If, on the other hand, you want your beliefs to approximate objective reality, you have to exercise intellectual discipline. This means, at a minimum, assigning the same level of plausibility to beliefs with the same amount of supporting evidence. It is not valid to choose between beliefs on the grounds that one of them makes you feel better, because the Universe has no obligation to make you feel good, and is in fact guaranteed to kill you in a possibly slow and painful way.

Now for the afterlife question. No, there is no evidence of an afterlife, and plenty of evidence that such a thing is impossible. For instance, consciousness is completely tied to the brain. Infants and children do not have well-developed brains, and thus don't have a well-developed intellect. Patients with brain damage have mental disabilities corresponding to the area of damage, like Henry Molaison, who could not develop additional long-term memory, or "Dr. P", who who could not recognize faces. Patients with severe concussion slip into a coma in which the cerebral cortex is inactive, and after they awake, they have no recollection of anything that happened during the coma.

So if the brain is the seat of consciousness--in the sense that a well-developed brain has a well-developed intellect, that selective damage to the brain impairs selective abilities, that temporary cessation of cerebral cortex activity leads to temporary unconsciousness--then the logical conclusion is that permanent destruction of the brain leads to permanent loss of consciousness. Analogously, if you hack your computer to pieces and completely destroy its CPU, the CPU will stop computing. Do you believe that computation could continue after the CPU is destroyed, even though there's no logical way for this to happen, and plenty of reasons why it shouldn't? If not, then in order for your beliefs to be logically consistent, you can't believe in an afterlife, because the same amount of evidence exists for both beliefs (namely, zero). --140.180.249.27 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That exemplifies my earlier comment - "you have no real concept of belief or faith" and you are enslaved to notions of logic. Many highly esteemed scientists and mathematicians still believe in God and his supposedly impossible powers, and are devoutly religious, but you seem to know better. Where does it say that religious questions are commensurate with scientific or logical analysis? Nowhere, that's where. That doesn't make them invalid. Science does not have all the answers, and never will. It is a profound arrogance to think otherwise. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is profound arrogance to think that you can arbitrarily accept something on faith, without any evidence whatsoever, and have that thing turn out to be the absolute truth about the universe. Millions of greater minds have failed to come up with something as simple as F=ma, and that's with abundant evidence of how objects move. Believing that an idea you pulled out of thin air is the absolute truth is nothing but anthropocentric hubris. Your "many highly esteemed scientists" comprise the extreme minority: 93% of NAS scientists reject God, but of course, you'll find some way out of your own argument from authority. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the 7% who do believe. It's not a majority decision, this God thing. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As you indicate, if it could be proven, there would be no debate. Religion serves many purposes, and some will say that no one's belief system is a monopoly on the truth, as the true nature of God is largely unknown to humankind. But faith and hope help believers keep going. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Religious faith does have independent evidence, although, it is only credible to those who already have faith. It comes in the form of personal experience, such as in increase in improbable fortuitous events.

The problem with the above proof of impossibility, is first of all, it is a very limited interpretation of Scripture, secondly God can't be put in a box like that. He can break whichever physical law He needs to do whatever is neccesary. Afterlife is beyond the physical sciences. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Also secular doesn't mean what you think it does. One can be in favour of secularism and still be a Christian (or other theist). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what "NDE" means, but the book The Physics of Immortality by Frank J. Tipler explores possible physics arguments for a kind of "afterlife"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Frank Tipler did some good work in general relativity early in his career, but he's widely regarded as a crackpot now. See this article in Discover Magazine. The author applied the crackpot index to it. At least 40 points! --140.180.249.27 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Near death experience.
122.106.184.68 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

... or even Near-death experience. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that NDEs are the greatest evidence that there is an afterlife. Note that this doesn't mean this is very strong evidence, just that it is pretty much the only evidence we have, even if there are other explanations for NDEs. (Religions/scriptural writings really don't count as evidence at all, especially since they all disagree with one another.) StuRat (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not evidense either, as it depends on popular opinion. There is no source that can confirm that a NDE is anything more than a hallucination. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're interested in skeptical, scientific approaches to NDEs, this is a wonderful, gentle, devastating write-up by Oliver Sacks, the neurologist. Paradoxically, as Sacks points out, NDEs have led many people away from faith as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A NDE is evidence of the afterlife only if my dream of going to the Moon is evidence that I actually went to the Moon. (And no, I was not one of the Apollo astronauts.) --140.180.249.27 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There's enough consistency among the many NDE anecdotes to indicate that NDE's tend to be real phenomena - "real" in the sense that they can be observed or envisioned or dreamed by many who are near death. That doesn't prove there's an afterlife - it just proves that NDE's have reasonably consistent descriptions. It could just as easily be the mind's way of making dying "feel better". But it doesn't prove there isn't an afterlife, either. Jack has it right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a one easy experiment you can run that will definitively prove whether there is (or is not) an afterlife... die (fully and completely... no wishy-washy "near death" half-measures). Of course, it is an experiment you can only run once (so I strongly suggest you wait until the end of your life to run it)... and unfortunately only one person will be convinced that the results of the experiment are conclusive. But that one person will definitely and definitively know the answer, one way or the other. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, that's only true if there is one. If there ain't, then there's no mind present to perceive its absence. i kan reed (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeh, but if you're fading to black, you'll have a clue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Why is it that there's disrespect for Island nations?

close trolling by indef blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am from Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia and I'm tired and angry when reading the newspapers on United Nations General Assembly votes in which my country always support the U.S. and Israel. And the comments say that we're not independent and that we are a colony of the U.S. Why such disrespect? Why don't people respect the independence of Pacific Island nations? FMicronesian (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC) The first step is start to respect yourself like a sovereign nation, and don't follow US everywhere he goes, but if your government decide by his own to support US, because truly believe is a good cause, is also a sovereign choose.In the votation against the embargo Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and others nations always support US, but Cuban people have no resentments we know your country have his reasons to support US.CubanEkoMember (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC) This question has been repeatedly posted by blocked User:Timothyhere and his various socks such as the recently indeffed User:Kotjap. See talk for diffs. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Chardal vs religious Zionist

What is the difference between Chardali and Religious Zionist in terms of activities and personality or characteristics?--Donmust90 (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

A quick search on Google for [Chardali Religious Zionist] brings me to this website, which, in someone's opinion, Chardali is a far right-wing group. Sneazy (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Chardali are, by definition, Religious Zionists ("Dali") with leanings toward the charedim; though I am not sure how that answers the question. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 17:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

To expand on Hasirpad's reply, above: the Hebrew Wikipedia page for the term gives the acronym as composed of CHAR'D + L standing for Charedi Leumi, literally "Nationalist Charedi." They are (a) religious-fundamentalist Torah-observant (Haredi, sometimes called "ultra-Orthodox") and (b) support "Eretz Israel Hashlemah" (nationalist, possibly though not by definition extremist). The Religious Zionists (Hebrew: dati leumi; literally "national religious") are nicknamed "crocheted kippah" (Hebrew: kippa s'rugah). They are a notable presence in the IDF and many serve as officers. Chardal, incidentally, means "mustard" in Hebrew. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Being a secular Israeli with some social Chardalim connections I must dissent. Most Chardalim, while definetly right-winged, are not extremists. Some are, and are a source of ongoing concerns. The murderer of Yitzhak Rabin is a fine example of the extremists.

Same principle applies to the religious model they follow: Tha last election showed clearly that they are not Charedim. Charedim do not serve in the IDF, Chardalim do, and are populating the more hazardous (and more prestigious!) roles. Charedim are, at best, indifferent toward Zionism. Chardalim are avid Zionists. Charedim scorn secular knowledge, and are pitifully ignorant in the sciences, but Chardalim take pride with excellence in the sciences and make a fair part of Israel's Hi-tech industry. Charedim keep to a dressing code from 19th century eastern Europe, Chardalim observe a casuall dressing code, characterized only by dresses for the girls, yermulka and Talit Katan for the boys. Zarnivop (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Zarnivop "dissents" and writes: "most Chardalim...ane not extremists". While I appreciate all the added detail, this does not differ whatsoever from what I wrote above, that the supporters of "Greater Israel" are "possibly though not by definition extremists." Those religious Jews who refuse negotiations on the borders of Israel are hard-liners beyond the bounds of nationalism. Those Jews who create illegal outposts and defend these, those who actively resist legal rulings and troops deployed to evacuate them from said illegal outposts, to say nothing of instances of criminal and violent acts against their Palestinian Arab neighbors in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) - are more likely to be "Chardal" than from any other belief community on the Israeli Jewish population spectrum. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the west bank settlers do not adhere to this description. Most will obey, reluctantly as it may be, a legal order to evacuate. Most value Democracy and acknowledge the sovereignty of The State. And last but not least - had most settlers were to be involved in "criminal and violent acts against their Palestinian Arab neighbors" there wouldn't be a day without scores of dead Palestinians, as the settlers are by and large trained soldiers. I do not try to defend the extremists that do all that- they do exist -but if most of the settlers population fit your description Judea and Samaria were far more violent than the Gaza frontier. In reality the opposite is true, and it's very easy to prove this. Zarnivop (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What philosophical school promotes the literary form of investigation over formal language investigation?

The answers to my previous question had revealed that not all philosophical schools adhere to mathematical methods. Mathematics cannot be used to answer all philosophical queries, especially if the questions are about influence and character. I have heard of different intellectuals who have philosophized in a literary way. Of course, their philosophical investigations promote the use of natural language than formal language. The first philosopher that comes into my mind is Nietzsche. He, being a poet, did not promote or conceptualize mathematical ideas. He is greatly connected to existentialism, but I do not know if existentialism favors the use of natural language over formal language. I do not also know what existentialism says about mathematics.

Ordinary language philosophy and the "linguistic-turn" are products of logico-analytic movement. They are used in the philosophy of logic and mathematics, thus it is not a "literary form of investigation" that I described. There are so many philosophical schools that we have today, but which among them is more literary and less or not dependent to mathematics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested in Eastern philosophy. From the time of the Ancient Greeks, Western philosophy has tended to be influenced by mathematics and logic, as far as I am aware. This is true of the analytic philosophers like Russell, but also to an extent, of the system builders, like Schopenhauer. It is less true of Eastern philosophy, as far as I understand it. IBE (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking one talks today about the divide between analytic philosophy (e.g. stuff that looks like math) and continental philosophy (e.g. stuff that doesn't have math, but is not necessarily "ordinary language," unless your ordinary language is really quite convoluted). These generalized approaches are separate from "schools," which are a level below these broad genre distinctions. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a quote I've seen several times that goes something like the principal dispute between the so-called analytic and continental traditions in philosophy is whether the task of being vague is to be accomplished in natural language or in a formal system. I can't find the exact quote right now — can anyone help? --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

IBE seems to be right. Eastern philosophy is less analytic compared to the western philosophy. The continental and analytic traditions are both western, thus they share the same method, which is math and logic. They have different approaches, but they have the same content. Mr. 98, I am intrigued by your response. Can you explain this further? -> (e.g. stuff that doesn't have math, but is not necessarily "ordinary language," unless your ordinary language is really quite convoluted). These generalized approaches are separate from "schools," which are a level below these broad genre distinctions.--Joshua Atienza (talk

Continental philosophers frequently speak in their own jargon, and it is deliberately non-formal. So they create words that are not only not "ordinary language" (e.g. épistémè), in the sense that they have specialized meanings, but sometimes they even create words that they argue are deliberately undefinable (e.g. différance). If you try and dive into The Order of Things or Of Grammatology you'll find them to be pretty non-ordinary in terms of its use of language, but not at all analytical in the sense of looking like math or formal logic. I really do not know if analytic philosophy and continental philosophy have the same content — they seem very much different worlds to me, concerned with different problems and entirely different ideas about the method of philosophy, its goals, its purpose. I do not think that Foucault's ideas about what philosophy was meant to do were at all the same as Whitehead's.

As for the distinction between schools and genres, all I meant is that many of those listed under "analytic philosophers" or "continental philosophers" have very different schools of thought, despite talking in more or less the same "languages." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So far, I agree with Mr. 98. I wrote my post to get the ball rolling, and to see whether anyone would refute me - hence the wording, "You may be interested in" rather than "Let's answer this definitively". My info was dimly remembered from Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy, but I thought I might never find it - it is presumably from the last paragraph of the section on Pythagoras, though there may be other references. I am well aware this is long before the rise of continental philosophy, so it may be no longer true. There may be a sense in which continental philosophy is fundamentally Western, and derived from logical method, but I would be curious to know what. I wouldn't retract my previous post, but it is rather incomplete, and I regard (what little I know of) continental philosophy as radically different from, say, Wittgenstein and Russell, or for that matter, Daniel Dennett or W. V. O. Quine. And don't take anything I say on philosophy with more than a pinch of salt, since I dabble, and read the bits that interest me. IBE (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

ePublishing

Not sure if this is the correct desk to ask, but here goes. I wonder if anyone has had any good / bad experience of "united p.c. publisher" (www.united-pc.eu) as I would like to publish my book that way.85.211.205.123 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally, something like Writer Beware is recognized as a useful independent perspective on publishers. The main question that comes to mind in this particular case is one of intent: what are you looking for in a publisher? If you just want an ebook on Amazon and the like, you can do that yourself, with no publisher required. If you have a niche product that you want available physically but not necessarily for mass sale, a print-on-demand house may be appropriate. If you want a book on shelves at your local bookstore, make sure you work with a publisher that you can find on the shelf in the relevant section at said bookstore (that's the easiest way to determine which publishers are sufficently "real", for lack of a better succinct term). Also do things like stick "[publisher's name here] reviews" into your favorite search engine; the first result returned by Google suggests that United PC is probably classified as a vanity press. Finally, for any book that you hope to make money on, always keep in mind Yog's Law: "money should flow toward the author". — Lomn 02:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, most useful.85.211.205.123 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there no Chinese Papabili?

I have read Roman Catholicism in China and searched for "Chinese papabile" on the interweb. The best I get is Tagle from the Philippines. Are there no Chinese papabili? -- 22:04, 10 March 2013‎ Medeis

PRC Catholics are not officially allowed to respect the authority of the pope, and there are perpetual tussles between the Vatican and the PRC government over bishops' appointments, so that's not a particularly favorable environment... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, all male catholics are eligible. But in this case, according to the predictions I've seen in various media have no Chinese cardinals are likely candidates. But stranger things have happened... Mingmingla (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What drove the question was the effect of picking a pope from behind the Iron Curtain. But I don't see where we even have a list of Chinese bishops loyal to the pope, which surprises me. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean by that comment, CF, unless you are suggesting I or our readers might not realize KW was from Poland under Soviet hegemony? μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If you already knew, why were you pondering the effect of picking a second pope from there? You're getting more opaque by the minute. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have been confused by the fact that "the effect of picking a pope from behind the Iron Curtain" is a tenseless phrase. I was referring to the effect picking John Paul II had, not the effect picking someone from behind the now non-existent curtain would have. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The JPII article leaves me with the impression that the Polish government was rather more tolerant of the Catholic hierarchy than the Chinese government is, it presumably being understood that they wouldn't involve themselves in politics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

While all male Catholics are eligible to become Pope... it is highly unlikely that the conclave will choose anyone who is not a "Cardinal elector". According to our article Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013, there is one Cardinal elector from China (John Tong Hon, Bishop of Hong Kong). So, to answer the question... there is at least one Chinese Papabili. He is probably a long shot candidate... but you never know how the Spirit of God will move the electors once they get behind closed doors. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

But being a "long shot" is the very antithesis of papabile. Papabili are those who are generally considered more likely to be elected, not less likely. The papabili are a small sub-set of all cardinal electors, who in turn are a minuscule sub-set of the technically eligible people (all adult Catholic males in good standing). See List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

All male Catholics in good standing, even the married ones? Wouldn't it be restricted to those who are eligible for priestly ordination? Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I believe even married males are technically eligible, which stands in stark contrast to the prohibition of clergy marrying (although it's a different matter when a married non-Catholic clergyman converts to Catholicism and is re-ordained a priest). But married men shouldn't get their hopes up. The last married pope was Pope Clement IV, elected in 1265. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

When this came up around the time of resignation I provided some links suggesting there may be an age requirement, perhaps 25. I don't think there is any disagreement that married Catholic males are technically eligible since amongst other things, as you say the limitations on married priests being ordained has some well established exemptions. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

However, it's more likely that they'd re-elect Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as pope all over again, than elect anyone who's married. I wonder what papal name he'd choose this time. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Benedict XVI.II. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Where Roman Catholics, or Christians generally, were suffering intolerable and irresistible persecution, the Pope would sometimes nominate a cardinal for the persecuted flock in pectore (lit. close to the chest), in other words secretly, to avoid exposing him and his mission to the hostile authorities. Although the institutional conflict between the Church in Rome and the People's Republic of China is fairly deep, and has lasted since the PRC's establishment in October 1949 (with even earlier roots), I don't think that there are Chinese cardinals today that no one but the Pope knows about. Wikipedia's article on in pectore tells me that they cease to be cardinals if unnamed before the Pope's death (nothing said about resignations), and if unrevealed, they can't participate in papal conclaves. If such a secret Chinese cardinal exists, presuming he's an adult male Catholic, he could theoretically be elected Pope, but it seems that it would would require a fairly extraordinary coincidence (or in believers' eyes, to be fair, a near-miraculous divine revelation of the best choice for Christ's Vicar on Earth.) —— Shakescene (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Presuming the just elected pope isn't Chinese, there will probably be a few more years for one to be around next time I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

State Judaism

What are the countries that had of have Judaism as the state religion? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I can think of at least four. But you really need to give a definition of Judaism and of state religion and give us a time range. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Which four? Mingmingla (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I don't know what four Medeis is thinking of, but I can think of the ancient historical Israel, the two kingdoms that formed from it (the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judea) and the modern state of Israel. There was also the Khazar Khanate, which had a Jewish ruling class. --Jayron32 01:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, but the OP hasn't told us what he is actually asking for, hence it's difficult to say whether the original Israel and the Israel separate from Judah count as one (as I did) or two kingdoms. There are also the petty Roman states which recognized Judaism, even if it wasn't the state religion per se, the Maccabean period, and so forth. And does modern rabbinical Judaism count as the same as the Solomonic temple religion? All very vague. Credit for pointing out the Khazar Khanate, of course. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If by "ancient historical Israel" you mean the United Monarchy, there's no convincing historical evidence to indicate it ever existed. On the other hand, the Hasmonean dynasty ruled over a territory similar to modern Israel. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, it it at least debatable in how far modern Rabbinic Judaism (which evolved only after the Second Temple was destroyed in the siege of Jerusalem) is the same as the religion of Saul, David and Solomon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and even more so, that of the traditionally-cited "founder" of the religion, Abraham. But note that the same issue would apply for most religions that have survived even one millennium, never mind several. Would Jesus recognise much of the rite associated with any branch of Christianity? --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Then we have the issue of what constitutes a "state religion"?... are we talking about a state that limits voting rights to those who are members of a specific religion and disallows those who are not members from serving in Government (As, for example, happened in England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries... the Test Act limited the vote to Anglicans, and banned non-Anglicans from serving in Government)... if we use that definition then we would have to exclude the modern Israel (which does allow non-jews to vote and serve in Government). Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have an article explaining what "state religion" means - it does not mean (only) a state which limits voting rights. Unfortunately, whether Israel can be described as having a "state religion" is not clear-cut - as the article explains. Warofdreams talk 15:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a trivial distinction that doesn't matter for anything except modern Israel. Democracy is a modern Western idea, not an ancient Jewish one. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The modern State of Israel was created as a homeland for the Jewish people, organized by the nationalist political movement called Zionism. There is freedom of religion according to Israel's Declaration of Independence and bolstered by subsequent laws (in the absence of a Constitution). By tradition and statute, the country follows the Hebrew calendar with its holidays, and observes the Jewish Sabbath as the weekly day of rest. (Adherents of other religions manage with this as in the U.S.A. that observes the Christian calendar and holidays even though there is "separation of Church and State.") Note that the only form of Judaism recognized in Israel is Halakhic, i.e. according to Orthodox rabbinic law. This affects personal status (marriage, divorce, and burial with some exceptions); e.g. only Orthodox marriage ceremonies are performed, though foreign civil marriages are recognized. So there's not a one-to-one correspondence between the Jewish religion and Jewish national identity in Israel as well as elsewhere. == Deborahjay (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Few minor (nonetheless, important) corrections: The weekly day of rest applies to (a) Jew-owned businesses (b) all state sevices except emergency services. The law allows for different day of rest according to religion (Friday for Muslims, Sunday for Christians). State services days of rest are generally Friday and Sabbath (Friday in accordance with a large Muslim minority) but many exceptions remain. The most notable Jewish trait of Israel is that any Jew (either by birth or by orthodox conversion) automatically deserves citizenship, while non-Jews has to pass certain criteria. The law system is heavily influenced by the British heritage, maybe more than it is by Hebrew law. Zarnivop (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

March 11

Papal conclave secrecy

Just want something to be clarified. I looked up the article for papal conclave, but failed to find any exactly related information, so here it goes. Historically, what is the reason why papal conclaves are so secretive, to the point of even putting jammers to prevent electronic devices from working? From what I have read, the purpose why the cardinals were locked in a certain place (hence the term conclave) was to force a quick decision on a new pope and prevent deadlocks, although in recent times it is said that this is done so so that the Holy Spirit enlightens them with a proper choice. However, this doesn't (fully) explain why there is so much secrecy regarding the process, although they may be related. So again, my question is: what is the official or historical reason behind the secrecy in papal conclaves? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Historically, it is to avoid outside pressures to be brought to bear on the process. The pope used to have significant worldly power, and elections were very much factional. See The Borgias for a very much dramatised, but not totally unreasonable picture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

One of my favorite sections of Chateaubriand's memoirs is his telling of how, when Ambassador of France in Rome, he decided to influence the outcome of the conclave of 1829 which elected Pope Pius VIII, because he felt that one of the favorites was inimical to France's interests (and felt is the right word; he had no formal instructions or solid information to go on). He used one of the late-arriving French cardinals as his agent of influence within the conclave. --Xuxl (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a lot of information about this and other conclave related subjects in this month's BBC History Magazine Podcast - the 'Papal Election Special'. You can download it from http://www.historyextra.com/podcasts - it's the 7th March episode. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that historically, the election of a new pope was HIGHLY political as his power extended to all of Western Christendom, so many of the powers of Europe had a strong and direct interest in who was elected pope. The secrecy of the conclave itself developed over many centuries when it was a Big Deal. Consider all of the various antipopes, the Avignon papacy, the Investiture Controversy, and the Western Schism for just some of the various historical precedents that led to the current practices. --Jayron32 22:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Also read Jus exclusivae (nicknamed the "papal veto"), which was the self-claimed right of various Catholic monarchs to veto the possibility that a certain cardinal or cardinals could be elected. Separate them from outsiders, and you've prevented anyone from communicating such a veto to the cardinals once the conclave has begun; you still have to ensure that cardinals not bring such a veto into the conclave in the first place, but at least by separating them from outsiders you prevent anything from influencing them after they've started. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

jewish law

is there a jewish law that forbids usage of private wear? how about one's bought from a second hand shop? It is because one is not sure whether what he buys is ceremonially clean or unclean so there is some sort of uncertainty in second hand wears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.111.151 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what "private wear" means. Do you mean "underwear"? --Dweller (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

See Shatnez. There is a prohibition on mixing certain fibers, nothing to do with cleanliness. Shatnez is observed by those adherents to Judaism who strictly obey the laws stated in Halacha. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And shatnez applies to all types of clothes, new or secondhand, under or over garments. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The One Who Asked: I mean any underwear...there is a possibility that a certain second hand wear is unclean...so does the law forbid any usage of second hand wear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.111.151 (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Apart from shatnez, as explained above, the ritual laws of spiritual cleanliness, outlined in the Bible, as applied to clothes (and some other aspects), have not been kept by Jews for about 2000 years, as they intrinsically linked to Temple worship. As such, Jews don't worry about clothes being spiritually "clean" or "unclean", whether new or old clothes, whether underwear or overgarments. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about the Canada's Prime Minister

does Stephen Harper wear glasses or not? I've seen him multiple times with and without glasses. Thanks! reply please!. 186.130.66.144 (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

When he made a state visit to the Philippines late last year, it seemed that he always wore glasses. Obviously, if someone wears glasses, even occasionally, then that person does wear glasses. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A lot was made about the fact that Harper started always wearing the glasses in public around 2010 or so. He apparently does not need them all the time, but likes the "serious and intellectual" look they give him. See this article [2] for example. --Xuxl (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

OP, if you've "seen him multiple times with and without glasses", then you already know that he sometimes wears them and sometimes doesn't, and that is all you need to know. Surely you know that there are millions of people who wear glasses but only for certain functions, such as reading, driving, watching TV etc. Trying to box them into "always wears glasses" or "never wears glasses", as your question implies, is futile. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

One could raise the same question about Tina Fey and many others I'm sure. Some folks only need them for certain tasks, others may wear contact lenses from time to time instead of wearing glasses. Harper's comments about Chavez may have been a bit short-sighted, but that's not really got to do with glasses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was Venezuela mad at Canada, at Harper for his remarks?

on the death of Hugo Chavez? What I read is that he sent condolences and looked forward to work with a more democratic and prosperous Venezuela, yet Venezuela slammed him for his remarks. What did he say to be slammed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.130.66.144 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Siderail
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because he "showed them up". They aren't keen on admitting that Chavez was a repressive dictator. And if the Canadian P.M. actually did say that, it wasn't very smart. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Bugs, if you aren't even aware if the event in question happened, could you please not present an answer that makes it sound like you have any insight into this whatsoever? Or maybe add a qualifier to the front of such answers like, "I am really just guessing wildly here, since I really don't know anything about the question, but..." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC) According to the link, what the Canada P.M. said was even worse than what the OP said. My comment stands, and yours is of no value to this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC) No, your comment is the irrelevant and obnoxious one. The OP's source (given below) actually answers the question perfectly well by itself (so I'm not sure why he asked it). The Venezuelans took exception to Harper's comments, perceiving them to be "insensitive and impertinent". --Viennese Waltz 16:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, it was a stupid thing for the Canada P.M. to say, even if it was factually on the mark. Meanwhile, you have joined 98 in making useless personal attacks here. Nice going. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) No one turns to this page to read moronic insults and rejoinders like this. "You're stupid." "NO YOU'RE STUPID" Etc. It is like listening to children fighting in the back of a stationwagon during a cross-country drive. Please take it to a talk page somewhere else. 75.34.24.145 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Insulting other editors in front of the OP is bad form, and 98 and VW know that, they just don't care. Nor do you, apparently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC) The complaint was aimed primarily at them, not you, but you seem to feel the need to get in a "final jab." Learn to just let it go, without even the "Nor do you, apparently." 75.34.24.145 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Well, I'm not a mind-reader. Regardless, taking shots at other editors in front of the OP is bad form. My user talk page is open to anyone who feels the urge to say something to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the source so I don't stir up arguments [3] 186.130.66.144 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Venezuelans, or the probable majority of Venezuelans who are/were Chavez supporters, were angry at the Canadian prime minister for his implicit denigration of the recently dead Chavez during a period of mourning. Harper implied that Chavez was opposed to freedom, democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights. The truth or lack thereof of Harper's implications are not relevant to the original question. Harper's remarks broke the convention that one should not speak ill of the dead, especially during a period of mourning. Hence, the Venezuelan government, led by Chavez supporters, accused Harper of insensitivity. Marco polo (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As the citation indicates, Venezuela is in denial about how the Chavez regime has damaged their economy. However, he was their guy, and Harper's comments were inflammatory, while Obama's comments were much more diplomatic. Speaking as an American, it's nice to have commies yelling at Canada, for once, instead of us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's try a slightly more objective version of the statement: Venezuela's government publicly disagrees with Harper's characterization of Chavez, the nature of Venezuela's political process, and the general prosperity of the country. Is there a certain element of defending your own against an outsider's criticism? Sure, but that sort of reaction isn't unique to Venezuela. And determining an objective "yes/no" statement for things like "x damaged the economy" is tricky. Venezuela is, for instance, rated as "high" development on the HDI, slightly above average for Latin America. — Lomn 19:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Chavez was lucky that Venezuela has massive oil stocks, at a time when oil prices are skyrocketing. Had it not been for that effect, his economy would have collapsed. Also, the way they sell gasoline for pennies a gallon seems rather anti-environmental, to me, as it encourages people to waste it. A hefty gasoline tax would solve this problem, and allow them to lower other taxes, and maybe subsidize things like food prices. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

...and, of course, Venezuela is not communist. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

differences between wahhabis and Salafis

What are the differences between wahhabis and salafis?--Donmust90 (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Google it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

One difference is that most Wahhabis don't like to be called "Wahhabis", while most Salafis are fine with being called "Salafis"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

To actually answer the question, Salafist is a general term that describes persons who seek to emulate the behaviour of the Prophet's first companions; this is generally associated with a very traditional or even retrograde view of Islam. Wahhabism is an ultra-conservative movement within Sunni Islam. It only gained significant influence when Ibn Saud, who was a follower of the movement, became King of Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia in turn gained control of the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The movement has exerted great influence as a result of Saudi control of those holy sites, and the tremendous wealth that came with the rise of oil prices starting in the early 1970s which allowed Saudi Arabia to preach Wahhabism outside its historical home in the Arabian desert. --Xuxl (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

God's Kingdom and Jesus

What is this "God's Kingdom" or "Kingdom of God"? What is it supposed to do? Does it refer to the messianic age that is supposed to come in the future or Kingdom Come? And why did Jesus cause political instability to the point that he was arrested and crucified? How did the significance of his death come about? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a serious megillah. Start with Jesus of Nazareth and read all about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably beyond the scope of the Ref Desk to answer comprehensively (even setting aside the problems of differing interpretations). I'll suggest, though, articles like kingdom of God, crucifixion of Jesus, and history of Christian theology as additional basic reading. — Lomn 19:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The perspective of the Kingdom of God held by Jehovah's Witnesses is explained at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002615. Other editors may wish to provide other perspectives.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you a Jehovah's Witness, or do you just happen to know more about this denomination to the exclusion of other denominations? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My spiritual status is undisclosed, and the limits of my knowledge are undisclosed.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Or "unlimited". :) If the OP truly doesn't understand this stuff, in a way it doesn't matter what denomination he starts with. Christianity is Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very supportable statement. Regardless, though, I appreciate the disclaimer from Wavelength. — Lomn 21:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the JW's, but there's no evidence that any specific interpretation of the Bible is more "right" than another. The OP asked what the "Kingdom of God" is supposed to be, and pretty much any Christian denomination, including the JW's, should have the general concept covered, as it's a core premise to all of Christendom. The OP's other questions should be answered in the various links already posted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify: the "Christianity is Christianity" statement is what I find highly suspect; there is certainly not a universal agreement within the various groups claiming the label "Christian" as to which groups are legitimately "Christian". Without veering into who is "right", it's worth noting that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a nontrinitarian branch, and that the major trinitarian branches (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant) all reject nontrinitarianism as heresy. Particularly, the major trinitarian groups accept one another's baptisms and reject nontrinitarian baptisms; in like context, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the validity of trinitarian baptisms. As such, I'm rather strongly of the opinion that they should be viewed as separate schools of theology. — Lomn 21:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That may be true, but it doesn't mean they aren't all Christian. To claim that non-trinitarian Christian sects aren't Christian (what are they if they aren't?) is the textbook definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy; Christians are people who follow the teachings of Christ. None of the particular groups that does so owns a monopoly on the word "Christian", and while one group may not official "recognize" the validity of the theology of another group; that doesn't mean that both groups don't get to legimately use the word "Christian" to describe themselves, or that we shouldn't respect that self-designation. Wavelength's contributions to these discussions are valuable and welcome; and double appreciated when he identifies which perspective he is giving, if only because there are so many, and it would be remiss of us to omit any major perspective in trying to answer these questions. Of course, we can't provide answers for all of the various denominations and sects, but the more we can, with reliable sources and links, the more complete an answer we can give. --Jayron32 22:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that trying to objectively define who is and who is not "Christian" is a giant mess that I don't want to get into here, and it is not my intent to advocate for that here. However, I do think it's reasonable to note that many of the major Christian subgroups operate internally in such a way as to claim that they do not recognize other subgroups as Christian. Trinitarian vs nontrinitarian is a fairly major divide, but I could also point to our article on full communion, noting that the official position of the Catholic Church is that the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Churches are themselves theologically flawed (and the Protestants substantially more so than the Orthodox), and so it's also reasonable to consider the source of theology within those divisions. I find the trinitarian / Jehovah's Witnesses gap, though, to be noteworthy in that it is (1) functionally universal and (2) bidirectional (that is, I don't see this as a case of the larger group unilaterally trying to bully the smaller out). The net result is that, contrary to Bugs' comments, the interested reader should not go in assuming that the various perspectives are without substantive distinctions. — Lomn 22:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If I were going to learn about what Islam generally teaches, I'd want to start with what the largest groups generally agreed on, moving on to what the largest groups disagreed on, and only at the very end would I be conceivably interested in what little modern groups isolated from the rest of Islam taught. It would not be equally as useful to start with one as the other, although I would appreciate a member of one of those groups labelling their contributions as based on that perspective. In the same way, the Jehovah's Witness teachings on a topic are not an especially useful place to start if you want to know what Christianity generally teaches. 86.156.148.220 (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The core beliefs of Christianity, the true "fundamentals", are faith in the resurrection of Jesus; hope that we also can attain resurrection; and love of God and our fellow humans. That's what Christianity is about: faith, hope and love. I know this to be true because Jesus said it, and He should know. The arguments about the Trinity, about how Jesus was crucified, about trying to figure out what heaven is really like; and about baptism, communion, and any number of other rituals, are what divide denominations. But they don't matter. Those folks are all Christian if they have those core beliefs. That's why I say "Christianity is Christianity". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read that the width of the hat brim is what divides the Amish communities. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, your argument might be more compelling if you'd provide references. — Lomn 22:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What, that the Resurrection is central to Christian faith? If you think that's not the case, I don't know what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that part is arguable. I am reading A Guide To The New Testament by Francis Watson, in the part about Jesus. It appears that Christians treat the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the works of miracles as "central to the Christian faith", thereby not really providing which item in the list is more significant. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not all Christians are hung up on the Virgin Birth (and the related subject "original sin"), and the so-called miracles can have rational explanations. But the Resurrection is essential to Christianity. Without it, there is no religion. A philosophy, maybe; but not a religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Descent of the Modernists - political cartoon

You seem to be very certain that the resurrection is essential to Christianity, even capitalizing "resurrection" presumably as a way to highlight the significance. However, it would be much appreciated, if you could list a source that explains why that alone is most important while the others are less important. It is plausible that Christians may find that the death of Jesus on the cross as most significant, because the death signifies the atonement and introduces a new covenant with God. But you or the Christians that you describe find that the resurrection of Jesus as most significant. In the political cartoon, it shows how the things mentioned are considered to be "essential" to the Christian faith by fundamentalists. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• The "Kingdom of God" is used in many Christian denominations to refer to the "end times" after the Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Jesus. The field of theology dealing with this is Christian eschatology. It is a gigantic can of worms, however, to get into what the Kingdom of God is supposed to be like, and it depends on what parts of the Bible you read, and what meaning you can extract from it. Consider:
  • Many of the Parables of Jesus are begun "The Kingdom of God is like..." see Mark 4, Mark 10, Luke 13 etc for just a few examples of Jesus use of the phrase. Read the synoptic gospels and the phrase appears numerous times, often with Jesus explaining what the Kingdom of God will be like, or how people should behave if they want access to it.
  • Any other biblical descriptions of the end times are usually very confusing and hard to follow, and such parts of the bible are usually some of the most contentious, usually the source of some of the greatest interdenominational differences. The major apocalyptic writings are usually cited as the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation in the new testament, so if you want to know what the Bible says on the matter, please read those, but the stuff that's in there is symbolically dense, and it isn't always readily apparent what the writers of those works meant. It is not easy reading. Generally, most cursory studies of those books in the churches I have gone to focus on the "easy stuff" (i.e. Daniel and the Lion's Den, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from Daniel, or the Letters to the Seven churches of Asia from Revelation) and it's rare that a sermon or sunday school lesson delves into some of the harder stuff from Revelation. Which is not to say that it isn't studied, it's just that it's not really easy to get into for the neophyte believer or casual bible reader. Anyone interested should read it, and should also read a variety of commentaries on it, if only to get a grasp on how much diversity of opinion there is on the apocalypse. --Jayron32 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Where can a person find a Christian eschatologist? What does that person do for a living? Can a person become an amateur eschatologist? How might an eschatologist contribute to society, especially to a multi-religious community? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Such a person would be a theologian who specialized in eschatology. I don't have any specific recommendations, but I have no doubt that there are theologians and other religious scholars that specify in this subdiscipline. Assuming questions like "how might an eschatologist contribute to society" are a snide attempt to make some sort of commentary on such scholars, scholars of eschatology serve the same purpose as any other scholar of a similar sort: to research various perspectives on a topic and to draw conclusions based on that research. --Jayron32 23:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a Google search which may lead you to some such scholars. I don't want to recommend any in particular, as I don't, off hand, know of the reputations of any of them, and given the large diversity of strongly held beliefs on this field of theology, likely no person working in the field is universally regarded as non-controversial. --Jayron32 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose this field of research is limited within academia or the church, whereas a person who studies art history is limited to academia. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Are the people behind Freud on that cartoon staircase meant to be Hitler and Mitt Romney? μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the Commons description states it is from 1922 it seem very unlikely (not to mention that they don't even bear the slightest resemblance to those persons). I am not even sure it is Freud, though he does hold a certain likeness to him. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he carries a retort and if I'm right it's unlikely to be Freud. Sjö (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"Tacitus Trap" in Chinese/Western political science?

The China Daily says:[4]

Publius Gornelius Tacitus (56-117 A.D.), a historian and a senator of the Roman Empire, said neither good nor bad policies would please the governed if the government is unwelcome, which was later called "Tacitus Trap" in political studies.

"Tacitus Trap" warns any leaders in power that when a government loses credibility, whether it tells the truth or a lie, to do good or bad, will be considered a lie, or to do bad.

But I cannot find any references to this idea, under the name of "Tacitus Trap" at least, in any other sources. Who has written about this concept in political science? 198.151.130.150 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• The only references I can find to such a "Tacitus Trap" are the China Daily reference you cite, and further references to it. It doesn't appear to be a terminology which is common in scholarship. Based on your description of it, it sounds like something Tacitus may have written in Agricola, which deals with contrasts between just governance and despotism in Roman-occupied Britain. --Jayron32 22:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Chinese term, "塔西佗陷阱" (Taxituo Xianjing) gets 355,000 results on Google. I can't read Chinese, so I've been using Google Translate. I've found a Baidu Baike entry[5], a People's Daily commentary[6], one website which asserts that the idea is famous in western political science[7], and meta-posts skeptically reflecting on the term itself.[8][9] It would help to have a native speaker sort through this. 198.151.130.150 (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This may be the inspiration for the articles: “Throughout his writing, he is preoccupied with the balance of power between the Senate and the Emperors, and the increasing corruption of the governing classes of Rome as they adjusted to the ever-growing wealth and power of the empire.” [[10]]DOR (HK) (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "塔西佗陷阱" (Taxituo Xianjing) is coined by Zhichang Pan, an aesthetician of China.

He uses this term from 2003 in his lecture, and the first log can be found online is his speech in 2007 about Three Kingdoms.

Since President Xi used this term in 2014, no matter the officers or scholars(Shameful lackeys!) of China tend to quote this term in their speeches and journals.

In Pan's article 'Pan Zhichang:

     "Tacitus Trap" was not coined by Tacitus ——the correction and traceback of "Tacitus Trap"(潘知常： “塔西佗陷阱”并不是塔西佗本人提出的 ——关于“塔西佗陷阱”的正本溯源).

He said:

   ' Almost all authors are disdainful of even doing basic work such as looking at Tacitus's original work. Therefore, they didn't know when I coined the term "Tacitus Trap", I just phrased his original words, and only made use of his words to explain my idea.'

I am glad that he posted this article a few months ago, which omits my time to find the inexistent reference. 04, January 2020 (UTC)

Historical battles

In alot of historical films/TV, especially classical, enemy leaders are seen meeting each other either on neutral ground or sometimes even on one or the others camp/territory. Did this kind of thing actually happen in real history? If so, what was its purpose? Clover345 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Technical term is "parley"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

See parley (which is only mildly helpful). It's basically an opportunity for the two (or more) sides to reach some sort of compromise and thus avoid battle/war. These can take place before or during the battle, often under a flag of truce. The Munich Agreement of WWII is a more modern example. Gwinva (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In medieval warfare, talks were arranged by or even conducted in full by the heralds of the opposing armies. A famous pre-battle conference was before the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. Alansplodge (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It is also important to note that "total warfare" or the idea that to defeat one's enemy, one had to completely exterminate them, to a person, is a fairly modern notion. The idea behind warfare historically was more to demonstrate the ability to do so, without having the actual need to do so. Thus, the point of a set piece battle was to demonstrate the military superiority of one force over another. Once you've demonstrated your military superiority, you negotiate the terms of surrender. People and land and urban centers are themselves a commodity that makes a war worth fighting: If your trying to take over some plot of land which has some people on it, you want to preserve the land your fighting over, regardless of which side you are on. The idea of a pre-battle parley is to attempt to resolve the battle before it is fought. The commanders aren't particularly interested in executing or exterminating the enemy commanders: both sides understand the purposes behind the war, and either side would rather not endanger themselves or their troops if they don't have to. They're ready to fight as needed, but if the other side is willing to give up without a fight, so much the better. --Jayron32 03:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

See Luke 14:31, 32.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Usually total war refers to the complete mobilization of a country's population, industries, and resources to fight a war, rather than the need to exterminate the entire population to win the war. Sometimes a country's leaders use this to justify attacking civilians as a legitimate target to reduce an enemy military's support structure (for example in Allied bombing campaigns of WWII), but is rarely (I think) invoked to justify exterminating an entire population or even killing members of an enemy army to the last man. This doesn't detract much from the rest of Jayron's answer, however.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that medieval warfare was as chivalrous as people think. There are plenty of instances when the losing soldiers in a battle were hunted down and killed, often being chased many miles from the field. Prisoners were only taken if there was a prospect of a ransom. At the Siege of Acre (1189–1191), negotiations for the exchange of prisoners broke down and both sides executed all their prisoners, several thousand in all. At the Battle of Kleidion in 1014, between 8 and 15 thousand Bulgarian prisoners were divided "into groups of 100 men, (the Byzantines) blinded 99 men in each group and left one man in each (group) with one eye so that he could lead the others home". Alansplodge (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Mostly medieval warfare was not chivalrous, which is why writers so lauded the rare incidents that were. My view of the epitome of chivalry is Saladin. His treatment of the prisoners after the Battle of Hattin was cool (literally - he served the thirsty Crusader leaders rosewater iced with snow from Mount Hermon), but the story of his actions at the Siege of Kerak is the winner for me. Most of his most celebrated chivalrous deeds were recorded by Christian sources. His nemesis in terms of chivalry was perhaps Raynald of Châtillon. When he was offered some of the rosewater in Saladin's tent, Saladin made a point of saying that he had not personally offered it, as such he wasn't Raynald's host, and then personally decapitated him. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, a war like the Hundred Years' War had massive destruction and death, not particularly chivalrous. "Chivalry" is definitely not a reflection of the way knights actually acted (especially the ones that were just murderous thugs), but of how they should have acted. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"The idea that to defeat one's enemy, one had to completely exterminate them, to a person, is a fairly modern notion"

What in the world are you talking about, Jayron? The idea that civilians have rights and cannot be arbitrarily killed is a modern notion. The idea of exterminating one's enemies goes back to the very earliest works of Western (and Eastern) literature. The Iliad makes it very clear that after a siege, the males in a defeated city were always slaughtered and the females sold into slavery. This type of massacre is also very evident in the Bible, where God commands the Israelites to destroy every man, woman, child, and animal in many Canaanite tribes/cities (i.e. Amalekites, Jericho). Read, for example, the Book of Joshua. Lest you believe that only Western people are afflicted with this murderous impulse, see this graph to see just how brutal tribal warfare was. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That is sometimes just a literary device though. It's really unlikely that entire populations were always killed. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The point isn't that I believe the Iliad or Joshua happened as described; in fact, I think there's only a small kernel of truth to either. But the fact that the author(s) idealize genocidal warfare, to the point of Saul losing favor with God for failing to kill the Amalekites' animals, shows that the idea of completely exterminating one's enemy is not a modern idea. In any case, I don't think it's as unlikely as you think for wholesale slaughter to have been the norm of warfare in the Greek Dark Ages. Certainly there's no shortage of examples--the graph I linked show 30-60% of male deaths in historical tribes have been due to war, which is hardly possible without extreme barbarism. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Who are the historical enemies of Venezuela?

After the death of Hugo Chavez, Nicolás Maduro claimed that the "historical enemies of Venezuela" were behind the cancer of the former. Which are these exactly? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a list of allies and enemies of Venezuela. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look quite reliable, besides having the obvious flaw that it doesn't say which is ally and which is enemy. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In Chavez's worldview, the United States was the traditional enemy of Venezuela; his article makes that pretty clear. The plural refers to the U.S.'s "lackeys", which again is a notion that comes from the mind of Chavez and his followers. --Xuxl (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

How long has this "historical" hostility been going on? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Spain a historical enemy too? He spoke in plural, so there must be more than one. 2.138.247.218 (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

When setting up a conspiracy theory, it's best not to be too specific, so it can never be disproven. For example, if he had claimed it was the CIA, and gave a specific time when Chavez was exposed to a carcinogen, and a subsequent Wikileaks-type event occurred which revealed all CIA files from that era, with no mention of such a plot, that might make him look as paranoid as he is. His goal is to make Venezuela, and his faction specifically, look like they are victims, to gain sympathy, and hopefully votes. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Spain. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly a reference to the Vogons, who destroyed Venezuela in order to build an intergalactic highway. --Hegvald (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

March 12

Shas Chardal or religious zionist party

I am confused. Is Shas party a Chardali or Religious Zionist or both?--Donmust90 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Google it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Donmust90, you probably know the answer to your previous question here. Chardali is a religious zionist organization, according to the answerers for that other question. So, this question is like asking "Is Shas party a religious zionist or religious zionist?", or in other words, circular. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Chardal" is a description meaning Charedi-national[ist]". It's a distinction for those Haredim who recognize the State of Israel and potentially would serve in its military if not seeking an exemption to study the Torah full-time. Shas is identified as a Sephardic (and Mizrachi) Charedi party. I would describe its political platform as patriotic though not hard-core nationalistic as far as negotiating Israel's borders vs. "Greater Israel." No other descriptions are needed to differentiate its followers from other groups in Israeli society. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Crime fiction set in Birmingham, England

Is there any crime fiction novels that are set in Birmingham?--Donmust90 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Yes. See Literature of Birmingham#Crime fiction, science fiction and other genre fiction. See also [11] Gwinva (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

website showing European nations with Muslim population being EU member and Eurozone member

Is there a website that shows the ranking of European nations with Muslim population in numbers, not in percentage, according to a) being a member of European Union and b) being part of the Eurozone?--Donmust90 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

It's easy enough to construct such data from Wikipedia. Islam by country contains the Muslim population of every country in the world. The articles European Union and Eurozone list those countries. Just cross reference the lists, and you can generate your own list simply. For example, the top 5 EU members by Muslim population are:

1. France (4,704,000 Muslims)
2. Germany (4,119,000)
3. UK (2,869,000)
4. Italy (1,583,000)
5. Spain (1,021,000)

Four of these five are in the Eurozone (the UK is not) so move Italy and Spain up the list, and add the Netherlands (914,000 Muslims) to the list for top 5 Eurozone countries (Bulgaria with 1,002,000 Muslims comes before Netherlands in terms of EU Muslim population, but like the UK it is not a member of the Eurozone). If you need more complete lists than that, the raw materials are all here. --Jayron32 04:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disclaiming of liability

I'm not asking for legal advice here, merely why a certain practice is practiced. I've noticed that, in many cases, especially but not limited to software (whether proprietary or free software), products or services, when something goes wrong, even if it harms the user or the incident was caused by a faulty product or service, the product's/service's company disclaims liability, to the maximum extent allowed by the law, even if they are informed of possible consequences. However, most jurisdictions have laws which specifically state that product producers and service providers must accept responsibility for any harm caused by the product/service. The policy would seem acceptable if the harm is caused by the improper use of the product/service, but the companies' wording of their disclaimers imply that this would be the case even if harm is caused by a faulty product/service. Here's an example, taken from a Microsoft EULA (relevant passages emphasized):

EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall Microsoft or its suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever (including, but not limited to, damages for loss of profits or confidential or other information, for business interruption, for personal injury, for loss of privacy, for failure to meet any duty including of good faith or of reasonable care, for negligence, and for any other pecuniary or other loss whatsoever) arising out of or in any way related to the use of or inability to use the Product, the provision of or failure to provide Support Services, or otherwise under or in connection with any provision of this EULA, even in the event of the fault, tort (including negligence), strict liability, breach of contract or breach of warranty of Microsoft or any supplier, and even if Microsoft or any supplier has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

— Microsoft Rockall Tool EULA

Without touching legal advice, my question is: why do companies want to, as much as possible, disclaim liability for harm caused by their products/services even if there are laws which state that they would be responsible in case of harm caused by a product/service, or even if the harm is caused by a faulty product/service? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Companies "want" to do something only to the extent that the people behind them want to do so. The people behind companies are the owners (for most large companies today, this means the shareholders) and the executives. The executives are ultimately answerable to the shareholders (who can vote to appoint or sack them). So basically, companies "want", and only "want", to do everything which the shareholders want to do, or which the executives think the shareholders want to do.

Most shareholders hold shares in the company as a way of investing their money (whether they buy these shares on the stock market or inherit them from their parents). This means what they want from the company is money in return (as dividends or capital gains). This means it is in their interest for the company to maximise its profits. Admitting liability beyond what the law requires you to bear reduces your profit. It is, all else being equal, contrary to the interest of your shareholders. Company executives who go around "giving away" money for liability which the law does not require the company to bear are not only hurting the shareholders' wallets, they are also acting in a way contrary to their contractual or (in the case of directors) legal duties.

(Some shareholders also have altruistic motives in holding their shares, but this is the exception rather than the rule, and even an altruistic shareholder who, for example, is owning the company in order to provide jobs for the employees, may still want to maximise profit in order to best provide for the employees.)

If one assumes the legal system is just and fair, every person (including both natural persons and companies) should be defending his or her or its own right to the best of his or her or its ability (and is entitled to do so), only then would the outcome of the dispute be a fair one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So that when you read it you say "oh well, guess I can't sue," stop persuing any further action, and take it as Jim Carey said "up the tailpipe".165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In reality, in the US at least, anybody can sue anybody over anything. Or they can try, anyway. I see where Iran is threatening to sue the producers of Argo because they don't like the way it portrays Iran. Their case is absurd, but some lawyer somewhere will give it a try, for a modest fee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

People say that about "you can sue for anything", but it's far from true, at least if you mean "sue" with any meaning. What alternative is there? Any system has to allow you to file papers, then review it, then deal with it. And lest you think there's no consequence for filing frivolous lawsuits, there's a lot, starting with FRCP Rule 5. Truly frivolous cases are dismissed (FRCP 12(b)(6) / Demurrer) quickly and regularly. That's different from saying we have too many laws, or too many causes of action, both of which can be convincingly argued. The only kernel of truth to the "anyone can sue anyone for anything" statement, or alternative I guess, is a writ pleading system; the U.S. Federal government and most States have loose pleading standards, which is intentional, but it's not as though that system is just "anything goes." Shadowjams (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The famous lawsuit against McDonald's, over their coffee being too hot, was widely ridiculed as frivolous. Yet the plaintiff won the case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Appeal of erotic novels

Porn is mainly consumed by men. Erotic novels are consumes mainly by women. Most men can't hace all the sex they want, so the appeal of porn is obvious. Most women could have all the sex they wanted, so what's the appeal of erotic novels?--195.76.28.229 (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think that most women can have all the sex they want to? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It also raises the question that sex is a binary proposition, either you're getting it or not, and that's all that matters. Perhaps women are interested in the kinds of sex described in erotic novels, or the story around the sex. Women can't all have sex with debonair princes, nor are they universally treated by their men the way that women in erotic novels necessarily are. Not all men are comfortable or interested in the sort of sexual scenarios described in the Fifty Shades books, for example. Women may not be, strictly, either. For a counter-example, I don't necessarily want to be the leader of a revolution of Fremen on a desert planet, but that doesn't mean I didn't immensely enjoy the book Dune. Being entertained by fiction doesn't mean that one has any personal desire to emulate the fiction, and that women read erotic novels doesn't necessarily mean those women want the kind of sex so depicted for themselves. --Jayron32 12:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- I think that 195.76.28.229 means that women can have all the sex they want if they're not choosy and they don't care too much about the consequences. However, that kind of thing is obviously not what most women fantasize about. Anyway, I'm a male heterosexual, and I can definitely appreciate many kinds of depictions of scantily-clad beautiful women, yet I have little interest in most kinds of straight-up porn, because overt tawdry sordidness is a turn-off for me. Most porn actresses look like they've been smoking since childhood, and they have dingy dull-blue tattoos and a curiously greyish skin color and unrealistic boob jobs, and I'm really not attracted to them... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, and even the "women can have all the sex they want if they're not choosy and they don't care too much about the consequences" is far from obvious if applied to most women, i.e. women of all adult ages in all countries, and not even obvious when applied to the target market of erotic novels. And both porn and erotica can be consumed by women or men as well as having sex with a partner, not just instead of having sex with a partner. Indeed, it has been known for partners to consult such material together, or so I am told. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

One issue is foreplay. Many women want hours of romance before the actual act, like reading poetry to them, dancing, etc., and most men are unwilling to do that ("I have a boner, and need to jam it in right now"). Women find this less than than satisfactory. On the other side of the divide, some men visit prostitutes, not because they can't get sex from regular women, but just because they want to skip the romantic stuff before and after ("You don't pay them for the sex, you pay them to leave after"). StuRat (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The most logical conclusion arising from the first part of your post would be "men pay to avoid the foreplay." But this is not the only trouble here. In both cases (pay to be left alone or pay to avoid the foreplay) we would be ignoring the fact that men can only be paying for having sex with a type of women who would not have sex with you, no matter what, unless you pay her. Some men seem to feel uncomfortable with paying for sex, so, hence the silly theories. But the thing is what it is. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

StuRat -- some men pay good money for the so-called "Girlfriend experience". I haven't and won't go to a prostitute, not for ethical reasons as such, but because of the previously-mentioned dislike of the tawdry and sordid. AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I heard one interview with a female prostitute who estimated that the men she encountered in her capacity as a prostitute expressed more interest in talking than in having sex. She said that she had to curtail the time spent on talking to expedite the encounter. She expressed that loneliness required conversation as much as physical interaction. Thus she reported that her male clients gravitated towards in-depth discussion approximately to the same degree that they gravitated towards touching and other sex acts. Bus stop (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The OP's question was "what's the appeal of erotic novels?" A lot of literature covers scenarios the reader will never expect to be part of - crime fiction, historical fiction, science fiction, etc. Most women at most stages of life won't expect to be part of the types of scenarios described in erotic fiction (despite the OP's views on their ready access to sex). It's fantasy. It's escapism. It's fun. That describes an awful lot of literature. There is no puzzle here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The question posed is ultimately unanswerable. An erotic novel is a cultural entity. Cultural entities function on many levels. If something cultural were easily explainable it would be a failure and it would be ignored and dismissed as being crass, unimaginative, and base. No one would buy a novel if its literary contents were easily understandable. Thus a complex literary entity is created by any moderately successful writer which defies easy interpretation. It may be characterized as being "erotic" but in reality it is a complex literary entity. Bus stop (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but all of that sounds like lit crit nonsense. Of course people buy novels whose contents are easily understandable. I might buy torture porn because I enjoy reading about torture. I like Rendezvous with Rama because I like reading someone's imagination of what an alien spaceship might look like.

If something "defies easy interpretation", that's either because the author was bad at explaining something, or it has no meaning at all. Take To Kill a Mockingbird, for example. It's a story about racism in the Southern US, and about two kids growing up. That's it. The mockingbird is not a symbol for anything, Boo doesn't symbolize anything, and there are no hidden meanings. The author herself admitted this:

"She denied there was any symbolism. As the questions persisted, she became testier and said she was just trying to write a book that a publisher would buy and publish and hopefully sell the movie rights as well [...] In a voice as cold and angry as a red-necked, Alabama sheriff confronting a civil rights marcher, she said, 'Those characters in the book were white trash. In the South, all the white trash are named after Confederate generals.' Stunned silence!"

Take the Old Man and the Sea, as another example. It's about an old man killing a marlin. That's it. When asked about symbolism, Hemingway said: "There isn’t any symbolism. The sea is the sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The sharks are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people say is shit." --140.180.249.27 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between a writer writing and a writer speaking extemporaneously. There can be a disconnect between what an author says about a novel written and the novel itself. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's right. One could take Hemingway's comment, and conclude there's no point actually reading the book now, since we know what it's about. But what something is about, is not what it is. Seinfeld is about "nothing", but that didn't stop millions of people enjoying it. I'm always bemused, when I suggest a friend and I go catch a particular movie that they haven't heard of, and they ask "What's it about?", as if the subject is the only thing that matters. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Tell them "it's about 2 hours". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I liked the Old Man and the Sea because it's a good story. That doesn't mean there's any symbolism, or that it "defies easy interpretation". The correct interpretation is that it's a story about a man hunting a marlin, described in a way that makes the reader want to know what happens next. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Some can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventures story; while others can read the contents of a chewing gum wrapper, and unlock the secrets of the universe." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Accidentally engaging in communion...

What happens if a non-Christian person attends a specific church for the first time, and not knowing anything about Christianity, ends up partaking in communion for the sake of conformity? Then after some months of doing research in Christianity, that person figures out that the little bread and water served during communion was a religious rite. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing happens. What did you expect? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The LDS Church Police come knocking on your door at 4:30 am, and charge you with "Eating the Saviour without permission". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the "eating the saviour" is a mockery of belief in transubstantiation, in which the bread and wine literally transforms into the body and blood of Christ. There is no real presence in Mormonism.75.185.79.52 (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is not intended as a mockery, but rather an improvised imitation of the ancient Egyptian rite of literal transubstantiation. Note the idea precedes the formation of the LDS denomination, and originated with the catholic church. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing happens. It is a symbolic act which does not work retroactively, it is done out of remembrance of an ideal that the Christian already subscribes to. That is how interpret it in any case. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing theological at least, I don't know if LDS denomination has some sort of rules with inherent consequences attatched. I'm looking at this from a purely scriptural interpretation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And why would your "purely scriptural interpretation" matter to a non-Christian? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So that it is clear that I'm considering the issue independently from the rules and regulations of a particular denomination, be it LSD or SDA. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But, you checked some scripture? And there, it stand: nothing happens to the non-Christians who take part in the communinion, god won't punish them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did check Scripture. I don't disagree with your latter comment. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I am still puzzled by your contribution. Where in hell, sorry for the pun, did you read something to derive this "purely scriptural interpretation"? OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no verse that explicitly or implicitly states something will happen, and using Ocam's Razor, it leads one to conclude that what I said is more likely to be true than not. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesus and his disciples were celebrating the Pesach (Passover), and the wine and unleavened bread now referred to as The Last Supper were part of Passover feast. Jesus asked the crew to do this in remembrance of Him, and spoke symbolically of the wine and bread being his blood and body, but that metaphorical usage went over the heads of the founders of some denominations, who took Him literally. As to "what would happen", nothing would happen unless (1) you're allergic to wine or grape juice and/or unleavened bread; or (2) someone said, "Hey! You're not a member of this congregation!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The bit about him speaking symbolically and some denominations taking him literally - that would be your opinion, wouldn't it. Probably best to mark it as such, particularly on a reference desk. No need to offend the millions of believers in transubstantiation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it lost something in the translation from Greek to Latin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you claiming primacy of knowledge of the original Greek, and is there a sole correct theological interpretation, and are you its author? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a actually a sole correct theological interpretation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Do tell me more. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, now, wait a minute — he didn't claim he knew what it was. The continuum hypothesis is either true or false, but I don't know which. --Trovatore (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But even the claim that there is a sole correct theological interpretation needs support. I can certainly imagine an almighty, benevolent, magnanimous god who says "These interpretations are all correct, as long as they do not make their followers into preachy, little-minded pains-in-the-neck". It makes a lot more sense then an almighty, benevolent, magnanimous god who says "There is only one correct way, and I'll carefully hide it in ancient scripture in a way that only a tiny minority will ever figure it out, so the rest can go to hell!". Of course, even the first version would spell doom for most existing denominations ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not nothing theologically. See 1st Corinthians 11:27-29: So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. [12] Rmhermen (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As a practical matter, it's hard to imagine someone accidentally wandering into a church, accidentally sitting down on a pew, and accidentally taking communion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I know someone who did just that (the wandering into church bit and the sitting down bit were deliberate, the communion was the accidental bit, to be strictly accurate). I think it was a Roman Catholic church, and she was in France. She received the bread and just casually said "thanks" (in French, I suppose, if that's really where it happened). Then she put it in her pocket and ate it later, so I don't know if that actually counts. When I explained it to her, she said "Oh, so that's why the guy gave me a weird look." IBE (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That applies only to those who understands the theological significance of communion at the time, and does not commit it in a respectful manner. It does not apply to those who do it so, unknowingly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

According to your personal extra-biblical tradition. Since that exception is not in the Bible, perhaps you could tell us which denomination, sect, or tradition generally believes it? Or which theologians? Or which popular Christian writers? This would make your opinion a referencable fact, which is helpful. 86.163.215.162 (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

[13]. It depends on what you did wrong. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A pit would open in the floor and you would fall to the fiery depths of hell. thx1138 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Especially if the nearest deacon has the controls for the trap door. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Truly, Bugs, do you believe Catholics are more interested in sending people to hell when they can than in forgiving simple well-intentioned ignorance of doctrine? My seven-year-old nephew has been studying for a year to learn about communion. Are we supposed to believe that priests were yearning to excommunicate him had he eaten a host at age six? μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a reasonable possibility that both Ndteegarden and I were exaggerating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Catholics specifically. thx1138 (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

March 13

Is the value of a nation's dollar in any way tied to its physical currency?

For example, if it was learned that handling US bills could cause cancer, or that 1/3 of all US currency was counterfeit, would the value of the dollar change? Ryan Vesey 16:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would decline, in both cases, although not by much. The cancer risk would primarily drive people to switch to credit cards and checks, but a small number would choose another currency, instead, in places where dual currencies are used. As for counterfeiting, the risk here is a panic that the counterfeiting could get worse, lowering the value, due to supply and demand. You might see a split between the value of online currency (higher) and physical bills (lower), or, if this didn't happen, the value of both would decline together. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe so. In both cases, upon such discoveries, there would be less physical currency circulating, at least for a while. The value of its electronic currency would increase, since it would be scarcer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That was the assumption that I might have had. At the same time, there'd be some sort of a currency scare where everyone would want to get rid of US paper bills they held driving the value down. I'd actually think the first would drive the value down, while the second would increase the value. Ryan Vesey 16:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Take into account that only 10% of the money mass is physical currency. People would like to get rid of the bill in their pockets, but would not try to exchange their bank account into Canadian Dollars, gold or whatever. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be 100%, given that online money is massless ? :-) StuRat (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because of arbitrage. Both cases would certainly reduce the value (the willingness to provide goods and services in exchange for that dollar) of the physical dollar. If there is a difference in the value of a physical and electronic dollar, people will exploit anything which forces the exchange to be more equal than the "natural" differential would be. For example, taking advantage of the "legal tender for all debts public and private" clause, or enforcing laws or merchant agreements which limit the surcharge/discount they can charge for cash/credit. Even if it's a small differential, you can make a lot of money if you can move enough volume through the cycle. This would cause the value of the electronic dollar to more closely match that of the physical dollar. The only way to prevent it is to remove any restrictions which force a fixed or limited range of exchange rates between the two. (Of course, the size of the effect depends on the comparative ratios of the two pools of money, and how easy is it for people to divest themselves of the lower-valued physical dollar, which would effectively lower the size of the physical pool.) -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• how would, as Osman says, the value of the electronic dollar increase due to scarcity? Would that mean, for instance, that if you poisoned a lot of paper money, gold bought with a credit card on line would become cheaper, since the value of electronic currency had gone up? μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. A gold seller would get less business, since he won't be willing to accept the fake or poisoned bills, at least not for 1:1. The money mass would diminish by 10%, if all the physical currency disappeared completely. If 1/3 of the bills was discovered to be fake, 3.33% of the money mass would be lost. Those with electronic funds would be able to buy more of whatever, since the amount of products won't decrease by 3.33%. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your point that commodities dealers would give a better price for electronic than cash transactions, but I am not sure that that wouldn't just mean that cash would lose value while electronic prices would stay the same. It's still not like money has become more valuable as if it were backed by something solid. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If a share of the currency disappears, no matter for whatever reason, that would make the remaining more valuable. Just imagine the opposite case: the government increases the amount of money available, and provokes inflation. In a real world scenario, however, the central bank would take measures to maintain everything the same. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this question being asked in a vacuum of real world responses (like a pure econ question) or in more natural terms? Because if bills were somehow defective, say they were contaminated with radioactive material, they'd quickly be destroyed and replaced. Counterfeit, on the other hand, would not be replaced, so presumably there'd be economic consequences. Shadowjams (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Relationship of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr?

What blood relationship was king Henry III of England to Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr, if any? Was Gruffydd related to John Lackland in a direct blood line?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you'd think so? Our article on Gruffydd (1198-1244) has him completely Welsh: son of Llywelyn the Great (1172-1240) and his wife Tangwysth, Llywelyn son of Iorwerth Drwyndwn (1145-1174) and his wife Marared and Iorwerth son of Owain Gwynedd (1100-1170) and his wife Gwladys. All the wives have Welsh names. Henry III (1207-1272) on the other hand was son of John (1166-1216) and his French (second) wife Isabella of Angoulême, and both John and Isabella had French parents (Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine, Aymer of Angoulême and Alice of Courtenay). 184.147.116.201 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, got it, but the answer is still no. Gruffydd's father Llywelyn married John's illegitimate daughter Joan, Lady of Wales when Guffydd was about five years old. She was Gruffydd's stepmother and no blood relation. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Keith Laumer and Cyril Kornbluth

How well did they know each other, if at all? Were they friends?199.33.32.40 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, is Laumer dead? I enjoyed some of his works when I was younger. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

read The Infinite Cage76.218.104.120 (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Kornbluth worked with Frederik Pohl so you could try asking him, the email link is not to him but the person at the end of it may be able to help pass a message along. Another option is to try Sabrina Laumer, Keith's daughter. sabrinalaumer.com seems to be dead but this Facebook page may be her and this is her. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

March 14

Roman Catholic Church/Vatican Papal Conclaves What Ifs

Know that the latest (2013) Roman Catholic Church/Vatican Papal Conclave is over. Still have tons of what if questions regarding all of it. Especially, compared to the ones prior to the 1978 when they 1st allowed outsiders in to the witness everything up to when all of the outsiders have to leave and etc.

Both prior and mist of voting for the new pope.

Can a healthy age eligible cardinal withdraw his name from consideration? Especially, when he chooses not to be the next Papal when asked? Even though he remains in the process another wise.

How were the votes recorded prior to the modern age with some sort of recording device? And are all of those archives still existence with the recorded in the secret archive or no longer in existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Voting procedures are explained at Papal conclave. There is some politicking and discussions among the various cardinals before the voting itself, and it is fantastically unlikely that any cardinal that self-selects himself out of the running would have enough support to then be elected by a majority of the remaining cardinals. --Jayron32 01:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

When a pope is elected, he is asked "Do you accept?". Not all elected persons have accepted. In that case, they go back to the drawing board. So, a cardinal who has already clearly indicated he is unwilling to serve as pope is, as you say, unlikely to get many or any votes. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, and if they chose a Pope who didn't want the job, how effective would he likely be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in their right mind would actually want to be the pope, and most popes have accepted reluctantly, but nevertheless accepted, on the basis that the choice is (said to be) divinely inspired and hence God's will. But just as Benedict XVI felt his time was up, some might feel their time should never come at all, and rule themselves out of contention before God ever has a chance to express His will. Poor God. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone in their right mind would actually want to be the pope"

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard, and considering that we're discussing religion, that's quite a feat. Why would cardinals, unlike pretty much all other human beings, not want a position of power and respect? --140.180.249.27 (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

At least I expressed my opinion as the opinion it is. I acknowledge your opinion (framed though it is as an assertion of fact) is different. What I can tell you for sure, though, is that you'll look long and hard and still won't find any priest, bishop, archbishop or even cardinal who is willing to admit he wants to be pope. In the absence of any such admissions, we're all just shooting the breeze. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've heard it said that what they really want in a Pope is "Jesus with an MBA". Obviously, big sandals to fill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason Benedict XVI retired. For the same reason they call it the Room of Tears for elected Popes to recover in before going out on the balcony. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that nobody who wants to be Pope is suitable to be Pope, and there is a Catholic saying that "he who enters the Conclave a Pope, leaves a Cardinal". Lots of human being do not want to be in positions of power and celebrity. Becoming Pope is painting a huge target over yourself, basically giving up your previous life (with the expectation that you can never return to it), to try and herd a bunch of cats who will claw your eyes out if they can. Someone who thinks becoming Pope is a great way to get power and respect should be ruled out pretty quickly by the other cardinals. 86.163.215.162 (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for both of your answers to my question. They weren't what I was exactly, but still it helped me.

At the same time here is my latest question regarding all of this.

When does the newly elected and accepted pope pick his new papal name?--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Also from the concave article, he's asked immediately after which name he will choose. Hot Stop (Talk) 05:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Those typos can be [con]vexing.
I'm waiting for the first female Pope, who might choose a name like "Nun of the Above". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Votes could be recorded on wood. They could import papyrus from Egypt. When manuscript parchment was invented, they could record votes on manuscript parchment. When paper was invented in the West, they could use paper.
Sleigh (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that would be worth recording on parchment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there any television, stage, or film actors from Botswana that are alive today?

Are there any television, stage, or film actors from Botswana that are alive today? Venustar84 (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are three to start: Lerato Motshwarakgole is in a South African soap opera, Connie Ferguson was in the same soap opera, Donald Molosi has performed on Broadway. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How much has the Fed lent through the discount window since 2007?

Re http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html how much has the Federal Reserve lent to banks through the discount window since 2007? The full $7.77 trillion mentioned in that story? 71.208.7.158 (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta's trial

Hello. I asked this on the Help desk, and I was taken here. My question is, they said that people and press would be allowed to enter the courtroom, my question is when? Thank you for your answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpery (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Cults of personality in "communist" states

This is sort of a follow-up to my previous question about putting deceased heads of state in a glass coffin for eternity. Anyway, throughout the years, many "communist" states or former "communist" states had cults of personality for their leaders (although I'm aware that some "communist" states did not have cults of personality, notably Pol Pot and Kampuchea, and that not all cults of personality are in "communist" states, like Hitler and Nazi Germany, or Saddam Hussein and Iraq). Notable examples would be Mao Zedong, the Kims, Joseph Stalin, Josip Tito, Nicolae Ceaușescu, and Saparmurat "Turkmenbashi" Niyazov (although he and his country were no longer communist after 1991). However, did such people want or request a cult of personality, or were such cults the result of their countries' parties' propaganda, and that they had little to no say as to whether or not they wanted a cult of personality? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Kim Jong Un more dangerous than his father?

I ask this because of this http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/07/is-kim-jong-un-more-dangerous-than-his-father/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpery (talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody can yet know that, and we aren't here to speculate aimlessly. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall that his father broke the truce or talked about a nuclear first-strike on anybody, but talk is cheap, and it remains to be seen whether he's serious. Technically speaking, his father isn't dangerous at all, being as how he's dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Henry III's reputation

Our article on Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr says his wife Senena paid 600 marks to Henry III for her husband's release. Apparently she had to hand over her two youngest sons, Dafydd and Rhodri, to the king as hostages to ensure that she kept her part of the bargain. Henry did not keep his part however, and kept Gruffydd and his son imprisoned... Did he then release her two youngest sons? Did Henry III keep Senena's 600 marks also? It looks like to me then Henry kept the 600 marks AND Gruffydd plus son Owain. Did Henry III have such a bad reputation as being so ruthless?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)