The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) →Is that a fallacy?: oh dear |
|||
Line 390: | Line 390: | ||
::I thought he had spiky hair, but that may have been based on the prematurely and lamentedly cancelled TV series. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 03:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
::I thought he had spiky hair, but that may have been based on the prematurely and lamentedly cancelled TV series. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 03:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::It is kind of spiky. The most common term I've heard for that guy is "pointy-haired". Maybe subtly implying "pointy-headed", figuratively. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 12:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
:::It is kind of spiky. The most common term I've heard for that guy is "pointy-haired". Maybe subtly implying "pointy-headed", figuratively. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 12:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
Sorry that the OP received no real encyclopaedic response here besides that from Marco polo. Sadly this is yet another example in a growing portfolio of RD questions which are answered with nothing substantive. I suggest you take your question to somewhere where it might receive the correct analysis and response. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Why do so many anglicized biblical names end in -ah? == |
== Why do so many anglicized biblical names end in -ah? == |
Revision as of 18:28, 4 December 2014
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
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.
November 28
Airdropping for the resistance in WWII
Hej! During World War II the danish resistance got support from the british island by airdropping quite a lot weapons, equipment and supplies.There is a big number of reports, notes and recorded memories from those people who received the containers at the ground in Denmark. Now I try finding one or some records from the flying crews view about these airdropping actions, but without success. Is there someone who can help with informations or hints? Greetings from Denmark --Danskeren (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Imperial War Museum is a good place to start. Personal writtings by the crews, (although very copius), is hard to find online due to copyright issues. See: Collections and Research at the IWM. (aka Aspro not loged in)--81.134.17.111 (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the IWM are a good first try; you could also contact the RAF Museum at Hendon. It depends what you're looking for - are you after British memories and reports in general, or records of specific drops? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. I also found 801st/492nd BG (Carpetbaggers) Association website which "Provides historical information regarding the air support crews (and their ground support personnel) of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during World War II in the European and Mediterranean Theaters of Operation. Specifically these personnel belonged to a number of differing organizational units of the 8th and 15th Air Forces of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) during the period of October 1943 through July of 1945." Alansplodge (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- The main British base for this sort of operation seems to have been RAF Tempsford - at the bottom of the Wikipedia article there is a list of "external links". Some websites that I found are The Wartime Memories Project - RAF Tempsford and Tempsford Links Page. Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I think your links can help me out. Thank you all. Until now I have just found the 801st/492nd US bombardment group but it is said from eyewitness that there where englisch planes too. (I prefer to search the net before i write to the institutions.) --Danskeren (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Ops: In this case we search for memories and general reports from the crews who was flying this missions. To see it from the other friendly view.
- Operation Carthage is a related British air force operation (with some good results and some very sad results) that you may already be aware of. These aircraft seem to have flown from three different RAF airbases, so investigating memories and links regarding those airbases would provide more information. (None of this is directly related to dropping material to resistance fighters, but the operation was at the repeated request of the resistance, and the aircraft were indeed dropping weapons.) I will look to see what else I can find. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Bengali language two forms
Is Bengali language the only language that has two forms like Shadhu bhasha and cholito bhasha or should I say diglossia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.185 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Norwegian also has two common forms, see Norwegian language: Bokmål and Nynorsk. --Jayron32 01:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- According to the article by M.H. Klaiman in The World's Major Languages (ISBN 0-19-506511-5), the terms are sadhu bhasa or "pundit language" (somewhat archaic and influenced by Sanskrit) and colti bhasa (much more similar to everyday spoken Bengali), so the difference between the two would probably not be too similar to that between Norwegian standards. Sanskritized Bengali was the main language of Indian Nationalism up through the early 20th century (see Vande Mataram etc.), but according to Klaiman is less and less used for ordinary basic prose. 70.29.35.185 -- If you knew the term diglossia, then you should have known how to look up the answer to your question... AnonMoos (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Are all giant pandas property of the PRC?
Our article on the giant panda says: "By 1984, however, pandas were no longer given as gifts. Instead, the PRC began to offer pandas to other nations only on 10-year loans, under terms including a fee of up to US$1,000,000 per year and a provision that any cubs born during the loan are the property of the PRC."
So does that mean all current living pandas are property of the PRC?
Are any of the "pre-1984 non-PRC-owned gift pandas" still alive currently? WinterWall (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unlikely, I'd think - "A panda's average life span in the wild is 14-20 years (but a panda can live up to 30 years in captivity)." [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good call. Going through our list of giant pandas, I found Xin Xin (giant panda) which appears to be "non-PRC-owned". There may be others too. WinterWall (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Such a pity that Xin Xin is presumably not aware of her remarkable unique status. Pinging User:DangerousPanda, to whom this may be of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- Does this make the PRC pandarers? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
There may well be progeny of pre-1984 pandas around the world who do not benefit from the enlightened rule of the Chinese regime. --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
November 29
"Great chain of being"
In the great chain of being, can a living thing climb up and down the great chain of being? Or is it supposed to stay fixed and permanent? Is the scala naturae more like a ladder, staircase, or an escalator? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely fixed and permanent. Uhlan talk 09:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Has anyone raised the question, if Plato et al had known about microbes, where would they have stood on that ladder? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- If "microbes" are divided into animals and plants (which we don't these days), the animals go with "beasts that creepeth" (above serpents), and the plants go near the bottom of the plant list (probably between moss and fungi). Lamarck (not really an advocate of the Chain of Being, although his work is often interpreted that way) placed Infusoria at the start of his list (see Philosophie Zoologique). Tevildo (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think Bugs meant bacteria (No wonder Bugs is interested in bacteria!
). "Animals" and plants are eukaryotes. Bacteria are prokaryotes, so more primitive than either. Then there's archaea. And how about viruses, prions, proteins, smaller molecules, atoms, ..., quarks. Go ahead. Speculate away. Contact Basemetal here 15:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's just that I once heard a scientist say that, contrary to the biblical thing about humans being given dominion over the planet earth, it is actually microbes that have dominion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it's rats. And tardigrades. And giant pandas (see above). (Or mice, according to the fiction of Douglas Adams.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Beetles, actually, so you're all wrong "God has an inordinate fondness for beetles." -- J. B. S. Haldane. --Jayron32 01:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it's rats. And tardigrades. And giant pandas (see above). (Or mice, according to the fiction of Douglas Adams.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's just that I once heard a scientist say that, contrary to the biblical thing about humans being given dominion over the planet earth, it is actually microbes that have dominion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think Bugs meant bacteria (No wonder Bugs is interested in bacteria!
- If "microbes" are divided into animals and plants (which we don't these days), the animals go with "beasts that creepeth" (above serpents), and the plants go near the bottom of the plant list (probably between moss and fungi). Lamarck (not really an advocate of the Chain of Being, although his work is often interpreted that way) placed Infusoria at the start of his list (see Philosophie Zoologique). Tevildo (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Has anyone raised the question, if Plato et al had known about microbes, where would they have stood on that ladder? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
November 30
No go areas (Swedish speaker needed)
Hi
I realize I should be asking this question at the Embassy, but none of the Swedish speakers are very active. The article No-go area contains a reference to "55 no-go areas controlled by Muslim criminal gangs" in Sweden and cites a right-wing US website which cites this police report. I do not speak any Swedish, but Google’s translation of the executive summary does not mention that these gangs are specifically Muslim and suggests that the anarchy portrayed in the article is exaggerated. Additionally, Google tells me that the Swedish words for "Muslim' and 'Islam' are the same as in English, and neither word is found in the report. Could I get a Swedish speaker to verify this? Thanks Samuell Lift me up or put me down 18:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. The police report doesn't mention Muslims at all, nor does it mention some of the incidents which the Daily Caller cites, such as the police car being surrounded. Overall, I'd also say that it doesn't speak about no-go areas specifically at all. The title is "Criminal networks with strong influence on the local community", which is a fair summary of its contents. Valenciano (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I took a further look at the source given and it seems to come from the authors impression that Muslims live in these areas, therefore the gangs must be Muslim. So not sufficient evidence. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 19:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- To be clear; the police report doesn't say anything about no-go areas, nor anything about Islam or Muslims. First line of the report states: "I Sverige finns i nuläget 55 geografiska områden där lokala kriminella nätverk anses ha negativ påverkan på lokalsamhället." -> "Currently in Sweden there are 55 geographic areas where local criminal networks are considered to have a negative impact on the local community". The introduction also states that for the most part, these networks are not well-organized but rather informal youth environments. The report includes suggestions for increased police presence in communities, to build confidence between police and local communities.
- The report makes some comments on "ethnic networks" (although this is not a major line of argumentation in the report as such), but minorities in Sweden include many non-Muslims (such as Orthodox Christians, very prominent in some of the neighbourhoods mentioned). The "muslim no-go area" narrative is just as loony as the conspiracy theory that Obama is a secret al-Qaida agent.
- In the end, these types of reports (raising a level of alarm) function as tool to advocate for more resources for the police, as Swedish police force has been reduced over the past years. But anyway, if any major city in the US would be scrutized by the same criteria as used in these report you'd have far more material. --Soman (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Swedish edition of Metro had an article on that rumor: [2]. Basically they say what Soman says, that there's no truth to the allegations. Sjö (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Some sources making a big deal about this, keep talking about the rape statistics. Wile the figures are technically correct, Rape statistics#Sweden and Rape in Sweden explain why it isn't as big a deal as made out to be. Note that in terms of the "exclusion areas" that the source mentioned that these 55 areas allegedly align with, there is some mention of them here [3] and [4] + [5] (in Swedish). From what I can tell, neither source mentions them being predominantly Muslim immigrants. Actually [6] from the author of the latest exclusion zone report make me think it's unlikely they believe they are. Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Swedish edition of Metro had an article on that rumor: [2]. Basically they say what Soman says, that there's no truth to the allegations. Sjö (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
December 1
Medieval Future and other furture thoughts
You know how people today think the future will involve flying cars, massive cities, lasers and robots and space colinsation? Well what did people in the middle ages and other early modern times would be like in the future? 49.225.203.103 (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ahistoricism is generally attributed to the Middle Ages, prior to the Black Death and the Renaissance it was pretty much assumed the earth had only recently been created and that the end was nigh. By the time you get to Jules Verne, that has all changed. I am sure we can getter better details from experts--and the ahistoricism article could be a lot better. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- With limited horizons it seem (reasonable to me) that the ruling classes, thought of the future in terms of their descendants becoming ever more powerful. The clergy hoped that they would one day rule over god 's perfect world when his kingdom finally arrives. The classes lower down hoped for a future were they would move up the social scale. Whilst the common peasant hoped only for a future where they were assured of more food and warmth. So mainly, they probably only considered Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Leonardo da Vinci was the first free-think dreamer, that I can think of, that started separating (forking) art ( which in greek is Techne: meaning both art and technology) into art and technology and using his knowledge to invent new contrivances, that opened people eyes, to possibilities beyond Maslow's hierarchy of needs.--Aspro (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- History of science fiction has a bit of info about ancient and medieval "sci-fi". By the way I would not agree that the Middle Ages had a particular streak of "ahistoricism", at least as our article defines it...they didn't know what we know, but they were certainly very interested in and concerned with history. But as Aspro says, it's a bit difficult to conceive of the far future when you're constantly thinking the eschaton is about to be immanentized. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- They (or some of them) likely knew quite a few things we (or some of us) don't about the past, simply by virtue of being closer. As years roll on, even in a lifetime, writing is destroyed and memorized stories make way for new ones.
- Not like Pope Gregory II spoke for his generation, but he seemed to think the future of the "father" of the Middle Ages would include lasting fame on earth and eternal life in heaven. Plenty today still envision the same. If death is inevitable, why wonder about the world you'll leave behind, beyond a simple "Karl was here"? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, December 4, 2014 (UTC)
Luck of the Irish
is the phrase the luck of ithe Irish was it formed because it was ironic because the irish werent lucky, they live on a rainy island with famine and the english? 49.225.203.103 (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't say anything about the etymology of the phrase, and its earliest attestation is in the early 1900s, evidently connoting the positive sense of the phrase. I haven't anything more reliable or definitive than that, though. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- This page argues that it was first associated with miners of Irish descent during the gold rush in America and is meant derisively. Biggs Pliff (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, I think we deserve a capital "E", even if we have been beastly to our Irish neighbours in the past. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- This page argues that it was first associated with miners of Irish descent during the gold rush in America and is meant derisively. Biggs Pliff (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
what's the name of the person who convinced Genghis Khan to not kill off the chinese?
What's the name of the person who convinced Genghis Khan not to kill off the Chinese because he could get lots of money from taxes if he didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereismylunch (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- What's the basis of your premise? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Someone told me about about a person who convinced Genghis Khan to not kill off all the Chinese. Instead Genghis Khan could get lots of money by charging the chinese taxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereismylunch (talk • contribs) 05:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
He was a follower of Confucianism according to what I was told and an advisor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereismylunch (talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yelü Chucai's article states "He did his best to convince the Mongols to tax rather than slaughter conquered peoples." (I'm a bit skeptical that Genghis Khan would even have contemplated doing something that stupid.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Slaughter was a bit of a Mongol speciality. We even have an article, Destruction under the Mongol Empire, which quotes a historian who describes the Mongol conquests as " an orgy of violence and destruction". Further down the page it says; "The total population of Persia may have dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine". Alansplodge (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Before the 19th century, the logistics and administrative capabilities necessary to directly commit genocide over a large area didn't really exist. However, the Mongols committed many intense but localized massacres, of course, and when the Mongols converted various agricultural areas into pasture lands for their horses to graze (sometimes by sabotaging irrigation systems etc.) this resulted in a decrease in how many people the land could support, and many of the former peasants on the land were guaranteed to have a dismal fate. In China, converting the most fertile agricultural areas into pasture probably wouldn't have made too much sense, and it was more in the Mongols' interest to tax the Chinese... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- The history of the Mongolians disagrees. According to List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, the Mongol conquests killed 30-40 million people. Even in absolute terms, that is more than twice the death toll of WWI, and many times than the death toll of any 20th century genocide. In relative terms, 40 million deaths in the 13th century is equivalent to 700 million deaths today. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
high crimes and misdemeanors
The Constitution says a President may be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." If s/he is convicted, s/e is forced out of office. Other than this, what other penalties are imposed on the ex-President? --Halcatalyst (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's right in the constitution -- congress can only impose "removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States", but ordinary criminal legal procedures to punish such crimes could impose criminal punishments for the same crimes... AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unless they get a "pre-pardon" from their predecessor, as with Nixon and Ford. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Successor. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- D'oh! Mixed metaphors. Thanks for fixing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Did it again Bugs! Against talk page etiquette, messed with your "D'oh!" Should that be "a post-pardon from their successor"? Contact Basemetal here 13:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Post in the sense that pardons can only ever apply to offences that have already occurred. (But that's normally a redundant usage. We don't talk of someone being "post-sentenced", as all sentences come after conviction, which comes after trial, which comes after charge, and so on.) Pre in the sense that Ford was pre-empting any legal action that might have been taken against Nixon in the future for any offences he might have committed in the past. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm even amazed such a thing can happen. That a president can issue a pardon once that person has been tried, convicted and sentenced is one thing. But that he can prevent a legal process from even taking place by issuing a blanket pardon defies logic. At least that gives a peculiar meaning to the word "pardon". Any other place where this can happen? Contact Basemetal here 20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
audio hearing-
want to get in touch with reserchers on brain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premacharir (talk • contribs) 12:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here is a listserv for neuroscience from the NIH: [7] - anyone can sign up to hear announcements and perhaps discuss some topics. Here is a list of several neuroscience-related email lists that might also be of interest [8]. Here is a list of neuroscience blogs that you can read [9]. All of these will help you see what neuroscientists are researching and discussing these days, and you might be able to get involved in discussions through email or comments. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Language sophistication and its role on the development of society.
Is there a correlation between how advanced a language is, and the development of the people that use it in terms of their intellectual abilities. I'm wondering if this may offer an answer to why some societies grew and expanded into empires (Mongals) whereas others did not (Masai tribesman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.252.148 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would reject the premise that a language can be described as "advanced" or "sophisticated" in any non-arbitrary manner. That said, I believe you may find reading on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to be interesting. By arguing that the structure of language may influence the structure of individual thought, it tees up an argument that the structure of a language may influence the structure of a society. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Worth mentioning then that the S-W hypothesis is currently widely discredited, at least in the relatively simple form originally described (as noted in our article, which is a redirect to the more general concept of linguistic relativity). If anyone wants to read modern work that is more rigorous and salvages parts of the S-W, see this book [10], or any of John A. Lucy's related research articles. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- To piggyback on Mendaliv's answer, any language which is not a dead language is capable of making new words as needed to meet needs. That is, every language which is in use has the ability of what is called productivity, meaning it can use its own internal rules to formulate new words to represent new concepts. Every language is also capable of assimilating words from other languages through borrowing from other languages. Because of this, every complete language is always capable of expressing every idea that every other language can. Thus, there is no way to describe the "Masai" language as being more or less "advanced" than the "Mongol" language, or any other. There may be reasons why some cultures are capable of dominating others, be they social, technological, geographic, or random chance. But it isn't because of their language, because languages cannot be more or less advanced. They are different, but the difference is arbitrary, and not one of quality. --Jayron32 01:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- In 1921, Edward Sapir wrote in a semi-famous passage: "Both simple and complex types of language of an indefinite number of varieties may be found spoken at any desired level of cultural advance. When it comes to linguistic form, Plato walks with the Macedonian swineherd, Confucius with the head-hunting savage of Assam." etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Worth mentioning then that the S-W hypothesis is currently widely discredited, at least in the relatively simple form originally described (as noted in our article, which is a redirect to the more general concept of linguistic relativity). If anyone wants to read modern work that is more rigorous and salvages parts of the S-W, see this book [10], or any of John A. Lucy's related research articles. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- An simpler explanation would be whether a group of people has both the resources and the need to expand. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, overly complex language might actually stall things. Cultures with complex writing scripts either got to a point where they worked and did their damnedest to sit there despite outside interference, or were replaced by or evolved into "barely-literate" cultures whose writing systems only used twenty-something characters. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cultures using alphabetic scripts didn't have a major geopolitical impact until roughly around 500 B.C., when the Persian (Achaemenid) empire adopted Aramaic as its administrative language, the Greeks turned back the Persian invasions, alphabetic scripts started filtering into India, etc.
- For what it's worth, Japanese has by far the most complex writing system in active use today (see detailed explanation in ISBN 0-8047-1756-7)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, overly complex language might actually stall things. Cultures with complex writing scripts either got to a point where they worked and did their damnedest to sit there despite outside interference, or were replaced by or evolved into "barely-literate" cultures whose writing systems only used twenty-something characters. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- In addition to the excellent points already made, consider the following: What do you mean by "language sophistication" and "how advanced a language is"? I suspect that you mean a large vocabulary, a body of well-regarded literature, and perhaps established academic study of the language. Which societies will have a language with these attributes? Obviously they will be societies with large and literate populations. In other words, it will be the very societies which you suggest are associated with sophisticated languages. John M Baker (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- What's relevant is not the complexity of the grammar or other formal aspects of a culture's language, but the possession of higher abstract concepts in science, art and law by the people who speak such languages.
- There's nothing special about English as a language that made the Anglo-American cultures world dominant. But English speakers built up or adopted bodies of knowledge using concepts that hadn't existed before, like oxygen (from the roots "to make acid" in Greek) or indict from French "to accuse at law", from Latin, to "point out".
- The reason our chemistry is better than witchdoctory and our legal system is better than trial-by-combat is because of the possession of the concepts, not the words, which ultimately trace back to more primitive meanings (or original coinings). Any language can internalize such concepts and will often borrow the words for them, such a bug and mouse when they are reused in a more advanced context.
- Some languages prefer(red) to make up there own words by use of calques, such as the German Sauerstoff. The word that is used to stand for a concept (dog, Hund, sobaka) may be arbitrary, but the possession of a word for it is necessary for the possession of a concept. In order to have a concept you have to have both a word for it and understand the more basic ideas which underly it. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure that you have to have "a word" for something to have a concept of it. I have a concept of "American reference desk regulars" but I don't have a single word for them (luckily you may say). Ditto for "electric kettle", "digital computer", "steam train" (but cf "steamer"). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but you do understand my point. You are just stipulating a (for the widespread cultural rather pointless) definition in many words, without using a single new word to cover it. If your notion "American ref desk regulars" were to catch on, it would quickly be reduced to something like ARD'ers, just like we speak of WASP's, not white Anglo-Saxon protestants. There's also got to be a use for the concept, and some essential characteristic that unites the members of the concept. One could stipulate 5'3" non-Momon Belgian women who don't own cats, but it would not be a concept--they don't share ny essential characteristic that singles them out in any useful way. The point is cultural development is conceptual development, not complex grammar, and if you don't have concepts for chemistry, the germ theory of disease, calculus, the rule of law, and so forth, your culture will either borrow them or stay relatively primitive. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Most Pidgin and Creole languages are usually not especially successful compared to "standardized" languages. English was just spoken by a great navy.
- England had a great navy because it had an advanced culture which included governmental checks and balances with the rule of law, a large market with the lack of internal tariffs, and the benefit of centuries of pracitcal and scientific maritime knowledge and a supporting infrastructure all learned by the transmission of concepts through example and book learning. Land the fleet of Britain on New Guinea in 1800, and give the natives the boats, but don't transmit the concepts, and you get a shoreline dotted with wrecks and rotting hulks. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not joking or exaggerating when I say that there's only a dozen-and-a-half countries that Britain hasn't tried to invade at some point in history. Even going with just the areas they managed to hold on to for a while, that's a quarter of the planet. Then there's the influence their colonies (particularly America, especially with movies and television) would go on to have. Really, all English had to do to become as dominant as it is was to not consist solely of tonal raspberries punctuated by various hair pulls and genital waggings (hair wagging and genital pulling might have increased its popularity).
- English does provide a unique flexibility resulting from it more or less being the linguo-cleptomaniac child of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French (which also makes it an easier mutual second language for both Romance- and Germanic- language speakers), but that's not the reason why it's so widespread. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think that map may be a bit inaccurate; insofar as it says that Britain has never been at war with Sweden. The Anglo-Swedish War (1810–12) may have not had any loss of lives, but they were officially enemies for a short while. So, that actually makes one LESS country Britain has never been at war with. --Jayron32 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Guatemala? Wasn't there a problem over Belize? Contact Basemetal here 21:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think that map may be a bit inaccurate; insofar as it says that Britain has never been at war with Sweden. The Anglo-Swedish War (1810–12) may have not had any loss of lives, but they were officially enemies for a short while. So, that actually makes one LESS country Britain has never been at war with. --Jayron32 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe off topic maybe not: It seems to me this question is connected to the question whether people "think through language" or think "in" a language. I imagine many Americans must believe that since they seem to be prone to ask things like "But do you think in English or in Spanish?". That question is itself connected to whether language shapes your concepts. I think the answer must in the negative and most people who've ever tried to write something longer than a few sentences must have experienced the effects of "language" and "thought" not being the same when they struggle to find a word or a turn of phrase that truly expresses what they have in mind. If one really thought "in" a language that should never be a problem: the ideas would come directly in the shape of words and phrases. So the fact that problem even exists must prove that one does not think "in" a language. Sorry for this and other meandering posts. They are usually so because I don't have time to make them more concise. Someone once wrote "I wrote you a long letter because I didn't have time to write you a short one." Contact Basemetal here 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The spoken word (or the hand gesture, or brail sequence) is the consciously available perceptual tag that allows the mind to deal with and express the notions that bubble up from the subconscious when we speak or think. There has to be some consciously available perceptual tag for the brain to handle and express complex ideas. Ultimately the subconscious is the source.
- It's when the various subconscious associations: unmarried, available, heterosexual, adult, male come together to "activate" the concept bachelor that the word comes to mind. If the word "gigolo" were to come to mind instead, we would notice the tension (+compensation, -marriage, -exclusive), and say, that's not exactly what I mean, and we would either think of it after some thought or a suggestion from a colloquent or a thesaurus. The magic of language is that it allows us to use simple tags like bachelor to express complete thoughts like "My sister married the first bachelor she dated" without having to say "related to now word producing upright ape egg bearing relative from same parents was present and active subject in legal and religious hand-waving with a certain unattached adult male following unprecedented repeated mutual escalation of intimate body touching and exchange of friendly sounds by lips and ears." In a pidgin you can say "First big old man belong sky see all" but the advanced conceptual way to say that is God. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2
Living former heads of government
I was gobsmacked to discover there are no less than 12 living former prime ministers of Japan.
Does any other country or polity have as many, or even more, living former heads of government? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Italy have ten according to Prime Minister of Italy and Iraq 11 (not all would have been heads of government). Hack (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan shows 10 living prime ministers. It would be 11 if Benazir Bhutto wasn't assassinated in 2007. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Switzerland probably beats all on a technicality; Switzerland officially has no single head of state or government; their Federal Council serves collectively as head of state and government; there are always 7 members of the council, and there are likely dozens of living former members of the council. --Jayron32 10:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I just counted them, and got 16 living former Federal Councils of Switzerland. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- And I miscounted them. There are 17. (I missed 90-year old Alphons Egli, currently the oldest living former Bundesrat). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- In case people are wondering why there are "only" 17, despite the obvious Swiss advantage by numbers Jayron pointed out: It has to do with the long average tenure of Federal Councils (especially when compared to Italian Prime Ministers).
- From our list of members of the Swiss Federal Council by date: "Once elected for a four-year-term, Federal Councillors can neither be voted out of office by a motion of no confidence nor can they be impeached. Re-election is possible for an indefinite number of terms. Parliament has decided not to re-elect a sitting Councillor only four times, and only twice (in 2003 and 2007) since the beginning of the 20th century. In practice, therefore, Councillors serve until they decide to resign and retire to private life, usually after three to five terms of office." I didn't calculate the averages, but three to five terms of office would mean about 12 to 20 years! (that does seem a bit long to qualify as "usually", but the point remains) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- All fascinating stuff. In a fair contest, I'm not sure whether Herr Egli and his cohorts would individually be considered "heads of government". The technicality by which Jayron includes them in this comparison can also be seen as a technicality that excludes them from this comparison. Is your glass half-full or half-empty? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I just counted them, and got 16 living former Federal Councils of Switzerland. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Switzerland probably beats all on a technicality; Switzerland officially has no single head of state or government; their Federal Council serves collectively as head of state and government; there are always 7 members of the council, and there are likely dozens of living former members of the council. --Jayron32 10:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
What is the swirliy falcon thing?
What is the swirly falcoln thing thery use when using falcons? 49.224.159.47 (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Creance? It's hard to follow what you are asking about. Perhaps if you read the Wikipedia article titled falconry and followed links from there you could find out yourself. --Jayron32 13:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps Lure (falconry) ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes that's what it is, thank you! 49.224.159.47 (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Your help requested for humor in pedagogy
Hi all. I have a student here who's defending a thesis on using humor as a pedagogical tool. Can any of you provide a joke or witticism or two to liven up his discourse? My best joke was written by one of my daughters when she was 4, and it goes "how can a cat drive a car?" There is no punch line, so you can see I'm no help at all. Thanks in advance! Drmies (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Search for "chemistry cat" meme. Always a chuckle. --Jayron32 15:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- How man pedagogues does it take to change a light bulb? ---Sluzzelin talk 15:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Rats, I can't manage the "hidden" template, so I'm giving the answer in white font Only one, but the light bulb needs to want to change. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
- Humor about using humor as a pedagogical tool? There was this teacher who was always preparing lots of jokes for use in the classroom. One day his dog ate his jokes. He could do nothing else but come in front of the class and tell his students: "I'm sorry but today there will be no jokes. My dog ate my jokes." There was an explosion of laughter: "It's a good one, but we've heard it before." The teacher said: "No. It's true". The class laughed even harder. And so he spent the whole period trying to convince his students this was no joke. But the more he tried the more they laughed. The end. Contact Basemetal here 16:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you hear about the teacher who told hilarious jokes? No. Neither did I. --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you all! I like Sluzzelin's best. Basemetal, Dweller, please don't make me sad. My paycheck is sad enough already. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Could you be a bit more specific about what you're looking for? I got the sense you were looking for jokes about pedagogy, but some of the replies above seem to have interpreted it as being a request for academic jokes (as with the chemistry cat). Matt Deres (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, both would work. What the student could use is jokes about jokes, jokes about pedagogy, jokes about teachers--I'll let them pick. I haven't looked for the chemistry cat yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, another one, this time really lame, but it might apply to didactics (perhaps more than to pedagogy) in that I'm giving its translated version as well:
- Two tomatoes were crossing a road, one was suddenly run over by a car, to which the other replied; "Come on ketchup!" (rrrrrrwhack boom ching!)
- (en français): Deux pommes de terre traversent la rue. L'une se fait écraser et l'autre dit : "Oh... purée !" (rrrrrrac, boum, tching!)
- :-| ---Sluzzelin talk 21:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Universal translation. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, December 3, 2014 (UTC)
- The original post already made me laugh. How about "I wanted to start off my defense of "humor as a pedagogical tool" with a joke, but I don't actually know any jokes."?--Wikimedes (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there evidence of official Catholic protest against the celebration of Guy Fawkes Night? Have any Popes spoken out against it? In the modern world, is there evidence of offense taken by organised Catholicism against the celebrations? Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- It just makes me feel embarrassed for the celebrants, but maybe they see it more like Halloween than dressing up as Lee Harvey Oswald? It certainly seems more patriotic/traditional than sectarian. Catholic Emancipation in Britain was largely accomplished by classical liberalism in the 1800's, and what vestiges are slowly disappearing are rather odd, for example, that an heir to the throne might marry a Muslim, but not a "papist". At one point the entire kingdom was under interdict. For the last century you'll find a heck of a lot more converts to Catholicism in Britain than the other way around. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- No-one is right in this case; there is a huge amount of tradition involved and almost no sectarianism at all. In fact I would say that the average UK celebrant pays attention to the original "reason for the season" even less than they pay attention to the original significance of Christmas. As children we are, at some point, taught the historical background, but the general reaction is "oh OK", not a perception of hostility towards the Catholic school down the road. Much as we don't put much emotional or sectarian value in any other sectarian conflicts from roughly half a millennium ago (or even more recently).
- In Northern Ireland it may be rather different(?), but they seem to focus their date-related social disturbances mostly on other historical events.
- There has been an increasing fuss, reported on BBC News amongst other places, about whether effigies of living people (sometimes sectarian opponents, sometimes just political ones) are burned in the course of some celebration. Some of this has indeed been in Northern Ireland (where I think some kind of government funding is made available for bonfire celebrations with specific restrictions about the funded events not burning things that would cause damage either to the environment or to sectarian feelings).
- Another aspect has been in an English town which has developed a "quaint" custom of building huge effigies of (living) politicians and other public figures and then parading them through the town. (Usually mildly insulting, e.g. depicted in their underwear or some similar Spitting Image type device.) Some authority insisted that they not burn one or more of the effigies this year, for reasons I don't quite follow, but perhaps were a sort of municipal WP:BLP policy. This stipulation was followed, and instead somehow one of the effigies was instead filled with fireworks and then blown to smithereens. I don't think it was a Roman Catholic though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently he's Church of Scotland, but as with most UK Mainland politicians his shade of religion (or lack of one) isn't of much public interest. I believe the request came from some "anti-Racist" Quango. I was amused that he described the perpetrators as "typical Tories" or words to that effect, since only a couple of years previously the burnt effigies included Messrs Cameron & Clegg (as a two-fer). On the occasion I attended, one effigy was of a local area television station (in the form of a TV camera). Anti-medianism? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Another aspect has been in an English town which has developed a "quaint" custom of building huge effigies of (living) politicians and other public figures and then parading them through the town. (Usually mildly insulting, e.g. depicted in their underwear or some similar Spitting Image type device.) Some authority insisted that they not burn one or more of the effigies this year, for reasons I don't quite follow, but perhaps were a sort of municipal WP:BLP policy. This stipulation was followed, and instead somehow one of the effigies was instead filled with fireworks and then blown to smithereens. I don't think it was a Roman Catholic though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "isn't of much public interest" absolutely perfectly summarises it. Most UK citizens basically just don't care about sectarianism of any sort. Blowing things up, on the other hand, sounds like good clean fun to everyone! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all. Does anyone have any answers to my questions? --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Our article implies that, by the late 19th century (and certainly in the 20th century, generally), Guy Fawkes Night celebrations became increasingly secular in character, at around the same time that Catholicism in England became more gradually tolerated and accepted. But, it doesn't seem to suggest that one led to the other. You could ask Parrot of Doom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to search for whether any Pope has spoken about it? --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fawkes is not beatified, canonized, venerated or considered a martyr by the Catholic Church, and there is no encyclical written on him. Whether any pope ever spoke of him at all is likely, but not ex cathedra. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The main focus of this debate in England (as opposed to the rest of the UK) is the small southern town of Lewes, which annually has the Lewes Bonfire where effigies are burned, not just of Guy Fawkes which is standard practice, but also of Pope Paul V, a tradition which was abandoned by the rest of us centuries ago. I found BBC News - "A Roman Catholic Priest in Lewes, in the county of Sussex in Southern England has attacked plans to burn Catholic effigies..." from 1997 and "Catholics to Attend Lewes Bonfire" from 2014. Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Titles of Nobility Amendment: Cardinals
This is a purely hypothetical question. Had the Titles of Nobility Amendment been ratified, would it include Cardinals? The text says quite clearly: "any title of nobility or honour" and "any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power. Would each new Cardinal from the US have to seek Congress's consent?--94.65.173.211 (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- AFAIK, probably (but one cannot say for certain unless it is tested in a court of law; and there is not likely to be any test on an unpassed law...) Cardinal is a title of nobility conferred by a foreign, sovereign power (the Pope); the title Cardinal makes the holder formally a Prince of the Church. --Jayron32 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Lawyers can litigate anything. While cardinal is certainly a title, I don't think it's abundantly clear that it's a title of nobility. The fact that they are also called by another title that sounds "noble" wouldn't prevent a lawyer from arguing that it's a title that [1] goes with an actual office, thus is based on performing a job rather than being noble, or that the title is conferred by the pope in his religious capacity rather than as a foreign power. or that [2] Prince of the Church is a historical honorific rather than an actual principate, a soubriquet rather than a title. Fortunately, we won't have to wrestle with such sophistry unless we're foolish enough to ratify that useless amendment, and we're not.... - Nunh-huh 04:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Even if it is not actual nobility, does it not fall under "any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever"?--94.65.173.211 (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The US Constitution forbids the government from bestowing titles of nobility: Title of Nobility Clause. Presumably, this was to pre-empt the kind of social structure that exists in the UK. In the US, all are equal under the law (theoretically). Americans have all manner of titles. Cardinal is one of them. But it means nothing legally, i.e. it confers no special status on its holder - other than whatever is protected by "freedom of religion". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- However, the constitution does not currently forbid U.S. citizens from accepting those titles, nor does it incur any penalty against those that do. The U.S. does not formally recognize any rights and privileges associated with a title, but it also doesn't forbid them. It just treats them as though they don't exist one way or the other. The proposed amendment noted above would have expressly forbid U.S. citizens from accepting such titles, and would have imposed stiff penalties for doing so. That would be different from the current situation. --Jayron32 14:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- So, Caspar Weinberger would have been prosecuted for high treason after becoming an honorary GBE...--94.65.173.211 (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, he would not have. Under the proposed amendment, he would have had his citizenship revoked. --Jayron32 15:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- My comment was actually sarcastic, but still, this would be very dishonouring for an ex-Defense Secretary. Also, he would most likely have secured the consent of Congress.--94.65.173.211 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not to mention Presidents Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush Sr. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are aware these are all as honorary as is Winston Churchill's American citizenship, Jack? μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Am I aware that a list called List of honorary British knights and dames is about honorary knights and dames? I'll let you work that one out. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "work that one out". μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why are we having this - or any - conversation? You recently reminded me that earlier this year I initiated a no-contact policy between us. That policy stands as far as I'm concerned. My only exception is where I'm being attacked or targetted or whiteanted, because I will not let misinformation or disinformation about me stand unchallenged. This is not such a case.
- Out. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I apologize, Jack, for having used your name. In any case, my sole act was to point out that like Churchill's citizenship, the titles granted the presidents you mentioned were honorary. It was only after that that you brought up the list and suggested I "work that one out". Brining something up post facto and talking to me like a school marm seemed odd, hence my expressed lack of understanding. You are as free to hold whatever grudge you like as I am free not to, I appreciate your contributions here. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "work that one out". μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Am I aware that a list called List of honorary British knights and dames is about honorary knights and dames? I'll let you work that one out. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are aware these are all as honorary as is Winston Churchill's American citizenship, Jack? μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not to mention Presidents Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush Sr. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- My comment was actually sarcastic, but still, this would be very dishonouring for an ex-Defense Secretary. Also, he would most likely have secured the consent of Congress.--94.65.173.211 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, he would not have. Under the proposed amendment, he would have had his citizenship revoked. --Jayron32 15:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- So, Caspar Weinberger would have been prosecuted for high treason after becoming an honorary GBE...--94.65.173.211 (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- However, the constitution does not currently forbid U.S. citizens from accepting those titles, nor does it incur any penalty against those that do. The U.S. does not formally recognize any rights and privileges associated with a title, but it also doesn't forbid them. It just treats them as though they don't exist one way or the other. The proposed amendment noted above would have expressly forbid U.S. citizens from accepting such titles, and would have imposed stiff penalties for doing so. That would be different from the current situation. --Jayron32 14:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Inger Eriksdatter
Was Cæcilia Knudsdatter the mother of Inger Eriksdatter, the wife of Asser Rig and mother of Archibishop Absalon? I am seeing a lot of genealogy sites and Wikipedia articles but am not sure if there is a confusion between Inger Eriksdatter's father on being Eric IX of Sweden or Erik Jarl of Falster since both are referred to as Erik Jedvardssom. Also did any descendant of Asser Rig marry into the Danish Royal family later in history --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Reason behind American religiosity compared to other developed nations?
Has anybody written on the possible reason behind the American religiosity compared to other developed nations? I suspect that immigration and religious diversity play a role, but I can't be too sure. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- In some European countries (France comes to mind), the attainment of democracy was accompanied by bitter struggles over the role and status of the church, and many pro-democratic thinkers and politicians were anti-clerical, while many devoutly religious persons were politically reactionary. As late as the 1920s, a significant percentage of the population of France was basically still unreconciled to the French revolution of 1789 and its consequences, in the aftermath of the Dreyfus affair and the 1905 secularization law. The United States avoided much of these tensions -- there was no nationwide established church, and the U.S. founding fathers (other than Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine) usually didn't go any further than quiet deism. To a certain degree, religion and democracy reinforced each other in the history of the United States in a way that they didn't usually do in Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- France is the only example. This has nothing to do with what happened in Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, Ireland (!), the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Iceland, Finland which are all more or less equally secular. In Eastern Europe many more people were declaring themselves religious in 1990 right after communism collapsed than do today so it's hardly a consequence of communism. Even in France the majority of people abandoned religion not because of the French Revolution or the 1905 law on the separation of church and state but much more recently as a byproduct of modernity. Secularization is generally a consequence of modernity almost everywhere. It is only the US that bucks the trend (to some extent) and the explanation is probably that in the US being secular and especially advertising one's lack of religion carries a price that it doesn't in other developed countries. For example in all other developed countries a political person's religion or lack thereof is a personal matter that has nothing to do with his or her fitness to hold office whereas in the US, except in very few places, it would be impossible to get elected if you're a declared atheist. That also reinforces hypocrisy, which means that one can question the accuracy of the surveys. The number of people who in the US do not belong to any church and do not attend any religious activity and who nevertheless claim to be religious is suspicious and probably to some extent a result of the stigma that is attached in the US to declaring yourself secular. Finally, note the fact that in the US religion is more big business that in any other developed country. The people in the religion business have more political reach than almost anywhere in the developed world. Contact Basemetal here 07:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure you understood what I was saying -- the secularism law didn't convert anyone to secularism. Rather, the law (passed by secularist politicians who saw restrictions on religion as essential to safeguarding the French republic) embittered devout Catholics, and contributed to many of them hating the republic (and retroactively the French revolution) and most of what it stood for. In the first quarter of the 20th century, there were a significant number of "royalists" in France who didn't care too much about Philippe of Orleans, but who loosely aligned themselves with royalism to express fundamental opposition to the republic as it then existed. One taunt was that secularist politicians passed such laws to spite their wives -- since a higher proportion of women than men were religiously pious (of course, France didn't give women the vote until after WW2)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I thought you meant that the French Revolution and the 1905 law were what caused the French to become less religious than Americans are. If that's not what you meant I have at least an excuse for having misunderstood you as the OP was asking "why is the US more religious than other developed nations?" and so it was not completely incongruous, I believe, to assume that your remarks were meant to answer that question. Contact Basemetal here 10:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Consider the brouhaha in 2008 when Mitt Romney failed in his first try for the presidential nomination, at least in part because he's a Mormon. Al Smith was defeated in 1928, in part because he was Catholic. And JFK had a lot of naysayers for the same reason. I took until the mid-2000s before the first Muslim was elected to the House of Representatives. Then and now, someone who says he's an atheist, literally doesn't have a prayer. Someone who denies religious belief is regarded with suspicion. I'm not saying that's right, but it's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, we have articles that tell us how many Christians there are in the US, and in the world. I am very sceptical of the figures. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those kinds of numbers are likely to be based on counts of alleged adherents, be they "active" adherents or not. It's like if you were to conduct a poll and ask which denomination they belong to, they might well say such-and-such church, even if they never go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Which is not to suggest that all it takes to be a good Whateverian is to attend that church once a week (or as often as is specified). A lot of Whateverians fall into that trap of being seen to be participating in worship on Sunday and then balancing that out by practising lack of charity for the rest of the week. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those kinds of numbers are likely to be based on counts of alleged adherents, be they "active" adherents or not. It's like if you were to conduct a poll and ask which denomination they belong to, they might well say such-and-such church, even if they never go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- That gives much insight on today's world. I've noticed that atheists from Western European countries (Richard Dawkins comes to mind) and maybe in the United States are very outspoken and anti-clerical, while atheists in Russia may identify themselves as Orthodox Christians culturally, and atheists in China may hold onto the same cultural value of filial piety. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Many Americans came here due to religious persecution in those European nations, so it's not surprising that America is (1) relatively diverse religiously; and (2) relatively tolerant of other religions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- But how tolerant is it of other irreligions? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Compared to who or what? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- We had this Q recently, and I referred to the Puritan work ethic as one reason. StuRat (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also see the Great Awakenings, which were periods of religious expansion and revival in American history. There's been three or so such Great Awakenings, and the articles on them all provide some historical context. --Jayron32 03:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- We have this "question" from an IP every other month or so. The religious revivals Jayron mentioned did not involve the Catholics, by far the nation's largest sect, but mostly now very liberal sects with declining membership. A lack of a native Mao, Hitler, Stalin or Robespierre might help. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- A factor that no one has mentioned is that the United States has the least effective social welfare system and one of the greatest income disparities (net taxes and benefits) in the developed Western world. Europeans without work or with marginal jobs can count on a host of social services from the state to safeguard their well-being. Americans without work or with marginal jobs face a much higher risk of malnutrition, homelessness, or untreated medical problems. Many American churches provide networks of material support for their needy congregants. So, churches in the United States are often important community and social support networks that are not needed in the same way in Europe. I don't want to suggest that Americans attend church merely for cynical, material reasons. There is also an emotional dimension. Since lower-income Americans face a great deal of adversity due to their lack of means and the social dysfunction that comes along with that, they are also attracted to religion as a source of emotional and spiritual support. In effect, I think that Americans may be religious for the same kinds of reasons that Africans or people in other developing countries are religious.
- Another distinctive quality of U.S. society is its geographic mobility, and particularly the mobility of its working classes. While educated Europeans (like educated Americans) are increasingly mobile, even across borders, educated, professional people are better able to form social networks in new locations through university or professional connections. Working-class Europeans are much more likely to stay in or near their place of origin, where they remain connected to family and school-age social networks. Working-class Americans often move long distances in search of work or a lower cost of living. In their new home towns, churches are an easy place to look for connection. Marco polo (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Your entirely unreferenced point seems to be that Big Brother has killed God, Marco polo. Would that be an accurate summary? μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- In a lot of cases historically, and to some extent still, the religion of a person in the US is influenced by where they were born, and to some degree reflects the social norms of that area. Also, as a country where voting and freedom of religion have been, to various degrees, more central in the history of this country than in many others, it has played a more important role in American public discourse than in many others. There have also been the historic trends of immigration, particularly the trends since the founding of the US of increased immigration from largely Catholic southern Europe, and more recently from Asian countries. Religion is in a lot of cases a way of expressing and maintaining ties to the homeland for many of these people, and so is important to them. And, yeah, any time people disagree on issues important to them, conflicts arise. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- We have this "question" from an IP every other month or so. The religious revivals Jayron mentioned did not involve the Catholics, by far the nation's largest sect, but mostly now very liberal sects with declining membership. A lack of a native Mao, Hitler, Stalin or Robespierre might help. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
In many lands for many years, the people had the same "official religion" as their ruler. As a result, the practice of religion was rather pro forma. The United States was settled by several groups - but only Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia were "establishmentarians" - Most of the other colonies were dissidents of one sort or another. New England was a hotbed of Congregationalists and Unitarians, New York was heavily Dutch Reformed, Maryland had Roman Catholics and Pennsylvania had a huge number of Friends. When such groups exist, they tend to take religion as a set of personal beliefs, not just the beliefs of their ruler. It is the peculiar situation in the United States that religion is highly personal which makes that country so religious. What is interesting is that in Switzerland about one person in five has no religious affiliation - just about the same as the US. Compare with the UK where the figure is over 25%, and Canada at 24%. It is in the nations which had "religion was established by the ruler" and where that rule no longer extended to religion where the tendency is greatest to "no affiliation." It is moreover interesting that in Russia, where the "ruler's religion" was "Atheism" for many years, that after years of "0% religious" or nearly so, that now a majority of Russians are religious. Rather an interesting topic. Collect (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except that that's utter BS as far as the [USA]] is concerned, since the ratification of the U. S. Constitution, over 2.2 centuries hence. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Responding to Medeis, I would not use the loaded term "Big Brother" to refer to the welfare state, since I think social welfare as it is practiced in most of Europe does not entail the kind of intrusiveness that we associate with "Big Brother" or the NSA. (The United Kingdom has the equally intrusive GCHQ, but it is distinct from the state's welfare branches.) However, I am in fact arguing that an effective welfare state removes many of the incentives in favor of religious affiliation. Note, however, that this does not suggest that "God is dead" or that the welfare state necessarily affects people's spiritual beliefs. It is possible to believe in God without taking part in religious activities or accepting religious dogma. Marco polo (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
When did David Irving lose respect as a mainstream historian?
See the WP:BLP report about this thread here. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Was David Irving already known for his holocaust denial before the lawsuit against penguin books and lipstadt, or did he only lose respect as a mainstream historian after the lawsuit?Whereismylunch (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- What's the basis for your assumptions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- According to our article, his revisionism and falsification of history was known from his childhood and student years - and he was never considered a historian, mainstream or otherwise. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- So it's not really that he lost respect - he never had any. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's a bit to black and white. Irving was respected for his knowledge of the primary sources. What never enjoyed significant expert respect were his conclusions and theses. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- So it's not really that he lost respect - he never had any. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Your questions are a little tangled, but I'll try to answer what you seem to be after.
I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that Irving's early work was (is?) fairly well respected but things began to change with his 1977 book on Hitler, when he was perceived to have gone too far in his revisionism (a totally respectable approach to historiography, in a sense, seeing whether a new perspective is appropriate on long-held perceptions). He was openly seeking to readress the way that historians perceived Hitler, but his peers believed he'd gone too far the other way and was actually trying to whitewash him.
What is much clearer to me is that our article includes well cited material about Irving being openly a Holocaust denier by 1988, some 8 years before the lawsuit.
Clearly, whether or not he lost respect as a mainstream historian for being a denier would depend on the individual assessing him. While clearly some would have felt the repugnance and disdain for Irving's approach, even among that group, individual historians may choose to take quite a sanguine approach here. A basic assumption of historiography is that every source has bias, so any reader of Irving's work would need to take into account his well publicised bias - which arguably makes the task easier. --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- And the fact that he is a member of neo-Nazi organisations means that his claims can reasonably be assumed to be biased unless the contrary can be established. Well, the contrary has not been established. Despite the extraordinary detail and comprehensiveness of his sources, his conclusions do not enjoy the support of mainstream historians. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? Obviously any of his claims relating to the Nazi Party and its members, the holocaust and Jewish people aren't supported (well frankly generally bunkum). But both our David Irving article and our The Mare's Nest suggest his conclusions there may be largely supported. His original conclusion that the Hitler Diaries were fake also seems to be supported, even if he later came to the conclusion they weren't before accepting again that they were. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are you implying we can create forks about living persons and give otherwise defamatory claims about them at one location while in another they would require attribution and references? I do reaize this person is worse than Satan, but even Satan is protected by BLP as long as he is alive, is he not? μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? Obviously any of his claims relating to the Nazi Party and its members, the holocaust and Jewish people aren't supported (well frankly generally bunkum). But both our David Irving article and our The Mare's Nest suggest his conclusions there may be largely supported. His original conclusion that the Hitler Diaries were fake also seems to be supported, even if he later came to the conclusion they weren't before accepting again that they were. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
As posted this thread raises and discusses possibly defamatory matters without quoting supporting references. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- If any or all of the above apologies are true, the ref desk allusions should have references attached. Or does the Ref Desk amount to a special place, where WP policies simply don't apply, and all is permitted? I am especially surprised if JackofOz holds the latter position. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- No one's needling anyone here except a living third party, and, assuming you are commenting in good faith, Sluzzelin, see the BLP complaint. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- ... where my name is conspicuously absent. So what's the deal with singling me out for mention here? This may be another case where good faith "can reasonably be assumed to be [absent] unless the contrary can be established". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- No one's needling anyone here except a living third party, and, assuming you are commenting in good faith, Sluzzelin, see the BLP complaint. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's a certain degree of subjectivity here, since one has the obvious impression that too much sympathy for the Nazis is looked down upon. Irving's original estimate of 135,000 in The Destruction of Dresden was sixfold higher than our current figures of 22,700 to 25,000 in our article on the Bombing of Dresden in World War II. By comparison the Casualties of the Iraq War article cites scientific figures over a range from 100,000 to 1,000,000. It would appear that the truth continues to be among the casualties in any conflict. Wnt (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
December 3
Military outfits & curves
When I saw Disney's Mulan make a guest appearance on an episode of Sofia the First, I noticed that although Mulan was dressed in her military outfit, her curves were prominently visible. I find this rather unusual, since it appears (based on searches from Google Image Search) that military outfits usually do not make such curves prominently visible. Is my perception correct? 98.116.83.143 (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mulan is a fictional character, even in the original Chinese poem. The real person that she might be based on is Fu Hao, who died c. 1200 BC. This was during the Shang, the earliest Chinese dynasty that we know is not mythological. We almost certainly have no idea what she wore, but see this statue for one person's impression of what she might have looked like. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- For comparison, Joan of Arc is a similar figure from European history. Like Mulan, there are no surviving likenesses of her; the only portraits we have are from people who have never seen her, so we are left with the artist's imagination of what she might look like. Some of the depictions of her in military armor show the armor tailored with obvious feminine curves, while others do not. We simply do not know what she wore or how it conformed to our standard understanding of what "womans" clothes should or should not look like, when showing one's "feminine" curves. I should note that modern military uniforms vary. In general, "combat" uniforms show very little variation between men and women: for example this image shows no discernable difference. However, in many cases women's dress uniforms do show feminine distinctions, for example, here and here and here you can see obvious differences between male and female uniforms; some as obvious as the difference between skirts and pants, others as subtle as the style of necktie or the cut of the uniform jacket. --Jayron32 12:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Weren't the curves of Catherine Bell in uniform the main raison d'être for JAG? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wasn't Mulan pretending to be male for most of the movie? Was this supposed to be from after that or were the people working on the Sofia the First episode really that silly? (May be Mulan II since IIRC no one realised she was female until about the end when she went home anyway in the first movie, which seems to concur with the poem.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Is that a fallacy?
Cutting losses at 10% and letting profits run on above 10% is the winning strategy. Could this work?--Senteni (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Of course it is best to aim for profit. Multiple years of 5% losses could lead to bankruptcy. Making a profit and avoiding losses are easier said than done. Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The premise assumes instantaneous knowledge of the full state of the market and the ability to trade before anyone else acts on such information. The answer is bankers falling past the windows of lower-floor offices. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- According to the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert, if you cut expenses enough, you can break even without selling anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I thought he had spiky hair, but that may have been based on the prematurely and lamentedly cancelled TV series. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is kind of spiky. The most common term I've heard for that guy is "pointy-haired". Maybe subtly implying "pointy-headed", figuratively. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I thought he had spiky hair, but that may have been based on the prematurely and lamentedly cancelled TV series. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry that the OP received no real encyclopaedic response here besides that from Marco polo. Sadly this is yet another example in a growing portfolio of RD questions which are answered with nothing substantive. I suggest you take your question to somewhere where it might receive the correct analysis and response. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Why do so many anglicized biblical names end in -ah?
Jeremiah. Isaiah. Rebecca. Leah. Zechariah. Nehemiah. Obadiah. Jonah. Micah. Zephaniah. And how come names like Zephaniah, Micah, Obadiah, and Nehemiah are not that popular while virtually all the disciples' names in the New Testament become classics? There are a lot of Johns, Thomases, Phillips, Pauls, etc. And why can Spanish speakers name their kids "Jesus" with a diacritical mark on the u while English speakers hardly name their kids "Jesus"?140.254.136.160 (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- According to our article on Hebrew names, the male names ending in -iah express devotion to Yahweh. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Rebecca (Rivqa) and Leah just have the standard singular feminine Hebrew ending (an -a vowel in "absolute" form, but with an added final -t consonant in other contexts). Micah is probably short for Mikaya. Not sure about Jonah (which has a feminine-looking ending, though masculine). The others end in -yah, a shortened version of -yahu, which is in turn a shortened from of the Tetragrammaton YHWH... AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- And just in case the OP is unaware of this, the reason for the -h at the end (excluding the -iah/-jah/yah suffix) is because the Hebrew alphabet consists of just consonants, it has no letter for "a". Hence the most common way to indicate that a words ends in an -a sound is to put an "h" at the end (ה in Hebrew). Noah is an exception, there the "h" represents the Hebrew letter heth which has no real equivalent in the Latin alphabet. - Lindert (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also important to note that many of the New Testament names come to us from Greek, as it was written in Greek by Hellenized Jews. So many of the names we find in the New Testament are either Greek or modifications of Hebrew names into more Greek-like forms; whereas Old Testament names are essentially straight from Hebrew. For the apostles, for example, Peter's name comes from Petros, the Greek word for Rock; Thomas from Didymos, Greek for "twin". Paul took his name from the Latin name "Paullus" meaning "humble", to replace his earlier Hebrew name Saul (after the first King of Israel). John is also based on a Hellenized version of a Hebrew name, the Greek Ἰωάννης from the earlier Yehohanan, which you can see the "Yeh" from "YHWH". Andrew is directly from the Greek meaning "Man". Matthew is a Hebrew name (the ending "you" sound is that YHWH bit noted above in names like Zechariah), but Mark is straight-up Latin (from Marcus and Mars), Luke is straight Greek (from Lucania, a greek name for the Italian peninsula), Philip is straight Greek (from Phil-hippos, or "lover of horses"), etc. So the names you note as being different linguistically from the Old Testament Hebrew names are actually linguistically different, in many cases entirely unrelated to Hebrew, or heavily modified by coming through Greek or Latin. --Jayron32 03:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Slight quibble: Thomas is from Aramaic תאומא "Te'omah", meaning "twin". Greek Didymos is a translation. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Don't know Aramaic but I think this would be "the twin" as I believe final -ah in Aramaic is the equivalent of the Hebrew initial article ha-. I could be wrong. I know just enough Armaic to get in trouble, mostly from Aramaic embedded in Hebrew (e.g. "Dinah dmalkhutah dinah", "had gadyah", "bar kokhvah", "bar giorah", etc.) Contact Basemetal here 18:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Slight quibble: Thomas is from Aramaic תאומא "Te'omah", meaning "twin". Greek Didymos is a translation. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also important to note that many of the New Testament names come to us from Greek, as it was written in Greek by Hellenized Jews. So many of the names we find in the New Testament are either Greek or modifications of Hebrew names into more Greek-like forms; whereas Old Testament names are essentially straight from Hebrew. For the apostles, for example, Peter's name comes from Petros, the Greek word for Rock; Thomas from Didymos, Greek for "twin". Paul took his name from the Latin name "Paullus" meaning "humble", to replace his earlier Hebrew name Saul (after the first King of Israel). John is also based on a Hellenized version of a Hebrew name, the Greek Ἰωάννης from the earlier Yehohanan, which you can see the "Yeh" from "YHWH". Andrew is directly from the Greek meaning "Man". Matthew is a Hebrew name (the ending "you" sound is that YHWH bit noted above in names like Zechariah), but Mark is straight-up Latin (from Marcus and Mars), Luke is straight Greek (from Lucania, a greek name for the Italian peninsula), Philip is straight Greek (from Phil-hippos, or "lover of horses"), etc. So the names you note as being different linguistically from the Old Testament Hebrew names are actually linguistically different, in many cases entirely unrelated to Hebrew, or heavily modified by coming through Greek or Latin. --Jayron32 03:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- And just in case the OP is unaware of this, the reason for the -h at the end (excluding the -iah/-jah/yah suffix) is because the Hebrew alphabet consists of just consonants, it has no letter for "a". Hence the most common way to indicate that a words ends in an -a sound is to put an "h" at the end (ה in Hebrew). Noah is an exception, there the "h" represents the Hebrew letter heth which has no real equivalent in the Latin alphabet. - Lindert (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Jonah is a female noun ("dove") but a male name. Hebrew animal names are often of only one grammatical gender—there are no male hares or (grammatically) female camels in the Hebrew Bible. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Rebecca (Rivqa) and Leah just have the standard singular feminine Hebrew ending (an -a vowel in "absolute" form, but with an added final -t consonant in other contexts). Micah is probably short for Mikaya. Not sure about Jonah (which has a feminine-looking ending, though masculine). The others end in -yah, a shortened version of -yahu, which is in turn a shortened from of the Tetragrammaton YHWH... AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- For the last question, we have some info at Jesus_(name). Basically it's just a cultural difference. Also consider that Christian_(name) is common in some places and rare in others. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, a lot of kids are named Joshua, which is etymologically the same name as Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's complex, of course. In Spanish, Jesus is a different name than Joshua (Josue in Spanish); though they are cognate with each other (common etymological roots). The two names are similar in that regard to the English names Jacob and James. Also, in Spanish, Jesus Christ himself is often called "Jesucristo", which is rarely used as a first name. And of course, Jesus sometimes appears as a first name in English as well. Levon called his child Jesus (because he likes the name)... --Jayron32 03:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, a lot of kids are named Joshua, which is etymologically the same name as Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
December 4
Mockingbird
Which chapters in To Kill a Mockingbird feature just courtroom scenes? Thank you. 49.226.57.8 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The website http://www.sparknotes.com/ gives chapter summaries of major novels and will have that information. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
what is the site for calculating drink/drug intake?
Hi, awhile ago I came across a site set up with questions and charts to help an inquirer to assess whether they were below average, average, or excessive drinkers (and I think there was one about drugs). I can't find it now, but it was short, to the point, informative and non-judgemental (as in not about the risks etc) just about the intake and what that indicated for the person asking. Having no luck re-finding it and want to recommend it. Thanks in advance Manytexts (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Is the use of the word "autological" in the following sentence correct?
The sentence is: "When the singing of a song could be inserted in the plot, Grand Opéra librettists rarely missed an opportunity to provide composers with an excuse for an autological use of music". This sentence takes the word "autological" to be a synonym of "self-referential", that is singing that is meant to represent actual singing as opposed to singing representing things that do not involve singing in real life (plot dialogs, monologs, etc.). But is that correct? If not, what other word would you suggest? Contact Basemetal here 09:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- In films, it's called "diegetic" music or "source music" (no idea about opera)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. While in a (non musical) movie or play you can neatly divide the use of music into "diegetic" and "non diegetic", in opera or a musical it would be odd to say that characters who are singing cannot "hear" that they're singing. So you'd have "non diegetic" music that is actually "heard" by the characters. That's why, even though the concepts are the same, I would not use "diegetic" in the context of opera or a musical movie. Other suggestions? Contact Basemetal here 10:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
First occurrence of a play within a play/a story within a story?
Do you happen to know what the first occurrence is (in any literature) of "a play within a play" (as in Hamlet)? Of "a story within a story" (as in the Arabian Nights)? Same question for European literatures? Same question for English literature? Contact Basemetal here 09:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- As far as English literature is concerned you can take it right back to the Anglo-Saxons. Beowulf has several, including the Finnsburg episode, in which a scop sings about events surrounding the battle of Finnsburg. --Antiquary (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Antiquary. A good part of the Odyssey is taken by Ulysses recounting his adventures to the Phaeacians I believe, so technically a story within a story. (Not to mention the two short stories performed by Demodocus, the "singer" (aoidos) of the Phaeacians just before he starts.) That would bring us back to about 800 BC. In Latin isn't there something similar in the Aeneid with Aeneas telling Dido about his adventures? How about literature older than the Greek? And how about "modern" European literatures (i.e. nor Latin nor Greek)? More examples welcome. And please do not forget the "play within a play" part of the question. Contact Basemetal here 13:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- For an early play within a play, our article story within a story suggests The Spanish Tragedy (ca. 1587, perhaps two decades before Hamlet). Two far older works listed there, with stories within stories, are the Mahabharata and Panchatantra. For an older (and Greek) play: Thesmophoriazusae? (not mentioned in that article) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Antiquary. A good part of the Odyssey is taken by Ulysses recounting his adventures to the Phaeacians I believe, so technically a story within a story. (Not to mention the two short stories performed by Demodocus, the "singer" (aoidos) of the Phaeacians just before he starts.) That would bring us back to about 800 BC. In Latin isn't there something similar in the Aeneid with Aeneas telling Dido about his adventures? How about literature older than the Greek? And how about "modern" European literatures (i.e. nor Latin nor Greek)? More examples welcome. And please do not forget the "play within a play" part of the question. Contact Basemetal here 13:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Chairing multi party meetings
If you're chairing a meeting with people representing multiple organisations, what's the best way to start? Is it a quick going around the table introducing themselves and what they want to get out of the meeting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.246.13 (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Going round for introductions is very common and doesn't take up much time. However, if at the same time people are asked what they want out of the meeting, that slows things down a lot, and I wouldn't do it unless participants might have any doubt about why they had been called together. If you have an agenda, you could instead briefly go through what's on the agenda and ask if everyone agrees. They might want to change the order or add items, and that would then fulfil the function of letting them shape how the meeting goes. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Story in which the focal character is a protagonist but the narrator is an antagonist
Does anyone know of such a story? Thanks.--Leon (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)