Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

March 8

Tower of London medieval escape

In the article Dafydd ap Llywelyn it says Gruffydd died trying to escape from the Tower of London by climbing down a knotted sheet, and fell to his death in March 1244. Was this a common type of escape in this time period from the Tower of London? Is there other details in a reference on how Dafydd fell to his death? Did the sheets untie? Did he lose his grip? Did others knock him off the sheets? Was he speared? Or some other reason?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was his brother Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr actually. There is some more info there, including an amusing manuscript illustration. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take all colourful medieval,stories with a ton of salt. I found out here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sXBdNsDxJ_cC&pg=PA217&dq=gruffydd+tower+london+death&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OZs5UanqLYLfOpCmgegL&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=gruffydd%20tower%20london%20death&f=false that the story comes from the Chronica Majora of Matthew Paris. Our article on Paris says that he is "not always reliable". Having said that, the incident would have occurred in Paris's lifetime and it isn't a impossibility. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I see I made an error and it is actually Gruffydd that fell from the Tower. The book has Matthew showing how the sheet rope broke due to the tremendous weight of Gruffydd. He then broke his neck in the fall and was killed. The Tower looks like a cylinder with a crown on top. Is it likely that there would have been other prisioners held at the same time as Gruffydd?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wealthy prisoners could afford to pay for a reasonably comfortable apartment, rather than the pokey cells that you see in films. That explains the presence of bedsheets. I would be surprised if records exist to show which tower he was held in and who else was there at the time. The inner curtain wall, built by Henry III and Edward I is punctuated by cylindrical or semi-cylindrical towers, 12 by my count. The tops of many towers were demolished so that they could mount guns during the invasion scare of 1804-5 and the Victorians rebuilt them in the way that they thought looked authentic. Note that whoever drew the medieval picture may well have never seen the Tower of London, probably a monk in a remote abbey somewhere, so it's probably not accurate. Alansplodge (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was the White Tower. By the way, Ranulf Flambard also escaped from there with a rope, in 1100 (although he survived). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So take the round tower pictures with a "ton of salt". Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info. If one were to guess, how many towers would there have been in the complex after Henry III's enhancements in the 13th century?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry III is responsible for building (but not completing) the inner curtain wall,[1], the second wall from the outside on the model shown right. So it looks like 12 towers, plus the big central keep, the White Tower, which was started by William I. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alansplodge.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital mutilation prevalence rates over time in a graph?

Hi. I need a graph of the overall world-wide combined incidence rate of all types of female genital mutilation. Preferably over the past decades, but I'm not sure how feasible that is because I found some tables which might have part of that information in the back of http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf but they are very hard to interpret (e.g. three different years from each country, but not the same years and the rates vary widely by country). Any graph is better than nothing at this point, just to get some idea of the general overall trend. Thanks. 71.212.255.94 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found some charts that compare the incidence between women of different ages, would that help?
WHO: Trends in female genital mutilation,
Prevalence of FGM/C Among Younger and Older Women (page 3),
Younger women are less likely to have undergone any form of FGM/C than women in older age groups.
See also this statement by Ethiopian organization KMG: "KMG’s interventions have contributed to changes in attitude on FGM... more and more parents and girls are rejecting the practice – which has contributed to a phenomenal reduction in prevalence levels. According to a survey conducted by UNICEF in 2008; the % levels of those practicing FGM in Kembatta Zone had reduced from 97% in 1999 to 4.7% in 2008 and could have reduced even further as of May 2012."
You might also check out Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country which appears to have a lot of references linked from it. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So far http://www.prb.org/images08/TrendsInFGMC.gif is the closest I've found, but I wish it had a single time scale. 71.212.255.94 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the U.S. President order an ordinary person to do something?

Our son asked: "What if the President came in and told you that you have to eat salads?" This raised an interesting question: can the President in fact order a person that doesn't report to him to do something (or rather, does the person have to obey, like they generally would have to obey a policeman that asks to, say, move from a particular spot)? This question assumes that no law or executive order has been at point issued to any particular effect. Obviously, there are things a President can do that will affect you, e.g., by coming to your house, he'll subject you to high-level security perhaps without your permission, but the question is about a more direct type of communication, e.g., "Mr. Wales, I order you to eat this cupcake!".Knyazhna (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the President can't order a particular person to do something. The extent to which he can compel all Americans to do something is questionable. There are some things which can be done by executive order, but they are generally quite limited. Most actions would require the approval of Congress, and perhaps the Supremes. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he cannot. The President doesn't rule or reign in the U.S., he presides. He does not set law, he cannot enforce his will upon you. That's what having a citizen president means. As John Adams once famously put it, the U.S. has a "government of laws and not of men". The President's duties and obligations are outlined in the U.S. constitution, specifically Article Two of the United States Constitution which does not contain the right to order other citizens around at his whim. Additional commentary by the writers of the Constituion on the scope of the President's powers and duties are in the Federalist Papers, specifically #41-43 which covers the powers of the Federal Government in general, and #67-77 which covers the executive branch and its powers in specific details. --Jayron32 05:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think "whim" is the wrong word. The president may have what appears to be a good reason to him (e.g. national security). Would he still not be able to order? I am sure the founding fathers thought he couldn't, but nowadays is that really true? Ornil (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even in some national security crisis, I don't think the president would have the constitutional backing to order civilians around without the backing of congress. The president can do some things with executive orders, but he cant just walk up to you and start ordering you around. Hope that helps ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so simple. At the moment, the President could not force you to eat your vegetables... but if Congress passes a law that said "Americans must eat their vegetables"... then the Executive branch could create a "Vegetable Enforcement Agency" to enforce that law. The Constitutionality of that law (or the method of enforcement) would no doubt be challenged, but that is another issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you happened to live in an area that was in rebellion against the United States, the president might be considered to have authority to give orders, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, if he could make the case that it was of military value against the rebellion. That was apparently the theory behind the Emancipation Proclamation anyway.

In my view, that's a "hard cases make bad law" sort of situation. The Proclamation was obviously correct morally, whether it was legal or not. But I wish the take on it were (by coincidence the same as mine), something like of course, slavery is against natural law, so the Proclamation was morally correct, but it was illegal. Good thing it happened, but it's not a precedent. Instead it seems that commentators have been swayed by the fact that it was the right thing to do, into giving assent to the highly dubious constitutional reasoning behind it. That could come back to bite us.

Anyway, short answer is no, the president cannot give orders to individuals not serving in the Armed Forces, under ordinary circumstances. --Trovatore (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer could also be maybe, since all U.S. males 17-44 are members of the "unorganized militia" [2] (except mariners, postmen, shipyard workers, some government employees). If the President could "call up" the unorganized militia to active duty, then as Commander-in-chief he could give them orders. But the unorganized militia would probably need to be called up by a new law from Congress activated a new draft (probably). Some states also make the same people members of the state militia and might perhaps be called up by the state governor and then into federal service, if the state laws allowed. Ex-military members are militia members until 65. Rmhermen (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my state (Michigan) the governor could theoretically call up any male age 17-60 for "in case of riot, tumult, breach of the peace, resistance of process, or for service in aid of civil authority, whether state or federal, or in time of public danger, disaster, crisis, catastrophe or other public emergency within this state." But whether anyone has ever actually been required to do so, I can't say. Rmhermen (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many teachers of English as a foreign language are there?

Implicit in my question: all varieties of the English language; in the world, not just wherever I'm from or wherever you are from; people who would self-identify as teachers but not necessarily professional. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.43.33.86 (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This guy claims (without a reference, unfortunately) that there are 1 billion ESL learners - divide by average class size to give yourself a rough estimate? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The figure sounds kind of too high, even if you take into account that many school systems have English as a foreign language. 14:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's probably on the low side if you just consider all the countries that have English as an offical language - India alone would easily fill a large chunk of the "1 billion". Outside of the Anglosphere itself most European countries have English as a second language at least at high school level and it's also popular in China and Japan. Roger (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the notion that only the upper class in India speaks English to any significant extent. Most of them do speak it rather fluently, though almost always as a second language (the figure I've heard for first-language speakers in India is about a quarter mil). Anyway "a large chunk of the 1 billion" seems unlikely to me, but I have no real data. --Trovatore (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore, your notion is not far from the truth, though I think English language knowledge extends somewhat beyond the upper class to include much of the upper middle class, particularly those working in export-oriented sectors and tourism. [OR alert for the following:] Still, I doubt that more than 10% of Indians can carry on a conversation in English. Many lower middle class Indians have a rudimentary knowledge of English, based on my experience traveling independently in southern India. That is, many Indians can manage simple exchanges, like stating numbers in response to "How much?", but probably not much of a real conversation. Marco polo (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think 1 billion active learners is too high. I believe that there are something like 1 billion non-native speakers of English. (You will find higher numbers in some sources, but those numbers probably include people whose ability to speak English doesn't go much beyond "Hello" "How are you?" "Thank you" and "My name is...".) Not all of them are active learners. That is, many of them use the language without actively studying it any longer. The estimate of 1 billion learners was made by the British Council, part of whose mission is to encourage English language learning. It is clearly in their interest to overestimate the number of learners to justify their budget to the British government. A more realistic figure for active learners would be in the hundreds of millions. Let's say that there are 700 million people currently learning English (maybe 400 million just in China and India). Now, let's say the average English teacher teaches 35 students (in an average of more than one class session, since many teachers would teach multiple classes). That would suggest around 20 million English teachers. Note that many teachers of English in China and perhaps elsewhere themselves have limited speaking ability, so the quality of teaching may not be high. Marco polo (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised just how many of the lower classes in India and Nepal and other countries of that area speak English - even children who have no access to schooling or any form of education. When I was trekking in the Himalayas ten years ago, I met a ten year-old boy in ragged clothing who came up to me and my wife and asked me where I was from. I told him I was from England, and he said, "Oh, wow! I've always wanted to go to England!" Looking out across the mountains, he asked me to show him where it was. He spoke perfect English, but had no idea that the country itself was so far away that it was impossible to see from where we were. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Armistice Agreement

I decided to ask this here because I do not believe people will view the talk page for the article. Multiple news sources say that North Korea won't fulfill it's peace treaties and non-agression pact anymore. I also included a report from two days ago that speculated about them canceling the armistice. My question is if the armistice is one of the treaties cancelled and if it is, can that be conveyed in the article properly? --Thebirdlover (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is already language in the article about North Korea's rejection of the treaty. That language seems appropriate to the current situation, in which North Korea has rejected the treaty but not yet abrogated it in a sustained way. If a full-fledged war broke out, then the article would need editing to indicate that the treaty was fully defunct. Marco polo (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting ended in the Korean Conflict when the Armistice was signed in 1953. If the North says they now repudiate the Armistice, then the Conflict is back on isn't it? Would bombings, shelling, sinking their ships, amphibious landings and other acts of war against the North be in accord with all customs of war? Such actions are presumably not going to happen against the North without military action on their part since Russia and China have UN veto power, but if the North attacked the South, or attacked US bases somewhere with missiles, would retaliation be subject to Russian or Chinese veto, or is there some continuing UN resolution such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 83 from 1950 which would authorize warfare against North Korea? Did Resolution 83 become defunct when the 1953 Armistice was signed? Edison (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smith

Hi! I was reading our article on Adam Smith, but i'm still not too sure on his political ideals, could anyone here state what his political ideas were or if he came up with any? All I can find as of now is some things about Political Economy, am I missing anything? Thanks ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote a whole book on morality, which contains ideas relevant to politics, and a multi-volume book on political economy, which contains a great many opinions on political issues. If you start reading The Wealth of Nations you will see how he has a view on many social issues of his time. In fact the book is largely about social policy. He critiques what he calls "the policy of Europe", especially England, where restrictive government legislation interfered with business, and he thinks, also interfered with people's freedom and ability to find work. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what are the causes of the rebellion?

WP:DENY

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

what are the causes that led to the rebellion and the rebel alliance? what could the empire have done to prevent this? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify - which rebellion or empire are you referring to? Please don't tell me you are referring to this. 129.31.212.48 (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about star wars? If so try reading this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Alliance_to_Restore_the_Republic. Staecker (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the OP may be referring to the Syrian civil war. If so, then the article should fill you in on the specifics regarding the outbreak of the uprising. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that at first, but Syria is hardy an empire. I suspect it's an intentionally silly question. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could take the line espoused by some editors, some even in all seriousness, that all questions are assumed to be about the USA unless there's evidence to the contrary. That would mean we're talking about the American Revolution and the British Empire. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 16:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a view that seems to exist mainly in the imagination of people objecting to it.

In any case, when you put rebel alliance together with the empire, I think it's pretty obvious that the question is about Star Wars. There are lots of rebel alliances in real-world history, but they're hardly ever called by that unqualified name. --Trovatore (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general answer to all such questions is that "the rebellion" was either caused by the oppression of the people, or by treasonable conspirators bent on the destruction of society. The empire could have prevented this by liberating the people from oppression or by cracking down on subversives. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those two effects are distinct. That is, there are some people who will rebel no matter how fairly they are treated, but, the more unfairly you treat people, the more will rebel. So, then, the key is to "divide and conquer", by being as fair as possible, but also attacking those who rebel no matter what. For example, in the case of the Syrian government, they should have allowed demonstrations, and granted democratic reforms, while using military means to deal with Muslim fundamentalists. But, they didn't do this, they instead attacked everyone, guaranteeing an alliance between those wanting democratic reforms and Muslim fundamentalists, who are now both shared enemies of the government. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited the OP via talk page to come back and clarify. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP's questions have been getting steadily weirder -- this one just plain looks like trolling. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery history

I am looking for history in slavery for a social studies report. Richard Daly was a slave. I can not find him.74.215.45.218 (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are brief references to him here, here and here. No wikipedia article yet, that I can find. I’d recommend visiting a library and asking for books about the Underground Railroad or a Who’s Who in Kentucky/Encyclopedia of Kentucky. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does one maintain one's Christian status?

How does one maintain one's Christian status in order to stay within christendom and not become kicked out of christendom by one's church community? If a particular church rejects a member due to radical difference of beliefs, can that member join a new church? How do church officials recognize the difference between false believers and true believers? If a Christian lacks the ability to guess effectively what the pastor/priest believes in on a particular issue, can this person be excused from becoming banished from the Christian community? Sneazy (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "become kicked out of christendom" or "becoming banished from the Christian community". Can you explain what's behind your question? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 16:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most denominations don't kick people out at all, and those which do typically practice this quite rarely. See excommunication. One exception is polygamous branches of the Mormon church, which must kick out large numbers of men in order to provide the desired ratio of men to women. Of course, being kicked out of one denomination leaves you free to join another. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excommunication is a complicated topic, but in general it does not constitute being "kicked out of the church". In Catholic theory at least (I'm not a Catholic but they have the most elaborated and well-explained law on the subject), excommunication is a discipline intended to bring an erring disciple back to the fold. It is never hardly ever? irreversible, though for some particularly grave offenses it can be remitted only by the pope, if I remember correctly. An excommunicate Catholic is not excused from any Catholic obligations, must for example attend Mass, though he is not permitted to take communion. --Trovatore (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just like there are different levels of bankruptcy, there are also different levels of excommunication, up to and including banishment. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Catholics there is no such thing as "being kicked out of the Church". Even anathema (which I'm not clear on whether it still exists) is reversible. If I recall correctly, confirmation is considered to make an indelible mark on the soul, which makes you a Catholic forever, even in Hell if it comes to that. --Trovatore (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing sounds rather nonsensical. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. Sacraments are held to leave a permanent mark on the soul, just as Trovatore says, but are no guarantee of salvation. A Catholic can still end up in Hell, according to Catholic belief. But it's Baptism that makes you a Catholic forever, according to Catholic belief: it tends to be Anglicans that consider Confirmation as the point of irreversibly becoming Catholic ;) 86.128.227.169 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once in Hell you'll burn till time ends, right? Which is never. Anything else is rather pointless after that. It must be funny to make a distinction between the Catholics and the non-Catholics which are currently roasting on fire in Hell. Also, it always seemed to me that the Sacrament of Confession does guarantee salvation - until you next sin again, and that the Priest is rather unnecessary in the process. Also, question: do confessions done by Priests who abused children count? Wouldn't a "and any sin I may have forgotten, or had been confessed improperly (like to a pedophile priest, which would not be a priest by the time of confession were his crimes known)" clause make sense here? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The just man sins seven times a day, etc". There ain't no such thing as a perfect human being, and that includes priests. It's the intention of the penitent that matters, not whether the priest is personally maculate. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's no such thing as the Christian community, or Christendom. Not really. What there is, is a bewildering multitude of different sects (let's call them churches), all of whom operate autonomously, most of whom claim to be the only true church, and most of whom do not recognise the legitimacy of any of the others (although there may be some degree of recognition of their sacraments such as baptism). ~~There's probably more inter-faith dialogue between the Anglicans and the Jews, or the Catholics and the Muslims, than between most pairs of Christian churches.~~ -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 16:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a bit of a sweeping statement. See for example Churches Together in England. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, does that mean Christians from different denominations recognize each other as heretics or false believers? Why can't the sacred book be viewed subjectively like any other literary work? In other words, the implication of a particular passage to support a particular position is subjective, and that one will never know "Truth" but nevertheless enjoys the pursuit of "Truth". Sneazy (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is obviously inter-denominational conflict in some parts of the world, tremendous strides have been made over the last century, and Christians from different churches now routinely work together, respecting each other's differing traditions. See Ecumenism for more details. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This is heading for something of a debate, but I can help a little with one thing. Do they regard each other as heretics? Well, the Decree on Ecumenism from the Second Vatican Council altered the Catholic Church's position, and made highly conciliatory overtures towards Protestant Christians. Many of the most committed Evangelical Christians I have met regard most Catholics as not being Christians. They will state it explicitly, but acknowledge that some Catholics are Christians. Liberal Christians will almost certainly differ. Evangelicals don't like the Bible being treated as just another literary work, but it may be explicitly called a "text" in liberal circles. It just depends on the individual. IBE (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Agree with the two posters above, there are in fact many churches that, while believing others to be mistaken on certain points, nevertheless consider them brothers in faith. Sometimes such recognition can be one-sided, e.g. the protestant reformer John Calvin wrote concerning Martin Luther, (who strongly repudiated Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper): "Even if he should call me a devil, I would accord him the honor of acknowledging him to be an eminent servant of God." - Lindert (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec as well) I think that is a gross exaggeration, Jack. Most churches which believe in infant baptism accept most other church's baptisms as valid while most churches which believe in only adult baptism accept most other churches' adult baptisms as valid. Many churches have intercommunion. Our Full communion article has only partial lists while Open communion discusses churches which do not restrict their celebration of the Lord's Supper/communion/Eucharist. Interchurch dialogue is quite common as are multichurch or parachurch organizations. Which is not to say that most churches do not believe that they are the best, most correct, and or that they believe certain others are very wrong. But it is not as grim as you painted it. Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of this discussion has been about what various groups believe or recognize, but many of the groups themselves don't consider their own recognition to be definitive. See church invisible. From the point of view of Christian theology, the only one who can kick you out of the real Church is God. --Trovatore (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To partially address the questioner's last question: In some usually independent congregations, the pastor/priest/minister may wield such power. In others, he is responsible to or together with a group of local church leaders. In most other churches, the pastor is responsible to a regional council or bishop and sometimes to higher levels (national, international church bodies). In some churches, there is a "Supreme Leader" (Pope, Patriach, etc.) with final authority. Rmhermen (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a friend that I've caught up with after many years. Some years ago, he was banished from his local church because he refused to join in paying the wages of the pastor. That, however, doesn't mean he was thrown out of Christianity, or that he's not now a Christian: he still regards himself as a believer, just not a member of that particular church. Ultimately, whether you are a Christian is between yourself and God, not another human being and you. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a picture

close trolling by indef blocked user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I found a small picture of Westley Allan Dodd to put in his article but I can't upload it because I am not an administrator accordin to what it said. Can an administrator upload this picture? It's a TV screenshot from the TV show Most Evil. Thank you. It qualifies under rationale since he was hanged like a pig in 1993. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMicronesian (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no special need to be a administrator to upload pictures. The usual issue is with accounts that are too new (a bar set to limit vandalism). However to upload an image you either must prove it is freely licensed or in the public domain or you must own the rights and freely license them. We usually prefer those images to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which makes it easier for all language versions of Wikipedia to use the image. English Wikipedia does allow some "fair use" of copyrighted images but the legalities of this are more complex. TV screenshots are almost never freely licensed but copyrighted by the producers of the programming. Rmhermen (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between the Holy Spirit and baptism

In Christian theology, what is the relationship between the Holy Spirit and baptism? Is the Holy Spirit present before, during, after, or throughout the whole baptism? Also, how do you differentiate the Holy Spirit from God? Is the Holy Spirit God or is God the Holy Spirit or is the Holy Spirit a part of God? Also, what does "personal lord and savior" mean? How does Jesus fulfill the role of the "personal lord and savior"? Does the person repent to the Holy Spirit or Jesus? 140.254.121.60 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a LOT on which denomination you belong to as far as the relationship between the Holy Spirit and baptism. There's no widely agreed upon relationship. In broadest terms, the Holy Spirit is God's presence that exists within people guiding their actions to his will. Since denominations differ greatly on the practice of and theology surrounding the act of Baptism, it is quite hard to draw any broad commonalities. I have been, in my life, a practicing Catholic and a practicing Baptist. The Catholics practice infant baptism and do so because they believe that Baptism is required for getting into Heaven, and thus unbaptized infants could be condemned without said baptism. I'm not sure they have any position of the relation of Baptism to the Holy Spirit, that is I can't find any statements to say whether a person can have the "holy spirit" within them prior to Baptism, whether it comes before or after baptism, or whether such spirit is omnipresent. In the Baptist faith, a person receives the Holy Spirit when they accept Christ as their personal savior (that is, they agree to follow his teachings and recognize him as the son of God and the ultimate sacrifice for their own sins: that's what "personal lord and savior" means: lord as in leader, savior as in one who saves us from hell) and makes a "profession of faith", which is a public statement of the same. Baptists do this before Baptism, that is they don't allow someone to be Baptized (or don't recognize such prior Baptisms) for which the person has not already received the Holy Spirit in their lives. Baptists practice believer's baptism which means the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Profession of Faith happen prior to the Baptism itself. The Holy Spirit is not distinguished from God, it is an aspect of God or a role that God plays. Nearly all Christians today follow "Trinitarian" theology and hold that the Trinity represents three co-equal aspects of God, being God the Father (the God that created the universe), God the Son (being Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. See also Holy Spirit (Christian denominational variations) for more reading. There are a LOT of different perspectives on this, and none is bound to be really universal. --Jayron32 20:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will the Roman Catholic church baptize a deceased infant? What happens if the infant dies at birth? Will that infant still be baptized, or must the infant be alive to be baptized? What if the mother doesn't know that the pregnancy has been spontaneously aborted? Or maybe, the preterm babies don't count as human and therefore do not qualify to be baptized? Also, why is Jesus the son of God? What does "son" mean? Also, the terms "body of Christ" and "bride of Christ" refer to the Church. However, the former term may imply that Christ is the leader of the Church and the latter may imply that Christ is the husband or bridegroom of the Church? Is this husband-wife relationship equal or is one more dominant than the other? Lastly, why do you capitalize "baptism"? 140.254.121.60 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be the case that an unbaptised infant in the RC church was said to go to "Limbo": this concept was abolished quite recently, and now such infants are said to go straight to heaven. As to Jesus being the son of God, you need to read the story of the Annunciation. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the last question, It's because I'm too Lazy to Pay attention to What I am doing and I randomly Capitalize some words Sometimes. Pay it No Mind. You can read more about various theological interpretations of the phrases you ask about at Bride of Christ and Body of Christ. --Jayron32 21:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[This website] suggests that even Roman Catholics are "born-again". However, the concept of being "born-again" is different for Catholics than for evangelical Protestants. For Catholics, being born-again happens at baptism. For evangelical Protestants, being born-again happens before baptism, which from the Catholic view, would presumably look like the individual has been "baptized twice". So, an infant baptized in the Catholic church would be considered by the church as "born again". 140.254.121.60 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As our article on Limbo of the Infants made clear last time I looked, that's not really true Tammy. Limbo used to be a more popular theory, and currently "all babies go to Heaven" is a more popular theory, but neither is Church teaching or ever were. The Church actually very clearly says that we cannot know what happens to unbaptised infants, although we can hope and trust. One of the things that publishing the Catechism of the Catholic Church made very easy was checking which things Catholics say are actually Church teaching, and which are not. The big change, therefore, was that it became easier for Catholics to access the information that Limbo was not an actual doctrine, as opposed to a particularly popular pious belief in their region. But even the old Catholic Encyclopedia article, which predates Vatican II by decades, makes it clear that Limbo of the Infants is only a theory, not a doctrine. 81.156.144.160 (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo 140.254.121.60. Baptism is just a symbolic ritual to suggest that at this point froward, any past sins (“an apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” thing) is in the past and a new start can be had. The Holy sprit in the modern age can be best thought off as sentient awareness blended with life experience and inflection. That only comes when an individual reaches that stage in life when s/he has the intellectual capacity. . . to understand. The disciples ( et. al., of JC of Naz) were no young chickens when they were filled with it. So no, Baptism and the holy spirit have no temporal connection.--Aspro (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "a new start can be had"? Do you mean that the follower of Christ would live a new way of life or follow a new way to cope with life, or do you mean that the follower of Christ is now "perfect"? 140.254.121.60 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. If you look at a really old baptism font you may see inscribed: Νίψον ἀνομήματα, μὴ μόναν ὄψιν. To day we can take it as meaning: To all present in this community, present at this baptism... etc., OK, we all know this kid's dad is well known for doing a bit of poaching and is quick to perform a bit of ducking and diving. But is his child (moms were not included in those days) to be tainted with his fathers reputation? No! (emphatic). Therefore, by this act of baptism he can be encourages to follow the road to righteousness ( i.e., not do what his dad does). So it means the former to your question; he is being given the chance to live a new way of life. Americans now (for instance) often employ a psychoanalyst – they speak in modern language that is easier to understand. So, even if they ( the analysts) are are a bit off message (?) , their clients get the support, that religion in a bygone age would have given them.--Aspro (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: For the anoraks and geeks out there, did you notice that that Νίψον ἀνομήματα, μὴ μόναν ὄψιν is a palindrome? Really neat, because it goes both ways, which in this context is very fitting. You can't turn it around to suggest anything else. These medieval people where really very smart IMHO. They would have not problem in getting a plumb job in to-days advertising industry.--Aspro (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the Bible is all marketing hype. That explains a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism is fairly clearly not "just a symbolic ritual" for many (possibly most) Christians - see Baptism#Meaning and effects. For Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Lutherans and Anglicans, among others, it is a sacrament. The exact understanding of what a sacrament is varies from denomination to demonination - the article provides more information - but for these groups baptism is not merely symbolic. With regard to the OP's question, there is a fairly explicit link between the Holy Spirit and baptism in Catholicism - see Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit or have a read of the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which deals with baptism [3] and includes, among other statements The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit. and The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. (my emphasis). Valiantis (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best way to explain Baptism, from the point of view of the Baptists (as I tried to explain above) is that it is the act which makes inner conversion real. It completes the event. It isn't the baptism that brings about salvation, it's the acceptance of Jesus as one's lord and savior that does that, but that doesn't make the subsequent Baptism symbolic or unnecessary. The spirit of James Chapter 2 explains it well: Man is saved by faith, but faith without works is dead. So the faith and the works are necessary. In the case of Baptism, the acceptance of Christ and the Baptism are both necessary, the inner conversion validates the subsequent Baptism, and the Baptism seals the conversion, much as a "signature" seals a "contract". Again, depending on your denomination YMMV and there are different understandings, but as Valiantis notes nearly all major denominations hold Baptism as a vital sacrament or event, and not symbolic in any way, but meaningful; though different denominations will give different rationales for its importance. --Jayron32 00:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good way of saying it Jayron32. When I suggested it was 'just' symbolic I meant the it is the formulaic ceremony -is just that. It is a structure or ritual that everybody knows. As Ryan Vesey say's below, you can use tape water, (or you can even bring back a bottle of that open sewer that is still called the Jordan River to use in your babies baptism)(but boil it for 15 minutes). It doesn't matter, as I think you will agree. It is understanding the meaning behind-the -ritual that carries the purpose. But the act of baptism itself, is just an formulaic act. I agree: Train some chimpanzees to follow through with the same mannerisms and it would not be a Christen baptism. So, I'm not disagreeing with you, other than wording we are using to try to sum things up into very few words. It is a "contract" between parents, priest, vicars and the local community of friends and neighbors. It it the parents solemnly "contracting " before witnesses , to pass over to the church absolute authority over their child. Perhaps, not what John-the-Baptist originally had in mind - but thats another topic.--Aspro (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has been made clear above, baptism is very different depending on the denomination. I was baptised Lutheran, but I don't really know how they treat it, they do take part in infant baptists. I was raised Methodist. Methodism, for one, makes it clear that baptism by water is unnecessary. My pastor makes a point at each baptism of showing that we use tap water, not any special sort of water. It is generally done to infants, but adults who wish to be baptized by water can do so. When an infant is baptized in a Methodist church, both the Church and the infant's parents/relatives/godparents agree to raise him or her in Christianity. Later in life, Methodists go through confirmation. At the end of confirmation classes, we make a public confession of our faith. This is essentially analogous to the Baptist conception of baptism. Ryan Vesey 23:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not been explicitly mentioned yet, so I'd just like to mention the relevant Dominical statement, John 3:5: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." As we can see from the above discussion, there is no universal interpretation of this passage. Tevildo (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

Nootka Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embalming heads of state for display

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic churches in Bavaria and their bells

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen Harper's foreign policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran? And what can Iran possibly do to Canada, besides screaming "I don't like you!" really loudly? Islam is certainly a major threat to the Middle East, but it's simply delusional to think that Islamic terrorists pose much of a threat to Canada, where it's killed precisely 0 people. See rally 'round the flag effect. The biggest Islamic threat to Canada are the barbaric values that some Muslims bring to Canada, but Canadian Muslims are much more enlightened in this regard than those of most European countries: [4]. Since McGuinty prohibited the use of religious tribunals to settle family disputes in 2005 after someone advocated a Sharia-based tribunal, there's been very little trouble from Muslims. The occasional story of a father killing her daughter for being too Western are the extreme exception, not the rule. --140.180.243.114 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'is in Iran

close trolling by indef blocked user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, I am from Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia and I was thinking of traveling to Iran. I've been learning the Persian language for a while and I'm interested in its history but I am a Baha'i and some have told me that I better stay away from Iran. How true is that? FMicronesian (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "Bahá'í Faith in Iran" and "voy:Iran#People" and http://www.experttravelanswers.com.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should check what your NSA (National Spiritual Assembly) has to say on the matter. In Australia, the NSA has discouraged travel to Iran, for reasons that I do not know exactly. I have been told there is no danger to the traveller, but it could cause other problems (I don't know exactly what). In Australia, they certainly don't forbid it. I am not trying to tell you what to do, but merely suggesting that it would be wise to find out what your institutions have to say. Yes, it is hard learning Persian, I agree - even though I have dozens of people to practice on, well, they all speak English. You might get exactly the same in Iran, though, for all I know - everyone practising their English on you. IBE (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is a dangerous place for Baha'is at the moment. I'm telling you from inside Iran. --Omidinist (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China in the 18th century

In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 10

NDE greatest proof that there is an afterlife?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

close trolling by indef blocked user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am from Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia and I'm tired and angry when reading the newspapers on United Nations General Assembly votes in which my country always support the U.S. and Israel. And the comments say that we're not independent and that we are a colony of the U.S. Why such disrespect? Why don't people respect the independence of Pacific Island nations? FMicronesian (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is start to respect yourself like a sovereign nation, and don't follow US everywhere he goes, but if your government decide by his own to support US, because truly believe is a good cause, is also a sovereign choose.In the votation against the embargo Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and others nations always support US, but Cuban people have no resentments we know your country have his reasons to support US.CubanEkoMember (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been repeatedly posted by blocked User:Timothyhere and his various socks such as the recently indeffed User:Kotjap. See talk for diffs. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chardal vs religious Zionist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ePublishing

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

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

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

Are there no Chinese Papabili?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Judaism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [5] for example. --Xuxl (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here's the source so I don't stir up arguments [6] 186.130.66.144 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

differences between wahhabis and Salafis

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Tacitus Trap" in Chinese/Western political science?

The China Daily says:[7]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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[8], a People's Daily commentary[9], one website which asserts that the idea is famous in western political science[10], and meta-posts skeptically reflecting on the term itself.[11][12] It would help to have a native speaker sort through this. 198.151.130.150 (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.” [[13]]DOR (HK) (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See Luke 14:31, 32.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Spain. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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[reply]

Yes. See Literature of Birmingham#Crime fiction, science fiction and other genre fiction. See also [14] Gwinva (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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:

France (4,704,000 Muslims)
Germany (4,119,000)
UK (2,869,000)
Italy (1,583,000)
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Well, I am still puzzled with 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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. [15] Rmhermen (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, it would decline, in both cases. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]