Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk | contribs) at 20:32, 9 March 2015 (→Venezuela: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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


Ready? Ask a new question!


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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


March 4

Georgia

How was the area of Georgia divided when Stalin was born?Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Are you asking about its political subdivisions, or are you simply asking about what country it was in? If the latter, see our Georgia within the Russian Empire article, including its useful map from when young Iosif Vissarionovich was four years old. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking about political subdivisions.2602:306:C541:CC60:51D:B38D:18D2:A14C (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this map and this article in the Russian Wikipedia, what is now Georgia was divided into the governorates of Tbilisi and Kutaisi, the latter including the Sukhumi okrug, the oblast of Batumi, and perhaps a sliver of the oblast of Kars. Marco polo (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about ISIS videos: Why do some ISIS members hide their faces, while others do not?

I don't understand this about ISIS and their videos. Why is it that some of the guys carefully hide their faces (with masks and coverings and such) to maintain anonymity, while others freely allow their faces to be seen (and photographed and videotaped, to boot)? I don't get it. What could be the possible reason for this distinction, which often occurs even within the same video? ISIS seems like a very structured and organized group, where members are expected to follow orders and do as told. So, when they make a video, I can't imagine that the leaders say something like "Well, if you feel like it, you can cover your face. But, if you don't feel like it, then you can reveal your face." What gives? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good bet is that those covering their faces come from a Western nation, and would like to be able to return some day, perhaps to launch an attack there. They might also fear reprisals against their families still in those nations. StuRat (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they aren't as well-organized as they would like us to think. Also, they're not very careful. "Jihadi John" has been identified, and even his own mother confirmed that's his voice. The "fear of reprisal against relatives" is part of their paranoia. But it's a good bet that "Jihadi John" won't be returning home, unless it's in a body bag. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Organized or not, I think that hiding versus revealing one's face is a pretty important piece of their videos. I doubt they just leave it up to the random whim of each member. Their videos are very carefully orchestrated and choreographed. I am sure that hiding/revealing the face is part of the equation that they consider when making a video. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, in which case the decision in each case is a tactical one. But what they are doing is new, so they are not experienced at it. In the case of Jihadi John, they might have thought mistakenly that concealing his face would have allowed them to send him back to Britain to do something like attack Beefeaters with a machete. If we are right about this, then, based on this new knowledge, either faces will stop being concealed, or some faces will remain concealed while a different person delivers a voice-over. Marco polo (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving them ideas. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are obviously more than capable of coming up with ghastly ideas on their own. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I guess that I assumed that it was an "all or nothing" proposition. That is: "Hiding our faces is important, so we all have to do it." Or: "Hiding our faces is not that important, so none of us has to do it." And I can see the individual who "goes against the grain" would suffer reprisal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell , they have no Borg implants, so they are probably just as individualistic as, say, American truckers or French chefs. More seriously, it's a sad and dangerous mistake to assume they are more equal than any other group of semi-organised people gathering around any one particular aspect of their lives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They don't seem well-organized to me. Early on they appeared to be planning to allow "nonbelievers" to continue to live in the area, provided they paid an extra tax. There is such a provision in Muslim law for this, and, while unfair discrimination from a Western POV, probably nobody would have gone to war over this. But instead of sticking with this policy, they started massacring religious minorities, guaranteeing that they would be attacked. Even then many nations might only launch token attacks against them. However, then ISIS had to do things like burning the Jordanian pilot alive and posting executions of civilians online, ensuring that the attackers would actually do what it takes to win. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "extra tax" is usually the Jizya, and in less radical islamic societies it is supposed to compensate for the fact that non-muslims don't have to pay Zakat. It's anachronistic, but at least historically it is not particularly unfair. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No less fair than favouring married people. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
In America you can try to get your Congressman and Senators to propose taking away the tax advantage for marrieds. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And in countries that aren't America, it's acceptable to negotiate with terrorists. Changing either consensus is very hard, though. Easier to just teach other terrorists to kill them. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
We can't help what foolishness other countries decide to get into. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
If we chose to, we could declare war on ISIS and throw everything we've got at them. But they're not sitting there in isolation, so a lot of groundwork would have to be laid. And if the Islamic states in the region decide to take of ISIS, all the better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see where ISIS is dealing with gays by throwing them off buildings. As bad as that is, almost anything is better than being roasted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The groundwork is being laid. Like I said, it's hard to convince Senators. Especially when you're essentially asking for permission to roast people. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
It's better to be prepared and hope we don't need it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a fairly significant mistake to assume that Daesh is working towards only one aim at a time (and also to assume that they doesn't care about the proclivities of their members - you can bet your ass they factor who wants to return to their homelands for nefarious purposes or even just who is worried about retribution. Enthusiastic, active jihadis will be more effective at achieving Daesh's goals than a bunch of bummed out ones, so generally speaking they will factor member sentiment in to decisions, even though that obviously won't be the only factor.)
Daesh didn't initially want Christians to pay the jizya and live in peace and then suddenly shift towards deciding to kill them all. At the same time throughout their existence depending on the needs of the organization and local and member sentiments, multiple methods of dealing with Christians have existed throughout their territory. Some Christians have been utterly left alone - and some fraction will likely continue to be until/unless Daesh actually fully takes over the world (and possibly even then.) Some have been forced to pay the jizya. Some have been killed. And some have been beheaded in propaganda films with incredibly high production values for the whole world to see. Each method serves its purpose, and each will likely to continue. As Daesh has discovered, high production value brutality can be incredibly effective at manipulating foreign opinion (as well as internal morale) and the actions of governments - so when need for manipulation that can be achieved through these means arises, they will likely continue to use them. At the same time, in areas that need funding (or where brutality towards Christians serves no internal or external purpose,) the jizya - Daesh's version is much more confiscatory than the historical jizya - can be a valuable tool. And in an area where the assistance of Christians is needed for whatever reason (or an area where Daesh doesn't yet have the ability to control the population if they brutalize Christians,) some have been left to live without paying the jizya. I would be quite surprised if any of these treatments or the in between gradients disappears, although it's notable that (at least before the rising strength of Daesh - I'm not sure about now,) Al-Nusra - aka al-qaeda in Syria - decided that killing civilians of any stripe was bad for the success of their group, and made significant efforts to minimize both the number of civilian casualties and how much popular attention was paid to them. (This white paper from the Quilliam Foundation gives a very interesting overview of the doctrine and evolution of al-nusra.) I do intentionally keep specifying Christians - Daesh's treatment of Jews, Shiite Muslims, and people not of the book tends to be very different.
Treatment of Christians isn't the only area where Daesh doesn't follow a uniform policy - in some areas and at some times civilians who try to protect cultural artifacts are summarily executed and the artifacts subsequently destroyed, but in Mosul a large group of civilians formed a human chain around and successfully prevented Daesh from destroying the famed leaning minaret of the Great Mosque of Nur al-Din (and if retribution was taken against them later, it wasn't publicized as such.) Though in some areas Christians have been able to live relatively unmolested, in Raqqa many houses and parts of houses have been seized from Sunnis who had not given particular offense to Daesh - the number of foreign fighters housed in the city combined with Daesh's practice of giving fairly roomy accomodations to most Western fighters presumably made them need a greater housing supply in the area. (Of course, most legitimate governments also hold widely inconsistent practices with regard to at least some things throughout their territories - we just have an idea that consistency should be expected. As an example, just because it's in the news so much lately - in some areas of California some open growers and sellers of marijuana are held in great respect by their local governments (the city governments of Berkeley and Oakland are both engaged in expensive legal disputes with the feds to protect local dispensaries,) and police in the US's capital city have started returning seized marijuana to arrestees, though some Californians are serving long jail terms for selling marijuana - and at least a couple dozen people are serving life sentences in the US for nonviolent marijuana offenses.)
About Marco's suggestion that eventually we'd see different people doing voiceovers than actually doing the beheading - interestingly, this has probably always been the case for reasons that haven't been fully drawn out. Most people who have done careful analysis of the videos suggest that Jihadi John - despite holding a knife leading up to the beheadings and returning immediately after they have been completed - is not the person performing the actual act. There's evidence that most (or all) of the videos have significant cuts (in the context, I wish I could think of another word) immediately before the actual beheading that suggest that a different militant steps in to perform the actual act or that the actual beheading is performed by another militant only at a different time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made many very good points there. To add or re-enforce some of them... While they may have a Caliph and many trappings of a state, it would be foolish to think of them as a monolithic dictorial state where everything that happens is largely at the whims and fancies of one person, not least because they were very few recognised states which even come close to that. Notably, it would be foolish to assume the responses to their videos were necessarily unexpected. Firstly, not everyone has responded by stepping up their attacks. More importantly, if you aren't likely to be killed in any attacks, then you may not mind such stepping up of attacks, if it serves a wider purpose such as keeping your name in the news, drawing more people to fight for your cause or supporting your message (e.g. of being in a fight against crusaders and their un-Islamic allies who are more interested in killing Muslims than in any humanitarian goal). Definitely there are a number of comentators who suggest ISIS wants to draw Western countries, particularly their ground forces, back in to Iraq [1] [2] [3] [4]. Even a temporary loss of some territory may not matter if you feel it fits your wider goals. It's perhaps also notable how discussing surrounding wider problems can either largely go by the way side (e.g. the Iraqi government and the Sunni-Shia divide, or the hellhole and lack of any obvious solution from the Western POV of Syria) or even basically be completely rejected (e.g. the so called "jobs for ISIS"), another thing likely useful to ISIS. And of course people can be wrong about what the ultimate outcome may be, it doesn't mean they didn't achieve their initial goals. Specifically about Jihadi John, while it's impossible to say what the intentions may have been, is possible it was always expected his identity would be revealed. In many ways the recent revealation after speculation etc has probably given more focus than if his identity had been known early on, not a bad thing if that's what you want. Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jihadi John worked like a superhero or supervillain that way. You never want to give an origin story away before the catchy name is established. Americans adore alliteration. Probably why Abu Hammam al-Shami is redlinked. Jabhat al-Whatra? Which viral video was he in again? To ensure the legend, you must live up to the name. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
That Atlantic piece you linked is quite good - it's one of few western sources that aren't incredibly jargon heavy that goes in to much depth on Daesh's actual religious beliefs. There have been some good radio pieces (and some good specialized stuff,) but most of it hasn't touched as heavily as the atlantic on the apocalyptic side of stuff. Tangentially, although I've never gotten my hands on enough information to make an altogether satisfying case for it, I've always kind of suspected that although a lot of their provocations are intentional (ex: they want US ground interention,) they weren't expecting Jordan's reaction. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Market Traders - How many Globally?

How many people/traders/investors buy and sell shares around the World? Total and breakdown by country/region or continent would be great!

JBL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.25.72 (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gets the message

When was the expression "gets the message" first used?-Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be better asking on the Wiktionary tearoom (helpdesk) which is here. The related gets the picture has a quote from 1910, but it may well be older. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an odd phrase. Your related example is almost always metaphorical, so we might well expect the metaphor to have a first use in print. But "gets the message" can also just be standard use of English - "When he gets the message, he'll know when to expect me" - sentences like that are probably as old as their constituent words. But for the metaphorical use of "get the message", i.e. not in regards to an actual literal message being sent or received, OED.com gives a usage from 1959
- emphasis mine. This is not necessarily the first ever usage, but it is likely the oldest in print that OED is aware of that illustrates the metaphorical concept. For some reason I can't get a direct link to work, just go to OED.com and type "get the message" in to the search box. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Google ngram viewer shows a sharp rise in the late 1950s, suggesting that 1959 usage may be correct for the use of the words as an idiom (once that group of words enters the language as an idiom, expect its usage to rise). When I searched the individual date ranges for books earlier for that, all I could find were literal uses of getting a message. Antandrus (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German stay permit

I am monirul islam, I am writing this letter to inform an unjustified,unprofessional and one sided handling about my German stay permit case as well as my right of residence permit was unlawfully cancelled from Bavarian Administrative court (Bayerisches Verwaltungs gericht wursburg), case no. W 7 K 12.860, Germany. This court has rejected my Legitimate claim all though i had enough evidences as prove. I am still looking for proper justice, please advice me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.113.82 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no connection to any court systems. You will need to find an attorney. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot give legal (or medical) advice, in part because its illegal in some countries, and incase it's incorrect. As Bugs said, you need to find a German (or Bavarian) immigration lawyer. If there is Pakistani (assuming that is the your country-of-origin) community association near you, they may be able to advise you which one to chose. LongHairedFop (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who knows, or knows how to find it, could help the OP by linking to web sites for offices that deal with German stay permits, or any WP:RS pages that describe an appeals process, e.g. a page from the Bavarian Administrative court, etc. Here's a FAQ page I found that discusses German visas [5]. Obviously we cannot give professional advice, but we can link to pages that discuss German visa issues. OP might also ask this question at stackexchange. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you need to understand what the law is. The law is all about procedures and evidence. The law is not about what you believe. If you have all the evidence and you have presented all your evidence in the proper timing and your evidence is clear and unambiguous then you have presented your legitimate case. This is why keeping proper records are so important in cases of law. 175.45.116.65 (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

Delphic oracle

Our article on the Delphic oracle says:

“The usual theory has been that the Pythia delivered oracles in a frenzied state induced by vapors rising from a chasm in the rock, and that she spoke gibberish which priests interpreted as the enigmatic prophecies preserved in Greek literature.”

But also:

“The idea that the Pythia spoke gibberish which was interpreted by the priests and turned into poetic iambic pentameter has been challenged by scholars such as Joseph Fontenrose and Lisa Maurizio, who argue that the ancient sources uniformly represent the Pythia speaking intelligibly, and giving prophecies in her own voice”

I’m confused. If all the ancient sources say unanimously that the priestess spoke intelligibly, why does anyone believe she spoke gibberish? If they don’t say the priestess spoke intelligibly, what are Fontenrose and Maurizio talking about? Also, do historians know if the oracle generally gave straight answers, or deliberately ambiguous ones? Our list of oracular statements from Delphi seems to have a combination of both. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modern historians disagree with ancient historians. There is nothing straight or deliberately ambiguous about the oracles. Unbeknownth to the oracles, they were under the influence mind-affecting gases and not divine oracles.
Sleigh (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been under the influence of mind-affecting substances too. Most people who are drunk or high on drugs can speak intelligibly (though not always intelligently); they can also choose to speak gibberish. I don't see why breathing gases implies the priestess was talking gibberish. --Bowlhover (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though the Pythia would be far from the only person to express sacred truths through speaking in tongues. Religious and psychological motivations aside, it would also make practical sense to do this. Someone receiving a prophecy directly would be liable to ask for further direction or clarification (especially given some of the ambiguous statements on our list). As psychic charlatans of today can attest, it's always helpful to be able to say that the diviner/spirit is not communicating now and to pay up and move along. And of course, good theatre has never once been bad for business. Matt Deres (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas II

When,if ever, was Nicholas II not effectively governing Russia, and if this was ever the case, who governed in his place?2602:306:C541:CC60:B58B:19BB:85C:5CBD (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article, unsurprisingly titled Nicholas II of Russia, which covers much of his life. Nicholas left day-to-day governance of the country when he went to personally lead Russia's troops in World War I. When he left, his wife Alexandra was left in charge of the regency. --Jayron32 13:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the outstanding point was during World War I, when according to our Nicholas II of Russia article; "In the aftermath of The Great Retreat and the loss of the Kingdom of Poland, Nicholas assumed the role of commander-in-chief after dismissing his cousin, Nikolay Nikolayevich, in September 1915. This was a mistake, as he came to be personally associated with the continuing losses at the front. He was also away at the remote HQ at Mogilev, far from the direct governance of the empire, and when revolution broke out in Petrograd he was unable to halt it". However, his whole reign was a catalogue of errors of judgement and failure to follow moderate advice. In his wartime absence, the government was in the hands of the toothless Duma and the Tsaritsa, herself under the influence of Rasputin until his assassination by army officers. A briefer overview of his reign is here. Alansplodge (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was Heidegger a Seminarian?

I have heard that Martin Heidegger started his academic career with a few semesters in seminary, perhaps even studying with the Jesuits. Can anyone confirm this? Do you know where he studied theology? Worldinfrontofthetech (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he entered the Jesuit seminary in Tisis (a subdivision of Feldkirch) on September 30, 1909, and was dismissed from there again on October 13, fourteen days later, without having received the minor orders. He had left because of health problems. Soon after, still in 1909, he started the archiepiscopal priest seminary Collegium Borromaeum in Freiburg, and studied theology (and philosophy) at the University of Freiburg until 1911, when he abandoned theology, and added mathematics, history, and natural sciences to his studies of philosophy. (See for example Religiöse Erfahrung in der Phänomenologie des frühen Heidegger by Mario Fischer, Peter and Paul Matussek's psychoanalytic approach, or German Wikipedia's featured article on Heidegger). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, everyone knows that classic. How about a less well-known Heideggerian song about the question of being, as asked about, questioned, and to be found out? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese military no longer called PLA?

This site[6] claims that: "Btw, the Chinese military have officially changed its name to just China Armed Forces a few years back." Is there any truth to this? Our article on the People's Liberation Army and Google searches seems to disagree with this claim. WinterWall (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The official news agencies still use People’s Liberation Army (人民解放军) see, for example, http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2002-01/25/content_254352.htm DOR (HK) (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So does the MOD [7] "The armed forces of the People's Republic of China (PRC) are composed of the People's Liberation Army (PLA)...." although from the OPs comment, may be they already knew this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History 2

Is there a relatively complete site which details the political and geographical history of the world by country?2602:306:C541:CC60:B58B:19BB:85C:5CBD (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14 Adar 5775 03:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's geographical history? You mean history of political bounderies?
Sleigh (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have History of … articles for most countries, for example, History of the United States — LongHairedFop (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Category:Territorial evolution which has many articles dealing with geographic and political boundary changes. --Jayron32 12:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tight clothes

I was wondering since unclothed genitalia is illegal, is a visible cameltoe or blatant bulge in public illegal as well? If not, why not? Go getttttaa (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what jurisdiction? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the word you're searching for, as an aside, is moose knuckles which is the male version of the camel toe. --Jayron32 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Moose Knuckles is ballsy and playful with a “no holds barred” kind of attitude.' Plus that logo.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14 Adar 5775 19:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, jurisdiction is important. Women can legally go topless in NY for instance, but those who try usually get so many looks that they cover-up. It's also not advisable in this weather. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14 Adar 5775 19:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are laws and then there are social pressures. If someone wears inappropriate clothing at any given venue, they are liable to be humiliated for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally in most jurisdiction around the world, a visible cameltoe or blatant bulge in public is legal as long as there are no explicit legislations against it. However you can still be arrested for "disturbing the peace". 175.45.116.65 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridicule works better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MEDIEVAL TRADE OF FOOD ?

In medieval Europe, trade was common between nations/kingdoms, and all sorts of commodities were exchanged... But when it came to crops and food (Wheat, oat, rye, barley, fish, meat and even vegetables etc.), was this common to be traded between nations/kingdoms ???

Reasons I am unsure is:

1) They didn't have the same luxury as we have today of freezing meat and other food that would otherwise rot. I am aware they had salt-barrels for meat at least, but travel-distances and times were often long, be it by ship or caravans etc. Many types of food would surely not last, and instead rot. Grain (or is it more correct to say crops?) could probably last longer I should think, so maybe that would be an exception?

2) Food during those times was obviously more scarce than today and I wonder if it wouldn't be in the best interest of most kingdoms to keep the trading of food more locally and within their own borders to feed their own, rather than exporting it, even if the pay was good.

3) I should like to think that every community at least tried to be self-sufficient and that most food made its way to local markets to be distributed among locals, rather than making its way onto merchant-ships and caravans.

When it came to those who dwelled further north, in semi-arctic regions, such as Vikings, the fact that growing crops was often difficult was perhaps one of the main reasons that they were so aggressive, I should think.. Raiding, sacking, pillaging, plundering and looking for new arable lands. For these people, it would perhaps be even more important than for others to be able to import food from others, if they were willing to part with it. 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:5516:F9E7:4262:3D14 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure where you would research this, but it would amount to the difference between a Staple food and a cash crop. Staples are foods that are grown locally for local consumption; cash crops are those grown for trade. At most points in history, I'm sure that at least some edible foodstuffs were traded over long distances, especially luxury items like spices. --Jayron32 20:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Medieval cuisine has a little information on this. Except for spices, there wasn't a lot of long distance food trade. --Mark viking (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stockfish#Importance mentions dried fish being traded across Europe as early as the 9th century CE. The Vikings supplied much of Europe with fish for centuries. Dried fish has a "shelf life" of several years so long distance trade is entirely possible. Salt cod has been traded internationally since the beginning of the Grand Banks fisheries. Going further back there is ample evidence of widespread trade in olive oil and wine in the form of amphorae in the wrecks of cargo ships from the Roman Empire. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anglo-Portuguese Alliance mentions some of the items traded between the countries. History of cheese also mentions it 'became a staple of long-distance commerce'. JMiall₰ 21:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Kurlansky's books Cod and Salt are easy introductions to the topic. Immanuel Wallerstein's work has an excellent overview of medieval trade patterns. Don't forget that there was a trade in wine, from the Roman Empire. The Romans also traded in grain, olive oil, salt and garum. Sugar was a cash crop that gradually worked its way west from the eastern Mediterranean. A lot is written about the spice trade but it should be remember that "spices" included salt, alum and dyestuffs as well as pepper, ginger and the other aromatics. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. You've been helpful. The article about "Medieval Cuisine" was particularly informative, even if it did not focus so much on medieval trade. 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:40F5:404A:1E78:5E9 (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Phoenicians and wine, the idea of trading it came almost immediately after the idea of drinking it. Not medieval, and not exactly food, but their influence (and new grapes) carried over to then. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:5516:F9E7:4262:3D14 -- There was a certain amount of long-distance trade in foodstuffs that did not go bad quickly, but the bad roads and rudimentary land transport in the medieval period meant that food items usually could not be transported overland for any significant distance unless they could be sold at a high price. As late as the 1600s, it was not economically feasible to transport food into certain landlocked areas suffering food shortages in the quantities which would help ease the famine... AnonMoos (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not feasible for the maritime republics, anyway. Might just be coincidence that the Republic of Venice lost their best of seven series to the Ottoman Empire over much of the 1600s. Caravans and caravanserai were pretty handy for landlubbers. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Where are the keys of a piano defined?

It's clear that there is some order on the 88 piano keys. If pressed, a key is supposed to strike a cord and generate a concrete frequency. If pressed harder, the sound has to be different. But, where do they defined what is the canonical sound a key x is expected to produce when pressed with force f at speed s?--Llaanngg (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pianos need to be tuned to a specific pitch, usually so they can play with other instruments, and blend harmonically. It is, of course, arbitrary to pick which pitch to tune to, but the standard is called concert pitch, also called A440, which defines the A above middle C as exactly 440Hz frequency. Once you have set that key to the correct frequency, the OTHER keys are tuned relative to it using. Perfect harmonics would require just intonation as the tuning system; this is actually impossible to do correctly on a fixed-pitch instrument like a piano (well, strictly speaking you could tune to just intonation, but then your piano would only sound correct in one key; which would be highly impractical). To tune a fixed-pitch instrument like a piano correctly, the notes need to be "tempered" so that the circle of fifths actually matches up with the octave correctly. There are several kinds of musical temperaments to do that, but the most common in modern music is equal temperament. To sum up this from a practical point of view, this is how that works: 1) the A above middle C is tuned to 440 Hz. 2) The other notes are tuned to equal temperament, which sets the ratio between neighboring semitones (i.e. neighboring keys) to exactly the 12th root of 2 (about 1.05946). You can thus define the next semitone up from the A=440 Hz note, which would be A# = 466.16 Hz (440 * 1.05946), the next key would be B = 493.88 Hz (466.16 * 1.05946) and so on. --Jayron32 19:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted the OP's question to be about volume, not pitch, in which case . . .
In short, nowhere canonically. The sound differs in loudness (but not frequency) depending on how hard the key is depressed, hence the instrument's full name – pianoforte or "soft-loud", but different pianos may well sound softer or louder even when the same forces are used, by design – one would not want the same volume from a piano played in one's front parlour as one would get from a piano on a concert hall stage!
However, any competent instrument maker will ensure that:
(a) different individual pianos of the same design or model will be very similar in their properties, and
(b) different keys on the same piano are consistent with each other (which probably means some smooth variation up and down the scales – it would be very difficult to render keys octaves apart identical in their properties.
The actual loudness that a given key produces when striking its strings depend on several factors, including the setup of the mechanism and the covering of the hammer. These can be adjusted not only by the maker, but also by the piano tuner. Again, any competent tuner will ensure consistency in a given instrument.
If these consistencies were not maintained, it would be impossible for any pianist to give an acceptable performance (barring renditions on pub pianos, which are notoriously poorly maintained, but in the specific context of drunken sing-a-longs this does not matter). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AH, if you're talking about the ability to control loudness (rather than pitch), the correct term is "action", which is basically defined as to how an instrument responds to being struck. We have an article titled Action (piano) which covers the technical details of piano action; there's lots of places for adjustment there. Musicians will also speak of an instruments "action" by how it responds to handling. A keyboard may have a "good action" if the player is able to control dynamics well using how hard he plays. A keyboard with "bad action" would be one where it is difficult to control loudness. A well-tuned piano with good action means that the player has a lot of control over the loudness or softness of each note. --Jayron32 20:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And just in passing, there's variation not only in pitches and actions, but in number of keys. Though 88 is the standard, Bösendorfer, for example, produces models with 92 and 97 keys (the additional keys being at the bass end). The manufacturers decide all of this; there's no agency to set standards or enforce compliance; it's the choices of the musicians who use the instruments that ultimately governs. - Nunh-huh 20:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also in passing – sometime in the last several years I read a magazine article, roughly "Why you've never really heard the Moonlight Sonata". The score says to keep the sustain pedal on throughout, to make a harmonic mist of the fading notes; but today's instruments have a much longer sustain than those of Beethoven's time, so if you take the direction literally you get mud. —Tamfang (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Donald Tovey's notes to playing the Beethoven piano sonatas, he several times recommends simulating Beethoven's sustain pedal by holding down a handful of keys in the bass of the instrument without striking them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, how hard the hammer hits the strings affects the timbre of the note played, including what overtones of the fundamental frequency are present. I don't have a grand piano to check my memory from fifty years ago, but I seem to recall that some have a shift (soft) pedal that moves hammers to the right to strike only two of three strings for each note, each string having different harmonics, the leftmost string being of heavier material. Each piano design and string will produce a different timbre, but the fundamental frequency should be the same for each note. Dbfirs 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the una corda pedal, which shifts the keyboard to the right so the hammer strikes only two strings. (The confusing name stems from the fact that in the older pianos on which the pedal first appeared, only one "una" string "cords" was struck. But pianos have changed a lot since then...) - Nunh-huh 21:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

Okhrana

During Nicholas II's rule, who was leader of the Okhrana and to what degree was Nicholas involved in its actions? Did it just report to him or did he actively control and decide its policies and actions?2602:306:C541:CC60:E461:E76B:164E:EA4 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

website comparing UK as unitary and Canada as a federation

Is there a website that shows a comparison between UK as an unitary state and Canada as a federation state? Please and thanks. My cousin who lives in UK thinks that UK is a federation but I argued it is not but unfortunately he is a narrow minded person. Please answer my question. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.169 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "unitary state". The UK is a Constitutional monarchy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so is Canada - same Monarch. [8] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, no. Same human, different monarch(y) Mingmingla (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the Commonwealth Realms "technically" don't share a monarch, why the rule that they must all agree on changes to the succession? And why do they exchange High Commissioners rather than Ambassadors? —Tamfang (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it made sense. Mingmingla (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the OP is referring to a unitary state. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15 Adar 5775 01:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We also have federation, confederation (for Canada) and federal monarchy. If I remember my high school politics class correctly, Canada is a federation because several different political units joined together to form one state, with the previous political units surviving within the new state; i.e., Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia all still exist, as provinces within the country of Canada. The provinces have their own laws, education, etc. For historical reasons we call this the confederation of Canada, but in modern political science terms, Canada is a federation, not a confederation. Obviously this is not how the UK was formed, but I'm not sure I can explain why it's not a federation...it just isn't. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The status of federation is independent of the way in which a state was formed: yes, often a federation is the result of multiple independent states (or multiple colonies) coming together, but some federations were formed by other means, and some unions of multiple jurisdictions aren't federations. In the UK context, the country is a unitary state because the national parliament is supreme over everything else, and there are no other jurisdictions in the country aside from ones that are its creatures, i.e. it could get rid of any of them or override any of their laws, if it wanted. This is in contrast to Canada and Australia, in which the provincial and state parliaments are independent of the federal parliament, as it is unable to abolish them or override their laws on just any topic. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to piggyback on what Nyttend says, in a federation, the constituent states have reserve rights which, constitutionally, the national government is not allowed to remove or eliminate except by their mutual consent. Thus, in both the U.S. and Canada, the States and Provinces respectively have constitutionally guaranteed rights and roles which the National governments have no authority to supersede. The U.K. has allowed devolved powers to its constituent nations (such as the Scottish Parliament, and National Assembly for Wales) which are allowed to decide policy for those regions, but those bodies serve at the pleasure of Parliament, and at any time Parliament still has the constitutional authority to override any of their acts, abolish them at any time, etc. Thus, the U.K. is a unitary state, which allows a degree of home rule to some of its regions, but that still doesn't make it a federation, which is a constitutionally very different means of organization. --Jayron32 18:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to piggyback on the piggybacking, we have to distinguish between Parliament having the constitutional authority to do something and Parliament being politically able to. As Jayron notes, the UK Parliament could abolish the Scottish Parliament tomorrow (or have the Welsh elect the Scottish Parliament, and the Scots elect the Welsh Assembly) if they felt like it; it would be politically unpopular enough that they'd never be "able to pull it off", so to speak, but there's no legal impediment to it, and that's the difference between a federation and a unitary state. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should clarify the mutual consent bit too. Notably, unanimous consent generally isn't necessarily needed to affect the rights of states (by which I mean the entitites constituting the federation), in fact often it isn't needed. What you generally need is a constitutional amendment.

Often this requires the approval of the states themselves (generally meaning their legislatures), but usually only a majority or supermajority, e.g. Constitution of Australia, Article Five of the United States Constitution, Constitution of India (I think for relevant amendments anyway) or Amendments to the Constitution of Canada.

Sometimes this requires a majority or supermajority in a nationwide referendum however there's no requirement for a majority in each state, I think Constitution of Venezuela is an example of this [9].

But sometimes this only requires a supermajority on the federal legislature/s, e.g. Constitution of Malaysia (mostly), and I think Constitution of Nigeria [10], and also I think Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Note most of the earlier examples also required this or something similar in addition to the other requiremens.)

Of course it can often be complicated, our articles often don't seem to cover amendment processes that well (they mention historic amendments, but not how the constitution is amended, sometimes this may be mentioned in another article, but I'm not sure it always is). It may not always be entirely clear how courts will intepret amendments which affect rights of states, particularly if the states themselves are in majority disagreement, even if the constitution seems to allow such changes. And it may not always be simple whether the constition allows it, e.g. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany entrenches federalism, but I'm not sure how far this is generally intepreted, can you remove most of the rights of the states?

In any event, in the cases where the states themselves don't get a direct say in constitutional amendments which will affect their relationship with the federal government, some may suggest the countries are to some extent unitary states, but most of the cases are still usually called federations/federated states. (There are other reasons why the country may be said to have some features of a unitary state, see e.g. our article on India, or Federalism in Malaysia.)

But despite the IP's comments below, I'm not convinced that the UK will generally be called a federation even if England get's a devolved parliament.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Jayron's definition is a too strong. Suppose that the UK repeated in England what was done in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, by creating a legislature separate from the UK parliament and devolving specific powers to this new body. Then suppose that 10 years later the UK parliament winds back the clock, abolishes the various legislatures, and reclaims all the devolved powers for itself. I say that for those 10 years the UK would have been a federation. --05:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.169.183 (talk)

Syrian swastika?

While cataloging a small private library, I encountered this book, about missionary work done by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America in Latakia and surrounding regions of Syria. Published in 1913, the book includes a swastika on the cover. Was this device often used in Syria at the time, or is it more likely to be an example of Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century? The latter seems odd, because the article says that it was a good-luck symbol, and this church at the time typically condemned good-luck symbols as superstitious. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Secret Sects Of Syria: A Consideration of their Origin, Creeds and Religious Ceremonies and their Connection with and Influence upon Modern Freemasonry by Bernard H Springett, London, 1922 (p. 331), which states: "ORIGIN OF THE SWASTIKA... By certain early Christians it was known as the 'Tetragammaton', the unspeakable name of the Deity, as represented by four Gammas...". I'm not sure how reliable a source this is - it doesn't correlate with either our Swastika or Tetragammaton articles - but it does prove that some believed that it could be a Christian symbol. Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend -- The Syrian Social Nationalist Party had its swastikesque "hurricane" or "whirlwind" symbol, but the party did not exist in 1913. Swastika-like symbols have occurred in many cultures across the globe. AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could possibly be Zoroastrian - Syria is on the western edge of the area where Zoroastrianism thrived. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

historical sculpture

Was there a sculpture of an airplane seatbelt at one point or another? (It was made from whatever was left of Aloha Airlines Flight 243.) If yes, what has become of it?158.222.165.116 (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unsure if it is what you are looking for, but apparently Honolulu International Airport has a memorial to C.B. Lansing, one of those who died in the crash. See here. Might be a lead. --Jayron32 16:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the memorial is just a garden named after her, so there isn't a sculpture there. See the bottom of this page and this photo of the plaque to Lansing.
BTW - Lansing's was the only death, and there was no crash, the aircraft landed normally in spite of severe structural damage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New communism

From the 50s to the 90s the main enemy of America seemed to be communism. However, I read an article recently stating that starting in the 21st century, the primary enemy of the US is Islam. So is Islam the new communism? Successiontomr (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Islam is Islam, it's a religion, not a political designation. Saying Islam is the 'new communism' is like saying 'orange is the new black' - total gibberish. What would be a 'new communism' anyway? For it to be called 'new', it would have to be a different form of communism from previous forms, something which doesn't happen. If people are too thick to be able to think of the phrase 'replacement for', then they shouldn't be listened to. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say "However, I read an article recently stating that starting in the 21st century, the primary enemy of the US is Islam."[11] Can you link to the article or quote a relevant passage from it? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was in vlog format - here Successiontomr (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that anyone can write anything, but merely mashing keys on a keyboard doesn't make them true. People can make provocative statements like "Islam is the enemy of the United States" and just saying it doesn't actually make it a fact. I can say "Cheese is the enemy of Bolivia", and that doesn't mean Bolivians are going to invade Wisconsin any time soon... --Jayron32 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheese-flavoured cocoa puffs are apparently the enemy of good taste. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstood the video. The point of the video is that Islam (even radical Islam) is not a major threat to the US. It is the "new communism" because just as communists were fired from jobs and ostracized during the hysteria of the Cold War, Muslims today are being discriminated against in the hysteria of the War on Terror. Just as politicians used the supposed threat of communism for political gain during the Cold War, politicians today are using Islam to fearmonger. You might agree or disagree with this analysis, but that's the point the video creator is making. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, main enemies don't have to pose major threats. They just need to be the focal points. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
The greatest threat is officially climate change, at least till further notice. But it can't be a main enemy, because talking about stopping it gets "scattered applause". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
Sort of like how advocating the opposite of terrormongering gets "audible grumbling" InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Pre Indian southeast asia

What was the religion of mainland Southeast Asia before contact with India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before the introduction of Indian religions (Buddhism & Hinduism chiefly), native religious beliefs include forms of animism and shamanism closely related to Chinese folk religion. See, for example, Vietnamese folk religion, Satsana Phi, Ua Dab, etc. --Jayron32 16:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly animism, shamanism, and folk religion, but the close relationship to Chinese religion came only after the spread of Chinese influence to the region around the same time that contact with India began. Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a chicken-and-egg problem here. It's not like some alien space ship set down fully-formed Southeast-Asian cultures in place with their own religions already in existence, which lived in total isolation for centuries until China and India suddenly "discovered" them and decided to oppress their native beliefs and supplant them with their own. Cultural evolution is a continuous process, and for thousands of years cultures have been influenced by those that border them. What is "native" is highly contextual, and really depends on what and when you mean. Even so, it is unlikely that there exists a "pure" religion of the area which is wholly uninfluenced by any single other culture, at ANY time in history. --Jayron32 00:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems Dubai is facing as a developed city

what are the problems that Dubai is facing as a developed city? Such as sea level rising, population growth water shortage unemployment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.14.66 (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.. If you want to know more information, see the article titled Dubai, which can be used for you to formulate your own understanding of its situation and challenges. --Jayron32 16:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a bit about a very recent domestic water law, and a slightly older foreign program. Might be helpful. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

What System of rule would this be?

Throughout history nations have had all sorts of systems of rule; Monarchy, Republic, Empire, Oligarchy etc. etc.

But what would it be called if a nation has several provinces/holds/regions that is each ruled independently by, say, Jarls and there is no king. But all of the Jarls get together occasionally in some sort of assembly and put down laws and make decisions together to rule the nation, as equals? Perhaps they even elect a 'king' or a leader-type amongst themselves, but it still can't be a republic, since it would only be the Jarls voting, and not the people. The position of Jarl would also follow bloodline rather than voting, so all the Jarls would be Jarls by birthright.

2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:40F5:404A:1E78:5E9 (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be an Oligarchy or an Aristocracy? I'm not sure from our articles what the difference is between the two. Rojomoke (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also sounds like something close to the system used in the Icelandic Commonwealth, where they had an Althing from 930. The infobox of the article defines it as "Federation under religious democracy". --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answers. Gives me food for thought, and goes to show how intricate and complex these things can be sometimes. How I have seen these things have mostly tended to be rather black and white, but there's certainly lots of colors in between... 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:40F5:404A:1E78:5E9 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember that as humans, we have an instinct to classify things; but at some level every nation is a sui generis creation unto itself which has worked out (and in most cases is in a constant state of "still working out") how to govern itself. When we classify such a diverse group of entities into a small set of categories, there are bound to be many edge cases. --Jayron32 18:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who should clean in a utopic fair society?

According to socialists, and intellectual creators of any other "alternative" society, who should do the menial work? Some menial work, like shoe polish, could disappear, but what about cleaners? How to distribute work if you give all an education?--Noopolo (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robots. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have people volunteer for the work they are qualified for and like, with some positions in such demand that hiring is competitive and some people would have to settle for their second or third preference, then distribute the rest by lots, with the least desirable kinds of work requiring the smallest weekly time commitments. (For example, people would be required to list unclaimed jobs in order of preference. Let's say that robots for cleaning toilets have not yet been perfected and cleaning public toilets gets the lowest average ranking among such jobs. The required X hours of public toilet cleaning required in a municipality in a week would be divided such that those assigned that task would devote fewer hours to it per week than other such tasks that need to be assigned.) Marco polo (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An apocryphal story is told of Holocaust survivor and writer Ephraim Kishon, who as a new immigrant on a kibbutz (egalitarian society) agreed to a regular assignment cleaning the public lavatories with shorter hours as compensation - time he devoted to acquiring the local language so as to more quickly return to his profession. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even in a non-utopian society job design allows the menial tasks to be incorporated into various occupations. Job enrichment is a related approach, so rather than employ people who only clean, you could employ people who have responsibility for a whole area of estates management. Another strategy, which could be used in combination with those ones, is to expect everyone to start at an elementary level, but provide sufficient training so that no-one stays at that level for long. If you don't already know William Morris's News from Nowhere you'll find that it explores these issues in fictional form. Highly recommended. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also say let robots do it. They don't mind, and beats giving them powerful positions. If a human really wants to clean, and they don't slow the robots down, I don't see why not. It's their utopia, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
Cleaning could be split between everyone, I've previously lived at a place where everyone was assigned one rotating chore per week. Cleaning could also be done as punishment for crimes, aka, community service. 184.145.53.236 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a lot of crime in a typical utopia. Not enough to build a workforce, even in the shabbier ones. But if everyone is rotating shifts, that'd be too many, so I guess not enough complements that ideally. And if everyone's cleaning, the one who doesn't will naturally be looked at as a deviant, written law or not. He'd compel himself to clean or leave, so the spotlessness would sustain itself. We couldn't kill him for it, because we just cleaned. And we couldn't lock him away, because he'd get filthy.
But your idea makes sense. I'd like to steal it and write a screenplay. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
One guy we lived with committed the crime of being an asshole so we gave him the choice of double chores or leaving. 184.145.53.236 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the group isn't big enough for subcultures to sprout, self-policing is good policing. Did he leave? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that if you define a utopian society to be one in which everyone is doing the job they most enjoy, the answer is that the menial work is done by those who most enjoy menial work. To see why, suppose otherwise: if any of the people doing menial work is dis-satisfied with this arrangement then they are not doing the job they most enjoy, and thus you no longer have a utopia (per definition). Trivially, therefore, the only solution that matches our definition is that the menial work is performed by those who most enjoy it. If there are no such people, it must be the case that no menial work is performed. RomanSpa (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By people, anyway. Robots don't dislike the things they don't like. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
A truly fair society would pay people proportional to both the importance and the distastefulness of the work. If you pay enough, you'll never run out of folks interested in what we consider low-end (but vital) jobs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck finding that particular utopia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect to. The OP's "utopic fair society" is imaginary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a capitalist society, people who wished to do the job for the wage offered would do the work, with the help of all sorts of nifty inventions like rideable floor polishers and on scaffolds hanging from skyscrapers. What is really interesting here is the premise that under a socialist utopia anybody would be forced to do anything. Is that how socialism works? To me that sounds like a communist dictatorship. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The market doesn't work when everything's equal. Who would pay the menial workers, and where would they get enough money to do so, except from working many times more hours in the day? We'd need some sort of special treatment for payrollers, and many other "important" jobs. Utopias shouldn't have currency, I think. Someone always gets hurt. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
When everything is equal is what's called the heat death of the universe. Some people will always get hungry or horny before others. Then the horny ones can plant while the hungry ones can prostitute.
The general principle is, one should always do that work for which one gets the greatest reward. For example, you and I can both work as a salesman or a secretary. If I can make $50/hr as a salesman, and you $20, and we can both make $15/hr as a secretary, then I should work as a salesman, and be willing to pay you $20 an hour to work as a secretary, even though I could do the same work for $15/hr. Evene though I have to pay you $20/hr, I still net $30, which is $15/hr more than I would doing the secretarial work myself. And you net $20, $5 more than you could as a secretary, and $15/hr more than if you made $20/hr at sales and had to pay me $15 to be your secretary.
This is called division of labor. Download economist and professor George Reisman's college textbook on free-market capitalism for free in pdf form at http://capitalism.net/ μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So he burst out laughing at last, and said: "Excuse me, neighbours, but I can't help it. Fancy people not liking to work! — it's too ridiculous... "What a queer disease! it may well be called Mulleygrubs!"

Morris, op. cit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs)

March 7

Bhagavad Gita

Is there a standard, or particularly well though of, (modern) English translation available? I'm aware that there are many versions free on-line (including on WikiSource); in my experience with other translated works, though, you tend to get what you pay for with that. I was happy to pay for a copy of Seamus Heaney's Beowulf instead of grabbing one of the free ones out there, for example. Annotation would be a bonus, but not necessary. Any suggestions? Matt Deres (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of Bhagavad- Gita As It Is, by his divine grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupãda [12] Don't know if this is what you want but is is in English and makes a lot of sense. Understand this mighty tome and one has the equivalent of a collage education for less than a tankful of gas.--Aspro (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious problem with this book is that it is very important to most of Hinduism, which also has disagreements on core tenets which make Christianity look like a bunch of Borg in comparison. So, think of all the different version of the Bible available in the West, multiply that number tenfold or so, and that might give you an idea about how many variants there would be in the Bhagavad Gita. My best guess might be to take one of the Penguin editions, like those listed at Amazon, or similar editions from presses which print a lot of "classics," which probably have the best chance of being what might be the least divergent and most basically "academic" editions. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible has different translations, and Catholics accept a few more books into the canon than Protestants. But the actual content is almost identical across all versions. Pick any verse in the Bible and 95 times out of 100, there's no controversy about what the verse means or whether it's authentic. Differences between Christian denominations are usually due to differences in interpreting the Bible, in extra-biblical doctrines, and in tradition, not differences in the Bible itself. (Early Christianity was actually far more diverse than it is today; I talk about this in Early Christians Believed WHAT?). --Bowlhover (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And to expand on the above points: see Arvind Sharma's The Hindu Gita for the varying ancient- and medieval-time; and Catherine Robinson's Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gita and Images of the Hindu Tradition for varying modern interpretations assigned to the text. That said, let not all this debate keep you from reading the work. Gita makes for pretty quick and easy reading, and it is only when one tries to collapse it into ONE CORE message (or rather, tries to derive/justify ones existing philosophy) that one runs into such complexity. If you read it as you would read Shakespeare, or Homer, none of this an issue. Abecedare (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Bhagavad- Gita As It Is is thr Hare Krishna version which is not considered to be accurate by scholars. It depends what you are after - something clear and readable, or something thst goes into detail on the problems of interpretation.Paul B (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something readable and accessible is foremost. Some background info would be fine, but I can also get that on WP. This is just out of interest, so I'd like something I can read and enjoy, ideally without having to reach for a reference book every third word or something. Don't get me wrong; I understand Arjuna and I don't share a lot of common ground and I'll likely need to look some stuff up regardless of the edition. Matt Deres (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford's World Classics generally does a great job, and they have a Bhagavad Gita translation here. The translation has 20 pages of introduction and extensive commentary on the text, which you can see using "Look Inside". I've never read it myself, so I can't vouch for this translation specifically, only for the World Classics in general. (Their annotated Bible is superb, if you ever plan on buying one.)
If you find a better translation, let me know. I plan to read the Bhagavad Gita in 18 months or so. --Bowlhover (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, there are over 300+ translations of Gita in English (a bibliography of 1891 translations was compiled way back in 1982 by Calleweart and Hemraj), so you definitely don't lack for choice. What translation you prefer will depend upon your taste, and what you intend to get out of it. Assuming you are looking for modern complete translations, in a recent Biography of Gita, Richard Davis highlights the following ones:
Davis also has pocket reviews for a few other translations that you may be able to see here. Abecedare (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Red hot coals' on moon

example of total eclipse - not natural colors

There was 'Red hot coals' on the moon according to this page. What does that mean? Is it something that could be seen by people? Apparently there was an earthquake then and also a solar eclipse. Any more info anywhere on these events of 1185? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entry says "Solar eclipse 'Red hot coals' on Moon. Prominences?". Sounds like an attempt to describe what the eclipse looked like as in our picture of prominences during a total eclipse. Rmhermen (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)As I understand it, the "red hot coals" were reported to be visible during the solar eclipse. However, according to List of solar eclipses in the 12th century, the May 1st 1185 solar eclipse was more or less in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean, so its surprising that anyone saw it. I'd take the report with a grain of salt... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this was a reference to what we now call Baily's beads. If the sun was relatively low in the sky at the time of the eclipse, these might appear red, just as the sun appears redder when closer to the horizon (sunrise and sunset). RomanSpa (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That page does give sources although it's not immediately obvious...if you can find them, the ones for the 1185 eclipse are Botley, C.M. 'Some centenaries for 1985'. Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 95, 2, 1985; Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 89, 3, 1979; and Stephenson, F. R. Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation. Cambridge University Press, 1997. This sounds like the sort of thing some British or Irish chronicle or annals would have recorded, so hopefully one of those sources mentions which one. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - you guys are sweethearts.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

Portugal

What legislative bodies has Portugal had?Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but while you're waiting, you might want to browse through Category:Politics of Portugal. Dismas|(talk) 04:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dismas, I'm afraid that category is somewhat lacking. (Not a critique of you, but rather the lack of info in the articles themselves.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 04:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our Portuguese articles seem to be in need of a lot of work, but from what I've been able to find, there was a bicameral 'Congress of the Republic' during the First Portuguese Republic, The Corporative Chamber and National Assembly under the Estado Novo, and the Assembly of the Republic today. Hope that's all of them. Like I said, those articles need a lot of work. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 04:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries

What was the first public library in America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.207.45.199 (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how you define "public". There are almost a dozen candidates, ranging from oldest building to house what is now a public library, to the oldest library to allow access to the public, to the oldest tax-supported library, etc. etc. Read this article for information on all of them. --Jayron32 05:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burying somebody on public land?

Is it illegal to bury somebody on public land? Have there been any court cases around it? I'm more curious about it in Western countries, rather than in developing countries where this might be common. Qooterton (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.K., at least, it seems you are required to bury someone in a cemetary or other such place designated for burial. See Burial Act 1857, the full text of which is here. --Jayron32 05:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That act regulates burials, but doesn't forbid them in private ground (provided it's not near a watercourse or might cause other problems). Permission to bury on public land not designated as a burial place would probably not be given except in exceptional circumstances, but burial on private land is not unusual -- I know of three such burials near to where I live. Dbfirs 08:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You can bury someone in your back garden in the UK, but you need to have planning permission (despite it being private land). Also, when you come to sell the house, you have to mention to potential buyers that there is a grave in the garden, which may potentially lower the price of the house considerably. I don't know what rights the new owners would have about what to do with the body, but I'm sure that consulting the local council wouldn't be amiss. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 11:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need planning permission for a burial on private land in the UK, so long as it is for a limited number of people such as family or residents of the property. You do need the landowner's permission, a certificate from the Registrar, and a durable land burial register, setting out the dates, details, etc., which will need to be kept with the deeds of the property. You should also meet Environment Agency guidance (apparently not legally binding) about the protection of water supplies. Source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, you mean public land not specifically set aside for burials? Because cemeteries i.e. land specifically designed as burial grounds may sometimes be public land in a number of Western countries. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely to be one of those questions where it will depend on which country (or state... or even county or town) you are talking about. It may be illegal in one jurisdiction, and legal in another. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You often hear about someone being cremated and their ashes being spread on what is clearly not private property. However, "ashes" are merely pulverized bone, which is presumably not the health risk that an improperly buried body could be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet that often requires permits as well. Which I've never understood. Dismas|(talk) 04:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, there is no "public land" as such; it is always owned by somebody, even common land. Therefore, you would need the consent of the land owner. Land owned by local authorities is usually the subject of bye laws which may not specifically exclude burial but would probably prohibit digging holes. Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can bury qualified people on some public land at least. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of qualification are we talking about here? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

Georgia the U.S. State

What lawmaking bodies has Georgia the U.S. State had?Mcleod Allen Mueller Hill, aka Ohyeahstormtroopers6, Imperator Universi 03:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk • contribs)

If you want to include Georgia in all its forms, then according to Province of Georgia it had a bicameral legislature—presumably from the colony's foundation—with the Commons House of Assembly as the lower house and the General Assembly as the upper up to the dissolution of the Georgia Colony during the American Revolution. In 1777, the Georgia General Assembly was founded and was a unicameral body until 1789 (the same year we adopted our current form of federal government), when it became bicameral with a Senate and House of Representatives. That system survives to this day. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18 Adar 5775 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Government

Can all government-related institutions be labeled as executive, legislative, or Judicial? Mcleod Allen Mueller Hill, aka Ohyeahstormtroopers6, Imperator Universi 04:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those definitions depend on the rule of law, as the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch judges people under the law, and perhaps judges the laws themselves. In a system where there are no laws, and the absolute ruler just does as he pleases, there really aren't any branches of government (or all branches are controlled by him). Sometimes those branches exist, in theory, but have no real power. StuRat (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ohyeahstormtroopers6 -- The idea of a strict distinction between executive, legislative, and judicial functions was pretty much invented as part of an 18th-century reform agenda (see Separation of powers#Montesquieu's tripartite system); there have been many systems over the centuries without such separations... AnonMoos (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The division of government into "executive", "legislative" and "judicial" to some extent depends on the definitions used, and the lens of political theory through which the various functions are viewed. A good example of a country which does not characterise its institutions using this tripartite system is Taiwan, which uses a quinquepartite system in which governmental functions are divided into "executive", "legislative", "judicial", "control" and "examination". The two unfamiliar (to Western eyes) functions can be best thought of as "independent audit" and "civil service personnel selection". There are obvious advantages to a fully independent auditing function, and many Western governments also have such a function, though it is not regarded as a separate branch of government. The "examination" function has its roots in deep Chinese history: the Chinese imperial bureaucracy had an important function in maintaining and controlling social mobility, and thus provided a mechanism by which otherwise difficult-to-control areas of the empire could be managed and integrated into the body politic. In modern times in Taiwan, the Examination Yuan is largely concerned with quality maintenance. RomanSpa (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-European Australian religion

George Frazer says in The Golden Bough:

the aborigines of Australia, the rudest savages as to whom we possess accurate information, magic is universally practised, whereas religion in the sense of a propitiation or conciliation of the higher powers seems to be nearly unknown. Roughly speaking, all men in Australia are magicians, but not one is a priest; everybody fancies he can influence his fellows or the course of nature by sympathetic magic, but nobody dreams of propitiating gods by prayer and sacrifice.

Is Frazer right about this, or is his racismbias shining through? Did the Australian aborigines really have no priests and no prayer or sacrifice before European colonization? --98.232.12.250 (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help on the magic vs. religion question, but in anthropological use, the term "priest" usually refers to a full-time religion specialist of a type which doesn't generally exist in "band-level" societies such as those of pre-1788 Australia. However, see Shaman#Oceania... AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused as to why Frazer was either right, or he was a racist. It's a false dichotomy, and even if his statement were false, I see no reason why it would be called racist in any case. I don't disagree with AnonMoos's link, but unfortunately it gives no sources. In any case, by a priest is normally meant a member of a special trained bureaucratic class of an organized religion. Shamans predate such ideas. They are (counter to the claims of prostitutes) the oldest profession, a guild combining the roles of medicine-man, lore-keeper, and charismatic religious figure. Often hey are berdaches. I have no specific knowledge of Australian Aborigines, but they certainly did not have any organized religion. Not knowing how the OP wants to define his terms, I am not sure we can say more than that. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible that he could have been right regarding pre-colonial Aboriginal Australian belief systems (not saying he is or isn't), but still racist. Frazer's model still places Europeans at the peak of civilization, and kinda assumes that the Aboriginal Australians never really advanced beyond climbing out of the trees (even though their ancestors would have had to have figured out expert sailing before whitey learned to quit drawing on the walls). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wallace's Line which divided Sunda and Sahul (basically, Australia from Eurasia) during the last ice age was 22 miles across, and the ancestors of the current Australians most likely walked there from New Guinea which was then attached by a now submerged land bridge. Asserting that Wallace may have been a racist is like saying Abraham Lincoln may have been a child molester. Unless you have evidence, it's a vicious slur. And Frazer said nothing about Australians climbing down from trees. Calling the rather skilled cave art found in some parts of Europe "whitey drawing on the walls" is simply silly, given such rock art is also found in Australia (and the Americas, and Africa), and the European cave artists were not at that time blue-eyed blonds. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(OP here, different IP) Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was a dichotomy. I should have said that he could have been biased, since he calls the indigenous peoples "the rudest savages as to whom we possess accurate information". Even if that's true, viewing someone as the rudest savage is not conducive to understanding their belief systems objectively. --98.232.12.250
I doubt there's a single fact that is true of all Aboriginal tribes. There were something like 800 groupings, and while those living adjacent to each other may have understood some of the other's language and shared some of their cultural practices, those living more remotely would not have. To the European eye they were all the same people, but each tribe considered themselves to be as racially and ethnically distinct as the Vietnamese and the Scots. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frazer's statement about a lack of worship appears to be false for at least some indigenous Australian peoples. See, for example, our article Rainbow Serpent. Marco polo (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During the 15th-19th centuries, did European Christians recognize each other as Christians?

I noticed on the ecumenism article that actual ecumenism efforts began somewhat recently in history, which may imply that before that time, each "Christian" denomination was non-ecumenical, parochial, ethnic, and uncooperative with each other. Despite the interdenominational hostilities (Catholics kill Protestants; Protestants kill Catholics), did they nevertheless regard each other as "Christian", however wrong they might perceive other denominations to be on doctrine and practice? Also, did the interdenominational religious persecutions occur in the United States too, or were European Americans forced to assimilate into a melting pot of religious pluralism and tolerance? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on where, when, and even who you're talking about. "Europe in the 15th-19th centuries" is actually a pretty broad category. John Dee claimed to be Anglican in England and Catholic abroad, and Paracelsus was comfortable in either Protestant or Catholic churches. However, Reginald Scot blamed Catholicism for witchcraft, and made an early form of the Protestant slander (later codified by Alexander Hislop) that Catholicism is just quasi-Christianized paganism.
Ben Franklin's autobiography generally describes most American religious groups getting along, treating each other with a "live and let live" mentality. There's little point in showing animosity toward Quakers if that means you lose your medical care in the process, or Methodists if that means you lose the help of the best carpenter in town, or Presbyterians if that means your children can no longer attend school. That said, there probably were instances where a Protestant businessman would refuse service to a Catholic (though under some pretense besides religion), since even into the 20th century there was a sense of "otherness" about Catholics among American Protestants.
IIRC, renewed studies into Gnosticism were partly the result of Catholics trying to accuse Protestants of being just another Gnostic group, and Protestants seeking to refute that. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Quasi-Christianized paganism" may not be such a bad thing. Christianity in general developed largely in Europe, and so it has various and countless allusions and relics of the past. People are always influenced by current events and history, so forming a new religion (Christianity) from old indigenous religions (European paganisms) might be a way to continue the cultural and familial heritage. I remember reading something about the Virgin Mary in a peer-reviewed journal(Kinship of the Virgin Mary), and it proposes the development of the Virgin Mary in Roman Catholic thought and culture: that perhaps the Virgin Mary is a transformation of a mother goddess figure in the old European paganisms. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a case for contextualization and syncretism, but Hislop and his ilk made the claim that the Papal office and the reverence for Mary were nothing but the continued worship of an imagined cult for Nimrod and Semiramis that adopted a Christian gloss, rather than the Virgin Mary being a part of Christianity that gained new contexts among formerly pagan peoples. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding IP 66's comment, compare the local parading of various Virgin Mary statues (often with oddly non-Semitic attributes) to the Roman practice of evocatio. That may be the origin of many non-historical and locally venerated saints. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Ian.thomson says, the answer to your question depends on the time and the place. During the 16th and 17th centuries, when post-Reformation conflicts were at their most heated, Protestants and Catholics often did question one another's credentials as Christians. Protestants saw Catholicism as a perversion of Christianity as revealed in the Bible, and Catholics saw Protestants as heretics. Even in North America, especially in the 17th century, there was definitely persecution of people who did not adhere to the dominant sect in many colonies. Pennsylvania, where Benjamin Franklin lived, was something of an exception in allowing religious freedom for all Christians, a fact that indicates that in the eyes of some, at least by the late 17th century when Pennsylvania was founded, Catholics and various kinds of Protestants were all viewed as Christians. However, in Massachusetts Bay Colony, religious persecution was widespread, such that dissenters such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were forced into exile. Catholics were banned from many colonies, which is the main reason why Maryland was founded as a haven for Catholics. By the 19th century, in most parts of the Western world, most Protestants and Catholics grudgingly viewed one another as (flawed) Christians, but as Ian.thomson points out, in many countries where Protestantism was dominant, including the United States, discrimination against Catholics persisted into the 20th century. This is original research, but I happen to know that a golf club in the New York town where I grew up did not admit Catholics (or Jews) until the 1960s. Marco polo (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination against Catholics at a golf club? What does that have to do with religion? Or perhaps, the people didn't want to associate with Catholics, because they feared that the Catholics would proselytize them? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did Swedish Lutherans and German Lutherans see each other Christians? What about German Lutherans and Greek Orthodox Christians? Was there any hostility among Protestant denominations? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Alexander fucking Hislop. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misreading, Ian; I've corrected my comment.
As for the follow-up question, certainly Lutherans from different countries would have seen one another as Christians. As for Greek Orthodox Christians, certainly there would have been a recognition that, like the Catholics, they thought themselves to be Christians, but 16th or 17th century Lutherans would have seen the Greek Orthodox as guilty of many of the same perversions as Catholics, such as the cult of saints. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a source with me, but I seem to remember that Martin Luther admired the Orthodox church for rejecting the papacy. Perhaps, there are some Lutheran-Orthodox connections there? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Orthodox were credited for not being "papists", but they were often still seen as corrupt for their veneration of saints, elaborate religious art, monasticism, and other practices without a scriptural base. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela

What lawmaking bodies has Venezuela had, in all it's forms?Mcleod Allen Mueller Hill, aka Ohyeahstormtroopers6, Imperator Universi 20:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=650658358"