Revision as of 07:22, 25 March 2007

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/headercfg

March 22

unknown mosque in Baghdad

After the US-led invasion on Iraq, they destroyed the statue of Saddam Hussein and I want to know what is the name the unknown mosque in front of statue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.136.208 (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I think it is the 14th of Ramadan Mosque.--Cam 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pope Gregory Vs. John the Faster

While researching the origins of division among Eastern and Western Churches of Christendom, I found this amazing information that dates back to 593 AD. . Apparently, the patriarch of Constantinople claimed to have more autority than the pope, which caused major problems for the next 1500 years.

My question is, is the real dispute anterior to the year 593 ? In his brief Quod Aliquantum, Pius VI described it as a frightening event comparable to the civil constitution of the clergy in 1791 . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.234.87 (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

This is an interesting and challenging question, and it's especially worthy of note that Pius VI made a pronouncement on the matter centuries after it had ceased to have any true relevance. Why should this be? The obvious answer is that Pius, faced with the challenge to the Universal Church presented by first the Enlightenment and then the French Revolution, was making the same error of judgement in Quod Aliquantum that popes Pelagius and Gregory had all those centuries before: namely to turn a relatively minor issue of church protocol into a major ecumenical drama. John the Faster, or John IV, was not in fact the first to adopt the title of ecumenical patriarch, as you will know from The Catholic Encyclopedia article: it had been used in reference to John II at the beginnng of the sixth century, though this seemingly passed unoticed by the Vatican. John IV's formal assumption of the title caused Pope Pelagius to issue an angry protest. It is possible, though, that the whole issue may have subsided but for one thing; it was taken up with even more vigour by Pelagius' succcessor, Gregory I, one of the most formidable of all the pontifs. Gregory increased the political temperature by several degrees, when he wrote to the Emperor Maurice and the Empress Constantina, demanding that John abandon the title. More than that, he maintained that what was, after all, simply an issue of church politics was a sign that the age of Anti-Christ was at hand. Maurice was put in an impossible position: he could please the Pope and alienate the Patriarch. There was no middle way. Maurice, for the sake of his own authority, sided with the Patriarch, beginning a process of mutual recrimination between Rome and Constantinople. It seems likely, as John Julius Norwich argues in Byzantium: the Early Centuries, that Gregory's protests hardened attitudes, turning a passing affectation into a permanent title. Much more might have been achieved by a less confrontational approach. The whole issue was sensibly ignored by Gregory's successors; but it marked one more move on the passage towards the final rupture of 1054. In essence if showed that the Universal Church, like the Universal Empire before it, was a political and practical impossibility. The final division between the Catholic and the Orthodox, the Latin and the Greek, merely reproduces, in the realm of the church, the Emperor Diocletian's earlier reorganisation of the whole of the Roman world. Clio the Muse 09:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting response. However, you could have at least tried to discuss the links between sergianism, gallicanism, photianism, anglicanism, between Cranmer, Talleyrand, Le Bel, Combes, Ludwig Müller and the CPA. Even Calvin would admit that Cujus regio, ejus religio can be dangerous (cf Thirty Years War). My favourite author on the topic is Vladimir Solovyov. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.234.87 (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

'Clicking' or Snapping fingers in night club jazzy scenes

I have noticed in at least TWO cases of popular culture, that in some kind of a night club, when the performer has finished reciting something (perhaps a poem), the patrons of the night club at their tables, will not clap to applaude, but will rather snap/click their fingers.
Case 1: In the Computer Game Grim Fandango, a woman in a jazzy/cool-cat nightclub gets up to the mike, recites a poem, and when she's done everyone around 'clicks' and snaps their fingers. and
Case 2: In the Animaniacs, whenever they do a scene of "Dot's Poetry Corner", dot gets up on some stage, recites a small poem, and when she's done you hear people clicking their fingers.

Question:
What can you tell me about this culture? Why do they click their fingers instead of clapping? In what type/kind of nightclubs/bars could you expect to find such a thing? What is the history of this practise? Does this practise have a name?

Thank-you in advance.

Rfwoolf 11:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In the fifties, and perhaps in the forties, small clubs in Greenwich Village that featured poetry readings were located in basements of residential buildings. The scaled-down applause kept the clubs from being evicted as public nuisances. --Wetman 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you, that makes sense! Rfwoolf 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging from a reference in a family guy deleted scene (an always reliable source) this appears to be for performances of beat poetry, as for why, the reason above could be true. I never attempt to understand hippy types137.138.46.155 15:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because it sounds cool. :-) Abeg92contribs 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Improvisational theatre

Is there an englisch expression for the german Pseudo-Anglicism (?) de:Walkact, in which actors and audience are in one height/room and actors go through and act inside the audience? walking performance ?-- Thanks Cherubino 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought of participatory theatre and methexis. But that's not quite what you described, as the emphasis here lies in the audience's participation, not in the actors' movement through the audience. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope I'm not being rude, Cherub, but we say English, not Engisch. Assuming your native language is German, though, I commend you on having better English than I have German!martianlostinspace 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Environmental theater? See Tony n' Tina's Wedding and Joey and Maria's Comedy Italian Wedding. Are those the sorts of things you're talking about? Corvus cornix 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading the German AFD for this article, I think that Corvus cornix's suggestion comes pretty close. References provided in that discussion use "Walkact" for acting troups that offer their services to business events, where the actors mingle with the crowd (dressed as guests, caterers, janitors etc) and then start improvising, singing, or annoying the poor "audience" in some other way. I remember once reading about a restaurant in the Netherlands having one of these "walkacts" go very bad: The actors played a seated couple arguing at their table, but, apparently, the male actor overdid it, and the "husband"' started using violent language and behaving in a very unpleasant and threatening way. The clueless guests wouldn't watch idly, and intervened forcefully, and the whole thing could have turned really nasty. As usual I forgot how it actually ended, but I think no one really got hurt. Seriously though, would you want to take someone out to dinner for that? ---Sluzzelin talk 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say 'promenade theatre' (which I've added to the environmental theater article, and redirected to that. It's not clear to me whether 'promenade' is a more specific term than 'environmental' (which is unfamiliar to me in this context), or whether it's just a UK/US difference in terminology.

--ColinFine 20:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions about Finnish/Estonian history and linguistic issues

Hello, I've been reading about Finland and Estonia and I have a couple of questions:

1. Someone told me that the Swedishspeaking people on the Aland islands, are probably the best protected minority in the world, since people are only allowed to settle there if they are able to speak Swedish. Is this true? And if so, how can Finland do this? I mean, aren't members of the EU allowed to move within the European Union as they please?

2.I heard that there is an issue in Estonia with Russians who don't get the Estonian nationality. Apparently learning Estonian is one of the conditions to get it. But... why didn't they get it? I mean : when Estonian became independent, didn't all of its inhabitants with the Soviet Union nationality become Estonian citizens? What kind of criteria did they use at that time?

3. How related are Finland and Estonia? I mean : do they feel connected and do they care about each other? Especially : when Finland was independent during the Cold War, and Estonia was part of the Soviet Union, did Finland "feel sorry" about Estonia, and did they try to "help" or something? (Did Estonians try to flee to Finland?)

4. The new generation of Estonians, what languages are they best at? English? Russian?

Thank you , Evilbu 19:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This might help: Finland was certainly influenced by the USSR. That might explain why they refused the Marshall Plan.martianlostinspace 21:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I suggest you read carefully the articles Åland and Estonia.

1)You are mistaken, ppl aren't forbidden to settle there. They are however required to have a "Regional citizenship or the right of domicile for the right to vote or stand as a candidate in elections to the Legislative Assembly, to own and hold real estate in Åland or to exercise without restriction a trade or profession in Åland." I suspect to recieve a regional citizenship you have either to marry a Alander, or learn the language (culture) to a certain degree. Nothing forbids you to work and to live there.

2)The basic problem is that during the time of the Soviet Union a very large number of Russians emigrated to Estonia. During that time the Russian emigrants weren't obligated to learn Estonian at all, and AFAIK Estonian was not widely taught inside Estonia itself. As Estonia became independent several Estonian politicians passed nationalistic laws who warrant that if you want to be an Estonian you have to learn Estonian, and this is seen as harrasment by some of the Russian emigrants.

3)Can't help you there.

4)These days the students in Estonia learn Estonian as mother-language, and English as the first foreign language. Flamarande 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

On your third question, if by related you mean that they share a common cultural and historical heritage, then the answer is, yes, they are reasonably close to one another, both nations being members of the Finno-Ugric language group, and both joined politically for many years, in first the Swedish and then the Tsarist empires. Estonians, moreover, fought as volunteers with the Finns against the Russians during the Winter War. I imagine the Finns did 'feel sorry' for the Estonians during the years of Soviet occupation, though in view of Finland's sensitive political and strategic position such expressions of sympathy were probably fairly mute. Today Finland is Estonia's biggest trading partner. Clio the Muse 06:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still have some questions:

2. Yes, but how did they do that? I mean, did they have files saying who immigrated from Russia and whose family had been living there all the time? Did they make everyone prove that he could speak Estonian, back in 1991?

3. And is Finland being an important trading partner related in any way to the linguistic similarity? Or is just because Finland just happens to be virtually next door? Do Estonians speak Finnish when they do their business in Finland (Or is Estonian about as similar to Finnish as German to English?)

4. And what about their knowledge of the Russian language? Do they (have to) learn it in school? And is it something they need/(like to) use in real life? Evilbu 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

2) would indicate that everyone was tested - ethnic Russians who couldn't understand the Estonian test didn't gain citizenship, but they no longer qualified for Russian citizenship outside of Russia, leaving them effectively stateless.

One other point regarding ties between Estonia and Finland - they share a national anthem, so throughout the Soviet era the 'Estonian' anthem could be heard on Finnish radio when played at the close of broadcast every night. This, of course, doesn't necessarily mean anything - the UK, Luxembourg, and the Norwegian royals all use a single tune as their anthem. --Mnemeson 17:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Estonian is rather closer to Finnish than German is to English. There is some degree of mutual intelligibility between them. --ColinFine 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

O.J. Bronco

Whatever happened to Al Cowling's Bronco, the one used in the O.J. Simpson chase? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.218.31.251 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

The Effects of the Gutenberg Press on the English Language

I would like to request any information you may have regarding the topic of the effects of the Gutenberg Press on the English language. If you have any information, it would be greatly appreciated, as I am having difficulty finding relevant and concise information on this topic.

Sincerely, Anthony Butler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.110.50 (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

History of the English language is rather high level, so Early Modern English seems like the best bet. According to that, printing "helped to stabilise the language and broaden its vocabulary". For background, after Johannes Gutenberg, William Caxton would be the man, and Spread of printing is worth a look. If you'd like to read a book on the impact of printing, Lucien Febvre & Henri-Jean Martin's The Coming of the Book is a classic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I would recommend a look at the theories of Walter Ong, who is generally credited with the theoretic perspective that the printing press, in formalizing the language, also brought forth the possibility of more linear, reliable, formulaic thought, which in turn led to futher developments in the sciences, etc. Though these are primarily changes in how people think and experience and frame their world, such things in turn do affect how and why they use language, and thus how the language evolves. Such theories can be explored in more depth in our article on print culture, which it defines as "the conglomeration of effects on human society that is created by making printed forms of communication", or, more plainly, as "the cultural products of the printing transformation" -- Neil Postman, in a famous late-nineties early 90s Harpers Magazine dialog with Camile Paglia called "She Wants Her TV! He Wants His Book," alluded to these theories to show that, IF we accept language as (at least in part) a cultural product, then the identified characteristics of cultural change (in the case of print, a new valuation for aggregation, linearity, authoritative structures, and other qualities) are often found to be those characteristics of the language that the culture then evolves to communicate those ideas. Jfarber 01:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

addendum to above: Found a relevant Postman quotes in our article, but it seemed too deep to point to, so I hope hope no one minds the use of space...(italics below are mine)

...Printing fostered the modern idea of individuality but it destroyed the medieval sense of community and social integration. Printing created prose but made poetry into an exotic and elitist form of expression. Printing made modern science possible but transformed religious sensibility into an exercise in superstition. Printing assisted in the growth of the nation-state but, in so doing, made patriotism into a sordid if not a murderous emotion.... ]

For some even more relevant quotes on how education of and about language was changed by print, and how, for example, spelling suddenly became much more important in schooling, and how schooling itself suddenly became available to everyone, aim for about a third of the way down our wikiquote page for Neil Postman...samples include:

"At the same time, the printing press provided the wide circulation necessary to create national literatures and intense pride in one's native language. Print thus promoted individualism on one hand and nationalism on the other..."

"In schools, print shifted the emphasis from oral to written and visual communication. Teachers who had been only partly concerned within instructing their students in how to read became by the mid-sixteenth century concerned with almost nothing else. Since the sixteenth century, the textbook has been a primary source of income for book publishers. Since the sixteenth century, written examinations and written assignments have been an integral part of the methodology of school teaching; and since the sixteenth century, the image of the isolated student who reads and studies by himself, has been the essence of our conception of scholarship..." Jfarber 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere I read that the printing press contributed to the lost of the letter thorn. Today "th" is used instead of thorn. If I understand it right, by the time the printing press was introduced to England, thorn was already being replaced with "th", but was still often used, especially for the word "the". Printers, who did not always have the letter thorn available, generally used "th" instead, contributing to the decline in the use of the letter thorn. Since thorn was still widely used for the word "the", printers, who often did not have a thorn letter, sometimes used the letter "y" instead, resulting in "the" being printed as "ye". Today "ye" is used to evoke a medieval style of English, but is usually pronounced "ye" instead of "the". I'm not sure how much of a role the printing press had on the loss of "thorn" but it seems clear that it played a major role in the "creation" of "ye" as a word of its own. For more on this see the pages Y, Ye, You, and Thorn (letter). Pfly 06:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

March 23

Republic vs. Democracy

What exactly is the difference between a republic and a democracy? From what I can tell from their articles and their Wiktionary entries, both require the power to be controlled by the people. But I know that there is a difference!--Ed 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Put in the simplest terms, a republic is a state without a monarch, and a democracy is a state where the government is chosen by popular election. Some republics are democracies, but not all; some monarchies are democracies, but not all. The United Kingdom has a hereditary sovereign as head of state, but is still a democracy, whereas Saudi Arabia, which also has a sovereign as head of state, is not. The United States is a republic and a democracy; China is a republic but it is not a democracy. Clio the Muse 00:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Its often difficult for modern people to grasp what republicanism really means. The term comes from the Latin 'res publicus' meaning 'public affairs', which is what republicanism referred to, in its earliest and most basic form, i.e. the idea that the state should be run for the benefit of the public, (the people). This is why many modern people have trouble understanding this; to them, the idea that a state should benefit its people is taken completely for granted. Even in most Monarchies today, (including my own, Britain), the assumption that We, the People, come before Her Majesty, the Monarch, is omnipresent. But during many periods of history it was seen as perfectly acceptable that a state be run solely for the benefit of a ruling élite or autocrat.

The idea of legitimacy plays a part in this. Pre-republican states were legitimised by the claims that their ruling élites were ordained by God, or some other rationale that was completely unable to be reasonably discussed. All republics, no matter how tyrannical or corrupt ultimately hold the belief that they act in the will of the people. So if republicanism is rule for the People, then democracy is rule by the People. In democracies all citizens, however that term is defined, must be involved in deciding what should become of their state. 194.80.32.12 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't some of these terms cause confustion on who gets what kind of power? How can a democracy (power by the people) not be a republic (for the people)? I would think that the civilian power would be directed towards the civilians! Also, how would a democratic monarchy work out? A democracy demands control by the commoners, but a monarcy requires rule over a state by one ruler. Would that not cause political problems within a nation?--Ed 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you, Ed, that democracy and monarchy work out very well indeed. Clio the Muse 06:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problems tend to be theoretical, rather than practical - for example, Elizabeth Windsor could in theory veto any law passed by the British Parliament. In practise, she can't, and wouldn't, because the day after she did we'd be a Republic. The term is Constitutional monarchy, in which a monarch sits but has no, or very little power. Interesting are countries such as Ireland and Iceland, who are constitutional republics - their Presidents have broadly the same types of practical powers as the British monarch (i.e. none), the authority resting with their Prime Ministers. If anythihng, there would be greater problems where power was shared, because the lines could be blured - hybrid systems, such as the French and Finnish republics, with power split between the President and Prime Minister also exist. --Mnemeson 12:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When the terms republic and democracy are used in opposition to each other, sometimes it is that democracy is being used in a more limited sense approaching direct democracy (a regime in which the government is the people in some sense not satisfied by having "the government...chosen by popular election"). It's in terms of this contrast that you can understand, for example, some of the differences among the framers of the U.S. constitution (and some of the ideals behind such political party names as "Republican," "Democratic," Democratic-Republican," etc. — it's certainly not that they were positioning themselves vis-a-vis the question of monarchy, though by using the word "ideals" I'm acknowledging that no one exactly envisioned a sovereign assembly of all the people either!). Wareh 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The democracy/republic chart

Mwalcoff 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I find that explanation that a republic simply means "the country is there for its people" quite interesting. I always assumed that "res publica" meant more than that, I thought it meant "the people decide how the country is run"81.165.186.254 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a precise definition of the word republic. The word derives from Latin res publica, literally "public things, public business". Modern republics are named after the Roman Republic, which was ruled by a combination of oligarchy (the senate), direct democracy (the popular assemblies), and representative democracy (the elected magistrates), but whose defining feature was the refusal to allow any one person absolute power. The point at which the republic is generally agreed to have ended was when Augustus took absolute power and established a functioning monarchy. If China is a republic, which it claims to be, it must be because, although it's totalitarian, it's not a monarchy, it's an oligarchy - officials and policies are chosen by the Party, not by a single absolute ruler. --Nicknack009 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Submarine names

Why didn't the Germans and Japanese name their submarines in WW II? Wartime rationing? Clarityfiend 03:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for cultural views on objects of war and anthropomorphism. Vespine 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really likely, since they did name their surface warships. -- Necrothesp 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In Germany anyway there had never been any tradition of naming Unterseebooten, in WWI as well as WWII, perhaps because they were considered closer to machines than ships, so modern and so impersonal, something that does not fit within an existing naval tradition. Clio the Muse 06:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it was cultural. After all, we're talking about a couple of militaristic societies here. It's weird - the allies named their subs. Oh well, now that I think about it, it might be a different size cutoff preference. PT boats weren't named and I don't think E-boats were either. Clarityfiend 08:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right in your assumption about E-boats. I'm not sure about cut off preferences, though. As the war progressed German U-boats got steadily larger in size. Type IXD, for example, weighed up to 1779 tons when fully loaded and submerged, and carried a crew of up to sixty-three men. Perhaps the sailors gave their boats unique names, in the same fashion as American bomber crews did with their particular craft? On reflection, and considering the cultural differences, perhaps not. Clio the Muse 08:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The U-boats, like the American PT boats, were considered largely expendable. They were built in large numbers, and destroyed in large numbers. --Carnildo 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They were certainly destroyed in large numbers, though I'm not sure if it is right to contend that the Germans considered them, and their crews, to be 'expendable', Carnildo. Rather, it was quickly obvious to both Hitler and the German High Command that, given the limitations of the surface fleet, the U-boat arm was Germany's only effective naval weapon. In 1939 there were only 57 boats in service; but after Günther Prien and U-47 sank the British battleship Royal Oak in the allegedly safe haven of Scapa Flow, production was rapidly increased. For a time in 1940 it looked as if the U-Boat arm was well on its way to winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Clio the Muse 23:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"I doubt it was cultural." — What else could it be? There is no necessary technical reason to name or to not name boats; it is clearly a cultural convention no matter how it is done. --24.147.86.187 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet, by contrast, Germany named her airships, such as the LZ 129 Hindenburg, whereas British airships were not named. Gandalf61 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Did they? I thought the Hindenburg, and possibly the Graf Zepplin, were the exceptions, and that most German airships only carried type names? Clio the Muse 23:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See Zeppelin. The company apparently started producing named airships when they went into passenger service. Of course, this contrasts with most airplanes today, although I remember that British Airways planes are named (typically "City of "). Perhaps they were viewed as akin to passenger ships. Britain never got as far as putting airships into passenger service, not after the R-100 disaster, but American military airships of that period were named. --Anonymous, March 23, 2007, 03:52 (UTC).

British submarines weren't named until the late 1920s. The US Navy didn't start naming its submarines until the early 1930s. Before that both navies assigned their submarines an alphanumeric designation. So in actual fact it was they who were changing the way submarines were designated, and the Germans and Japanese were simply keeping the tradition of not naming. -- Necrothesp 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the British, but the Americans named them from the beginning, e.g. USS Alligator, USS Holland, and the subs listed in Category:World War I submarines of the United States have names. Clarityfiend 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet another Holocaust question

Since questions about Jews and the Holocaust are so common here, I thought I'd add another. The pages on The Holocaust and Names of the Holocaust both say that the word "Shoah" is preferred by many Jews and others because the word "Holocaust" is "theologically offensive". I understand that the word "holocaust" comes from Greek and referred to a Greek sacrifical ritual similar to the "olah" (Whole offering), in which sacrifical animals are burnt completely. I don't understand why this makes the word "theologically offensive". The Names of the Holocaust page says "...theologically offensive nature of the original meaning of the word holocaust as a reference to a sacrifice to a god." But wasn't "olah", in ancient times at least, a sacrifice to a god? Is it offensive just because ancient Greeks were not monotheistic? Pfly 06:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the suggestion that the Jews were a sacrifice to God that is considered offensive, and since this refers to the theological connotation of the word holocaust, this is condensed into calling it "theologically offensive".  --Lambiam 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to expand on what Lambiam rightly said ("the suggestion that the Jews were a sacrifice to God"): note that the Greek word holocaust is generally used in a Jewish context (= Hebrew `olah), not to describe offerings to the pagan gods. So the whole Greek issue is a red herring. Wareh 16:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Greek etymology as the source of offense in the regard of particular believers. Some people, religious adherents among them, are known to set much store by the significance of foreign-language etymologies of terms that have been adopted into mainstream language, and we would do well to recognize their sensitivities. What I question (see below) is the purported extent of such an objection leading to the substitution of the Hebrew "Shoah" for "Holocaust." --- Deborahjay 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter of Misplaced Pages editing. The explanations (above) by Lambiam and Wareh essentially clarify the rationale for what might be an objection to the use of the word "Holocaust" in English. What needs to be addressed is the wording of the page: is this putative "theological" objection by "many Jews" a tenet of any denomination of organized Judaism (presumably in the English-speaking world)? If so, this should be cited. Neither has a citation been provided attesting to the alleged scope of this objection. Otherwise, if this is a matter of conjecture, the sentence might be reworded accordingly. Three possible steps for action:

• Check the page's edit history to determine which User wrote this line, and query the user (via the User Talk page) for clarification and substantiation to be added to the page;
• Leave a comment for discussion on the article's Talk page.
• Interim editing of that statement on the page.

I've done what I can (while having failed to crack the page history, so haven't identified the original editor); thanks to Pfly for bringing attention to this questionable content. -- Deborahjay 17:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When the term was introduced, the text was: " is used by many Jews and a growing number of Christians due to theological discomfort with the literal meaning of the word Holocaust; it is considered theologically offensive to imply that the Jews of Europe were a burnt sacrifice to God." The mention of sacrifice was removed by an anon editor who – based on its other edits – had some dubious axe to grind.  --Lambiam 00:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction. The reference to "sacrifice" was actually finally removed in a later edit.  --Lambiam 00:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone object to the use of the word Holocaust to refer to the genocide. The first English-language reference to the word Shoah in the OED, from 1967, says Shoah is preferable because it more-specifically refers to the mass-murder of Jews, whereas many events can be called holocausts. But the word Holocaust, with a capital "H," has become so well-known that it's rarely used nowadays except to refer to the Nazi period. -- Mwalcoff 05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

world bank assistance in India for development

respected sir/madam i want about the world banks assistance in several states of india. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.212.111.130 (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

What is the name of this type of paintings?

Hi. For my masters thesis (on packing small rectangles within a large), I would like to have a painting of a certain style on the front page, but I cannot remember what it is called. Perhaps someone here can help me?

The central theme of the simple abstract style of painting is a set of very colorful rectangles, with strongly pronounced edges. The background is usually white, and some rectangles are aligned and some unaligned. Occasionally non-rectangles feature as well. I believe the genre is quite popular.

Thanks in advance Søren 130.225.96.2 11:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this article on geometric abstract art will help. A.Z. 11:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How about De Stijl.—eric 11:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that will do nicely.

Søren130.225.96.2 12:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, the artist Piet Mondrian was also mentioned in the link A.Z. gave. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the reproduction rights to the works of Mondrian are held by the Mondrian Trust (aka Mondrian/Holtzman Trust), http://www.mondriantrust.com.  --Lambiam 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And that, depending on whether your masters thesis is going to be commercially published or merely distributed to your advisors and then stuck on a shelf somewhere, you may have an educational fair use allowance to use it anyway. But if you do use it, make sure you attribute it properly, or your profs will surely notice. Jfarber 17:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the US Copyright Act applies in Danmark.  --Lambiam 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but happily, Denmark has own copyright laws, which include educational fair use. Jfarber 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, if the university has made an agreement on the exploitation of paintings with an organisation comprising a substantial number of painters of such paintings which are used in Denmark, and if the educational activities covered by that agreement comprise the reproduction of such paintings on the cover of Ph.D. theses. (I'm just using the phraseology of the law here.) Something tells me that the university might just have overlooked the need for such an agreement.  --Lambiam 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen such agreements in even the smaller private schools in the US, and they tend to runa wide gamut. It is my understanding that such agreements are common between major colleges and national copyright organizations, in which a flat fee is paid yearly, and the terms are broadly defined, so that unanticipated uses of educational benefit can be easily interpreted as within the terms of the agreement. I don't know enough about Demark universities to make a guess either way, but given the broad defining terms in all such agreements I've seen in the US, given how rare it is for a Masters Degree work to NOT count as internal academic work for educational purposes, given that it would be eay to make a case that the querent feels there would be obvious benefit to the understanding of his topic through use of this type of image, and given, more generally, how often a teacher or student might need to use images for in-institution purposes of one type or another tied to educational purposes, I'd think that a) it's worth checking with the university, and b) a blanket agreement with general terms allowing use "for educational purposes within the organization" is not as unlikely as you think. It's hard to imagine a college being able to teach effectively without such agreements, in fact, unless they've got lawyers lurking in the corners of every library, right next to the copy machine... Jfarber 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Suprematism... AnonMoos 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

the black prince. why was he called that?

why was the black prince called the black prince?--Lerdthenerd 11:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't. "Although Edward is almost always now called the "Black Prince", there is no record of this name being used during his lifetime. He was instead known as Edward of Woodstock, after his place of birth." (see Edward, the Black Prince. --Wetman 12:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In terms of why he is now called The Black Prince, according to the article it is either because of the black suit of armour he was given early in his career and wore at subsequent battles (that is the traditional view, the one I was taught at school) or because he was so successful against the French that he was cast as a "black" plague against them. Batmanand | Talk 13:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The name can be traced back no earlier than 1563, to Richard Grafton's Abridgement of the Chronicles of England, and is now assumed, with no certain evidence, to have been accorded because he wore a dark suit of armour. I have never come across the 'black plague' story, Batmanand, and would be grateful for a source for this. If the French did indeed drape him in this colour it is surely because of his conduct at the 1370 siege of Limoges. Incidentally, on a note of sheer battiness, his mother, Philippa of of Hainault, appears on a list of one hundred great 'black Britons', for no other reason than because of her association with him. Clio the Muse 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the talk pages of Edward and Philippa of Hainault you will see there is a contemporary description, supposedly of Philippa, which suggests black features. This a has led to speculation about her heritage but the black britain classification is on fairly slim evidence. meltBanana 20:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now read the talk page, and I see there is a highly ambiguous reference to the ODNB and 'black features', which may, or may not, apply to Philippa. I do not have this reference book to hand, so am unable to check the exact wording. I am, in any case, not quite sure what 'black features' means in this context. In the Middle Ages such an expression would have been used to denote mood, never skin colour or physiognomy. Do be careful of the article on Philippa, by the way: it contains two rather silly errors, one of fact and another of interpretation. Clio the Muse 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the description which may be about Philippa or one of her sisters and here is the nearest contemporary image of her. Although black as a noun meaning a black person only goes back as far as the 17thC black in reference to the skin colour of a blackamoor is attested in the 13thC. BTW I'm not trying to prove she was black or any other colour/race just explaining the evidence some people cite. meltBanana 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"The lady whom we saw has not uncomely hair, betwixt blue-black and brown. Her head is cleaned shaped; her forehead high and broad, and standing somewhat forward. Her face narrows between the eyes, and the lower part of her face is still more narrow and slender than the forehead. Her eyes are blackish brown and deep. Her nose is fairly smooth and even, save that is somewhat broad at the tip and flattened, yet it is no snub nose. Her nostrils are also broad, her mouth fairly wide. Her lips somewhat full and especially the lower lip…all her limbs are well set and unmaimed, and nought is amiss so far as a man may see. Moreover, she is brown of skin all over, and much like her father, and in all things she is pleasant enough, as it seems to us."

Thank you for that quotation, MeltBanana, which I assume is from the ODNB? Does it give a source for this description? I do appreciate that you are not trying to prove a specific claim about Philippa, simply detailing the sources. My questioning here arises from my tiresome need to test the evidence, at all hazards! One other point: you say that the word 'blackamoor' is attested in the 13th century, though I personally can only trace its use back to the first half of the sixteenth century. Do you have a source for this also? Clio the Muse 02:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That actual text is from somewhere on the net so I can't vouch for its complete accuracy as it was translated from french and I don't have the MS. It is a diplomatic letter from Walter de Stapeldon who did the viewing, the ODNB only refers to the uncertainty of the subject viewed. The cite from the 13thC is in Ancrene Wisse and is actually "Blac as a bloamon" 'bloamon' being a mangled mixture of blackman and the Old Norse for blackamoor. I simplified a little, se the trouble it getyou into. meltBanana 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. If you manage at some point to come across the text of Stapeldon's complete letter I would be pleased if you could let me know. Best wishes Clio the Muse 03:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tada! You need a google books account (free). meltBanana 19:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yoconut

Hello

i heard the word Yoconut and beleive this to be a Young Coconut! if so is it a new word, and that is worry you do not have it in your database!

Looking so forward to your reply.

Best of regards

Martin from Sweden

(This is not really a question for the Humanities reference desk.) Are you by any chance Martin Giles, the Yoconut marketing and promotion guy? Your product has been launched only a few days ago. To include it in an encyclopedia, it needs to have some notability, and we need reliable sources (independent of a company marketing the product) as well. There is also a guideline to avoid neologisms.  --Lambiam 15:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And maybe you should consider a new name, as this one sounds like coconut flavored yogurt StuRat 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought it was too, Stu. makes note to start pre-peeled orange company... Dismas| 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Gee, and here I thought it described Yoko Ono's fan base. Seriously, if young coconuts are already seen as edible and marketable, then they'd already be in the entry for Coconut. And what d'ya know! There they are! The fact that someone has decided to sell 'em pre-peeled, and market them with a new name, doesn't make them anything new; people have been eating young coconuts for thousands of years. I'm sure they taste delicious, and I suppose the convenience will make the product desirable for some, but that doesn't mean I can start a company that sells pre-peeled oranges, call 'em "YOURanges", and expect to automatically pass the notability standard. And yes, this would have ideally been a Language desk question, but the answer would be the same there, too. Jfarber 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yoko Ono's fan base ? Wouldn't that be just Yoko ? :-) StuRat 17:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If so, it would explain why the term is singular, wouldn't it? But seriously, Yoko's body of work as a member of the Fluxus movement is quite impressive and well-respected in the art world. Jfarber 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if young coconuts cause the same mild allergic reaction I have with regular coconut. Both the meat and milk seem to cause an irritation to my throat. StuRat 17:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it were me, I wouldn't try and see :-) Remember, past reactions being slight are no indication of the severity of future reactions. Skittle 17:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

why does our society fail to recognize the merits of recreational drug use ?

how come our society (which condones and sometimes even promotes over medication) fails to recognize the merits of certain recreational drugs ? Take for instance Methamphetamine just by it's very description society should embrace the drug whole heartedly i.e; increased awareness and activity, diminshed appetite, sense of euphria/well-being,. Now taken in moderation this should be the wonder drug of the new millenium for employers all the way down to the common worker yet we as a society condem and imprison those who partake of this substance. And yet alcohol by it's description should be banished from the land i.e; slurred speach, difficulty in hand-eye coordination, slowed responce time,seems like a no-brainer to mewho about yourselves? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.53.124.109 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

See Arguments for and against drug prohibition. I'd be surprised if anything new beyond the arguments in this article could be said here. Please mind: Misplaced Pages (including the reference desk) is not a soapbox.  --Lambiam 15:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

While arguments can certainly be made that some currently illegal drugs (like marijuana) are less harmful than some currently legal drugs (like tobacco and alcohol), methamphetamines are not one I would make that argument for. They are extremely harmful and destroy people's lives. They are sometimes prescribed medically, but only as a last resort. StuRat 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with drugs is their habit forming capacities and addictiveness. One reason why alcohol, a reasonably strong drug, doesn't produce a majority of alcoholics is because it is very heavily socially framed. Drinking behaviours are very culturally and socially controlled. I don't see how you could control the widespread consumption of meths. When you see what heavy users of methamphetamines go through in terms of health and psychological problems I don't see how one could justifie their use. Whereas occasional consumtion of about any drugs can be considered a interesting mind opening experience there is no way of keeping it on that level if you promote a widespread use of drugs. Keria 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that's true. Cigarettes have high addictiveness, yet are legal. LSD has very low, yet is illegal. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the question is posed seriously. It strikes me as ironic... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This COULD be a legit question, so I'm going to take it seriously. That said, it sounds like the best way to actually answer this question (and hopefully close the discussion) without resorting to soapboxing is to note that...

• Some parts of society do recognize benefits to some use of some drugs, though opinions vary (i.e. the question ascribes to "society" something which is actually much more subtle; "fail to recognize" seems a bit strong).
• Regardless, and in general, society generally concludes that the drawbacks and dangers of drug use, on both an individual and societal level, far outweigh any potential individual or societal benefits.

disclaimer: I believe this to be an actual answer to the actual question which, hopefully, also pre-empts any remaining soapboxing and debate on everything from which drug has which properties to the various issues surrounding use and legality. But I have been known to make an ass out of Uma Thurman. Jfarber 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Jfarber, I think the person who asked the question would benefit from a more detailed answer regarding the historic reasons which made, for instance, coffee and alcohol so acceptable in the West but banned in Islamic countries and cocaine so acceptable in some Latin American countries while certain specific drugs with the same effects as those cited are not acceptable in all places. A.Z. 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Native Americans (American Indian)

I am Athabaskan from Alaksa and I currently live on the east coast. I have a friend who claims she is also Native American by her great grandfather. However, it turns out that he was only maybe 1/10 Indian. Yet, she tells everyone that she is even though she is blue-eyed, blond haired and lacks any of the common physical features of a Native person. I told my uncle about this and he said he remembers a time when it was shameful to admit that one would have any Indian blood. Why is it now a days, everyone wants to be Indian?

Racism in some areas are going away, for one thing. And different things are interesting to some people. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question. It isn't that people "want to be Indian" all-of-a-sudden, it's that this country has matured enough for people to realize there's nothing wrong with being all or part Amerindian. With regards to her blue eyes and blond hair, I direct you to Chuck Norris; he's fully half Amerindian, but he could easily pass as white. Oh, and one last thing: it would be very hard for a person to be "1/10" Amerindian, seeing as ancestry goes in powers of 2! Picaroon 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for why "everyone" wants to be identified as part of any group, of course, nor would I go so far as to say that such a statement is true. But I think it's more than just that there's "nothing wrong with it" anymore. Special privledges are accorded to members of many non-caucasian populations in US culture these days, including everything from college scholarship eligibility to special federal grants to an opportunity for racial pride which is not otherwise afforded/accepted in caucasian populations in many (dare I say most?) communities within US culture. And being "unique" or "different" has its appeal, too, to many people, young and old, as a way of creating a self-identity which is distinct from the norm. Oh, and it is certainly possible to end up 1/10th of something racially, if you've got more than one ancestor with that racial type in the mix...Jfarber 21:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most Native American tribes set a blood requirement for tribal membership, individuals obtain Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood tracing their ancestry back to someone listed on the Dawes Rolls. One that does not set a minimum blood requirement is the Cherokee Nation, twenty-one percent of tribal members have between 1/16 and 1/64 degree of Cherokee blood, twenty-nine percent (over 50,000 members) have somewhere between 1/64 and 1/2048. (Sturm, Circe (2002), Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, pp. 88-9.) Maybe your friend is Cherokee?—eric 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

...It connects them to those they understand as “their people”; it allows them to express something central to their sense of self...There can be other, more tangible rewards as well...some social service and philanthropic organizations...do not require any documentary proof of identity for those who apply. The same is true of minority scholarships offered by at least some universities....is sometimes used as a sort of access card to American Indian spiritual and cultural practices...particularly evident in some expressions of the New Age movement...New Age adherents frequently express an insatiable interest in all forms of American Indian culture, but especially spiritual and ceremonial practices. ..Finally, some individuals may use the definition of self-identification simply as a means to gain attention or admiration. As a recent expression goes, “it's in to be skin”( “skin”being a slang term by which Indians sometimes identify themselves). In other words, an Indian identity has recently become not only safer to assert than it once was; it has even become a source of pride and an object of envy in certain quarters, and a number of people have accordingly become eager to claim it. (Garroutte, Eva Marie (2003) Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America, pp. 84-5.)

—eric 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a long history of people pretending to be American Indians, both in print and in real life, from Two Moon Meridas to Grey Owl to Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance to Jamake Highwater to Iron Eyes Cody to Ward Churchill.... I'm surprised Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article called something like Native American imposters -- there's a sizable literature on this. In the United States, being part Indian became cool particularly in relation to the Civil Rights Movement and counter-culture of the late 1960s. When I was growing up in the '70s, almost everyone had a Cherokee ancestor, though of course no one could actually tell you the name of their Indian ancestor, since it was usually just a (dubious) family tradition. So, I'm sure people who actually did have native heritage, however slight, were likely to emphasize this. —Kevin 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people from long-time American southern ancestry purport to have Cherokee blood from the mid 19th century or earlier. The Randolphs of Virginia are descended from Pocahantas and proud of it. Edison 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the woman who Marlon Brando sent up to collect his Oscar pretend to be American Indian?82.32.238.139 09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sacheen Littlefeather (born Maria Cruz) was sent by the American Indian Movement when Brando requested an Indian to refuse the award for him. Per Sacheen Littlefeather" Cruz is of Mexican ancestry, with heritage that includes Apache, Yaqui, Pueblo and Caucasian blood". Thus she was not really "pretending".Edison 14:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Although there is no article, there is a brief list here - Wikidemo 05:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Female House Speakers

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: Minnie D. Craig Please consider contributing

Nancy Pelosi is obviously drawing a great deal of attention for becoming the first female Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. However, I'm wondering who the first female Speaker of a state House of Representatives/Assembly (or whatever the lower house of a state's legislature is called) was. I can't find the answer anywhere on Misplaced Pages. TysK 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Betty Boothroyd was Speaker of the British House of Commons from 1992 to 2000, but although she was the speaker of the lower house of parliament, I don't think the positions are really comparable. For your question to be meaningful, you have to find out if a country has a position that's equivalent to Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. --Nicknack009 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada had a woman as speaker of the House of Commons in 1980: Jeanne Sauvé. --Mathew5000 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Just noticed you said "state" - presumably you mean states of the US, in which case my answer is completely irrelevant. --Nicknack009 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Minnie Craig of North Dakota in 1933.(Simon-Rosenthal, Cindy (1998) When Women Lead: Integrative Leadership in State Legislatures, p. 8; and )—eric 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Craig was the first to serve in a permanent capacity, Sarah Lucille Turner served as "acting" speaker of the Missouri General Assembly in 1923. In 1931 Louise H. Coe of New Mexico became the first President Pro Tem. (Martin, Mart (1999), The Almanac of Women and Minorities in American Politics, p. 113-4).—eric 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

March 24

Sino-American Friendship Society

In many western European and Australian nations "China Friendship Societies" exist that attempt to foster friendship and better relations between the PRC and the west. For example Society of Anglo-Chinese Understanding , New Zealand China Friendship Society, Australia China Friendship Society. Are there any similar organziations in the United States? --Stalin1942 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Velikij Vozhd! No such general organisation seems to exist, though there is a group called the Committee of 100, which, amongst other things, focuses on Chinese-American relations. Unfortunately, the Misplaced Pages page on this group contains very little information. Clio the Muse 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Five Criticisms of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church

I have heard that Catholics believe that apart from the Bible, another source of infallible, divine revelation in the world is the Catholic Church's Sacred Traditions. They believe that the some messages taught by Jesus were not originally written down and included as part of the Holy Bible but were rather spoken and passed down, by Christians, and throughout generations, orally. I don't understand. How can tradition be infallible? I have the five following criticisms of Sacred Tradition:

1. Do Catholics have any evidence to prove this claim of Sacred Tradition being a source of divine revelation?

2. Why would Jesus decide not to include some of his teachings as part of the Bible, but rather let them be passed down orally, anyway?

3. When a person says something to another person, and that person passes the message onto someone else and so on, the message gradually becomes more and more distorted and exaggerated. This is called the "Chinese whispers" effect. So even if some infallible messages are passed down as tradition, they can become very different to that of the original message.

4. Some bad or un-Christian people could deliberately decide to add new messages, remove some messages, and change some messages in the so-called infallible traditions so that they are not really completely true and infallible any more.

5. The Bible itself has passages criticising tradition. For example, in 1 Peter 1:18, Saint Peter says, "For as much as you know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers."

The Anonymous One 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sacred Tradition refers to the history of salvation and to apostolic succession. By the Grace of God, the Apostles spread the faith and become bishops. The bishops are the legitimate successors of the twelve apostles.

The Bible Is The Word of God. However, God is omnipresent and He may intercede as He wishes. One must not read the Bible like the Koran.

Most notably, the Spirit of the Lord is present within the Church. Only Through the Grace of the Holy Spirit can men attain Salvation.

The Eucharist is literally the daily bread of communion that allows the grace of the ever present Lord to save souls. Protestants who do not take communion cannot be saved. In fact, the Church is the mystical Body of Christ.

There Is One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church. Because there is only one Spirit, there can only be One Church. By His social Royalty, Jesus-Christ Is The Invisible Head Of The Church. The Pope Is the Visible Leader.

Popes themselves are keen on obeying natural law. John Paul II claimed that it was impossible for him to modify Church celibacy because it was not in God's plan.

I'm not a Catholic, or any sort of Christian, but I'll have a go at answering your questions in order.

1. The tradition is evidence of itself, much as the Bible is. By which I mean, the only evidence that the Bible is a source divine revelation is contained in the Bible itself, so ultimately, believing the Bible to be a source of divine revelation is a matter of faith. So is believing in Catholic tradition (in fact, if you believe that the Bible contains divine revelation, it's probably because that's what you've been taught, in which case the idea that the Bible contains divine revelation is itself a tradition of sorts).

2. Jesus didn't write any of the books of the Bible, nor did he decide which books went into it - at least not directly while he was living on earth. The canon of the Christian bible - which books were included and which ones weren't - was decided by ecumenical councils several centuries later. If you believe those councils were divinely directed by Jesus to choose those books, that's a matter of faith. Others may believe that Jesus also divinely directed people to pass on their traditions, which is also a matter of faith.

3&4. True. The same can apply to copying texts by hand - mistakes can be made, a scribe with an agenda could made deliberate changes, a marginal note made by one scribe could be incorporated into the text by the next scribe to copy it. Believing that the texts and traditions have been passed down the ages accurately is a matter of faith.

5. The Bible is a diverse collection of texts written by different people at different times, and contains all sorts of mixed messages. I wouldn't be surprised to find a text somewhere which says differently.--Nicknack009 13:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Without discussing Catholicism specifically, I agree with your criticisms of oral traditions. We've seen other oral traditions, like the account of the Trojan War (passed down orally until it was recorded as the Iliad by Homer). While parts of it are true, most of it is certainly myth, unless you believe in ancient Greek Gods. While written records are no guarantee of truth, they at least can't be changed without destroying all the copies already out there. Thus, they are less useful to those who would alter religion to serve their own selfish purposes. StuRat 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to tread carefully here, Anonymous One. Your understanding of Sacred Tradition has clearly been mediated through a somewhat Protestant perspective, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic concept. As has been pointed out by Nicknack, Christ did not write any of the books of what is now the New Testament, but handed on a tradition of preaching to his successors, a tradition of interpreting and applying older sacred texts. While the Scriptures recorded part of this tradition, part was handed on orally, eventually being recorded in the writings of the great Fathers of the Church. In 553 the Second Council of Constantinople gave sanction to this, by issuing a rebuke to those who did not hold to the traditions of the Fathers. The issue is not about the possible human corruption of a sacred message, but one of authority and interpretation. I can find no better defence of the Sacred Tradition than a paper written in 1994 by Father Paul Duffner, where it is defined in the following terms;

Christ preached His message. He did not write it. In His preaching He appealed to the Scriptures, but was not satisfied merely to read them. He explained them, He interpreted them. So too, in the centuries to come the Church would not merely refer to the Bible, but would explain and interpret it, applying it to the changing conditions of the times. Although the Bible is the inspired word of God, it was not meant to be our sole guide. Just as God provided mankind with the guiding light of the Scriptures, so He provided mankind-through the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit-with an official living authority to interpret those divinely inspired books. One of the main reasons for the division of Christendom into the hundreds of Christian religions we have today, is the claim that that the interpretation of the Scriptures is left to the individual Christian. Just as the Constitution of the United States is not left to the interpretation of each individual American, but is interpreted authoritatively by the Supreme Court, so the whole deposit of revealed truth (the Bible and Tradition) is not left to the judgement of each individual Christian, but is interpreted for us by the living authority that Christ established. Clio the Muse 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Was Jesus illiterate ?

This all brings up an interesting question, if Jesus could write, then why didn't he ? I would expect anything he wrote to be preserved by his followers, so the lack of such writings is a good indicator that he didn't write much. Does this mean he was illiterate ? StuRat 07:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's Chenchen?

In reading A Dream of Red Mansions, an episode in chapter 52 about a character Pao-chin having met a blonde foriegn girl from a place called Chenchen (from what I can tell 真真 in the Chinese) caught my eye. Anybody have any idea what this place would be known as nowadays? 68.55.177.129 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Chechnya, also known as the Chechen Republic. 82.38.197.184 12:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot say if Cáo Xuěqín had a specific place in mind when he introduced the foreign girl in A Dream of Red Mansions, though I suspect Chenchen to be pure invention. One thing at least is reasonably certain: few, if any, eighteenth century Chinese authors would have had any knowledge whatsoever of what is now Chechnya, an obscure area in the Northern Caucasus, then squeezed uncomfortably between the Russian and the Ottoman Empires. Clio the Muse 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Health of rings

If a ring makes one's skin turn a different color when worn, what might be the problem? I know this is a general question, but could you give me a few cases?--the ninth bright shiner 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's black or green, it's probably oxidation. If it's red, white or silver, it's probably contact dermatitis. Anchoress 05:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything to prevent or stop this?--the ninth bright shiner 05:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• i have this problem and I paint the inside of the ring with clear nail polish which works without damaging the ring.You have to renew it now and then but it's my solution..Another solution is to have it plated by a working jewellers if it's either silver or gold,but that is expensive and again wears off eventually.hotclaws**== 07:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Gold if not very reactive with skin, which is one reason it's used for jewelry. Other metals, like copper, do react with the skin, so shouldn't be placed in direct contact with skin. Also, take all rings off when bathing, washing dishes, etc., as soap or detergent can get under the ring and cause irritation later. Clean the ring periodically, too, and allow it to fully dry before placing it back on. The skin under the ring also needs a chance to "breathe", especially if the ring is too tight, due to water retention, etc. StuRat 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

after postmodernism

in philosophy...what happens after post modernism? I mean... what's the 'in' thing in philosophy now? i need sme headstart.

The left wing still are working through deconstructionism, with the works of Derrida and Chomsky reinventing language. However, there is a conservative tradition being forged, called neoconservatism. The current US president, George W Bush is a named proponent.DDB 12:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky's work has absolutely nothing to do with deconstruction and neoconservatism is a political movement, not a philosophy. Some people, including myself, think that after post-modernism comes Alain Badiou. The article about him is not so great, in my opinion, but there are many good external links. Skarioffszky 12:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For some reason Badiou's drawing made me think of the drawing of FSM Himself.  --Lambiam 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Alain Badiou, that well-known Jew-hating, Maoist, Fascist, Marxist! Now, if that is not post-post-Modernism I simply do not know what is. Clio the Muse 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something from Skarioffszky's suggestion? Seems political to me, but maybe the correct side of politics? I get that Chomsky has 'nothing to do with' deconstructionism. I note that hermeneutics has nothing to do with semiotics, that Buddhism has nothing to do with fish or clapping hands. Now, where did he put that soap box? DDB 00:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is about philosophical standpoints, not political "philosophies" -- it's an entirely different way to use the word, once which in my own field of study is tied closely to critical theories, i.e. standpoints and strategies with which to explore text of various types. Though often such theoretical standpoints imply certain conclusions about how to act politically, political movements are not the same, and indeed, neoconservativism is not a critical theory, and therefore could not be a "philosophy" in the sense that the questioner means. In short, I think that neoconservativism, like other political theories, is a term which describes social and political behavior in actual people and parties, as it really happens, while "philosophy" in this sense instead describes something much less in the people, and much more in our ever-changing understanding of how meaning happens. Sorry, DDB.

Now for the question itself: John Storey, in his 2001 edition of his seminal text "Critical Theory and Popular Culture", continues to identify postmodernism as the most recent of formally named "philosophies", the last in a series which includes modernism, deconstructionism, structuralism and post-structuralism, marxism, and various gender philosophies such as feminism and queer theory. As of 2001, then, we can assume that, AT LEAST to the extent that philosophies and critical theories are roughly synonymous, no formal statement or academic agreement of new philosophical type had emerged. But writing six years ago, Storey does note in his last chapter that postmodernism is in the throes of a "paradigm crisis", meaning that many of us are increasingly dissatisfied with the open questions with which postmodernism leaves us. Though I don't know enough about Baidou to comment on whether or not he represents a new school of thought, I would suggest that others, including Edward Tufte, John Fiske, and others who are willing to reject as both useless and illusary the division between text and context which poststructuralism posited, and re-explore a dialogue between material means, real existences, and textural elements, might also be worth looking into as academia moves towards defining and naming whatever comes next. It IS true, I note, that this allows politics themselves back in, as it were, to some extent, where many earlier philosophies tried to separate them out entirely. It does not mean, however, that purely political and social theories, such as neoconservativism, have suddenly become critical theories, just because such social belief systems may now have more meaning to philosophy than before. Jfarber 01:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there really and truly a branch of contemporary thought called queer theory? I am so out of touch. I, too, have a preference for conservative philosophy, though of a somewhat more reflective kind than that of George W., being a regular reader of the Salisbury Review, and one of Roger Scruton's most dedicated groupies! For those who would like a decent right-wing perspective on the trends in modern thinking I cannot recommend his Modern Philiosophy: an Introduction and a Survey highly enough. It has nothing on queer theory, though. Clio the Muse 01:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only is there such a thoughtbranch as Queer Theory, dear Clio -- it came out of Feminist Theory over a decade ago -- there is even some post-queer theory, which rejects Queer Theory as too exclusivist, and tries instead to open up the premise of degendered and multigendered textual reading to be more inclusive. It's not necessarily my cup of tea, either, but teaching it has been, which is where the Storey book comes in...

As for the realities of conservative philosophy: I see no problem with accepting conservativism as having philosophical relevance. Indeed, Scruton's views on aesthetics make him an excellent example of conservative philosophy, and, as I noted above, there is quite often an inevitable relationship between politics and "philosophy" in the pure sense; indeed, critical theoretical standpoints almost always have political consequences. But neoconservativism is not a philosophical standpoint -- our own wikipage notes that it is, rather, a political movement. Philosophies can lead to political movements just as precipitation can lead to mudpuddles, but that doesn't make them the same AS political movements, any more than rain is mud. And, love him or hate him, it doesn't make good old Dubya a philosopher, either. Jfarber 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alas, Jfarber, even my feminism is of a conservative character, without any trace of queer theory! Is this pre post modernist, or post pre modernist, or post post modernist? And, yes, the association of Georgie boy with any form of intellectual introspection also leaves me wryly amused. Perhaps I'm being unfair, though, he may be firmly in the most ancient of Socratic traditions, in the open admission of knowing nothing! That, folks, is as far as I go. Clio the Muse 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, thinking back to the original question here, I am also reminded of a recent article in The New Yorker, which profiled a pair of up and coming, married philosophers named Paul and Patricia Churchland. The Churchlands are in persuit of several ideas which might indeed comprise a new school of thought -slash- critical theory, and which primarily revolve around the idea that meaning was tied much more closely to neurobiology and neuropsych than to any absolute sense of being. If the perennial mind-body problem is suddenly being tied to the brain in new ways which make medical science a vital pursuit for philosophers, there might indeed be something new there. Our stub calls this "new" school of thought Eliminativism or Eliminative materialism, and says it is a philosophy in which claims that everyday mental concepts such as beliefs, feelings, and desires are theoretical constructs without coherent definition, and hence, we should not expect such concepts to be a necessary part of a scientific understanding of the brain (source). Though materialism is certainly nothing new, and though the article sources go back well into the 1970s, this may nonetheless be (one of) philosophy's cutting edge(s). Jfarber 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Waldensians and Coventanters

Scottish masons claim to have historical links with Covenanters. On the other hand, French masons claim to have historical links with Waldesians. What is the religious link between these two groups ?

There is no link whatsoever between the twelfth century Waldensians and the seventeenth century Scottish Covenanters, other than the fact that they share a loose critique of existing forms of church government, which would unite just about every other Protestant and crypto-Protestant tradition. But whereas the Waldensians might be said to resemble a form of religious anarchism, insofar as they defined themselves in opposition to all clerical hierarchies, the Covenanters were anything but. They rejected Episcopacy, or a church governed by bishops-and we are referring specifically here to the Protestant Church of Scotland as it existed prior to 1638-and substituted Presbyterianism, or a church governed by a series of overlapping courts, headed, ultimately, by the General Assembly. The English Independents-of whom Oliver Cromwell was the most noted-,who bear a far closer outward resemblance to the Waldensians, also rejected rule by bishops; but they also rejected the Scottish notion, believing that it simply substituted one form of tyranny for another. Clio the Muse 23:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Piggish

If something cow-ish is bovine, and something bear-ish is ursine, what's the proper word for something piggish? I'm sure there's an 'ine' word but can't remember what it is (and I don't think it's swine - that's the noun but I don't think it's the adjective). --Sam Blanning 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're looking for Porcine. It helps if you remember the same Latin root gives us the word Pork. Jfarber 15:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I could've sworn it began with 's' (especially when I saw the scientific name was sus of the family suidae) but I'm sure you're right. --Sam Blanning 02:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Doctor's Degree?

I was wondering if recieving a doctor's degree would raise the amount of money that a master's degree would be paid. Is it true that by recieving a doctor's degree, you earn more money?66.157.26.246 17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Student T.

It may depend on the job and the company. Some companies won't even consider hiring you with only a master's degree, at least not for the kind of job you may aspire. For a job as bank teller, janitor or valet, I don't think it would give you any competitive advantage; on the contrary, you may be seen as overqualified. For an academic career, having a Ph.D.is definitely an advantage.  --Lambiam 18:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have said that having a Ph.D was essential for an academic career, if you mean by this a career in the more important institutions of higher learning; at least it is in England. Clio the Muse 01:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

One career where a Ph.D. is an asset rather than an essential would be academic medicine. - Nunh-huh 01:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How did Japan use its growing economic power in the 60s and 70s to influence its foreign relations with Asia?

How did Japan use its growing economic power in the 1960s and 1970s to influence its foreign relations with Asia? In particular I'm intrested in how it used its economy to influence China, the Soviet Union, the USA and ASEAN. In addition any good books or websites on the topic would be appreciated. --Stalin1942 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a page on the Foreign relations of Japan with associated links which may provide some guidance. However, I would recommend that you have a look at Japan Rising: the Resurgence of Japanese Power and Purpose by K. B. Pyle, and The Emergence of Japan's Foreign Aid Power by R. M. Orr. There is also Japanese and U. S. Policy in Asia by G. J. Sigur and Y Choong Kim, though the information here may be somewhat dated. Clio the Muse 00:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

American authoress

Kandleman 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Kandleman Anyone know of an American authoress to which the following is attributed. To my Bi-focals I`m adjusted, To my dentures i`m resigned, ??????????????????????????? But how I miss my mind. ?

Seems to be from a poem beginning "Just a line to say I'm living..." and variously titled. So far everything i've seen is "author unknown" or "anonymous".—eric 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

peter graves documentary

Question about a poem read during a Peter Graves documentary removed due to duplicate desk posting; those with info or interest are invited to head to the Misc. desk.

Does anyone know Which American communist party is most proChina?

Does anyone know Which American communist party is most proChina? Do any Us-based communist groups support the current leadership in Beijing? The Maoists mostly hate china because of Deng. In my opinion its probaly the CPUSA the originial. It was very proMoscow during the Cold War and condemned China during the split but since 1991 theyve been pretty friendly. They even sent a delegation to visit China and the ccp wished them luck is their congress. In addition therye probaly the only CP that doesnt condemn Deng. If anyone knows which other foreigh CPs in India, Africa and L America and around the world are proChina please post.--Stalin1942 23:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Being pro the current leadership and being pro China are likely to be seen as two different things by most people. A.Z. 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the Socialist Workers Alliance still exist? They once spoke highly of China. Edison 04:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

March 25

slavery

It is well written that slaves came to America by ships from Africa. My question, were they sold by their Cheifs to be resold or were they taken by force?

They were taken by force, whatever way you look at the issue. The page on the Atlantic slave trade covers the topic at some length; but the short answer is that Europeans provided an additional stimulus to the ancient practice of enslaving people taken in war. But they also, it might be said, created a new layer of African middle-men, who made a living out of capturing fellow Africans specifically to meet the demand of the Atlantic slave trade. You might also care to have a look at The Slave Trade: History of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440-1870 by Hugh Thomas, a fairly comprehensive treatment of the whole subject. Clio the Muse 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Europeans in trading stations established along the coasts and lower reaches of rivers created a ready market, successfully competing with the slave purchasers to the north, who had traditionally provided the slave-taking impetus. --Wetman 03:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Some fiction books referred to "Arab slavers." Were the Arab states important in capturing Africans and selling them into slavery? Does it then make sense for angry African Americans to reject their "slave names" and assume Arabic sounding names? Edison 04:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There was, indeed, a vigorous Arab slave trade, but it was mostly confined to East Africa, and would not therefore link to the Atlantic trade to any significant degree. Also, there was no 'colour discrimination' in Arab slaving. Although they increasingly resorted to Africa, as late as the nineteenth century Arab pirates took captives from European coastal areas to be sold into slavery. I have really no response to make to your final question, Edison, other than to say I think these names may be Muslim, rather than specifically Arab. Clio the Muse 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to any significant degree until the 19th century, when there was a great increase of the slave trade from the east coast across the Atlantic, mostly to Brazil. Many were from Zanzibar then under control of the Sultan of Oman. I found one (not very reliable) source stating that by 1820 the slave trade from the east coast across the Atlantic equaled that from the west coast.—eric 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Eric. You may not be aware of this (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are not British?), but this year marks the two-hundredth anniversary of the English Parliament's abolition of the Atlantic slave trade in 1807, a measure forever associated with the great William Wilberforce, whose life and achievment is celebrated in the movie Amazing Grace, which went on general release here in England on Friday. Anyway, as a consequence of this abolition the Royal Navy was given the task of intercepting slavers, which presumably included those coming from Zanzibar. I find it difficult to believe that trade from the east could have come anywhere near the levels of the west prior to abolition; and although it probably continued afterwards, it must have been subject to considerable restrictions. I would be pleased, though, if you could supply any further information on the subject. Clio the Muse 07:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Seaon Four of The Wire

Question moved to the Entertainment Desk.

Catholics -Not Really Christians?

I have heard that some people claim that Catholics are not really Christians. I have five questions about that claim:

1. Is that true?

2. Why do some people claim so? What are their arguments for that claim?

3. Have Catholics and the Catholic Church reacted and responded to that claim?

4. If so, then how?

The Anonymous One 06:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot
• Pages monitored by bots