Revision as of 18:56, 18 February 2015

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 13

Myth(s)/Mythology(s)

Peeps,

Q:

1. The words Creation myth, Origin myth and ‘Founding’ myth are used to subdivide a myth and or mythology, am I right?
2. How shall I consider the word ‘mythology’? A collected set of myths or the modern term i.e. mythology word means “1” mythology, ‘mythologies’ mean several/plural/more than one mythology. Y

(Angelos|Angelus (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC))

You may find the word origins useful. It doesn't quite say this, but I would think the term "mythologies" would have to do with several sets of mythology from various cultures. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, a myth is "a traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc.", whereas a mythology is a "collection of myths of a people". For example, the story of Daedalus and Icarus is a single myth. The whole body of ancient Greek myths is the Greek mythology. — Kpalion 10:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read the article Mythology too. I was curious as I recalled reading it somewhere. Thank you for the clarification friends. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC))

I would thinking a "creation" myth would have to do with the creation of the world itself, while a "founding" myth would have to do with stories like Romulus and Remus. It's a little-known fact that while Romulus was running around in a frenzy trying to get his city built, Remus was more laid back: "Take it easy, Romulus - Athens wasn't built in a day, you know." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I get the idea... (I guess). Thanks. I do have a feeling that they can be used to subdivide a mythology... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC))

I don't follow the "subdividing". Mythology is a collection of myths for a given culture. Unless you mean "categorizing". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah, that's the word. Am I right? P.S - Thanks, learnt a new way to define something. Words don't come to my mind easily when I write something... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC))

What logical fallacy is this?

Prompted by the question above Communist_influence_in_America_since_60's, what fallacy or fallacies are involved in the argument: "Communism means the government owns all property. Control over something implies ownership. Therefore if the government can regulate what you can do with "your" property, that means it owns it. Therefore the govenrment is Communist". Is that a slippery slope fallacy? False dilemma? Straw man? Something else? All of the above? Iapetus (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

non sequitur ? Widneymanor (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The error is in the assumption that only a Communist government owns "your" property. The only conclusion you can draw is that the government might be Communist. Which is a fairly useless conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's Affirming_the_consequent, with a non sequitur thrown in. The argument you typed up logically goes like this:

1. C->OA
2. K->O
3. GK->OA
4. GK
5. OA
6. C

Where C is "communism", OA is "owns all", K is "control" O is "ownership" GK is "government control." There's no literal non sequitor if you want to think that GK->OA is derivable from the assumption K->O. But K->O is non sequitor if GK->OA is considersd as a premise. Of course there are many ways to convert natural language to logical formalism, your mileage may vary, etc. :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, having just typed that, there's another way to look at it, where there is no actual logical fallacy

1. C<=>OA
2. K->O
3. GK->OA
4. GK
5. OA
6. C

In this form, the argument has logical validity, which is to say that the consequent is entailed by the premise. That's because I replaced the logical implication in the first claim with a biconditional. However, logical validity doesn't say anything about truth! For that, we have to look at the truth value of the premises. In this interpretation, the argument is fine in terms of its logical steps, but the premise K->O is screwy. I can control the wind when I turn on my fan or even just exhale. That doesn't mean I own the wind. Also keep in mind logical fallacies are fun, but pinning one on a statement made in natural language is almost always debatable, due to the vagaries of natural language and the myriad logical interpretations. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! Indeed, the crucial point is the premise K->O. How absurd it is can be shown with an example closer to the original question: Every traffic light controls my car (even directly so, if it's autonomous), but that doesn't mean that the car isn't owned by the lights. That leads us back to the original question: Does using a wrong premise count as a fallacy (I could not see anything about wrong premises in that article - the closest that artice gets is in § Intentional fallacies, but we can't assume any intention here), or is the original question itself a fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, because there can be causes outside of the reasoning that render a statement wrong? — Sebastian 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Classical logic is only concerned with the way from the premises to the conclusion, and, strictly seen, is not concerned with the meaning of individual components. "All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore Socrates is mortal" is just as valid as an argument as "All colours are red. Green is a colour. Therefore green is red". Most people would agree to the first conclusion, but you'd have more of a discussion with the second. And even if someone starts talking about politics and water melons, they will likely not accept the first premise of the second argument. Logic only guarantees that you can get from valid premises to a valid conclusion. If your premises are invalid, many things can happen. And if your premises are inconsistent (not the same thing), everything can happen. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I'll add that, if we take the interpretation of my second post, then there is certainly no logical fallacy, though we could consider it an informal fallacy (note this doesn't mean "casual", it means that the fallacious conclusions are not the result of the formal logic deployed). I would say that my second interpretation is arguing from False_premise - but it is not a logical fallacy in the strict sense (this is a confusing statement in its own right, so @SebastianHelm: and anyone else following along should make sure they grok it :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Chissano

Is Joaquim Alberto Chissano, former Mozambican president, related to Alberto Chissano, the Mozambican sculptor? Neither of the Wiki articles on the two men reference each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.192.158 (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Chissano" is not an unusual surname in Mozambique. In the absence of information to the contrary there is no reason to believe that the two are closely related. Both are originally from Gaza Province in the south of the country, so it is not impossible that they are distantly related, but there is no reason to believe that they are. RomanSpa (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Mandora Tower?

I'm revisiting an old and rather sparse article that I created; Battle of Mandora (Egypt, 1801). I'm having trouble locating the exact location. The battle took place between Abu Qir and Alexandria; in those days there was an isthmus between the sea and "Lake Maadie" which seems to have been drained at some time in the interim. The only accounts of the battle that I can see online were written in the early 19th century; the most detailed is Wilson, Robert Thomas, History of the British Expedition to Egypt, London 1803, which makes mention of "Mandora Tower" (p. 19). Does this feature still exist? Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A variant of the spelling Mandora in the accounts of the battle is Mandara; there is a neighborhood called Mandara in present-day Alexandria, but it seems too far east to match the battle maps I found. The key would be to locate the Roman "camp" near which the battles of Mandora and Alexandria seem to have taken place. I found this map and this map which show the camp as "Camps des Romains" and "Camp romain".--Cam (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It'd be worth studying this map, which locates the 13th March battle at point 7. I suspect the ruin marked at point 9 is the tower, based on a reading of p.290 of Wilson. Does that help? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I was interpreting that structure at point 9 as the "Roman camp" of the French maps linked above.--Cam (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup. We're talking about the same structure. This text by Sir Archibald Alison ties the two together, somewhat, talking about the army camping in front of the tower, and later being confident in part because of their position in front of the roman camp. Some publications seem to refer to the battle as "Roman Camp" - see, for instance, 28th_(North_Gloucestershire)_Regiment_of_Foot#Battle_honours --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Pages 19 & 20 of this 1911 expatriate description of Alexandria may also help. Or confuse. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks everyone; you did much better than me. I'll pore over the results tomorrow. Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Re-reading the written accounts in conjunction with the maps, especially the Faden 1801 map posted by Tagishsimon, it seems that position 6 on the Faden map is the location described in Wilson as "Mandora Tower... where they encamped in three lines" (p.19), or Alison (p.564) which uses almost identical phrasing; both accounts describing the situation on 12 March. Mandora Tower is perhaps the square feature to the north and east of the British position at 6 on the Faden map. Position 7 shows the British advance on 13 March, towards position C, which shows the French line on the same day, "in front of an old Roman camp" according to Alison (also p.564). Alison later describes this as "large and magnificent ruins of a Roman palace within fifty yards of the sea" (p.566). Whatever the location of either the camp/palace or the tower, Google Maps shows that the whole coastline is now smothered by a forest of modern high-rise buildings. Thanks again for your help. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Shame we couldn't find any more direct reference to the tower :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

My favourite tower is Faringdon Folly, which once had a sign saying "Members of the public committing suicide from this tower do so at their own risk". -- Jack of Oz 21:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Edith Grove Road

Edith Grove Road is located on Pleasant Lake in Harwichport. Can you tell me who Edith Grove was, I have been unable to find an answer with the historical society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Rifkin (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mary Rifkin: Sadly no. Who is Catherine Rose, and was there a Duke Ballem and a Captin Jack? Ditto Edward, James, Wallace, Elizabeth, et al. Do you have any clue when the settlement of that area dates from? A satellite view shows what looks like a reasonably large-scale development of fairly homogenous houses ... I wonder if these names are associated with the family of the property developers - supposing that the whole place has been developed by a company which assumed naming rights for the roads it created. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just guessing here, but it may not be named after a person at all... there is a street in the Borough of Chelsea (London, England) named Edith Grove (The Rolling Stones band members lived at 102 Edith Grove for a while) and the road in Harwichport may be named after that street. Blueboar (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The The London Encyclopaedia (3rd Edition) says that the Edith Grove in Chelsea " is named after one of Robert Gunter's daughters". Our article on Mr Gunter says that Edith "died of scarlet fever aged eight". "Grove" is a fairly common name for a well-to-do street or avenue in London. Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

February 14

Reason for "segregation" in major U.S. cities?

I've heard that despite there being no official law in place enforcing racial segregation in U.S. there still is some form of it in major cities, one example being San Francisco. How come there are entire neighbourhoods that are either black or white and no one from other races living there? How come there is a difference in socio-economic statuses in average between these neighbourhoods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.128.228 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Although Cracked is a humor site, entry #1 of this article (second page linked to intentionally) does explain why many neighborhoods are still segregated, with additional sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if there is no official segregation, it is still likely that there will be some people who prefer to live with other people of the same ethnicity (or religious group, or whatever), all other things (wealth, income, etc.) being equal. One of the most interesting results in socioeconomics is that neighbourhoods that are almost entirely "black" or "white" arise naturally. This happens even if most people are not racist at all. This result was first discovered by Thomas Schelling, and he got a Nobel Prize for his work in this area.

Here is a highly simplified explanation: Imagine that at first everybody in town is randomly scattered around, so the proportion of people of different ethnicities is the same in every neighbourhood. Suppose also that there are a few empty houses, also randomly scattered around. Now imagine that every so often a family moves. One of two things can happen: either they won't care who their neighbours are, and so will simply pick the empty house that suits them best for other reasons. As far as we're concerned this is basically the same as choosing at random. Alternatively, they do care who lives next door. In that case, they will pick a house close to other people of their preferred ethnicity. This means that gradually people of the same ethnicity will tend to cluster together, because there is a consistent (though perhaps small) pressure on the geographical arrangement of society by the people who prefer to be segregated. There is no corresponding pressure to undo segregation: the people who aren't racist don't care who their neighbours are, so their choice is just more randomness on top of the randomness we started with. To read about this in more detail, take a look here and here. You may also find this blog entry and this video interesting (though the last 35 seconds of the video is just opinion, not real economics). As for the differences in socio-economic statuses between different neighbourhoods, this is not driven by race, but is simply because different neighbourhoods tend to have different housing stock and different amenities; rich people will tend to live in neighbourhoods with bigger houses and better amenities because that's what they can afford. The segregational element will overlay this, though, so we should expect to see richer and poorer white neighbourhoods, and richer and poorer black neighbourhoods (and we do!). RomanSpa (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How come California voted for Proposition 14 in the 60's yet now is almost totally liberal, but this sort of segregation is still found? Because of the ethnocentrism of blacks?76.66.128.228 (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As you will see from my comments above and from the reference cited, it only takes a very small proportion of people being racist to create substantial segregation. I have seen no evidence that there is particular "ethnocentrism" amongst black people. My personal impression is that black people are less focussed on their own ethnicity than white people (which is hardly surprising, given that black people in North America and Europe live in societies where the cultural and social focus is "white"). To be absolutely clear, there is no evidence that segregation arises from any kind of "ethnocentrism" by "the black community", or as a result of any concerted actions by black people at all. There is certainly good evidence that in the past there have been concerted actions by white people to act against segregation, but this has declined significantly over time. The point is that if there is even only a small proportion of the population who make their decisions on where to live on the basis of their neighbours' ethnicity, this will lead to the creation of neighbourhoods of different ethnicities. This segregation is an emergent property of the system as a whole, and cannot be blamed on the actions of an organised group, or, indeed, any particular individual making their housing choice in a free market. RomanSpa (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Also look up the annotated reading list (go to the bottom of the post) compiled by Ta-Nehisi Coates on the topic. Also see wikipedia's article on redlining, especially the parts covering housing. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The reference to redlining is not relevant to the question, since redlining occurs after segregated districts have arisen. Though redlining may lead to a change in the amenities of the redlined neighbourhood this is an effect of the segregation; the questioner was asking about the cause. The reading list you mention also appears to contain rather more polemic than relevant research (as we would expect, given that the the blogger in question is largely interested in making political points. RomanSpa (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

RomanSpa, please read through the linked literature to understand how redlining is indeed a cause of racial segregation in American cities. And I wouldn't dismiss work by sociologists and historians, who are acknowledged authorities in this field, such as Kenneth T. Jackson, Thomas Sugrue, Arnold Hirsch, Douglas Massey, Robert Sampson, or the writings of Isabel Wilkerson as "polemics" but I understand that this topic is emotionally/ideologically charged and YMMV. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Abecedare, I'm generally aware of most of these authors. Of the books cited that I have already read (Jackson, Wilkerson, Massey/Denton), either in whole or in part (and, admittedly, not recently), my principal concern is that all of them focus too much on the processes by which segregation occurred in the past. I took the thrust of the question to be concerned largely with "how segregation could happen 'now'", in a society where there is no legally enforced segregation. As you'll see from my note below, I had some reason to suspect that the questioner was seeking to "blame black people" for their current segregation, and was therefore primarily concerned to emphasise that segregation is not due to actions from the black community. (As for the question of redlining, whilst you are surely right that redlining can encourage continuing segregation once it is in place, redlining of a neighbourhood only takes place after the neighbourhood is already "black" (or at least, of a particular level of poverty, which is in practice the same thing).) I agree that this entire topic is fraught with emotion and ideology, which is why I am particularly concerned to focus on facts, and why I emphasised Schelling's work, which is purely abstract and thus less vulnerable to partisan readings. RomanSpa (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I should also note that I found Wilkerson waaay too anecdotal... RomanSpa (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

RomanSpa, in case it is not clear, I think that Schelling's work points to an important factor leading to segregation. One can hardly deny its import as a cause of creation/sustenance of Chinatowns, Little Italys, and Polish neighborhoods in many American cities, and it certainly played, and plays, a role in "racial segregation" in those cities. Where you and I possible differ, is whether blacks can be treated as just another ethnicity in US and the history of overt discrimination disregarded as a (IMO significant) factor leading to racial segregation; and whether racial segregation arises "entirely from non-racial economic factors" (I also disagree that people could/can "buy the best house they can afford, irrespective of their ethnicity", but that would be getting into the weeds of the debate and an interested reader can check out Sharkey's writing on the topic).

On redlining: I think you and I perhaps differ on our understanding of what the term exactly refers to, which is not surprising given that it has been used in different senses by different sources. You perhaps are referring to "Redlining" as lack of amenities in poor/Black neighborhoods, which would indeed be an effect of racial segregation and not a cause. I, on the other hand, am using it to refer to policies such as those of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in mid-twentieth century, which as the article I quoted below shows is recognized as a cause for the segregation. So in this case our disagreement may just be a matter of semantics, and not really substantive. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I was actually just about to make the same point on redlining. I have been using the term in the sense given in the first sentence of our article on the subject: "...the practice of, in the United States, denying, or charging more for, services such as banking, insurance, access to health care, or even supermarkets, or denying jobs to residents in particular, often racially determined, areas". This is how the term is generally used in my area of interest. I was not using the term to refer to the actions of property developers or governmental agencies; it's perfectly obvious that if a developer sets aside different areas for different ethnicities this will lead to segregation, but this is not how I was using the term. Most current debate in the economics of banking and financial services would take "redlining" to refer to a decision not to provide services within a particular geographical area, generally because this would be seen as unprofitable. This kind of redlining certainly perpetuates areas of poverty, particularly by making it substantially more difficult for different ethnicities to access investment capital on the same terms, but it does require the redlined area to exist as a "problem" area before it can be redlined. RomanSpa (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it has to be a "problem area", it might just be that the business in question would rather not deal with that minority. For example, if it's a Hispanic area, and they don't have anyone on staff who speaks Spanish, they might decide to not offer service there. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't be a "problem" in the sense that we mean here, it would simply be an area where the business didn't have a desire to compete. Redlining, in the sense that we're talking about here, arises because statistically the behaviour of people living in the redlined area is different from that of people in other areas where the business proposes to offer its services. This is why the term appears all the time in discussions on the provision of banking services: the bank suspects that people in a particular neighbourhood have a different (higher) default probability from people in other neighbourhoods, and so uses the geographical area as part of its credit analysis when considering advancing loans. This creates a material economic disadvantage arising entirely from zip code. (The reality is, inevitably, more complicated than I have just said, but we don't need to bother about that for this comment.) The "problem" is to do with whether the geographical sample has the same characteristics as the whole population (made worse by the fact that most bankers don't understand how banks work, and nor do most members of Congress/Parliament). RomanSpa (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Particularly as a result of the GI Bill many homes were sold after WW2. The real estate agents and bankers redlined certain areas, designating them as for minorities, perhaps because minorities were already there, but also because they were in some way undesirable, like downwind from factories. After that, they steered whites away from those areas and minorities into them. So, if you wanted to get a loan via the GI Bill, you had to go where they steered you. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Note also that it was not just the realtors acting on their own initiative. The discrimination was also perpetuated by the federal policies. eg see this Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law paper (internal refs removed):

The role of federal and state government in creating and maintaining residential racial segregation must be understood, without excuse, as a reality of American history. On the federal level, the United States government reinforced discriminatory norms through various public policies. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) adopted the practice of "red-lining," a discriminatory rating system used by FHA to evaluate the risks associated with loans made to borrowers in specific urban neighborhoods. The vast majority of the loans went to the two top categories of the rating system, the highest of which included areas that were "new, homogenous, and in demand in good times and bad." The second highest category was comprised of mostly stable areas that were still desirable. The third category, and the level at which discriminatory "red-lining" began, consisted of working class neighborhoods near black residences that were "within such a low price or rent range as to attract an undesirable element." Black areas were placed in the fourth cate gory. Mortgage funds were channeled away from fourth category African American neighborhoods and were typically redirected from communities that were located near a black settlement or an area expected to contain black residences in the future. As a result of these policies, the vast majority of FHA mortgage loans went to borrowers in white middle-class neighborhoods, and very few were awarded to black neighborhoods in central cities. Between 1930 and 1950, three out of five homes purchased in the United States were financed by FHA, yet less than two percent of the FHA loans were made to non-white home buyers. The FHA thus became the first federal agency to openly counsel and support segregation.

Misplaced Pages has an article on housing segregation, but it is not particularly well sourced. Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And note that this situation is by no means unique to the US. People of the same ethnicity often congregate in the same part of a city, especially if in addition to ethnicity they also have language, religion, and culture in common.

As for wealth, some ethnicities seem to value education more, and education level is a strong predictor of wealth. (I wouldn't say willingness to work hard is as much of a predictor, since some people work very hard at minimum wage jobs and never get ahead.) There could also be lingering discrimination against some ethnic groups, or perhaps there is no significant discrimination at present, but past discrimination left that group poorer, and they've never recovered economically from that. Currently, particularly in the US, it takes money to make money, so this situation could persist indefinitely. (There was a time, with high paying union jobs requiring minimal education, when the US had substantial upward mobility, but that all ended with free trade and the acceptance of China into the WTO.) StuRat (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several factual errors or misleading phrases in your remarks, StuRat. There is no evidence that valuing education is linked to ethnicity; there does seem to be some evidence that it is linked to culture, but this is not the same thing. For the avoidance of doubt, and since I'm sure you wouldn't want anyone to impute any racist undertone to your remark in brackets, there is no evidence that a "willingness to work hard" is correlated to any particular ethnicity. There certainly is lingering discrimination against some ethnic groups, and there has certainly been discrimination in the past. From a mathematical point of view it is certainly not the case that the relative per capita wealth of different ethnic groups could persist indefinitely in the absence of any social or economic changes to current society: random changes in wealth over time time would, with probability 1, eventually ensure that the wealth distributions of different ethnic groups would be the same. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests this would take several centuries, though. Finally, it is certainly not the case that changes in the rates of social mobility in the US are due to the US adopting free trade policies in general: during the period of "high paying union jobs" that you allude to, the US was following explicitly free trade policies; in fact, it is highly likely that free trade helped create those "high paying union jobs" in the first place. RomanSpa (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the difference in how much education and hard work is valued by the various ethnicities is due to cultural differences, if that wasn't already clear. As for hard work, it seems that many European nations value that less, with fewer working hours per week. And there has been a substantial increase in free trade agreements (such as NAFTA) and inclusion of large populations within those treaties, such as China's joining of the WTO. Combine them, and there are far more low paid workers in free trade competition with every American than there were at the height of union wages.

Re: "Random changes in wealth over time time would, with probability 1, eventually ensure that the wealth distributions of different ethnic groups would be the same". Sure they would, but that assumption is about as silly as a spherical cow. Despite a progressive tax system, wealth distribution in the US continues to become more uneven. This shows how strong the forces leading to an uneven distribution of wealth are, perhaps requiring the 90%+ former income tax rates the US once had on the richest people, in order to cancel those forces.StuRat (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is yet another race-baiting question from a Toronto IP. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd already noticed the similarity to earlier questions on race-related issues, which is why I have been careful to stress that segregation can in no way be laid at the door of the black community. The simple fact is that the best evidence we have, well-supported by Nobel-prize-winning theory, is that segregation arises from the individual decisions of a relatively small proportion of the population, both white and black. Further, the fact that different areas contain groups of different socio-economic levels arises entirely from non-racial economic factors (people buy the best house they can afford, irrespective of their ethnicity). There may be proportionately more "poor black" areas than "poor white" ones, but this is nothing to do with decisions made by black or white people, either as individuals or as organised (or partially organised), and arises simply because black people are, on any average (mean, median, mode), poorer than white people. This is a separate issue, separate from the question of the evolution of segregation in mixed-ethnicity cities. RomanSpa (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's interesting that Thomas Schelling got a Nobel Prize for confirming what we've known forever: Birds of a feather flock together. -- Jack of Oz 19:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that entirely misses the point of Schelling's work. What he showed was that even if the majority don't flock together we still end up with segregated neighbourhoods. RomanSpa (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a major distinction to be made between voluntary vs. forced segregation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) RomanSpa, doesn't that still mean that significant minorities end up flocking together? Regardless of the underlying cause? -- Jack of Oz 20:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly end up with segregation, but this is not the result of herd/flock behaviour. In a flock, most or all birds have basically the same behaviour patterns. Racial segregation can arise even when only a few people have a particular behaviour pattern. RomanSpa (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe another factor which would maintain segregation post-segregation is that people would prefer to live close to family and friends. When young adults leave home they but stay in the same city they won't be thinking completely randomly but will consider where their friends, who likely lived in close proximity to their family home, live. Of course as those from other cities, nations, move it will dilute this effect, but it would slow down desegregation. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

For every person who prefers to stay close to their family, there is probably another who tries to move as far away from their family as possible! RomanSpa (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Parable of the Polygons —Tamfang (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is perfect - Schelling's work in interactive form. RomanSpa (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Self-segregation may be relevant. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

76.66.128.228 -- Probably the persisting average wealth disparities between white and black Americans (much more severe than average income disparities), together with the fact that large numbers of whites do not feel comfortable living in neighborhoods with more than about 15% black residents, can account for a large part of remaining de facto segregation in the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

White Flight can have a lot to do with it. In my hometown and in many other places, the oldest parts of town were originally inhabitated by the wealthy whites who could afford to live in the city, while the poorer blacks lived on the outskirts. As forced segregation and Jim Crow ended and the distribution of wealth began to even out, more black people could afford to move into town. The whites who didn't want black neighbors moved out to fancy new suburbs, leaving the inner cities to the blacks. As black people began to earn more and more money they naturally want nicer houses, better schools, things that white people already had, so the the black population begins to move into white areas, and the racist whites move away to live with other whites, so you end up with little segregated pockets of whites and blacks scattered around town.146.235.130.59 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Best role for developing an industry

If you're interested in affecting change and developing the logistics industry from a high level, which of these roles within the industry would suit best? - operations management, engineering, logistics planning. 194.66.246.107 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We will not do your homework for you. Dismas| 23:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

why is this a homework question? I think you are assuming bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.96.1 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 February 2015

It looks like the kind of question a teacher would assign to a class. But if you have a factual answer, feel free to post it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Affect" or "effect"? RomanSpa (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Affect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.96.1 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 February 2015

In what sense? I assume not "To assume a false appearance of; to put on a pretence of, to counterfeit or pretend." (OED) . In British English, to bring something about, to implement, is to effect. I thought the same was true internationally, and at Liverpool University. Dbfirs 17:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless one is being intentionally dense for pedantary purposes, the very first definition given at Wiktionary is probably the one intended: "To influence or alter". Granted, one normally thinks of causing ("effecting") change, rather than altering ("affecting") it, but the concept of influencing the course of a change that is already occuring is not completely nonsensical. -- 162.238.240.55 (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was being overly-pedantic for reasons of clarity (and education). See the usage note in your linked entry. Dbfirs 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

February 15

British Parliament Procedure

Hello, I have been reading the British Parliament Misplaced Pages article but I'm stuck with something. Why is it before an MP says something do a dozen people stand up before promptly sitting down again once the MP starts to speak? Thanks, 121.90.59.139 (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Could it be related to the old manners rule "A gentleman always stands when a lady enters the room" ? Was the MP female ? Or perhaps this sign of respect is also extended to members of their party, regardless of gender. StuRat (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hilarious. Why answer is you clearly don't know anything about the question? The below is correct. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If you knew the answer, why didn't you post it instead of hassling another editor? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the purpose of posting an answer which was already posted? Pointing out an answer is completely wrong is surely useful though. Nil Einne (talk)

Yes there's absolutely nothing wrong with "hassling another editor", whether one knows the answer or not. Especially when (as is usually the case with StuRat) he doesn't have a clue what the answer is and is only guessing. --Viennese Waltz 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable as long as one is standing. Harassment while seated would be an unseemly breach of etiquette. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest your comment has to be sophisticated enough that you can hassle without it being too overt. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This kind of thing has been discussed on the talk page many times. Attacking an editor does nothing but poison the ref desk atmosphere. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Never been anything close to consensus for that. There are in fact many who believe completely crap answers poisons the ref desk atmosphere (which is after all supported to be a ref desk, not a random stuff I came up with despite little actual knowledge of the subject desl), much more than an occasional indication that someone is clearly wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In the Australian parliament, which uses the British system, the MPs stand to signal the Speaker that they wish to speak. The other MPs sit down when the Speaker says the next MP's title.
Sleigh (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Confirming the above, see page 4 of this. Nanonic (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The rule requiring an MP who wishes to raise a point of order during a division, having to speak seated with a top hat on, was abolished in 1998. "Some Traditions and Customs of the House" (p.8) Shame I say. Those who accept positions of responsibility in our country should be made to dress in a ridiculous fashion every so often; it teaches them humility in my view. Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Was the bleeding woman that Jesus healed menstruating?

Six years ago, I took a Classics class, and somehow, for some reason, I asked the instructor what the bleeding was about, and he replied that she was menstruating. Now, that mental image repeats itself in my mind, and I try to look up if the bleeding woman that Jesus heals is truly menstruating. Is it tied to menstruation? What is the parable supposed to mean? That menstruating women are going to be healed by Jesus miraculously? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't regard menstruation as a sickness that needs to be "healed", but who knows what their attitude was back then? -- Jack of Oz 07:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Not that it speaks for the Jews of 20 CE, but there are plenty of cultures where menstruation is considered a disease or source of uncleanliness. I wouldn't be surprised if there was such a belief in Israel at the time. On a barely related note, one of the interviews I'm translating for RL work states that, in Maluku, there used to be a belief that if a man was in the same house as a menstruating woman, he would lose all of his vigor. So they went and built special houses, called pinau, for menstruating women.... read that as you may. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Menstruation is indeed considered ritually impure by the Bible. According to Leviticus 15:19-24:

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening. If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

So menstruation is a minor source of ritual impurity that transfers to people and objects that the woman touches, but these people/objects are only unclean for one day. However, the woman herself is unclean for seven days, after which she must make two small sacrifices to cleanse the impurity.

Impurity is not the same as disease. There are 4 causes of impurity in Leviticus: human corpses, animal corpses, fluxes of life fluids (genital discharges and blood lost in childbirth), and skin conditions called Tzaraath. They all have to do with death or the loss of life forces, but note that almost everything we would consider disease are not included. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. "Ritually impure" ≠ "disease," and there is surprisingly little overlap between the two (in fact, no overlap at all if you accept the traditional understanding of Tzaraath as a sort of "scarlet letter" for the crime of Lashon ha-ra). We have a pretty thorough understanding of Jewish attitudes toward menstruation, at least by the early third century, courtesy the Mishnah, and none of them would view menstruation as a disease in need of a cure, supernatural or otherwise. Evan  18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Where is this parable of which you speak? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The woman was bleeding for 12 years--it definitely wasn't menstruation. See Jesus healing the bleeding woman. The story (it's not a parable) is meant to demonstrate Jesus' miraculous healing powers.

The author of Mark was not stupid. He knew what menstruation was, and that it wasn't a disease. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

So, it was just some strange bleeding for 12 years? I would have thought that the woman had menstruated for 12 years non-stop. I think "12 years" just means "a very long time", not literally 12 years. The same with all the numbers in the Bible. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's rather a bizarre response. Do you have a citation for the idea that all numbers in the Bible are to be taken figuratively? When the Bible wants to express "a lot," it often does so numerically, but usually in multiples of seven. The number twelve has many associations in the Judeo-Christian tradition, none of which would make a metaphorical reading of it in this case seem very plausible. Evan  18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You just restated what I said. "When the Bible wants to express 'a lot', it often does so numerically." That's what I meant by "metaphorically". 71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What you wrote above is correct, except for the fact that twelve, as far as I know, is not used anywhere in the Bible, even in the Apocrypha, as a stand-in for some large-but-unknown number. That is (generally) what multiples of seven, or superlative thousands (see Jude 14) are for. Twelve has its own sphere of meaning that would make any generic "really big number" use of it confusing. Evan  20:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, obviously, context matters. I never said that meanings have to be absolute. ;-) 71.79.234.132 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well, everything in the Bible is figurative, isn't it? There is no actual evidence that Jesus existed, never mind a woman who didn't bleed to death after 12 minutes, never mind 12 years. There were supposedly 12 apostles. Only FOUR of them wrote anything. What did the other EIGHT do? KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 15:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Try the Acts of the Apostles. Off the top of my head, Saint Peter survived a shipwreck in Malta and got a job as the first pope, Saint Andrew went to Greece and Russia and ended up being nailed to a diagonal cross, and Saint Thomas apparently opened a branch of Christianity in India. They didn't retire quietly, except for Judas Iscariot who committed suicide. The only Apostle believed to have written a Gospel is Saint Matthew, but the attribution is later than the text and is debatable. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)]

The Gospel of John is traditionally ascribed to John the Apostle, along with the other Books ascribed to him including three epistles and Revelation, though some scholars consider these works to be not all (or perhaps not at all) by the same person, and possibly not by John the Apostle. But traditionally, both the gospels of Matthew and John were traditionally held to be written by two of the Twelve. The other two to have been traditionally ascribed works in the Bible were Simon Peter (who has 2 epistles ascribed to him), and the Epistle of James, which is occasionally ascribed to James the Lesser who may or may not have been James, son of Alphaeus. If all that is true, then James was also written by an apostle. If, however, as is more commonly believed, that the Epistle of James was written by James the Just or James, Brother of Jesus, then it wasn't written by one of the 12 Apostles. Furthermore, the Authorship of Peter's epistles is in doubt, and it is quite likely they were written by someone more literate than Peter would have been; probably John Mark (author of Mark) or perhaps someone else, and possibly the author of the Epistle of Jude (who was probably Jude, Brother of Jesus and maybe, but not likely, Jude the Apostle, but definitely not Judas Iscariot). What does all this mean? The only book of the New Testament to be reasonably unequivocally attributed to one of the Twelve is the Gospel of Matthew, but even THAT has some doubts, as it appears that Mark was written first, which would raise some questions as to why John Mark, who was not present during Jesus's ministry, would be used as a source for the other synoptic gospels, including that of Matthew, who supposedly was an eye witness. The usual explanation is that John Mark was the scribe for Peter, and that it's Peter's account in most of Mark, as well as the Petrine Epistles. But honestly, there's not a lot of hard evidence for identifying, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the authorship of much of the New Testament. --Jayron32 01:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Christ myth theory is a minority view in academia. Although most academics would say that Jesus did exist, what he did between birth and death and his resurrection is up for debate. A minority view doesn't necessarily mean a wrong view; it just means that there is not enough convincing evidence for more people to hold it. Also, Paul was not one of the original 12 apostles, but he supposedly wrote much of the New Testament canon. Many of the letters are attributed to him. Thomas was one of the 12 apostles, but the Gospel of Thomas is not canonical. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside from its general silliness, the Christ myth theory has precisely nothing to do with the question, which deals with a specific pericope (not parable) the premise of which seems medically questionable. As an side note, only the authors of Matthew and John are traditionally believed to have been apostles; Mark and Luke are identified as companions of Peter and Paul, respectively. In all likelihood, none of those attributions are correct. Evan  18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I was replying to KageTora's comment about Jesus' non-existence. As a side note, I never said the attributions were historically accurate or, as you put it, "correct". 71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my reply was primarily directed at KageTora. I could have been clearer with the indentation, obviously. Evan  20:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I could have been more explicit. I was trying to demonstrate a pattern. Everything good that Jesus does are all shown with even numbers. Fasting for FORTY days, for example. Bad things tend to be shown with odd numbers - a beast with SEVEN heads, for example. The story of the TWO fishes and FIVE loaves is a story about mathematics, showing that Jesus COULD divide them, even though both five and two are prime numbers (therefore indivisible by anything except 1). But five and two add up to seven - the number of the seven vices, one of which is gluttony. The numbers in the bible all refer to the type of Kabbalah that the Jews at that term believed in. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 08:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You've probably seen this. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

We also have an article; Gynecologic hemorrhage. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan. That's probably the most helpful reply in this thread so far. As a complete non-professional medically, I've always associated the type of bleeding described in this story with a neoplasm of some sort. In On Writing, Stephen King described how his mother had (she thought) begun menstruating again many years after menopause, with a continuous flow of blood until she died of uterine cancer. It was diagnosed in a very advanced stage, since she had been embarrassed to tell anyone about the bleeding. Evan  18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There is also abnormal menstruation, where instead of a regular monthly flow, it might be more or less continuous (but presumably at a slower rate). StuRat (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about running discharges at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001188. According to paragraph 2, the woman had "a diseased, extended, and thus abnormal, flow of blood".

—Wavelength (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

she

I think it somewhat tenuous to interpret the word "bleeding" as being a reference to menstruation. Women do bleed for other reasons, after all. The woman in the story could well have been a hemophiliac, with a simple cut on her knee. The point of the story is that her faith healed her... the specific injury is somewhat secondary.

There are many kinds of bleeding. An article Mark 5 includes some guesses. It doesn't mention Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, and there are others (lower gastrointestinal bleeding, etc.) It's hard to know. Wnt (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Christian Science adherents are known for their belief that prayer can heal without medical intervention. I think they are taking an extremely irrational interpretation of the Bible. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's the point of their belief. Faith can move mountains, and all that. -- Jack of Oz 18:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That's why we don't have any mountains in England :) KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Have to cross the border? Hack (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent Room Theory

Copied from User talk:SFenthusiast Zhaofeng Li 09:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reference to Intelligent Room Theory, or a similar phrase (not Chinese Room by John Searle) anywhere in Misplaced Pages? Please help me with... Confirming, or denying that it exists. If it does exist, please give me a way to go to it / relevant URL.

Abstract: I thought I found a concept wherein code on a piece of paper is slid under a door to a man in a room who does not know the code ahead of time. Based on this theory he decodes it by utilizing what I though was called Intelligent Room Theory? There's nothing in the room except him.

SFenthusiast (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is possible to decipher some simple codes using nothing but your mind. Indeed, many such puzzles are made for entertainment purposes. However, are you talking about fiction, where the room itself guides the person in some way to decipher a more complex code ? StuRat (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Pindos (Russian slang)

Hello. I want to translate from Russian Misplaced Pages article ru:Пиндос with authoritative sources, but the administrator Spartaz deleted it Pindos (Russian slang) - without any discussion. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about the deletion in 2013, there was a discussions then including Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pindos, basically Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

At DRV, the result was "we can look at this again when someone is able ti help with the sources". If sources are available, the article _may_ be acceptable for re-creation. The basic definition remains at Pindos (disambiguation), incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

horror novels

What is the longest horor novel? --95.235.210.25 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.235.210.25 (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You're never going to get a definitive answer to this question, because opinions differ on what constitutes a horror novel and how it differs from, say, a Gothic novel or a fantasy novel. That said, I would have thought Stephen King's It must, at 1138 pages, be a contender. --Antiquary (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

List of longest novels doesn't mention genres, but the winner may be Varney the Vampire at 667,000 words, if it counts as horror. King's The Stand is "only" about 500,000 words according to random Internet sources, and I think It is about the same (but it's harder to search for). -- BenRG (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Stand is in no way a horror story. It is apocalyptic and supernatural, but not horror. I am not a huge fan of King, but It is much closer to horror. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll second that. The Stand is a post-apocalyptic fantasy, but there's no "horror" in it at all. --Jayron32 03:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I only mentioned The Stand because it's apparently King's longest novel and I couldn't find a word count for It. -- BenRG (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

More geography of early 19th century Egypt...

I'm having yet another assault on the Battle of Mandora (1801) article and need some more help on two points, trying to connect features described in contemporary accounts with Misplaced Pages articles.

1) Is the "canal of Alexandria" mentioned in Wilson, 1803 (p. 21) the same as the present day Mahmoudiyah Canal?

2) Is "Lake Maadie" (Wilson, p. 15) or "lake Maadieh" (Alison, p. 566) the same as Lake Mariout?

Any help will be gratefully received. Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Lake Maadie was later called Lake Aboukir (French: Lac Aboukir or Lac d'Aboukir). It was drained beginning in 1887 to make use of the land it covered. Compare these 1818 maps with this 1866 map (zoomable) with this 1941 map.--Cam (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. Looking at the coordinates in our article (which I should have done earlier) Lake Mariout is to the west of Alex while Lake Aboukir is to the east. Thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

February 16

Sunday school, Confirmation class, Catechumenate, Bible Study, Small Groups, Devotionals

I always get these terms mixed up, because Christians tend to use them to express the same thing - a place where Christians congregate and study the doctrines of their own denomination, the scriptures, and maybe a bit of relevant information from local everyday life. Are there any differences, and if so, what are the differences? How are they different structurally (that is, having a prayer at the beginning or the end or at both the beginning and end)? I notice that some churches have daycare programs. Do children begin learning about the Christian faith right in daycare? How long is each of the above things - Sunday school, Confirmation class, Catechumenate, Bible Study, Small Groups, Devotionals? Are there any overlaps between the terms? Can the baptized individual refuse to be confirmed, or is the confirmation necessary as finishing-up of the original baptism? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

They all involve similar things with lots of overlap- the precise definitions of each will vary by church, denomination, community, etc. Each has their own jargon. But some simple differences- confirmation class is for people who will soon be receiving confirmation. Catechumanate is probably similar, for someone (the Catechumen) anticipating some particular milestone. Sunday school happens on Sunday. Bible study involves studying the Bible, which is usually a part of all the others. As for baptism and confirmation, of course baptized people can refuse to be confirmed- anybody can refuse any of that stuff. Many denominations and communities (typically ones which exclusively practice adult baptism) don't have confirmation at all. Staecker (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You still did not describe the differences. You merely defined them. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What I said describes part of what is distinctive about each. Sunday school is only on sundays, the others can be on any day. So that's one difference. Staecker (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I still like RomanSpa's in-depth answer. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of Typical Church of England Meanings/Practices (based on my own experience):

Sunday School: Children attend only part (generally the first 40% or so) of the normal Sunday morning service. At an appropriate point (typically during the singing of the second or third hymn) children leave the service for some other room or building (generally the church hall), along with a couple of competent adults (the "Sunday School teachers"). Until the adult service is finished, the children are instructed in aspects of the Bible or doctrine, or are given history lessons about famous Christians. If you attend sufficient of these lessons during a year, you receive a small prize (generally a book of Bible stories, or another Bible to add to your family's collection). As well as serving an educational purpose, Sunday School keeps children out of the more adult aspects of the Sunday service, such as sermons on adult themes (i.e. sex) and Holy Communion (which is more or less limited to particular congregants, depending on religious denomination).

Confirmation Class: Attended by young people in the run-up to their Confirmation. Depending on the denomination of Christianity, these may attract people from ages 5-6 up to 50-60. (A good rule of thumb seems to be that the lower the church (that is, the more "protestant"), the higher the age at which one starts taking communion.) In the C of E these classes are generally taken somewhere in your mid-teens, and you probably have to sit through a course of about 15-20 hours before you can be confirmed. Classes last about an hour, and generally take place once a week, typically on weekday evenings or at a convenient time during the weekend, and are usually taught by the clergy of the church you attend, possibly with additional instruction being provided by visiting clergy from other nearby churches. Classes generally cover instruction in all aspects of doctrine, and you only get confirmed if the teacher(s) are convinced that you're serious in your belief in the doctrines of your denomination. In effect, at Confirmation you "confirm" that you are Christian, following your baptism as an infant, when your parents and godparents affirmed that you were a Christian on your behalf. You don't have to be confirmed following your baptism as a baby; this simply means that you aren't a full member of the church (though you're probably still welcome at the services, if you can be bothered to turn up). If you like, Confirmation is when you become a fully-paid-up member of the club and agree to obey its rules; up till that time, you got to use the facilities for free because your parents were members. And this takes us on to...

Catechumenate: If you weren't baptised as a child, you've never been any kind of member of the Church. To get to be a member as an adult, therefore, you have to catch up on all the stuff that you missed during Sunday School and Confirmation Classes. You become a catechumen - someone who is receiving instruction in all aspects of doctrine, with a view to being baptised as an adult, and immediately affirming (on your own behalf) that you're a Christian and immediately participating fully in all aspects of Church life. Although I don't know for sure, I imagine classes for this are similar to, but perhaps run for longer than, Confirmation Classes.

Saying Your Catechism: Many branches of Christianity, including the Church of England, have an explicit catechism. This is a highly ritualised set of questions and responses designed to allow the respondent to state clearly the beliefs that they hold. In previous generations in the Church of England children would have to learn these questions and responses verbatim, and a small prize was awarded (another book of Bible stories, probably) to each child able to "say his/her catechism" correctly. By the time I was growing up this had been replaced by more free-form approaches. My grandmother was still word-perfect on her catechism well into her nineties! Teaching of the catechism, either verbatim or in more general terms, is part of what happens in Sunday School.

Bible Study: This is exactly what it sounds like. Either on your own, or with a group of friends, you study some aspect of the Bible, generally by setting aside time each week to do so. If you're studying the Bible on your own, you might end up doing this every day, or if you're in a group it might be once or twice a week. Some denominations provide supporting reading material and notes, so as to provide that particular denomination's interpretation of particular passages. If studying in a group, you may from time to time be visited by your church's minister, but this depends on the denomination. Some denominations just let you get on with it, but other denominations are aware of the dangers posed by...

Small Groups: Where a small group of people meet for regular Bible study, there is a risk that strong personalities in these groups may steer them in particular ways. One significant risk is that these small groups may start inventing their own interpretations of the Bible and making up their own doctrines. At its worst this can lead to these groups breaking away in some sort of schism (for example, this is how Methodism started), but even a relatively doctrinally conservative small group can easily become a "church within a church", and this can lead to all sorts of social and doctrinal problems, or even the creation of cults or forms of religion strongly different from the church they appeared in. This sort of problem is much worse in the non-episcopal denominations, but can arise even in the Church of England: the Alpha Course began as a "small group" in the C of E, but has a great many cult-like characteristics (our article on the subject is surprisingly light on criticism; it should also be noted that the C of E has taken great pains to rein in the worst excesses of the Alpha Course).

Private Devotions: These are simply your private prayers. Christians are encouraged to set aside time on a regular basis to pray, and these private prayers are your private devotions. Typically, you pray for whatever matters most to you, perhaps using a prayer book (such as the Book of Common Prayer) to help you find the words you need. In some denominations there is also "Private Devotional Reading", which is just Bible Study by a different name.

I hope this has been of some use. RomanSpa (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Were there mnemonics to help you remember the whole catechism? Did you turn it into a song? I read Martin Luther's Small Catechism (no, I'm not Lutheran) before, and it's written as if the author intends that the child or developing Christian must repeat the words verbatim. Was there any freedom in putting the catechism into your own words, or is that a modern invention? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any mnemonics. From what I can work out, in "the old days" people simply learnt their catechism verbatim. I don't imagine it's much more difficult than learning your "times tables" or chunks of poetry. I had a reasonably traditional education, and although I don't know my catechism (as I went to Sunday School after the approach had changed to the modern "in your own words" one) I have still managed to pick up a fair number of collects and psalms, can recite the books of the Bible in order, and can recite reasonably large chunks of it by heart. (I also know the common logs of many numbers to 7dp. If you learn things as a child they stay with you forever!) RomanSpa (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In the olden times (of my youth), there were 150 Catholic catechism questions that you had to memorize the answers to in preparation for confirmation. The nuns would drill you in them so you didn't embarrass the parish in front of the bishop :) There were no tricks, just straight rote memorization, and woe unto you if you got even one word wrong. Enjoy yourself in Hell! Because you would go over the questions from beginning to end, and often not reach the end, you tend to remember the early questions later on in life, and the late ones...not so much. But nearly everyone who went through the process remembers the answer to #1: "Who is God?" and can recite the only acceptable answer: "God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things, and keeps them in existence." - Nunh-huh 07:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is true elsewhere in the world, but in Canada (or at least in Ontario), we have Catholic schools that are in every other way exactly the same as the public schools, except for the religion classes. So, I never went to "Sunday school", because every day in Catholic school was like Sunday school. Preparation for communion, confession, and confirmation was part of the school curriculum. None, or almost none, of my religious education actually took place in a church. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's also the case in NZ although not everyone attends and I'm not sure what options there are for those who don't but want the religious education. Perhaps not surprisingly this wasn't the case in Malaysia although Sunday school largely didn't happen at the church (considering at least 10 years, with I probably at least 30 or more people per year, there's no way that would have worked, actually suggests the number of students is now 1300 and I expect even in my time i may have been half that), but at a nearby school they had permission to use. Although there were perenially fears they would be kicked out, which was controversial for numerous reasons including the fact that the school use to be a Catholic school (although I think it was always government aided), and when it was turned in to a normal government school I think there were undertakings that they would have the right to use it for sunday school. Anyway they eventually managed to get their own building, actually house due to planning issues. But it was never really large enough anyway and considering the area was also residential and the size of the land, I'm not sure they ever had much chance of a building suitable for 1300. Anyway sunday school was held between the two morning church services (I believe there are now 3), we weren't kicked out of church, but were expected to attend before or after (or the evening mass). In the year where confirmation was expected, we had a bunch of extra stuff to attend, and there was obvious recognition we were going to be confirmed soon, but I don't remember it being called confirmation class much, although some do use the term . The earlier source I linked to calls it confirmation year. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You may find the articles Sunday school or Robert Raikes helpful. The original Sunday Schools were schools for the children of the working class poor, who were expected to work 6 days a week and not attend school. They were, therefore, places of education and children were taught to read and write using the Bible as the main textbook. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oral tradition

Have historians observed any oral tradition being passed down in an illiterate (or mostly illiterate) society? I mean that 1) something happened in this society, and historians know exactly what happened from reliable sources, and 2) traditions about the event continued circulating for decades or centuries. I'm curious about how quickly the oral tradition gets corrupted. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Stories of the Franklin Expedition were passed down orally...I guess this isn't exactly right since historians didn't really know what happened, but later research and archaeology more or less matches Inuit oral history. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like your requirements require the interaction of a literate culture (and hence reliable info) meeting an illiterate one, as in the above example. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Australian Aborigines never had any writing system whatsoever, as well as many African tribes and North/South American tribes, but their stories are well documented. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mycenaean Greece was illiterate before they invaded the Minoan empire. Mycenaean Greece was literate until the Bronze Age collapse attributed to the Doric invasion. During the Greek Dark Ages, Greece was illiterate and Homer's heroic poetry of the Trojan War was passed down orally. However, the Trojan War was not historical by contemporaries.
Sleigh (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Walter Ong writes great stuff on this subject. Orality and Literacy is the one I'm most familiar with. It's big with the media ecology crowd (Marshall McLuhan, Harold Innis, etc.) because it's all about how people think about things like history and tradition differently in primarily oral cultures vs. literate cultures. We have an article on Orality that may be of some help. Another place to look is early ethnography work in anthropology where literate researchers lived for extended periods with illiterate/pre-literate/non-literate groups. --— Rhododendrites \\ 03:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

98.232.12.250 -- Attila the Hun conquered and oppressed a lot of Germans in his lifetime, but by the time of the Nibelungenlied, centuries of folklore have transformed "Etzel" into something rather different... AnonMoos (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A great deal of research has gone into the works of Homer, which, according to a well attested theory, is a compilation of generations of orally-transmitted stories, including anachronisms, where aspects of life and culture of the day of the compiler have been attributed to a more ancient period. Start with our main article on Homer, then Homeric Question and go from there. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Norway no longer extradite prisoners to US

Someone told me that Norway no longer extradite prisoners to US due to the poor condition of US prisons. I'm highly skeptical of this. I managed to find one story back in 1999 that seems to partially corroborate it though. Has anyone been successfully extradited from Norway to US since said 1999 case? WinterWall (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This deal is still in effect, since 1980, at least according to List of United States extradition treaties.

Not sure about from Norway, but the US sent three of its prisoners to testify as material witnesses in a 2012 Norwegian case about a plot to attack Denmark. One of the defendants was Iraqi, the Norwegian swore he intended to attack the Chinese embassy instead and the one who got off lightest was an Uzbek. Courts can be very multicultural. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

Najmaddin Faraj Ahmad is accused (though not necessarily wanted by) the US for financing insurgents/designated terrorists in Iraq. Norway held him for a while on threat charges, then released him last month. That could suggest a lack of cooperation, but far from conclusive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

Consider the case of Gary McKinnon in the UK. He was accused of hacking into US military systems, arrested with a view to extradition, but after appealing and losing all the way to the ECHR and becoming a cause celebre in the British media, his extradition was blocked by the British government on human rights grounds, because he was considered likely to commit suicide. I remember (don't cite me, I know this is original research) the condition of the US prison system playing a big part in the campaign against his extradition. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, an extradition treaty doesn't ensure extradition will happen just because the country that wants that person back demands it. There are all sorts of issues at stake and it can be a complex business to decide who gets sent overseas for trial, who gets tried for the crime under the local justice system and who walks free. SteveBaker (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of Europe has outlawed the death penalty, and also refuse to extradite someone unless the requesting country agrees to waive the death penalty (or doesn't use it, themselves). This includes extraditions to the United States. LongHairedFop (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Are Catholics allowed to just take the flesh but not the blood of Christ?

Are Catholics allowed to just take the flesh but not the blood of Christ? Or are the accidents supposed to make the experience of taking communion unpleasant? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the second part of your question means, but the answer to the first is yes. It's perfectly fine to take just the body. My parish didn't even offer the cup until I was in my teens. Mingmingla (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems a little halfways to me, but I guess if a priest says it's OK, it's his house as much as the Lord's. If "accident" means getting drunk, there generally isn't enough for even a child to get buzzed. It's barely a bigger drink than a rum ball. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

The 'accidents' is the technical term for the outward appearance of the consecrated Host as bread, and the contents of the chalice as wine, which after they have been consecrated are held to have the 'real substance' (as distinct from accidents) of the most precious body and blood of Jesus. And if you don't like the taste of communion wine, but want to receive in both kinds, you may alternatively 'intinct' - which is to say to retain the bread until presented with the cup, and then dip the bread in the wine and eat it. It used to be the custom only to give the cup to the priests and servers; I think that it became customary (again) to offer the cup to all communicants after one of the Vatican Councils. And to answer the OP's second question: the accidents reflect the accidents of the Last Supper itself - a piece of unleavened bread from the Passover table, and a cup of wine for blessing after the meal. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And the relevant articles are Accident (philosophy) and Transubstantiation. - Lindert (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not exactly a terrible Catholic, but no star pupil. I knew the bigger word, for what it's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

In Malaysia or at least the Catholic church I went to , as of 15 or so years ago the wine still wasn't offered to anyone adult or child. It was obviously used by the priest during the consecration, and may have been taken by the priests and servers (I admit I never paid enough attention that I would know). I'm not sure whether they didn't get the message or had some other reason (alcohol can sometimes be a slightly touchy subject because of the Islamic influence and dominance but it's really not generally much of a problem for non Muslims particularly in a place like Petaling Jaya, provided you don't do anything stupid, which wouldn't really happen in a church setting, it is very heavily taxed though). From my search, it sounds like at least one Catholic church in Malaysia does offer wine to the general congregation or at least to those receiving first communion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

When I was a kid (brought up as catholic), I wasn't allowed to drink the wine. In fact nobody but the priest drunk it. I had first holy communion when I was about 10 or 11, then stopped going to church at age 12 (for two reasons: 1 was that it made no sense to me, and the 2nd was that I was too busy with school work - some of us have better things to do than live in a fantasy world). KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic, and maybe not representative, but in the Russian Orthodox churches I've attended with my Russian wife, everyone who receives communion drinks the wine. Even little babies get some dabbed on their lips. It is a very small sip, and the wine is diluted from a hot kettle beforehand, so I doubt it causes "accidents" :-) 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I also stopped going rather early (maybe I am a terrible Catholic), but my priest had no problem mixing alcohol with young boys. Of course, the connotations were different then. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

I know in some Catholic churches, the priest will dip the bread into the wine... so celebrants get both body and blood at the same time (I think this is called "tincture", but I may be incorrect.) Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

'Intinction', as I mentioned above. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This was a big issue at the Reformation, with Protestants insisting that Communion be given in both bread and wine ("two kinds" or "two species") whereas the Catholic practice at the time was for the priest to take bread and wine, but the ordinary people were only offered bread. This article, written from a Catholic viewpoint, says " the Council of Constance, in its 13th Session on 15 Jun 1415, totally rejected the need to reintroduce the practice of giving the chalice as well as the bread to the laity (Communion under both species), and prohibited it...". Meanwhile the Protestant reformers made it a central plank of their disagreements with Catholic theology. The Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles said (Article 30); "The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike." I don't know if the recent change in Catholic practice is a result of the Second Vatican Council or some other reform; perhaps another editor knows? Alansplodge (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think some catholic churches (and protestant ones) use non-alcoholic wine, so that everyone can have some. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, wine which contains alcohol is required by canon law in the Latin rite Catholic churches. The CofE has a similar requirement, although I believe there is a dispensation for non-alcoholic wine (which must still be made from fermented grapes) to be used for medical reasons. The use of non-alcoholic products for regular communion of the people is very much a feature of churches that are more Protestant than the Church of England. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• See Communion Under Both Kinds at the Catholic Encyclopedia. Tradition varies by rite. In the Ruthenian Catholic Church, as opposed to the Latin rite, the Host, which is bread shaped like a crouton, is dipped by the priest into the wine with a small fork, which he then uses to deposit the moistened bread in your mouth. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the saliva wiped off with a towel? Does the communicant's lips touch the fork? 140.254.136.178 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has an article: Communion under both kinds which is not very enlightening on this particular point. However, says; "...introduction of Communion under both species for lay persons in the 20th century began as a result of disobedience to the Pope... As a direct result of the calculated disobedience to papal authority perpetrated by the modernists in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, the practice of Communicating under both species may be tolerated by the Church ("the Vatican reluctantly surrendered on this point due to widespread and blatant disobedience"), but only under limited circumstances and under certain conditions." Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember about a towel, but wouldn't be surprised. The whole process was much longer than in a Roman Catholic church. Two lines formed on each side. The fork was long and fine, with two tines. There was a plate with the bread in 3/4" squares (and one never saw crust!) and a chalice. The priest speared a Host, dunked it, and you took it with your lips.

I certainly didn't close down on the fork, and I doubt most people did. But before you took communion you knelt down at a kneeler with a bar (wooden railing) that separated the congregants from the altar, and made the sign of the cross. I suspect the priest may have wiped the fork between administrations, but can't say. I have been an atheist since 16, and the last time i received communion was in the 80's, so it may be 30-35 years since I received it that way.

I understand the church was renovated after my last grandparent's funeral in 2001, which I attended, without taking communion, and they perform the liturgy mostly in English, not the Ruthenian Recension at this point. I would attend mass there with my nephews and niece just to introduce them to the tradition (their Father's an Irish-Catholic atheist himself) but there's not much left. My mother refuses to, for a combination of reasons, including my sister's death, which weakened my parents' faith, the Church's opposition to any military response to 9/11, the sex scandals, and especially the fact that the current pastor doesn't speak our Rusyn language, and is effeminate to the point of creepiness. It's amazing the difference a few decades make. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Followup: I called my mother, and she says they used a spoon, not a fork. It may have changed over time, or either of us could be misremembering. But she says she used to get to church early so as to sit in front and go first because they were supposed to drop it in, but the stari babi (old ladies) would gum the spoon, which was not wiped between congregants. This may have changed around the time of Vatican II. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

February 17

Which language has the most international television stations/productions?

My belief is that there are more Spanish television stations and programs, since there are 20 countries where Spanish is the native language. While China has more speakers it is mostly limited to China and her offshoots. While English is spoken in the USA, UK and former dominions.

My belief is that, since each of these Spanish speaking countries has their own media, Spanish has the most television programs of any world language.

However I have not been able to find any evidence to support my beliefs, and I was hoping refdesk could help. --Gary123 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult question to answer, as, with the advent of satellite TV, all languages available are broadcast daily and continually. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if you're right, would a greater number of smaller stations with small audiences really prove anything? Seems like you'd have to consider viewing figures to get any idea of impact. I'm afraid I can't help with any data though. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd guess English, simply because global business speaks English and international TV is global business. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with InedibleHulk that English is the likely answer. 20 countries is frankly not very many (although there are surely more where it's popular enough that there are stations). And I suspect many commonwealth countries have at least some English productions (and probably televisions concentrating on English content even if it's not local productions), regardless of whether English is the native language. Note also that English is an official language in 58 countries per our List of territorial entities where English is an official language. (I mean heck, the Carribean countries plus US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ, South Africa is I think already 19.) I also agree with the above answer that the question is fairly complicated since it's not clear how you take in to account satellite broadcasts, co-productions etc. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, as for Spanish vs Chinese, I don't know if this is that simple either. With increasing Chinese immigration and lower costs for broadcasting, more countries are likely getting Chinese stations and some local Chinese content. E.g I know NZ does and I'm pretty sure Australia does too. (I presume US and probably Canada & UK too.) And Chinese content (also South Korean and Japanese to some extent), is popular in various parts of Asia, particularly I think SEA. Well obviously Malaysia and Singapore, but also places like Vietnam and Indonesia or possibly most of it . Depending on the country, some of this may be dubbed, but with satellite TV or other digital broadcasts, it wouldn't be that surprising if the original language is also availabl. Also, are you solely referring to Mandarin, or are you including Cantonese and others? (Although with the rise of China, I have doubt there's many countries with only Cantonese but no Mandarin.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bear on a plane

Is it true that Boris Yeltsin once spent two days in his presidential plane, parked on the apron of Dublin Airport, too drunk to get out and take part in a G8 meeting being held there? I've heard this several times but it isn't in your article. Even if this was exaggerated though, the contrast with Putin goes a long way in explaining his popularity. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

According to G8#Annual_summit no G8 summit was ever held in Dublin.WinterWall (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, since Ireland isn't actually a member. Do you know if something like this happened elsewhere, or in Dublin on another occasion? I've heard it from several people on different occasions, who don't know each other, and I'm almost sure it was in a newspaper at the time. Must have been round about 1995. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's about http://www.independent.co.uk/news/yeltsin-too-tired-to-get-off-his-aircraft-1440023.html. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see this part of our article on Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin was returning to Russia from the United States, and it was planned for him to break his journey in Ireland. The plane landed at Shannon Airport (not in Dublin, but in County Clare), where Yeltsin was due to meet Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) Albert Reynolds. Reynolds was left waiting in the airport (highly embarrassing from a political and diplomatic point of view) as Yeltsin was unable to get off the plane. A planned dinner at nearby Dromoland Castle had to be cancelled. There is no unanimity on the reason why Yeltsin was indisposed: possible explanations include drunkenness, a heart attack, and a reaction to a prescription drug administered earlier in the day. RomanSpa (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I would bet that jet lag had something to do with it. Russia=>USA=>Ireland without enough time at any place to catch up would be a pretty brutal schedule. SteveBaker (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hamburg state election, 2015

I saw an article in The Guardian which included some German-language infographics which seemed to be readily comprehensible, but turned out not to be.

The second infographic, titled "Wanderung AfD", appears to indicate what parties the Alternative for Germany (AfD) voters in this past weekend's election had voted for in the previous state election (in 2011). It looks like 7,000 AfD voters had voted for Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) in the last election, 8,000 for Christian Democratic Union (Germany) (CDU), 1,000 for The Left (Germany) (Linke), 4,000 for Free Democratic Party (Germany) (FDP), 1,000 for Alliance '90/The Greens (Grüne), 8,000 had been nonvoters (Nichtwähler), and 9,000 for other parties (Andere). That's 38,000 votes. But AfD received 214,000 votes this time. The other 176,000 couldn't have been past AfD voters because AfD didn't exist at the time of the 2011 election. Am I misinterpreting this infographic? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think I've figured it out. Apparently Hamburg has cumulative voting, in which voters can cast 5 votes. That would account for most of the discrepancy. See http://wahl.tagesschau.de/wahlen/2015-02-15-LT-DE-HH/analyse-wanderung.shtml. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's the difference between votes and voters. There were 1.3 million eligible voters, and a turnout of 57%, for 741000 voters and (modulo undervoting and invalid votes) 3.7 million votes. So the 214000 votes correspond to the 6.1% for the AfD (and to about 42000 voters - close enough if you assume that the numbers of voters are all approximate and rounded to the next 1000, and that votes could even be split between parties). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Levi-Strauss in Praise of Marcel Mauss

§I am looking for a quote where Claude Levi-Strauss praises " The Gift" (1925) by Marcel Mauss and says something like Mauss' work is so great and pioneering that all the works that follow on Exchange/Gift will be like a footnote to Mauss' work.

Kindly help me locate it in Levi-Strauss' French ouvre or any of his English translations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.245.208 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In part 2 of Levi-Strauss's Introdution à l'œuvre de M. Mauss (1950) (text available here), he writes "En effet, et bien que l'Essai sur le don soit, sans contestation possible, le chef-d'oeuvre de Mauss, son ouvrage le plus justement célèbre et celui dont l'influence a été la plus profonde, on commettrait une grave erreur en l'isolant du reste.", which Google Translate gives as "Indeed, although The Gift is, without any doubt, the masterpiece of Mauss, his most justly famous and one whose influence has been most profound, one makes a great mistake in isolating it from the rest." This is really the opposite sentiment from the one in your question, but it may be the quote you're looking for. Tevildo (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That quote doesn't say that The Gift is the last word on the subject of exchanges; it says that it's wrong to think that Mauss's work can be reduced to that single book. --Xuxl (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction in King Lear

There is an incident in King Lear (the actual Shakespeare play's text, not any films or such) about which I am confused. In the very first scene, King Lear states that he wants to divide up his kingdom to each of his three daughters, offering the best piece to the daughter who says she loves him most. But, it seems to be the case that the map was already divided into equal thirds, right from the outset. No? Furthermore, a bit later on in the scene, he gives Goneril a third; then he gives Regan an equal third. Of course, this implies that there is one more "equal third" remaining. But, he says to Cordelia, paraphrased, "Tell me how much you love me in even stronger language, so that I can give you a piece of my kingdom more opulent than what your sisters received." So, I am a bit confused by this. Was the kingdom already divided into pre-determined equal thirds at the outset, before each daughter professed her love? And what about the discrepancy in giving Cordelia more than an equal share, after the other two-thirds are already gone and there is only one more equal third left to give? I am confused. Am I missing something? Or is this just some minor irrelevant detail that Shakespeare was not concerned with? It seems to be the crux of the entire scene (which sister gets what amount dependent upon how strongly she professes her love). So, I can't imagine it's an irrelevant point of minutiae, from the perspective of the playwright. Or is Lear just playing some form of mind games, asking each daughter to out-do the others, when his decision was already pre-determined, rendering their actions moot? Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, here's my take. At the beginning of the play there is a conversation about the king's plans to divide the kingdom. It's implied that it's not settled yet, but that the king is beginning to favour one of the Dukes over the other. The opening lines of the play are: "I thought the King had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall". Glou. "It did always seem so to us; but now, in the division of the kingdom, it appears not which of the Dukes he values most". Note that the conversation is about the Dukes - the males - who are seen as the negotiators, not their wives, Lear's daughters. It's implied that a deal is being done by the men which is intended to be sealed by the ritual declarations of adoration by their wives, but that if those declarations are not fulsome, the King might decide to switch to a different deal. It's about him using his daughters to keep his sons-in-law on tenterhooks. He always indended to give Cordelia the most "opulent" third, which would function as her dowry for her prospective husbands. It's made clear that the uncertainty is only about the division between the two Dukes. In a sense it's about "patriarchal" power (in both the feminist and traditional senses of the word). The women declare their gushing devotion to secure power for their husbands, or in Cordelia's case to secure a husband and demonstrate her servile femininity. But of course that's not how the play pans out. The women are the ones who dominate after Lear gives up his power. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I might add that such a division would never be equal in any straightforward way, since the sheer size of territory has to be set against its productive capacity, trade links, strategic significance, population size etc. The most "opulent" third might be physically smaller than a bigger bit comprising a lot of useless hills and heath. And of course Shakespeare is only following what Geoffrey says happened in King Leir's later life, though he dramatically departs from his historical sources towards the end of the play. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I still don't follow. Yes, I understand the opening lines of the play (the "does the King prefer Cornwall or Albany?" scene). Kent says: "Wow, everyone always thought he preferred one over the other!" Essentially, Gloucester replies: "Yes, that was always the conventional wisdom. But, now, it looks like a very equal split, 50/50, right down the middle." That's how I read that. Also, with Cordelia: the map is already divided; there is only an equal third remaining. No matter how weak or how strong she professes her love, she can only get (at best) that equal third, which is no more or no less than the other two sisters. So, hypothetically, let's say that Cordelia gave a very flowery devotion of love. She should now get the "best" division. But, there is no "best division" left. The equal third is the only third remaining, and hence, the only third to give her. I am still confused. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I I thought I'd already pointed out, there can be no such thing as an "equal" third in practice. The term "third" just refers to one of three parts. Even if the land were equally divided, Cordelia's could still be the more "opulent" third (containing the best land, a thriving seaport, copper mines... or whatever), which is what Lear says. In effect he's saying "now, I've got this last third, which is the most opulent, what are you going to say to me to thank me for it? Are you going to be more gushing than those two, because you really should be. Look at all that juicy farmland." Paul B (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess we are missing each other's point. When I talk about "thirds", I am not necessarily saying that the number of acres is exactly the same in each division. One might be bigger, one might be smaller. Agreed. I guess what I am saying is: there is only one "piece" left, after the first two daughters got their first two pieces. So, regardless of Cordelia's answer, she was going to get that last third piece, no matter what. The size or desirability (or whatever) was never going to change, contingent upon her answer. It was the last piece left. What exactly was she competing for? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

She's not competing. She just has to go along with her father's wishes and gush about what a fantastic guy he is. It's essentially a public ritual. The only competion is a kind of rhetorical one - 'top that, can you?' - which she doesn't want to participate in. Paul B (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I guess. So, the father says, "See if you can top that?" If she did indeed "top" that (her sisters' replies), then Coredlia would get _______ (what?). If she did indeed not "top" that (her sisters' replies), then Coredlia would get _______ (what?). Both of those blanks can be filled in only by the same thing (that last third piece). So, Cordelia's answer is irrelevant. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lear says "Now, our joy,/Although the last, not least....what can you say to draw/A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak." Our article Cordelia (King Lear) matches my memory but does not cite any lines in proof that Cordelia is expressly Lear's favorite. The order seems pre-determined, and the thirds are not larger or smaller, just that last is most opulent, i.e., richer in resources, as has been mentioned by Paul above. μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And to fill in Joseph's blanks, if she complies and gushes about her dad, Cordelia gets the piece of land Lear has set aside for her, and if not, she doesn't receive anything, but the audience can enjoy a great play as a result. --Xuxl (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not answer my question. We know that Cordelia says nothing and receives nothing. My question was not about that extreme end of the spectrum. My question was this. Scenario A: If Coredlia gushes and surpasses the sisters, she gets _____ (what?). Scenario B: If Coredlia offers a fair and mediocre protestation of love (and yet does not surpass the sisters), she gets _____ (what?). Scenario C: If Coredlia says nothing, she gets _____ (what?). So, we know all about Scenario C. So, I was asking about Scenario A versus B. Cordelia offers a response between the two extremes of "gushing" versus "says nothing". What does she receive? The King set up an odd premise. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Lear had a scenario B planned. Either she gushed sufficiently and received the land, or she did not and received nothing. Seeing she would be unable to top her elder sisters, Cordelia chose to say nothing and received nothing. Nothing indicates that King Lear had any finer gradation in his test of his daughters' love. --Xuxl (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Was Jun-Jun Sotto real, and if so did he win?

In 2011 a photo circulated the internet purportedly showing a Filipino election poster for "Jun-Jun Sotto" with the refreshingly honest slogan "I'll do my best but I can't promise anything" (in English). I recently stumbled upon the photo again, and was wondering: Is it real, and if so where is Jun-Jun Sotto now? The photo can be found at: http://i.imgur.com/VOQJtGJ.jpg. Many thanks 80.41.253.91 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

February 18

Why did the Pietists reject the "dead orthodoxy" of Lutheran Orthodoxy?

Eric W Gritsch writes in A History of Lutheranism that the Pietists rejected what they perceived as "dead orthodoxy" of Lutheran Orthodoxy in the early Lutheran church. He describes Lutheran Orthodoxy as getting too theological. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with focusing on the will and the intellect? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You've started with a reference already in hand and are asking us why we would agree with it's interpretation? We don't engage in debate, perhaps someone can point you to a religious chat forum. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The reference is mainly concerned with the history, not theology. And no, I am not asking why you would agree with it's interpretation. I am asking for the reasoning behind Pietism and the social atmosphere at the time that might have contributed to Pietism. It's a history-based question, not an opinion-based question. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think my wording may have been misleading. It does sound a bit whine-y. :P 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it will be much easier to answer if we know you want information on Pietism in that context. Inter/intra-Protestant dialectic will have better specialists than me. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said this? There is no signature! 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add that my main obstacle is trying to visualize pietism. Perhaps, understanding the social atmosphere may help me understand why people thought that way and thus what were the real sentiments behind pietism. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The now signed statement above was me. I think if you realize Lutheranism is very close in form of worship to a reform version of Roman Catholicism not under Rome, the sentence from our article "True Christianity, became widely known and appreciated; Heinrich Müller...described the font, the pulpit, the confessional and the altar as "the four dumb idols of the Lutheran Church". These four dumb idols are symbols of the authority of clergyman. Pietism rejects pomp and ceremony as papist, and emphasizes bible reading and Christian living (presumably virtuous living and charity.) In any case, I am a lapsed Catholic reading this for you. The article seems clear, I suggest you read it and associated links and then ask if you have further specific questions. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh. That's slightly different from what I imagined. I thought pietism had something to do with anti-intellectualism. The A to Z of Lutheranism writes "While it is difficult to generalize Pietism, it seems to be ecumenical, emotional, lay-focused, and interested in institutions only if they are voluntary associations. It opposed Orthodoxy for its overattention to the will and the intellect, seeing it as encouraging a barren and arid assent rather than a living faith. Later, Pietism opposed its own child, Enlightenment rationalism, for its overattention to reason, seeing it as setting skepticism above faith." In my mind, I imagined that as "anti-intellectual", focusing on practical matters instead of on esoteric theological subjects that don't have much to do with reality. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to search "papist" on the two Misplaced Pages articles you linked to, pietism and Johann Arndt, and can't find the word. Can you give a cite where you get the idea it's related to papistry? My readings in the two said books lead me to believe that pietism was an anti-intellectual movement. So, I'm actually quite interested in how it is interpreted as something related to opposition to papistry. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Papistry is just a derogatory term Protestants use to refer to the things about the hierarchical, ceremonial, and theological things about the Catholic church they don't like. It's a bad name, not a thing. I really can't help you any further than the article at this point. μηδείς (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I already know what papistry means, and I already know, from my reading of Martin Luther's biography and early Lutheran history, that Martin Luther was convinced that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupted or "lost the gospel". But the Pietist movement actually occurred after Martin Luther's life, and all sources I've encountered to date does not suggest that the Pietist movement was inherently anti-Catholic. So, that never got into my mind. What I did thought, based on the descriptions, was that Pietism seemed to carry an anti-intellectual flavor, and this tendency to go against the intellect and go for the heart influenced other Christian denominations, including modern-day Evangelicals. Also note that Pietism focuses on ecumenism, and as far as I know of the current Roman Catholic Church, it seems that it does a lot of ecumenical work too. So, Pietism is hardly an anti-Catholic thing. You still need to explain where you get the idea that it has anything to do with anti-Catholicism. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Islam and music

According to this possibly unreliable website and many other Islamic websites, Islamic law forbids music. Music, something so fundamental to humanity that we have flutes as old as the oldest cave paintings. How many percent of Muslims actually buy into this? Have any polls been conducted to see whether it's just an obsession of fundamentalists, or a common belief?

(Forgive my inability to hide my disdain for this barbarism.) --Bowlhover (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:56, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

Please see Islamic music#Permissibility of music.--Shantavira| 09:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems there are more or less four schools of thought: that music is more or less entirely unacceptable to Islam (, for example); that only vocal-only music, or music that only uses vocals and basic percussion, is acceptable (); that music is acceptable as long as it doesn't incite debauchery, indecency or sin (which by some interpretations rules out most popular music) (); and that music is perfectly acceptable (). I can't find any sources regarding how common each view is, and googling the issue produces many results backing up each interpretation. Nasheeds, a form of usually vocal music, seem to be widely considered acceptable at least - according to this article, "most Islamic scholars now say nasheeds are acceptable, especially during wartime." It also points out that ISIS now has a nasheed associated with it as its "anthem," and that Osama bin Laden started a nasheed group as a teenager. So it seems that very few modern Muslims feel that all music is forbidden. A related topic that may be of interest to you is dancing bans, which have historically been common not just in Islam but in Christianity and Judaism as well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

IMDB hss no release dates for Footloose in any Muslim nation. They call it Yasak dans in Turkey, though, and Egypt and the UAE got the 2011 remake just a few weeks late. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:26, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

Fundamentalists do all sorts of stupid things (in any religion) and it doesn't usually affect regular people. I would say approximately 0% of Muslims "buy into" this supposed prohibition. Aside from the Islamic music article above, we also have Arabic music, and "Music of (country)" articles (Music of Egypt, Music of Saudi Arabia, etc). The music industry of the Arab world alone is huge. There is music of every genre you can think of and several more you've probably never imagined. I mean...what else can be said here? Go to YouTube and check out some Egyptian pop music or whatever. I find it difficult to believe this is even a serious question, given the parenthetical aside... Adam Bishop (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hussam "Flipperachi" Aseem starts his generic (but shiny) rap video with Ford product placement. Some true blue-chip Western decadence, with a vaguely Puerto Rican sound. Of course, he's a certified outlaw. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Bahrain isn't represented in the Arabic hip hop article. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:01, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

U.S Constitution

Hi everyone. I am from England so I know very little about this subject as we are not taught it at school! I am having a debate with an American friend over the ideology surrounding the U.S Constitution. So here is my question:

Was the U.S constitution of 1787 a 'conservative' document, or is it liberal? Thank you! --Clickrsona (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Define "conservative" and "liberal". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A generalized response: it tried to "balance" between both. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The US "revolution" was conservative in that it largely tried (and managed) to maintain the societal status quo. A lot of the rhetoric at the time spun around the "ancient rights of Englishmen" that King George (and Parliament) violated and that needed to be restored. But the written constitution and especially the Bill of Rights was heavily influenced by the climate of Enlightenment, and hence liberal in the original sense - separation of church and state, protections against government interference, codified rights of the individual, and so on, were all fairy progressive ideas. It is, however, a frequent misunderstanding that the US constitution is somehow static and sacrosanct. While the document only changes rarely, the interpretation is much more fluent with the Zeitgeist. Dred Scott v. Sandford or Schenck v. United States would not be decided now as they had been back then. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I see that, but it's a pretty tough sell to claim that establishment of a new sovereign nation by armed revolt is an overall appeal to maintain the status quo ... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, these words mean different things in different contexts, and also change through time. My understanding is that the document in question is largely rooted in the ideals of Classical_liberalism, which was being developed relatively concurrently. You'll need to read the article carefully to see how those concepts are different from some of the concepts of modern liberals in the USA and UK. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Clickrsona -- Charles A. Beard famously claimed that the U.S. constitution was written to serve the economic interests of the upper classes, launching a decades-long debate, but I'm not sure that too much survives of his "economic interpretation", except for the fact that the constitution is more creditor-friendly than debtor-friendly (providing for national bankruptcy laws) and eliminates various obstacles to trade (no interstate tariffs, no export tariffs etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You miss the point. "Protected industries" will charge more for the products they make. The ultimate goal of an economy is not to make money. It's to provide "stuff". If stuff is cheaper to make elsewhere, find some stuff you can make cheaper than the other economic partner and exchange goods. Even if you both have absolutely the same environment and resources, it still will be better to specialise due to economy of scale, at least in a perfect market with commodity goods. Things change if transport is expensive, but then you need protectionism even less. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your question really does depend on what you mean by conservative and liberal. Also, you have specified the Constitution as it stood in 1787, before the addition of the Bill of Rights. In today's terms, that document, which assured little in the way of rights for citizens and which enshrined slavery, was profoundly conservative, indeed reactionary. But it doesn't make sense to measure a historic document by present-day standards. In its day, its opponents accused the original Constitution of being illiberal and conservative, in that it gave too much power to the government and did not guarantee the rights of individuals. Also, the Constitution created a powerful presidency that opponents found monarchical and therefore conservative. Under the previous constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, the federal government did not have a strong executive and required agreement from a majority, and sometimes a supermajority, of state governments before it could take action. So, in its immediate and local historical context, the Constitution was a moderately conservative document. However, in the larger context of Western history, and by comparison with the political systems of other countries at the time, the Constitution was an almost radically liberal document in subjecting government to democratic control and in checking the powers of the executive. Marco polo (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

shivraj singh chouhan cm of mp

he is not from a rajput family because rajput comes in general category, rajput comes in upper caste and shivraj singh chouhan comes in OBC category.Infact the people from sehore,budhni,hoshangabad who write singh chouhan as their sirname they all take scholarship of OBC category.They are not thakur or rajput people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.252.35.166 (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This would be better on Talk:Shivraj Singh Chouhan. The statement currently in the article that Chouhan is "Belonging to Kirar Rajput community" is uncited, and therefore can be removed per WP:BLP. But discussion on the article talk page is required. Tevildo (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

House price increases

What causes house prices to increase?—Wavelength (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, besides inflation, it would also be the lack of enough housing, making them more valuable. Bear in mind, though, that housing prices also decrease sometimes. You might as well be asking about why the price of bananas was higher than it was twenty years ago. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

To expand on "lack of available housing", this could be due to many causes:

1) People moving into the area faster than more homes can be built.

2) Destruction of many homes from some catastrophe, such as a fire, earthquake, or war.

3) A higher birth rate than can be accommodated.

4) Communism. This often had houses provided at lower price than they cost to build, which meant the government could only afford to build a few. So, after communism ends, there is a building boom to make up for the housing shortage. Until the housing demand is met, prices will remain high.

5) Limited geographic space. In some locations, like Singapore, there is very little room to build more houses.

6) In other places, there may be room, but building might not be permitted (maybe it's in a national park area, for example).

The other side of the equation is that people might have more money as a result of a growing economy, and thus be willing to spend more to get a good house. This will tend to increase all housing prices, but particularly the high end homes. Ironically, when the economy is down, this might actually increase the price of budget homes, as people downsize and a shortage in that market emerges. StuRat (talk)

• We have a pretty good article on the Housing market. It is much better than any response anyone here can type up in five minutes. I suggest you read that article carefully and come back with any more specific questions. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk