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 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 [1] 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 [2] 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:[3]

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[4], a People's Daily commentary[5], one website which asserts that the idea is famous in western political science[6], and meta-posts skeptically reflecting on the term itself.[7][8] 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.” [[9]]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 [10] 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)

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is the case. It was about substantive causes of action. It prompted calls for tort reform, and resulted in some. But I'm not arguing about tort reform, just about the notion that "anybody can sue anybody over anything." One needs a colorable claim first, and as much criticism as the McDonalds case got, it did make such a claim. One that survived appeals. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

All you need is a lawyer willing to take the case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 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)

What on earth makes you think that most men can't have all the sex they want to? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:15, 14 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)

I think you're missing 75's point, from what I can tell what they are saying is: JackofOz's comment 'Eating the Saviour' was a mockery of the belief in transubstantiation as only those who hold that belief (i.e. hold the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist) would say you're literally eating the saviour. Now, this is a belief held by the Catholic church and some other denominations to this day (although some don't use the transubstantiation) but it is not one shared by the LDS which seems to be what the OP is referring to and was what Jackofoz referred to. The LDS and some other denominations may have their own Eucharist rite or sacrament, but do not believe in transubstantiation or the real presence instead the ritual is done in remembrance or something of that sort. Therefore the joke 'The LDS Church Police come knocking on your door at 4:30 am, and charge you with "Eating the Saviour without permission"' didn't really work as the LDS church does not think they are 'eating the Saviour'. Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:19, 14 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)

What are you proposing, that the authors intended multiplicative interpretations? Again, the Razor, indicates that the simplest assumption is that an author of any work, intends a single interpretation, whether their intent translates into the desired interpretation, is another matter. There did not always use to be such confusion over interpretation, it is not impossible to imagine how devisive men and gentiles can introduce strange docrine to confuse the interpretations. Is was common among the pagan religious, see how the ancient cultures incorporated their neighbours' gods and doctrines, why then should Christianity not suffer the same fate over time? It happened even during the time of the first churches as noted in the message concerning the doctrine of the Nicolatians. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:43, 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. [11] 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)

[12]. 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)

'Well-intentioned ignorance'? Their ignorance was well-intentioned? Deliberate ignorance based on the idea that such ignorance would be better for all involved? What a bizarre turn of phrase. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:44, 16 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)

Blessed are they who use small print when they jest, for they shall (usually) avoid being castigated ... Clarityfiend (talk) 13:04, 17 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)

I ran a project in rural Liberia where banks refused to accept old American dollars bills. The old American dollars in local circulation ended up trading at about 60 notes to a $50 bill. Sorry for the original research. Your Username 12:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

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)

Her obscure successor would be "Nun the Less". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:41, 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)

I think we're getting in to a bit of random speculation territory here. If you read the Papal conclave and Papal selection before 1059, it doesn't seem that clear how voting was done in those days and it seemed to vary a fair bit. E.g. the papal conclave was established and then abandoned then used again. BTW the former article says:

Completely secret ballots (at the option of the cardinals present and voting) were sometimes used prior to 1621, but these secret ballots had no oath taken when the vote was actually cast. At some conclaves prior to 1621, the cardinals verbally voted and sometimes stood in groups to facilitate counting the votes cast. The signature of the elector covered by a folded-over part of the ballot paper was added by Gregory XV in 1621, to prevent anyone from casting the deciding vote for himself.

and

In 1562, Pius IV issued a papal bull that introduced regulations relating to the enclosure of the conclave and other procedures. Gregory XV issued two bulls that covered the most minute of details relating to the election; the first, in 1621, concerned electoral processes, while the other, in 1622, fixed the ceremonies to be observed.

And there were the more extreme cases like Papal election, 1241 and Papal election, 1268–71 where you have to wonder what they were doing. Of course in a case like Papal conclave, 1334, some sort of recorded ballot must have been used.

So whether they ever needed papyrus seems a bit unclear. Either way remember if they were following modern day procedure the ballots only needed to last until not long after being counted so longevity of the material probably wasn't that important, more ease of use, clarity of vote etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the latest insight into all of this. Have to all of it is somewhat what I'm looking for.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 20:38, 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)

Between $3,684.3 billion [Dec.] and $3,688 billion [Jan.] was lent through the Discount Window since 2007, depending on which month in the year you begin the calculation. Both figures are to end-February, 2013. Source: [[13]]DOR (HK) (talk) 05:50, 15 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)

May I mention...

• Jefferson Memorial
• Washington Monument
• Mount Rushmore

...? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You may, but those are quite irrelevant. There is a difference between honoring historic figures and deifying a leader in life. For example, are the people told that this person is infallible or has other superhuman characteristics ? Perhaps Popes might have qualified, in the bad old days, although the "infallibility" there was supposedly a property of the office, not the person. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Papal infallibility was officially adopted as a doctrine in 1870, and only applies to "ex cathedra" pronouncements... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You know that, but a lot of Catholics are less well educated than you. Their views are more absolute. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Turkmenbashi certainly promoted his own...he was the one who called himself Turkmenbashi, and he renamed months and days of the week after his family. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mao said in a speech on 10 March 1958, "Each group must worship its leader; it cannot but worship its leader" and that this was the "correct cult of personality". (Dikoetter Mao's Great Famine p.19).--Wikimedes (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Kim Jong Un more dangerous than his father?

Question from user blocked user based on checkuser.

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) Unless you cook and eat them, in which case the son is probably far less dangerous. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Actually, Jong-un's current rhetoric is basically identical to that of his father and grandfather, including declaring the truce void and promising to rain "seas of fire" on various things. Generally, the commentary that I've read says that the current situation is "more dangerous" because of what we don't know about how Jong-un and the larger North Korean bureaucracy will act, and that largely because no one had a chance to watch him grow into the role (contrast with his father, who assumed power in his 50s after publicly holding various high-level positions). That is, it's really a statement of "more unpredictable". — Lomn 14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Although, as Mr.98 pointed above, what's really going on in Kim Jong Un's mind is unknown, the progress of the nuclear arsenal is not a complete unknown. Since 2011, as Kim Jong Un took power, the program kept being developed. That last fact makes him slightly more powerful. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC) ...but not necessarily more dangerous. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC) True, but a lunatic with a bigger gun can kill more people than a lunatic with a smaller gun... --Jayron32 21:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC) ...if we assume he's equally lunatic as his father, then, the present situation is not more dangerous. As long as he obtains from the international community what he wants, he will concentrate his abuse towards his own people. The tricky question is what if he gets long range rockets, is trigger happy, and finds a good idea to break the taboo against using nuclear weapons? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC) The trump card here might be if China decides that this budding megalomaniac is bad for business, and maybe arranges for him to take a permanent vacation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC) If China stops supporting him, he can just threaten to nuke them, if they don't continue to support the regime. If China managed to assassinate him, his cronies might well launch a nuke or two. StuRat (talk) 03:50, 15 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)

A quick search for a reference found; "Henry III was very unlike his father. He was very pious, not cruel or ruthless, but rather feckless." From A Brief History of Great Britain, by William E. Burns (p.68). I have come to be rather cautious of general histories as they, by necessity make sweeping statements that sometimes obscure the known facts. Alansplodge (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind about "sweeping statements". So it looks like Henry kept Senena's 600 marks AND kept Gruffydd and son Owain = looks ruthless to me. Did Henry also keep Senena's two younger sons Dafydd and Rhodri in this deal?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Re Henry releasing the sons, our article on Owain says (unsourced) Henry released Owain after Gruffydd's death in 1244 in the hope's Owain would start a civil war. I've not found a source to confirm that, though Historical Essays By Thomas Frederick Tout, 1907 page 80 does claim the four sons of Gruffydd were free and quarrelling by 1246. On the other hand, Tower: An Epic History of the Tower of London By Nigel Jones, 2012 page 48 says Henry ordered Owain to "be detained more straitly" after Gruffydd's fatal escape attempt in 1244.
• Re the 600 marks, I suspect the 600 figure comes from this website, which apart from the figure, seems a paraphrase of Dictionary of national biography, Volume 23 By Sir Sidney Lee, 1890, page 307. The book version is 300 marks, and it doesn't seem to imply Henry did anything nefarious - the deal was a change of custody for Gruffydd rather than outright freedom.

(Gruffydd was imprisoned by his halfbrother Davydd in 1239. In reaction), "the Bishop of Bangor ... persuaded King Henry to take up the cause of Gruffydd, whose friends promised a heavy tribute. On 12 Aug. 1241 Senena, Gruffydd's wife, made a convention with Henry at Shrewsbury. ... Henry invaded Wales and Davydd ... handed over Gruffydd to Henry's custody.... Gruffydd was now sent to London (about 29 Sept. 1241) under the care of John of Lexington and confined in the Tower, along with his son Owain and some other Welsh captives. He was, however, honourably treated. The government allowed half a mark a day for his support, and his wife Senena was allowed to visit him." It goes on to tell of the escape attempt but doesn't say when Owain was released or anything about Dafydd (the son) and Rhodri.

I hope a better searcher comes up with something more. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps make the picture more clear. Now I understand Davydd ... handed over Gruffydd to Henry's custody and He was, however, honourably treated and ...and his wife Senena was allowed to visit him. Now I see what happened.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to look up because there were so many Dafydds, Gruffydds and Llewelyns! Glad that helped. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Benedict and Francis

If you look at the history that Francis of Assisi founded his order the franciscans as counter concept to the contemplative benedictines founded by Benedict of Nursia. The benedictine way of life is praying and a little bit turned away from the world around. The franciscan style was the poor life and the care for the people who were in need.

Could it be that Francis made the choice of his name that deliberate as a direct answer to Benedict? --Stone (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It could be anything. But the obvious reference is to Francis_Xavier, one of the founders of the jesuits, to which order the new Francis belongs. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

But the new Pope has apparently explicitly stated that he took his name from Francis of Assisi, because of his love for the poor. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interviews with cardinals indicate that Francis of Assisi is the intended reference, and provide some insight into the reasons why. — Lomn 18:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the answer ass isi as that? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A cynical reporter on the BBC News last night suggested that it was to ingratiate himself with the Italians, as St Francis is widely venerated in Italy. Seems unlikely to me, but that's what some think. Alansplodge (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What ever happened to reporters actually reporting on the facts they're paid to discover? Their own personal opinions are worth only whatever the going rate for Wikipedia editors is; it wasn't particularly impressive last time I checked. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the hilariously incompetent chatter during the BBC's coverage of the announcement of the new Pope (including the use of a translator for the Pope's prayers who apparently was unfamiliar with the Hail Mary), I think that ship has sailed. 86.161.209.78 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That was classic, how idiotic! That's when a competent reporter says "let's listen to the Pope pray the our father...," etc.165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

CNN took a while to work out who the pope was and even longer to work out his papal name (despite earlier telling us how important it was). They finally found it out from an Italian news source what his papal name was. I had a look at Al Jazeera's twitter account and they seemed to do much better timewise. Oh and another thing about CNN, despite having the smoke thing in the background of the broadcast, it seemed to be 30 seconds or so before they commented on it in the news broadcast. One thing I wonder, it seems Bergoglio was Papabile by many sources, but not very high up. I wonder how many relegated the task of his biography to some junior. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Australian commentators got it wrong, too. They proudly announced that the Papacy had once again returned to Italy, as the new Pope was the Archbishop of Genoa. (Wrong) They they corrected themselves to say he was an Argentinian who had spent most of his career in Italy, and so was Italian by adoption. (Wrong) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The really scary part is that the likes of CNN and BBC are widely presumed without question to be Reliable Sources. Roger (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver in Mesopotamia

I would like to know whether silver is traded in Mesopotamia. Is silver sold in "bars"? Also how much would it cost to get enough silver to make a small statue. References please so I can verify the sources. I need to write a story about "Kneeling bull holding a spout." The region doesn't need to be accurate (i.e., it need not take place during the pro-elmic period where the statue is found). --176.25.156.43 (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you are referring to a period somewhere in the neighborhood of 3100-2900 B.C., which is the estimated date for that statue. Since the statue is made of silver, it's pretty obvious that silver was traded in some way. Apparently it was traded by weight, though, not in the form of coins or bars of a regular shape. In fact there was no formal currency at all at that time, so it's difficult to quantify the cost in any meaningful way. The statue looks like it is hammered from a relatively thin sheet of silver, but the documentation I can see (from the Met web page) doesn't say how much it weighs, so valuing it is pretty difficult in any case. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How is silver sold in the markets? I presume in sheets? Also, can one "buy" silver from the markets? --176.25.156.43 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I have decided to write about the Proto-Elamite. How do they trade? Do they trade silver (presumably since the statue was made in that period in that civilization). --176.25.156.43 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Very little is known about the Proto-Elamite people. Proto-Elamite script has not been deciphered yet and writing itself was only beginning to emerge in Sumer and Egypt. Among the most used trading goods of ancient Mesopotamia are barley and silver. The earliest known attestation of silver as a currency dates to the Early Dynastic IIIa period of Sumer (2600-2500 BC) (source). It's quite possible of course that it was used even earlier than that. As for the value of silver, an indication can be gained from the Laws of Eshunna (c. 2000 BC): 1 shekel of silver (c. 8 gram) was worth 120 shekels of refined copper, or 360 shekels of wool or 1 kor (c. 300 liter) of barley. The wages of a harvester for one day were 1/15th of a shekel of silver, those of a winnower 1/30th; to hire a wagon including a driver and oxen for one day cost 1/3 of a shekel of silver. - Lindert (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you think would be easier to write Mesopotamia or Pro-Elamite? --176.249.94.94 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Mesopotamia" is a pretty wide category, but generally we know much more about the various Mesopotamian peoples and civilisations than about the Proto-Elamites, because we can read most of their surviving texts and because they had far more interactions with other civilisations we also know about, who themselves wrote about them. For this reason It would be easier to write (fiction) about the Proto-Elamites, because you can make up far more without contradicting the fewer known facts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Does any one make a living through poetry?

Excluding cases like Bob Dylan, who is actually a poet, but mainly a singer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Almost no one does, and there is no correlation between excellence and the ability to support oneself by writing poetry. For example, a scrivener for Hallmark Greeting Cards may thereby be able to meet the mortgage, but T. S. Eliot was a banker, and Walt Whitman was a nurse. - Nunh-huh 23:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And who are those who make a living? (I mean from poetry proper, not from novels or essays). OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think none would be almost as accurate an answer; I wasn't definitive so as not to discomfit those who would cavil that a writer of greeting cards or an itinerant bard qualified as making a living. For further examples, see http://poetry.about.com/od/poetryhistory/a/poetswork.htm - Nunh-huh 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Poetry seems to be the main occupation of Benjamin Zephaniah. Most of the other British poets I could find seem to have posts at universities, or are engaged in more lucrative forms of writing, or both. Alansplodge (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How about John Cooper Clarke, the 'Punk poet'? Admittedly, he makes a living out of writing and performing poetry, but as far as I can see poetry is his 'thing'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Robert Frost managed to make a living down the road not taken by most. StuRat (talk)

Was he not a farmer, teacher, and lecturer? - Nunh-huh 09:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

W. H. Davies had a career in vagrancy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't vagrancy mostly about standing about not doing much. Richard Avery (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice work if you can get it ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Aye, but let's not make a Big Issue of it, though. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Including Dylan would make no difference, since he does not make a living from writing verse. But song lyricists like Bernie Taupin do. Of course some people do not consider the lyrics of "Candle in the Wind" to be poetry. I can't imagine why. Historically, a lot of money could be made in poetry - for a brief period. Lord Byron made tons of cash from Childe Harold, but alas, those days are gone. Paul B (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

From Poet laureate: "A poet laureate (plural: poets laureate) is a poet officially appointed by a government, or conferring institution, who is often expected to compose poems for special events and occasions. ... Today, over a dozen national governments continue the poet laureate tradition." For example, the US one gets $35,000 per year, which technically one could probably live off of alone, but probably the ones who get the job are all people who don't end up in practice using it for subsistence. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

However, the unfortunate Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom receives only GBP 5,760 (USD 8,864), which is certainly not enough to live on, unless you are actually a vagrant. The official salary is 105 Imperial gallons of sherry, but they have been accepting cash instead for a couple of centuries. If we ever DO get a vagrant laureate, he (or she) might prefer the sherry. Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's good limerick material :) There once was a vagrant named Jerry/whose poems always made people merry/and with no regret/as poet laureate/he choseopted to get paid in sherry.67.163.109.173 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, but doesn't the last line need another syllable ? How about "paid off" instead of "paid" ? Or "he chose compensation in sherry". StuRat (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

fixed :)67.163.109.173 (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

March 15

Ride of the Valkyrie

Resolved

This is probably a good one for Jack, who's the resident classical music expert. Does anyone know just what German words Kirsten Flagstad is singing here?[14] They don't seem to match the libretto from the opera.[15] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that's from when we first meet Brunhilde in Act II, see libretto here (basically, from Brunhilde's first words). It's not the Ride of the Valkyries, which starts off Act III. I think that's the introductory music to Act II, arranged to cut out Wotan's part, and leading into Brunhilde's first vocal appearance. (given that this is the opera from which I take my name …) --Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, just as long as you don't start wearing a metal, conical bra... :-) StuRat (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's it exactly. Thank you! P.S. I hope you enjoyed watching Bob Hope introduce Kirsten Flagstad. That's not something you would see every day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's perfectly OK; it was my pleasure. 'Twas nothing, really. Please don't mention it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

new constitution in kenya

what are the impacts of new constitution to education sector in kenya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.89.10.241 (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

One immediate effect has been the launching of a public education program to inform Kenyans about the constitution [16] Sh 1.3 billion ($15 million US) has been allocated for it.

Another is probably the Universities Bill just recently signed into law [17] which will increase oversight. The article about the bill also says students will be able to take the degree programs of their choice (apparently not possible now?).

You can read the constitution here. It outlines who is responsible for education (mostly the national government as opposed to the county governments) and that everyone has a right to an education. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It will enforce that Kenyan children will do their homework themselves, and not post it on the Internet for others to solve. Indeed, it will become a criminal offense not to do your homework in time. The impact will be quite positive, both for the pupils as well as for the Internet users, who will be left alone. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Très drôle. Alansplodge (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey Courts

I'm looking at a Court Disposition for the state of New Jersey in the USA. Under the secion 'plea' they have '9' but the disposition didn't come with a decoder. What does plea 9 in New Jersey mean? 65.69.34.2 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume all courts in NJ use the same codes, but if this is a municipal traffic case you could look at [18] and see if it makes sense. According to that file, '9' = 'not applicable'. - Nunh-huh 01:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thirteenth century clothing

Llywelyn the Great and sons

In our article it shows an image apparently of ca 1259 of Llywelyn the Great and his sons in some sort of "robes". How would these "robes" have been made (i.e. material makeup). Is there more than one piece? Overclothes? Underclothes?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Do 1200–1300 in fashion and 1300–1400 in fashion help at all? --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It looks like they are wearing an undergarment and an overcloak. My guess is that the undergarment would have been made of linen and the overcloak of wool. Since they were royalty, cotton is a possibility, but it was very expensive and hard to come by at that time. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. From this I get the idea that the undergarment was a tunic or version thereof and the overcloak was a toga or version thereof. What would the belt around the toga (if there was one) been made of?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Could the undergarment have been made of silk, since they appeared wealthy?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you pinged me, I'll reply even though I don't really know anything. All I really know about this topic is that linen and wool were by far the most widely used fabrics in Britain at that time, and wool would not have been great for an undergarment because it is rough-feeling and nonabsorbent. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Christianity & tolerance

I realize this question will be controversial and somewhat opinion-based, but I'll try to be as respectful as possible. Why are most Christians today so tolerant? As far as I can tell, the vast majority of Christians believe that all non-believers will be doomed to hell, from which there is no escape. Yet most of them don't try to force non-believers to convert to Christianity, and might even fight for the rights of atheists and people of other religions. Why is this the case, and is there any Biblical basis for this belief? If I were Christian, and I believed that my friends were doomed to hell, I'd do everything I could to force them to convert, up to and including torture. After all, what's the harm of a few years or decades of pain, if it prevents an eternity of torture in hell? If a liberal Christian heard that his friend became insane and wants to jump off a building, wouldn't he try to stop his friend, even if it means using physical force? --140.180.249.27 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the Liberal Christian view is that living in a way that attempts to live up to the Christian ideals is a better way of bringing people round to your views than any use of force. The "non-believers go to hell" doctrine would be probably be considered rather medieval by many Christians in the UK, although I'm sure that there are still parts of the world where it still has currency. Alansplodge (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any Christian denomination which believes that forced conversions have any validity. Forcing someone to make a Christian confession, from a Christian perspective, does not make them a Christian, so it would be quite useless and only create fake Christians. - Lindert (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I meant forcing the non-Christian to read the Bible, study Christian theology, and the like, in the hope that she will start to truly believe in Christianity. The typical Christian liberal is likely to oppose this, by opposing mandatory Bible studies in public schools, for instance. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that that would be an effective strategy (not to mention the moral implications). If anything, people would be repulsed by Christians behaving in such a way, and be driven away from Christianity. In any case, though attitudes towards evangelism vary, there is widespread agreement that evangelism should be in conformity with the morals taught by Jesus, and imitate his apostles. Furthermore, many Christians recognize that while they are called to preach, they do not have the power in themselves to convert people, because that is the work of the Holy Spirit. - Lindert (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The values of secular liberalism have been extremely influential in predominantly Christian areas of the world (e.g. Europe and the Americas, among other places) in the last three hundred years. This has generally led to a lot less fundamentalism and a lot less insistence on the use of the secular order to enforce a cosmic order. One needs to see this not as inherent to Christianity (much of Christianity prior to the last 300 years was not at all like this, and there are still Christians who feel this way, but they are definitely in minorities, no matter how loud they sometimes sound in American politics) and not as inherent to changes to world thought in general (there are still many people in many parts of the world who are just as rejecting of secular liberalism; consider how different most of the Muslim world is in this respect). The short answer is, most people in Christian nations don't really believe that using state power to force religion onto people is the right thing to do. Asking why that is the case necessarily leads you back to the Enlightenment, the wars of religion it came out of, the history of thinking about just government, and so on, and historically it gets quite complicated very quickly if you want to look into it in a non-glib way. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the OP has it right. As someone who has been aggressively attacked here by conservative Christians, been the victim of their attempts to silence me, and who has seen the nonsense they want to add to articles like Evolution and Richard Dawkins, I have serious doubts about their tolerance. Maybe such Christians are only a minority, but they're a powerful and bloody annoying one, and if more liberal Christians are more common, they would do well to condemn the bigots in their ranks. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

While it is true that there are indeed fundamentalist, extremist Christians, on the whole they are far less common than moderate ones. In places where the loudest megaphone wins (internet debates, American political radio, etc.) it is easy to exaggerate the prevalence of such strains of religion, but systematic surveys of these things show such people to be firmly in the minority. A loud minority, but a minority. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt that even the conservative Christians would have physically abused you if they had the chance. The same can't be said for the Islamic world, for example. Try going to Saudi Arabia and expressing anti-religious sentiments there, to see what happens to your head. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll attempt to paraphrase that... "I think it's OK for conservative Christians to be aggressive, dishonest bigots because some Muslims are worse." Please stay on topic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I think this is the start of a long, controversial debate. By "here", I assume you mean WP, rather than "here" as in "there", where you live. I think the OP is talking about being tolerant in a physical sense, ie. not trying to force conversions, so it is about tolerance relative to beliefs. One might argue that the beliefs are intolerant, but if they are what they are, then the behaviour is presumed by the OP to be tolerant relative to these beliefs. It is a reasonable premise, at any rate. IBE (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a significant range of tolerance and intolerance across most any religion. It really comes down to individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I suspect the problem is that the less tolerant members of any religion get the bulk of the publicity, and try harder to exercise power, sometimes successfully. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

On that note, yes, I heartily agree. I've even suggested this to Christians, that one of the problems with their beliefs in public life is that they don't really have a voice - they have to sound a bit outrageous to get any attention. They tend to agree. In Australia, that means the spokespeople go haywire about eg. gay marriage. The Christians I know oppose it, but the Christians who get to talk to the media use weak logic, and a dash of extravagance. I have heard saner voices arguing that this will only make them look bad. IBE (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I meant "there", meaning in the Western world. I'm asking about the general public, because I'm not that interested in the opinions of Wikipedia editors. That said, thanks to everyone who have taken a stab at my question. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

March 16

North Korea's military tendencies

After all my questions on North Korea throughout the years, and despite reading several Wikipedia articles on the topic, there's still one thing I don't understand. Why is North Korea so aggressive in the first place? They have nuclear ambitions, seriously want to build ICBMs (which by itself isn't a bad thing, but with their behavior lately, that would be worrying), and threaten an attack on South Korea and/or the US because of military drills (although military drills by themselves aren't an indication of an impending invasion; for example, the US and the Philippines have military drills all the time but the Philippines doesn't want to invade a country anytime soon) or sanctions. I know that the US is partly to blame for the Korean War (if it weren't for them, Korea would have been united), but that's another story. But still, in the first place, why is North Korea so aggressive? To get what they want? (but then again, if they weren't so aggressive, they wouldn't have sanctions in the first place) They understand that their behavior is doing more harm than good, both to the world stage and to their own people, but why do they continue to practice such behavior? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

They need an enemy to justify repression of their own citizens. If there was no enemy, and no sanctions, then the people would start to ask why they are starving while the ruling class is living in luxury. This is especially true because they have the example of South Korea, with a fully functional economy, just over the border (and the same with China, over the other border). With nobody to blame this on, it would become quite obvious that the discrepancy is due to the policies of their government. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that western democracies also find it convenient at times to paint North Korea as the Devil's spawn. The declaration by Dubya that it was part of the Axis of Evil is a classic example. That announcement was part of him seemingly needing an enemy to blame and condemn. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

See false equivalence. --140.180.249.27 (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The so-called "axis of evil" inclued Iraq, which was an exaggeration, and excluded Pakistan. Otherwise, it was on track, despite that rather silly name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but that doesn't mean you say it out loud. That was counter-productive. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There are many complex answers to this kind of question. A few of the factors involved:

• A lot of North Korean bellicosity is for a domestic audience, not an international one. We are not terribly privy to the internal politics of North Korea, but keeping their people (and their generals, and their soldiers) in line is certainly part of what these actions help achieve. It is a common tactic in all nations (not just totalitarian ones) to emphasize the threat from abroad as a means of achieving domestic unity.
• At the same time, the North also has a pattern of being "bad" to achieve some kind of future deal. They have to have bargaining room. So they will build a reactor, test a bomb or two, and then say, "OK, we'll take apart the reactor, for some more food." Great, but once you've taken apart the reactor, then what? You act "bad" again, get everybody back to the bargaining table, and then you can promise to act "good" again in exchange for something. It's a game, and everyone involved in said bargaining knows it is a game, but the alternative to the game is North Korea acting worse, and possibly actual war, and so most players are willing to play along.
• North Korea also has a genuine security concern. They do not have many good friends, and their enemies are quite powerful. Lumping them into the "Axis of Evil" was not a mere rhetorical point, especially when one such country soon had a war declared against it (under false pretenses, at it turned out), and the other is a country where war occasionally seems very likely (and there are assassinations, sabotage, and other issues). They are correct to see their situation as painted into a corner. They are correct to perceive that if the US felt they could topple them tomorrow, with a minimum of "cost", they would probably do so. As it is, making it clear that the cost would be high in such a case is a solid strategy.
• There may also be unknown psychological factors at work here amongst the leaders of the North Korean government. North Korea is a state the concentrates a lot of power at the top. That means that whomever is at the top is going to have a disproportionate influence on their domestic and international policies — much more so than any state where power is more diffused. As such, idiosyncrasies, psychological hangups, strange beliefs, and so on, can manifest themselves politically in unpredictable ways. I don't think we know much about the current leader, and that hampers our accurate analysis.

There are no doubt other factors as well. My main point is, there is unlikely one simple answer to this kind of behavior. It serves multiple purposes. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that NK has legitimate security concerns. Their conventional military was quite sufficient to prevent a US attack, and they could also have relied on China to defend them. So, the concept of a US attack there is absurd. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bilateral talks vs. six party talks

I was reading over here that NK only wants bilateral talks with America to strengthen their ties with them, while America will only accept six party talks. It says that the reason why America rejects bilateral talks is because they violated previous bilateral talks, but that sounds like a cop out to me. If they violate bilateral talks, why would America believe they wouldn't violate six party talks? Doesn't make sense, but I'll ask my question anyway. Why does America care (if they are acting in their own best interest which they are) if it's six party talks or bilateral talks? ScienceApe (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This refers to the Six-party talks that have already been going on for a decade, which also involve the other regional interested parties (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

China is the key. They are the only ones who can put pressure on NK to actually fulfill their obligations. That is, they can cut off the supply lifeline they give to NK, which is vital to NK's survival. So, the hope is that, if the agreement includes China, then China will enforce it. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

forz d/c

What is the etymology of this term (it is used in jewellery)?Curb Chain (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Columbus (Pt), Franklin, Ohio, United States

Resolved

Like in this census here - what does the (Pt) / (Pt.) there stand for? I did not find a reasonable explanation in pt. Thanks for answers! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest it means 'part thereof', or words to that effect. Columbus City, although mainly in Franklin County, also extends into Delaware County and Fairfield County (although the table suggests that in 1980 it had not yet grown into the former). The table first gives the total population of Columbus, and then the populations of the parts within Franklin and Fairfield, denoted with (pt). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I found the same but much more complicated explanation (streches over... including ... etc. etc.) of what you suggest. Case closed. Do you think this could be entered (connection: census, geography) in pt ? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Personally I'd say that the definition belongs at Wiktionary (in fact, it's already there), but then again lots of things in that list belong at Wiktionary to my mind. If you want to add it, go ahead. I won't stop you. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you find me?

What's the number of the film director Manoel de Oliveira on the list of 'oldest man living in Portugal'? 84.110.36.209 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you want us to find for you ? His phone number ? StuRat (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You can read. Which place his in the list of the oldest men in Portugal.82.81.208.29 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Your English isn't clear. "Which position on the list does he occupy ?" would be the way to ask that clearly. Also, it should be "oldest men" not "man", and "Can you find this for me ?". StuRat (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the answer, but is somewhat relevant: List of Portuguese supercentenarians. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Africa Natural Geographical Border

My question is which country in Africa has a n atural border or is a geographical entity by itself. For example undivided India and Pakistan used to form a geographical entity before being partitioned. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Madagascar ? StuRat (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

When Kim Jong Un said he would "rain bullets" against the enemy

close trolling by banned user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
did that include Japan? Hyerotaku (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC) It was said by a 80 year old Korean War veteran, not by Kim Jong Un. [19] --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Oh sorry. But anyway, does it include Japan? Hyerotaku (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC) He was a veteran of the Korean War. So by enemy he probably indicates South Korea, North's enemy during Korean War, not Japan. --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC) This question is trolling by the banned user Timothyhere/Kotjap. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is North Korea so aggressive toward Japan?

close trolling by banned user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If Japan has done nothing to them? Hyerotaku (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC) See Japan–North Korea relations. --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC) This question is trolling by the banned user Timothyhere/Kotjap. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Gospel Amen

This is probably a stupid question, but I'm hoping for some nice references. In the song Amen_(The_Impressions_song), did Jester write the Amen chorus, or did he just arrange an existing Amen and add verses? I ask because I've heard that particular Amen tune used liturgically and, although not impossible given the people involved*, it seems unlikely that a film and pop tune was chosen. (*The hymn "My God loves me" to the tune Chanson d'amour strikes me as particularly incongruous, in retrospect.) 86.161.209.78 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The article used the term "popularized". That implies there was an existing Amen song. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it says the Impressions popularized the song written by Jester for the film Lilies of the Field. 86.161.209.78 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the article tells me that Jester first wrote the song for the film Lilies of the Field. Then, an artist for the Impressions heard it and was inspired by it, thereby creating a new version. It is possible that Jester got inspired from the liturgical version, or vice versa. I assume that people "don't live in a vacuum", always influencing or influenced by the environment. Another possibility is that the liturgical version and the film version just happens to sound similar to you or happens either simultaneously or spontaneously, as is the case with Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in a debate on who discovered calculus. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible for a non-Jewish person to assimilate into the Jewish culture or become an ethnic Jew?

Is it possible for a non-Jewish person to assimilate into the Jewish culture or become an ethnic Jew? Or do you have to be born into a Jewish family with two Jewish parents? If a child is born into a Jewish family, loses his parents, and becomes adopted by a family of a different faith and cultural background, then would that child lose his Jewish status if he practices the faith of his new adoptive parents and learns the cultural ways of his parents, or does he remain forever an "ethnic Jew" even though he is brought up into totally different culture and religion? If the person's race is Asian, but he is brought up in a Hispanic Catholic culture instead of an indigenous Asian culture, then would that person's ethnicity be Hispanic Catholic? Another question is, if a person grows up in a densely populated Jewish/Christian/Muslim community and practices the religion and culture of those groups but that person has non-Jewish/non-Christian/non-Muslim parents, then would those groups accept that person as a member of the community? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't seen it yet, I'll point you to the article Who is a Jew?, which the launching point for figuring out what it means to be Jewish. (Answer: it's complicated, and depends on who you ask.) Regarding community acceptance, it highly depends on the community (on a smaller level than just generic Jewish/Christian/Muslim). -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)