Revision as of 19:07, 11 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 6

HR/communication strategies

Hello! I am currently doing self-studies of communication, particularly human relations and business communication with the purpose of developing my own business and network of contacts. I would like to know if there are some books or other literature that could provide advice on these topics? Also, I remember having read about a theory/strategy, particularly effective in building trust and relationships that involves trying to adapt to the personality of the person you are communicating with, and over time, as your understanding and acquaintance with the person develops, you begin to subtly use "their" kind of humor, language, and other personality traits. I don't know the name of this kind of strategy, perhaps you could help me out with finding the name? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.248.18 (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean Human Resources when you say "human relations"?--Phil Holmes (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The "theory/strategy" described here brings to mind How to Win Friends and Influence People. ZMBrak (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are some oft-recommended books on networking and communication: The Best Books to Boost Your Career in 2013, Top 10 Networking Books for Your Career Success, Top 20 Best Books on Communication and Listening. The strategy sounds like Mirroring (psychology), though that is described as unconscious.184.147.116.102 (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Arearea - Paul Gauguin

Back in the mid-1980s on a trip to Tahiti we bought a reproduction of a Gauguin painting from the Paul Gauguin Museum (Tahiti). It looks exactly like the original (pictured), down to "Arearea" in right lower corner. There is nothing in the way of any marking on the back of the wooded frame it is mounted onto. The painting is on wood, not canvas. The size is about 14 inches high and 18 inches wide. If one were to guess, would there be any significant value to the 30 year old reproduction (that looks exactly like this Commons picture)?--Doug Coldwell (talk)

As a start, these people are selling reproductions (on canvas, I think, not wood) for several hundred US dollars; the smallest (closest to your size) is listed at $225.184.147.116.102 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

By "reproduction" do you mean a painted copy or a printed reproduction from a photograph of the original? Paul B (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It is NOT a painted copy, but more of a printed reproduction that is on wood.--17:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You seemed to be so keen to point out that it "looks exactly like the original" I thought it may have been a painting, since there's nothing very surprising about a photograph looking exactly like the original! As for what it's worth, that depends on the quality of the reproduction and the durability of the materials. It might just fetch something comparable to the prints linked by the ip. Paul B (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds right to me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bottom picture is my reproduction. It sure does look like a printed reproduction from a photograph of the original done on wood, however they printed the picture on wood. Must be a special printer.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Simplest current method is to print on transfer paper (even on an inkjet) then transfer to a smooth wood surface. Sort of like a t-shirt. Collect (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say my questions got answered all the way around. Thanks all.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Since a Gauguin painting sold for record sum of almost $300 Million recently, perhaps I'll ask for a little more than $200 for my reproduction.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The price of the original and reproduction are not necessarily related. Indeed, an extremely valuable original may have many copies, making each copy less valuable. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Monsters and demons

I just encountered the Utility monster concept for the first time. What's the difference between this monster and a demon, i.e. why isn't it a "utility demon"? Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Monster" generally implies unusually large size or other measurement, and/or unnatural appearance and so on, but not necessarily malevolence and not usually exceeding the laws of nature. "Demon" generally implies active evilness stemming from the Devil or similar supernatural concepts, and in the philosophical sense usually indicates something not thought to have the possibility of actually existing, and thus outside of the laws of nature. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny, my first thought regarding the good/evil of monster vs. demon was the exact opposite. See links below :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it just at the namer's prerogative? I don't think there's any mathematical,physical, or philosophical baggage here. Schrodinger's cat could have been Schrodinger's ox (or dog, etc). Maxwell's demon could have been an imp or a daeva, no? And the invisible pink unicorn could have been Russel's teapot. These aren't like the Brownian_ratchet, where the noun part helps clarify the thought experiment by means of analogy. This is all interesting and fun stuff, but I'll be surprised if anyone can find a good referenced answer that's anything other than "accident of history and personal choice". If you're interested in this sort of demon/monster, I recommend The_Cyberiad, that features a few different types. Also I'll be adding Darwinian_Demon to that list shortly. Really, I'll probably add "utility monster" too. These thought experiements don't invoke any demonic hierarchy or properties, just some mythical thing with agency. Recall also that demons are classically value neutral, e.g. (Agathodaemon, cacodemon, Eudaimonia, daemon, etc.), so perhaps "monster" was chosen to make it clear that the utility monster is bad (in the eyes of the creator), whereas Maxwell's demon is not really good or evil. (Now I want to start calling the invisible hand the "market demon" :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The utility monster is not bad. It just is monstrous. Indeed, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, the monster is good - a society that has it and feeds it has a much greater total utility than one that does not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. I guess the monster itself is just neutral, but I thought the idea was that the thought experiment makes extreme/pure Utilitarianism look bad, because an extreme Utilitarian would then rationally kill everybody but the monster. That sounds bad to me... SemanticMantis (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Per SemanticMantis, there isn't any international governing board which has decided how the nomenclature of thought experiments and which adjudicates violations thereof. Someone gets an idea, and gives it a cute little name, and that's about it. The fact that some people chose "demon" or "monster" or "cat" or whatever for their little critter that does their little thought experiment is an accident of history, and not because there's some set of rules which decides what these things ought to be called. --Jayron32 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. I just wondered if there might be some sort of conventional difference between "monster" and "demon" in this context. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I can think of examples of both good monsters and good demons. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The utility monster was thought up in 1974. Sesame Street debuted in 1969. The utility-monster thought experiment (according to our article) alludes to the pleasure derived from eating a cookie. I'm sure that Nozick had Cookie Monster in mind when naming the U. M. Deor (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Utility monster?... Any relation to Utility infielder? Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. This 'utility monster' concept seems awfully specious. I mean, common sense is that any pleasurable activity creates far more pleasure at some times than at others. To eat food when hungry rather than when feeling nauseous, etc. It follows that those in the most desperate need are the 'utility monster' that deserve spare resources, and that beyond this point, the greatest utility is provided by allowing people the right to resources that they can take when they like, thereby making their own utility monster-balancing choices by selecting to use them when they feel the most desire for them. The effect should be largely though not entirely egalitarian, precisely the opposite of the suggestion given. The article makes it sound like it is an insoluble philosophical problem when it seems trivially obvious. What's up with that? Wnt (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What's up with that is there's an awesome, rich, and wide open place where discussions like you are trying to start here can happen, and it's called the entire rest of the internet. This board is not an open discussion forum for people to debate, discuss, or defend the merits of anything. There's millions of people in the world who will feed your need to do this, and they hang out in many thousands of other places, just not here. --Jayron32 23:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

My Pet Monster got way more out of eating garbage than anyone else on his block. He'll even eat the can. They say Beastor was a monster, but I thought demon. Always travelling between worlds and stirring things up. That's where I draw the line. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

There sure aren't millions of people here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Château Gaillard

Richard the Lionheart, the man responsible for building Château Gaillard, constructed it apparently in 1196, 1197, and 1198. Is there anywhere a constructing starting date and finished date?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The French wikipedia article on Walter de Coutances fr:Gautier de Coutances, who owned Andelys, says construction started shortly after Walter's return to Rouen in July 1196. This is sourced to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. My instutition has a subscription so I looked; the actual sentences are:

In January 1196, as part of the treaty of Louviers, the two kings tried to curb Coutances's freedom of action by making his manor of Les Andelys, strategically located on the Seine above Rouen, neutral ground subject to neither ruler. They made Les Andelys collateral for the archbishop's good conduct, subject to forfeiture if he excommunicated them or their officials or placed interdicts on their territories. Coutances fled to Cambrai, and he did not return to Rouen until July. Another conflict with Richard I soon arose over Les Andelys, once the king began construction of Château Gaillard on the archbishop's manor. The archbishop placed Normandy under an interdict and left for Rome in November 1196. Pope Celestine III (r. 1191–8) issued a ruling on 20 April 1197 that since construction of the castle was essential for Normandy's security, Coutances should accept an exchange of land with the king. On 16 October, Richard and Coutances agreed to an exchange that gave the archbishop the port of Dieppe and other territories, producing an annual income of nearly 2000 angevin pounds.

Contradicting this, this book by Achille Deville suggests construction started before July, saying that it was already underway when Walter returned to Rouen and complained. (page 11) Deville says Walter wrote his friend Ralph de Diceto about it, and this letter is published in Ralph's Ymagines Historiarum. I do not have access to that book, but you could ask at Misplaced Pages:RX if anyone does (see ) and can get a date on the letter.

All I have for the end is that Deville says (page 39) construction took only a year.184.147.116.102 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Ymagines Historiarum is on archive.org and that letter is on pg 148. It's in Latin but it doesn't have any dates pertaining to the castle (only that Walter was going to Rome for November 7, 1196, so obviously the letter was written before that). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I never thought of archive.org, thanks!184.147.116.102 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment to I.P. 184.147.116.102 ; Our article says; The castle was expensive to build, but the majority of the work was done in an unusually short time. It took just two years,... Our article later on also says, However, the work at Château Gaillard cost an estimated £15,000 to £20,000 between 1196 and 1198. = any more references on this?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

French wikipedia says it cost 45,000 livres, equivalent to the annual salary of 7,000 infantrymen. Unfortunately they don't use inline citations much, but I find the same figure in a French government document and in this book .184.147.116.102 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. That same government pdf also gives these dates: "The construction was resolved on in 1196, began in 1197 and completed in 1198."184.147.116.102 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Now I am getting a better picture of the construction period = it looks like it was on and off over a 3 year period.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment to I.P. 184.147.116.102 ; The more I look into this, it appears from various sources that they do in fact say it was built in 1 year. Apparently as many as 10,000 men were used in the construction, as this source shows.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam, you come up with the neatest stuff. Looking at the Flickr pictures of the castle it shows the walls as curved sections, rather than a flat wall. Apparently this was as a defense as the enemy's arrows would just bounce off and be diverted because of the curve. The curved walls then had little eye holes in them to shoot through, correct?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It would probably have arrow loops, yeah. I don't see any in the Flickr pictures, but it is ruins...actually it looks kind of like an early concentric castle, maybe influenced by what Richard saw in the east. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see the article says the same thing, heh... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Adam = you're a champ!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Just one more question: So, would there be a market inside this castle where people bought and sold items, like say our today's farmer's market? Would chickens be one of the items sold?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think if there was a market it would be in the town beside the castle, Les Andelys. There is a legal difference between a plain old town and a market town in the Middle Ages though. Les Andelys seems to have been a market town, but I don't know if it always ways or if it became one later. There should be a town charter out there somewhere that will tell us... Adam Bishop (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And in this market town (that I believe you will find as so at the time the castle was constructed) they sold chickens, oui?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Would there have been haggling going on for the various products during all 12 months? Let me know if you stumble onto a source for this - thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I would guess yes both for chickens and haggling, but I don't know if we can ever say for sure! Adam Bishop (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like that Matthew Paris would have known all about Château Gaillard according to these sources. Perhaps he knows more on this market town of Les Andelys. I didn't find anything more in Google Books.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume that this is where the 10,000 laborers lived that constructed the castle, on and off over a 3 year period. Apparently the main part of the construction of the castle was done in the first year.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am especially interested in which work(s) that Matthew Paris would have talked about Château Gaillard.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a holocaust denialist, nor a believer in conspiracy theory

But if it takes 2 hours to cremate a body, and there were millions and millions of victims to be cremated, how would this be logistically possible? Add to it that energy, in any form, gets scarce in an energy impoverished war zone. --Noopolo (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the basis for your premises? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

He's not a holocaust denialist, nor a believer in conspiracy theories, he just plays one on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a question. How is it technically possible to cremate millions and millions of bodies? The 2 hours bit can be corroborated by many sources like funeral companies and howstuffwork web-site. Noopolo (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not in the mood to go to looking up reference to this, but in-part. The Nazis developed crematoria where the corpses themselves became fuel to combust the corpses that followed, hence they required very little addition fuel. Deutsche technik! Then they built lots of them, which then ran 24/7.--Aspro (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is a page that addresses the issue. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, that's part 2 of 2. I should have linked to part 1, here, as well. And here's a higher-level page on the same site that addresses various claims by denialists. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If it takes 2 hours to cremate one body, does it take 200 hours to cremate 100? No, it doesn't, unless you are silly and do things one at a time. Our article on the Holocaust is very long, contains over 400 citations, and a separate bibliography. The_Holocaust#New_methods_of_mass_murder might be a place to start. There's lots of information there on the logistics of genocide. Search for "bodies" to find the bits most relevant. Here's what I found at a quick skim: One of the facilities could cremate 10k per day. Not all of the victims were cremated, many were forced to dig their own graves. Sometimes extant mass graves were dug up, so that bodies could be cremated. This was done in an attempt to hide the evidence of the horrible deed.

Part of why the Holocaust is so chilling is that there were lots of very clever people whose will was bent on quickly and efficiently disposing of human beings. They got fairly efficient at it. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, an analysis of the gas vans' performance suggest that they would have been more efficient than the concentration camps were. One of the reasons that gas vans were not used more widely is that the drivers were not able to cope with the psychological stresses involved. Some years ago I performed an analysis on the relative efficiency of the Holocaust, and was surprised to discover that it could have been made much more efficient. My personal suspicion (for which I have only indirect, statistical evidence) is that although there certainly were a large number of Germans who fully accepted the tasks they performed there may also have been a great many other Germans who, though they by and large did not speak up against the Holocaust, found ways to impede it or avoid participation. RomanSpa (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

On the basic question of logistics raised above, the answer is that although the Holocaust was a large-scale operation it was performed over a period of several years. Consider a highly simplified process involving only tipper truck (dump truck) gas vans: using only 50 gas vans running twice a day for 1,000 days, and with 50 victims per trip, it is possible to kill 5,000,000 people. The logistics of running such a fleet are fairly straightforward: a team of (say) ten fully-armed men per van, to give a total staffing of 500, plus a couple of managers to arrange timetables and a couple of administrators to monitor locations of the mass graves. Each victim makes two trips: in the first, he is in a "work detail", digging a mass grave burial pit; then he is loaded back into the truck and told he is going to his next job; in fact, he is gassed and dumped into the next available grave. The total process has a death rate of 5,000 per day, and largely provides its own resources, since the main ongoing process task is grave-digging, which can be performed by the victims themselves. A competent junior minister could run and complete the entire process in 3 years with a total team of well below 600 full-time staff.

In fact, my assumptions above are conservative. In particular, vans with a capacity of 70-100 people were built and delivered, and it would have been relatively straightforward to build and run even larger capacity vehicles.

Further, note that this approach leaves few traces, is resource-efficient, and requires no diversion of infrastructure away from the war effort. The Holocaust, as performed, was inefficient in its use of resources and time.

For the Holocaust as implemented, the logistics were necessarily more complicated, but not intolerably so. The principal challenges are three-fold: the fuelling of the cremation operation, the construction of the sites, and the logistics of moving large numbers of people by train. The references above clearly show that the fuelling issue was solved. Site construction was of approximately the same level of complexity as the construction of an army camp, and thus would be only a small fraction of GDP compared to the total war effort, and the management of transport would be straightforward in a train system that was already handling large numbers of troop trains and was on a war footing. Because of the relative inefficiency of the system adopted, staffing requirements were larger than in the theoretical case I outlined above, but the total staffing requirement would still be low compared to that of the military. A central problem, which is documented in several places, is morale; I'm unable to comment on this. However, my general answer to the original question is this: Although it's legitimate to ask how the Holocaust was managed, is is certain that it did happen, and there is certainly no managerial or logistical reason to suppose that it didn't. RomanSpa (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, for whom or what were you performing an optimization analysis of the holocaust? Noopolo (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Noopolo could come back on this. I'm thinking that he (in peace-time) finds difficult to get one's head around a war economy where 50% of the GNP is diverted to war. Resources for these atrocities are not a big segment of such pie-chart (compared to producing armaments and munition, uniforms, weapon R&D etc.) and so are easily accomplished, with a slave labor force – unfortunately.--Aspro (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not only the resource fuel to fire up an oven, but the time it takes. Anyway, this seems debunked as holocaust denial theory. Noopolo (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I remember reading that the Nazis were also big fans of quicklime, disposing of many corpses in trenches. Indeed, gas van suggests that these were usually used on the way to the grave site. But I don't see a top-level resource for identifying Holocaust mass graves on Misplaced Pages. An article like Popricani gives an impression there were just two, holding hundreds, in all of Romania. I'd really like to see someone fill in the gaps here. Wnt (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Lord Russell of Liverpool reported this in his book "Scourge of the Swastika". RomanSpa (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact when the Germans revisited their early mass graves from 1943 onwards, and using Jewish forced labour, excavated the buried corpses and incinerated them in large pyres. However, modern techniques have recently (2012) located mass graves at the Treblinka camp. Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

About energy usage and cremation: It takes a lot of energy to cremate a single body quickly. This is because this energy is needed at the start, to boil the water out. After that, the body actually burns from it's own energy, by burning fat. However, a single body can be burned slowly, using very little energy. This is the cause of the so-called "spontaneous human combustion", which actually does require an ignition source, such as a lit cigarette. That, combined with the clothing, gets the fat burning in a small area, which provides just enough energy to slowly evaporate (not boil) off the water. After many hours most of the body is gone, except for the low fat areas (feet and maybe hands).

Now for burning many bodies efficiently. Here the large amount of energy released from burning the earlier bodies goes into driving off the water in the new bodies. In this way, much like the "spontaneous human combustion" example, very little energy is needed, just a bit to get the process started. StuRat (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

February 7

1883 VA House of Delegates

Can anybody help me confirm the name of the Virginia State Delegate who preceded John W. Lawson. It's currently (as of September 2013) listed at the John W. Lawson article (without a source) as "Irwin Duck". I wonder whether this is accurate or whether this is a joke reference to Irwin the Disco Duck. I don't know one way or the other so it could just be a coincidence. I did a little searching, but I didn't find much... I'll be busy for the next few hours but I didn't want to leave this fact unverified. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

According to this it was Irvin W. Duck (note the spelling of his given name). Deor (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah excellent work, Deor! Thank you. I've amended the article and added the source. -Thibbs (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Christian monasticism was/wasn't borrowed from Buddhism?

It is generally recognised that, via Greco-Buddhism, the Silk Route and the Spice route, Buddhism has been present throughout asia minor, and in in places such as ancient greece, with established buddhist monasteries in Parthia and present the Pre-christian Roman World. Three decades ago, I was privileged to hear the musings of a well-known German Cistercian monk who had spent time talking with a Tibetan monk about monastic life, and they were both surprised at the similaritie - down to sharing many 'house rules' - even though their culture and religions were so distinct. Have there been any published works that suggest the possibility that Christians 'borrowed' Buddhist monasticism, or that have discussed it? It occurs to me that it was possible that some Christian monastics could have been converted Buddhists (20040302 (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC))

Just to provide a counter argument, ascetism was well known in the Jewish world during the formative years of Christianity, see Essenes. John the Baptist practiced an ascetic lifestyle, leading a life of poverty, hermitism, and ministry that formed aspects of later Christian monasticism. You should read Christian monasticism before 451 which covers some of the early history of Christian monasticism, traditionally tied to the life of Saint Anthony, and the Desert Fathers. It is true that there was contact between Christians and Eastern faiths (Buddhism and Hinduism, for example) especially in places where Christianity spread eastward (the Nestorians, the Saint Thomas Christians). However, these were not Christian groups that had a lot of contact with (or influence on) the sort of Monasticism that developed in the more Western strains of Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and Roman Catholic traditions primarily). Your hypothesis is interesting, but given that a) Jewish sects living in the time and place of the formative years of Christianity and practices later mirrored by the first Christian monastic communities and b) The first recognized Christian monastic communities did not form in places known for significant Buddhist influence, the most straightforward explanation is that the practices of Christian monasticism came from the Jewish traditions that Christianity grew up near. --Jayron32 22:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There is evidence, though I can't remember the source, that solitary worshippers of the Horned God existed in Celtic areas in pre-Christian times, effectively living as hermits (presumably because of the requirement to avoid all contact with females). This is also practised in the present day, though I imagine this is a revived, rather than a continuous, tradition. RomanSpa (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

But how old are these Jewish ascetic traditions themselves, in turn? You cannot simply assume by default that any Jewish tradition is native and old. That would be a serious fallacy. Shortly before the rise of Christianity, Jewish culture was heavily affected by Hellenistic culture, and monastic traditions could have been borrowed via Hellenistic culture and Judaism into Christianity. (Christianity was itself a kind of syncretism of Jewish religious traditions with a significant number of Hellenistic elements, after all, and Christian monasticism arose in a heavily Hellenised environment in the Near East, especially Egypt.) See Buddhist influences on Christianity, where Greco-Buddhist monasticism is pointed to. I agree, however, with the difficulty of excluding parallel development. Especially the close similarities implied would be stunning after all this time, space and cultural differences to be bridged. You'd expect that more differences would have arisen. So I can't help but wonder how many of those rules are so similar because they are simply sensible for a monastic community to have, because they are good solutions – pure parallel evolution. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

To your first point, nothing is native. Human culture borrows and adapts from contact with other cultures. You're running into a chicken-and-egg issue. Ultimately, it depends on whether one is asking for the proximate influence (that is, what cultures directly influenced Christian culture in the development of monasticism) and ultimate influence (which is likely unknowable, ascetic traditions probably exist within all cultures, and as you note, may have developed in parallel and without influence in some cases.) --Jayron32 13:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

20040302 -- Clement of Alexandria once mentioned the name "Boutta" in passing, the story of Barlaam and Josaphat certainly came from a Buddhist source; and there has long been scholarly speculation that certain techniques and "styles" of asceticism in eastern Mediterranean cultures of classical antiquity were due to remote/indirect diffusion of originally Hindu and/or Buddhist practices. However, it may be stretching things too far to try to connect details of monastic discipline between Buddhism and Christianity. Organized monasticism in Christianity originated from a slow process of gathering originally solitary ascetics and hermits into groups. We have an article Buddhist influences on Christianity (which very oddly doesn't even mention "Barlaam and Josaphat" one of the most obvious influences). AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

February 8

What's the longest municipal bus route? Longest one under $3?

I know of a mundane municipal bus route that goes to a different metro area (still the same metro area in a loose sense). It's 60 road and 50 air miles one way and some trips are scheduled at 2:20 long (despite being an express). What can beat that? Is it at least a record for the price or miles per dollar? ($2.50, 24 miles per dollar). I know how longer municipal buses are often more like $5. 205.197.242.149 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you by any chance in a twin city, like Minneapolis-St. Paul ? That would be the logical place for long bus routes, unless each twin has it's own system and they don't cooperate. Then I suppose there are cities that are just huge, like Los Angeles, New York City, and Toronto (I limited my list to the US and Canada, since you used dollars). StuRat (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Minneapolis and St. Paul are adjacent and are part of the same "Metro Area" (along with various suburbs). A more promising example could be Dallas and Fort Worth, two pretty large cities that are at least an hour away from each other. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Google says they're 35 minutes. Google also says DC is only 40 miles from Baltimore, Houston to the sea is 51 miles, Chicago to Wisconsin is only 53 miles, the Golden Gate Bridge is only 56.3 miles from San Jose (the far end of the bay), and the enormous LA metro area is barely 60 miles from Downtown LA to the far end (all car miles). 205.197.242.149 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Toronto isn't really that big...the extended metro area is, and there is separate transit system for that, but it's run by the province, not any one city. For Toronto itself, here is a list of the longest transit routes - the longest is about 54 km, round trip. I don't think you can cross the whole city on one bus though. You can ride the entire subway system for one fare (easy enough since there are only 2 main lines). TTC fare is currently $3. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That's still run by a government though, and doesn't leave the extended metro. But maybe you can't go 96-97 km around Toronto on one bus either. (or 193 km round trip). 205.197.242.149 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Toronto, first, even after the amalgamation of 1998 the city is only about 25 miles (40 km) wide. The TTC's single $3 fare covers any distance within the city plus the airport just outside, but does not extend any further, and as Adam says, there aren't any single routes that long anyway. The "separate transit system run by the province", GO Transit, does not use a flat fare and primarily consists of buses that run express (via freeways) for part of their route, so it isn't the "mundane municipal buses" that the original poster asked about. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell us which one you're already familiar with so that we don't give you information you already have? Dismas| 02:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The city with the Pro Football Hall of Fame has a bus that drives on I-77 for 60 miles. It goes to Cleveland. They also have a shorter one to Akron. If my city was as run down as Canton but had the PFHoF I might make it cheap for 3 million out-of-towners to go spend money there too. 205.197.242.149 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• If length is determined by time on the bus, then places with terrible traffic would be high on the list. Before they installed dedicated bus lanes, most routes in Jakarta would take several hours to go from one end to the other. Even now it can be like that in Yogyakarta, where I live. And if you're looking into price... tickets for both cities' busses are less than 50 cents. I'd expect similar stories to be found in many developing nations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if developing countries come out on top whether you count time or distance. $3 (I presume we're talking about USD) may seem a moderate or even low fare in a number of developed countries. $3 would often be less than the maximum fare possible in developing countries. So all you really need to do is find a route that is long enough and fits whatever other requirements the OP imposed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

205.197.242.149, bear in mind that some municipalities are vastly bigger than others, due to different approaches to municipal government from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some cities in China are huge on anybody's standards; Chongqing has an area of 31,816 square miles, the size of South Carolina. You also ought to consider the local government areas of Australia, which aren't exactly comparable to anything in the USA, although roughly analogous to the towns of New England. The Shire of East Pilbara is the size of Norway, and while it's a sparsely populated chunk of outback that probably wouldn't have long-distance bus routes from town to town, you'd need to check into other massive LGAs. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The question made me think of the Crimean Trolleybus and similar, but I have no idea whether it has characteristics more like a "mundane municipal bus" or is more like a long-distance bus that happens to use electric power. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Google Maps, the 388 bus between Santa Cruz, Rio de Janeiro and Centro, Rio de Janeiro takes about four and a half hours and costs R$3 (it would be long, but I'm not 100% convinced on that duration). Hack (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

At one point, the Southern California Rapid Transit District ran a local bus service from downtown L.A. to Riverside (60 miles by shortest road route, and I'm sure the actual bus route significantly longer), and if you were traveling Greyhound but didn't buy your ticket booked all the way through in advance, then due to arcane legal restrictions Greyhound was not allowed to sell you a ticket for an LA to Riverside journey, so you were shunted off to this bus. That happened to me once, and I vowed never again... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Measurement of complete literary works

What official standard(s) exist(s) for measuring the complete literary works of a writer? (I am including both prose and poetry, as well as both non-fiction and fiction.) For example, is the number of typographical characters, or the number of words, or the number of lines important?
—Wavelength (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Number of words would be the usual measure of total output, though I haven't seen it used much. A word of poetry would normally be considered to be of much greater value than a word in a novel, since the best poets might have spent hours choosing it. Dbfirs 08:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Books published.
Sleigh (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Measurement of complete musical works

What official standard(s) exist(s) for measuring the complete musical works of a composer? For example, is the number of notes, or the number of musical measures (bars), or the number of pages important?
—Wavelength (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this where Opus number comes in? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but opera vary in length. I don't think there is an accepted measure of musical output. Perhaps just hours, but this will vary with performance preferences. Dbfirs 08:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

See Catalogues of classical compositions#Opus numbers for some reasons why opus numbers will not do. Fwiw, I've never heard of any standard way of "measuring" the complete works of a composer. They're simply listed in various catalogues. -- Jack of Oz 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Are Christmas and Easter the two most important holidays in Christianity?

Are Christmas and Easter the two most important holidays in Christianity? Although I have heard people say that they celebrate Christmas and Easter with their families, I am not sure if they are the only holidays that are significant. Also, what does it really mean when one says that they only celebrate Christmas and Easter, and not Reformation Day or All Saints' Day or the day of your patron saint or Martin Luther's birthday? Are all those other holidays less worthy or significant? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Easter Sunday has to do with resurrection, which is a core belief of Christianity. Christmas is a way of honoring Jesus' birth. I couldn't even tell you when Martin Luther's birthday is, and I'm a Protestant who never heard of Reformation Day until now. All Saints' Day is the day after Halloween, and is no big deal. Anything to do with "saints" in general is going to be confined to denominations which regard sainthood as important. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Good Friday, Ascension Day and Pentecost are the other major theologically important holidays but are not celebrated as Easter and Christmas. Rmhermen (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

True, and of course all three are tied directly to the Resurrection. Good Friday is a day off in some companies, and not necessarily those that have any religious connection. And these all have directly to do with Jesus. Holidays to do with "saints" are relatively marginalized. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That depends on where you live. In Latin American countries, a patron saint's day is considered more important than one's own birthday. So, while Americans would celebrate their birthdays, a person from somewhere in Latin America would celebrate the patron saint's day. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

All Saints' Day is the day after Halloween, Bugs? I'd prefer to say that Halloween is the day before All Saints' Day. That is, after all, the origin of the name. -- Jack of Oz 10:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That works too. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Martin Luther King's birthday is, of course, approximately the same day as Martin Luther King Day, which you probably remember as that holiday a couple of weeks ago. (The actual day is January 15). All Saints' Day isn't a big deal in North American, but it is a holiday in France and presumably other parts of Europe. In France it also marks the end of a mid-term school holiday. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Martin Luther's birthday (Nov 10, 1483). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh! That guy. Yeah he's important too, I guess... Adam Bishop (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The term "C & E Christians" would suggest that they are the two most important. A C&E Christian is a term for people who only attend church services on Christmas and Easter but not at any other time of the year. Dismas| 08:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

When I was a kid in 1950s southern England the only holidays my dad got (apart from two weeks' holiday and weekends) were Christmas Day, Boxing Day and Good Friday. Easter Day, being a Sunday, was not an extra but we did celebrate it at church and home. Easter Day was the most important religious festival. Thincat (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your memory is a little faulty User:Thincat; the Bank Holidays Act 1871 gave us Easter Monday; Whit Monday; the first Monday in August and Boxing Day (Christmas Day and Good Friday were already customary holidays and not included). If your dad was required to work on any of those days, he would have been entitled to time off "in lieu". Alansplodge (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, well. I suppose it's my memory. That's the problem when you start forgetting your memory is faulty! Thincat (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Christmas's popularity as a holiday has waxed and waned. It's generally not quite as big a deal outside the Anglosphere; also notably the Orthodox churches still use the Julian calendar for liturgical purposes, meaning they celebrate it on a different date. Its modern popularity is in large part due to its rise as a secular holiday. As our Christmas article states, the Puritans in both England and New England banned its celebration for some time, as they regarded it as a "Popish" holiday. Easter on the other hand has pretty much always been a significant Christian holiday, as it centers around the resurrection of Christ, which is a central Christian belief. --71.104.75.148 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Many Protestants (but not Anglicans or Lutherans) rejected the idea of the traditional liturgical year in which the pattern of Christ's life is followed by a calender of liturgical feasts and fasts. Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists and others therefore did not celebrate Christmas, and Easter and Pentecost were regarded as just normal Sundays. This view has softened during the 20th century, but my mother can remember when Christmas Day was a normal working day in Presbyterian dominated Scotland. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the reason for the rejection of the liturgical year by Presbyterians? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, I remember visiting a United Church of Christ church and talking with one of the members. I mentioned the word "Advent", and the guy had a confused expression on his face for a moment and replaced "Advent" with "Christmas". Well, Advent is not really Christmas, but it seems that congregationalists don't really do advent either.71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 18:10. "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch." See also Christmas controversy and linked articles. Tevildo (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

How is Deuteronomy 18:10 related to the liturgical year? I mean, the liturgical year is very Christ-centered, so what does that have to do with "pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch." Can you list the denomination that uses Deut.18:10 as a criticism of the liturgical year? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

See Banned Christmas for a basic summary of the objections. Alansplodge (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget what 71.104.75.148 has said: many Protestants have objected to practices purely because they're advocated by the Catholic Church. Lots of stuff that's seemingly neutral (see Adiaphora#Puritanism) has been deemed significant by some churches, with certain uses rejected because the Catholics do it. This is how the clergyman's clothing becomes important, for example, as "clerical vestments" have been rejected: a dress code involving the cassock and other vestments has been seen as eeeeevil, but apparently a dress code requiring suit and tie is perfectly all right. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it was more carefully thought through than that. In Catholic theology, traditions can be justified on the grounds that they have been done that way since the days of the Early Church, a position that the Protestant Reformers rejected; for them, Scriptural authority was the only arbiter of right practice. On the issue of vestments, John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religion was able to quote Biblical passages saying that plain dress was appropriate and flamboyant clothing was to be avoided (I can't find it now, but it's in there somewhere; Book IV I think). Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So... to sum up the previous answers: Christmas and Easter are important holidays for many Christians, but not all Christians. Exactly how important they are depends on which denomination of Christianity you are talking about, as well as the cultural background of the individual Christian (or quasi-Christian) you are talking to. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

While there have been many Christians who did not celebrate Christmas, I would like to see a cite for the suggestion that there are or were mainstream Christian groups that did not celebrate Easter. John M Baker (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I see the discussion in Easter. John M Baker (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Easter: Non-observing Christian groups has the details. Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Another economics question

No monsters or demons involved this time :-)

Opportunity benefit doesn't exist, but opportunity cost does. What I remember from high-school economics would suggest that they're closely related terms (and this seems to be corroborated by a quick Google search), that the opportunity benefit is the utility you gain by doing whatever has the opportunity cost. In other words, If we're talking about the opportunity cost of making 100 extra barrels of wine, I'm guessing that the opportunity benefit would include the additional money I make from selling 100 extra barrels of wine. Am I remembering rightly? And if so, would O benefit be a good redirect to O cost? Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "opportunity benefit" does come up from time to time in this context, but seems to me to be much rarer than "opportunity cost". As you'll see from our article, the idea of opportunity cost generally arises in the context of making a choice from one of several mutually exclusive options, and the particular example you give isn't really a choice of this kind. In your example you have some grapes, and can make wine with them or not, so there's no element of choice between two mutually exclusive options - if you don't make the wine, you've still got the grapes. Suppose, however, that you are in the business of selling a range of grape products: you have some grapes, and you can choose either to make them into wine or into grape jelly. Here the choice that you make does incur an opportunity cost: if you make wine, you give up the benefits of making jelly, and vice versa. The opportunity cost is the benefit foregone from the choice not made. In the same way, you might say that the opportunity benefit is the benefit gained from the choice made. Within this framework, you'll notice that the opportunity cost is understood as arising from the path not chosen, which the opportunity benefit arises from the path actively chosen. In the example you mention you seem to want to attribute both opportunity cost and opportunity benefit as arising from the same path; this doesn't seem right to me.

For discussion of cases where there are more than two options to choose from, and for more details, please see our article on opportunity cost. Although it's a rare phrase, I don't see any harm in directing opportunity benefit to this article, so long as a suitable explanatory sentence is added. RomanSpa (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Dutch and German

How mutually understandable are Dutch and German? Is it like the difference between Spanish and Portuguese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.189 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-native speaker here. I have studied German for years, and I speak and understand it very well, to the point where native speakers have wondered how I speak German so well. But I don't speak or understand any spoken Dutch. The intonation is far too different - it has been claimed that Dutch sounds like "German with a hot potato in your mouth". I believe this, not to so much extent, but enough to make spoken Dutch unintelligible to me, even though I understand spoken German. Written Dutch is easier to understand through written German, although there are significant differences - Dutch seems a more vowel-oriented language than German. As my native Finnish is very vowel-oriented, you would think this wouldn't be a problem - but as both German and Dutch are foreign languages to me, I would have had to learn Dutch separately, and as I haven't, it is more difficult for me to understand.

The situation is the same with Swedish and Danish. The written languages are closely related, but while Swedish is spoken with an intonation very close to Finnish, Danish is again spoken "with a hot potato in your mouth".

Now can a native speaker of either German or Dutch answer this question? JIP | Talk 19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Until that happens, I once overheard a German and a Flemish speaker (it's basically a Dutch dialect) in Antwerp having a conversation about how many words their languages had in common. However they were speaking to each other in English, which suggests that they aren't mutually intelligible; not easily at any rate. Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur with JIP: my reasonable skill in German lets me understand a fair bit of written Dutch, but the pronunciation is so different that I can scarcely make out a word of written Dutch. A friend from the Maastricht area tells me that he speaks a dialect of Dutch that is more or less mutually intelligible with the adjacent Low German, but his wife (from Groningen) speaks a more standard Dutch that is not. Neither my English nor my High German enables me to understand either of their dialects, nor did I have much luck with the Low German of Bremen. (I can understand, and be understood in, spoken German in Dortmund and Berlin, for example.) So my answer would be: there are some forms of German that are mutually intelligible with some forms of Dutch, but in general the two languages are quite distinct. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a native Dutch speaker. I agree with the comments above that the pronunciation is very different which can make understanding our eastern neighbours difficult. However, with a little exposure, you get used to it, and because in terms of vocabulary and syntax Dutch and German are 90% the same, a Dutch speaker can learn to 'Germanize' his Dutch and be understood reasonably well by a German speaker. I find it quite easy to understand most spoken or written German, and I don't think it's due to the few German lessons I've had in secondary school. I think it's primarily a matter of getting used to the pronunciation; I find a number of Dutch dialects harder to understand than German. I can't really compare Dutch and German to Spanish and Portuguese, because I don't speak the latter two, but from the little I do know about them, I suspect that the differences between Dutch and German are larger. - Lindert (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted a request for assistance at the German reference desk. Here's what was said:

Hopefully this is helpful. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This question properly belongs on the language desk, but anyway: I am a native speaker of Bavarian and Standard German, and obviously a second-language speaker of English (however, spoken English is much harder than written English for me), and moreover, I'm well-versed in linguistics. I've never properly studied Dutch because it is so similar to German, and once you understand some basics and crucial differences, it looks very familiar, about as familiar as Low German, which is quite similar. (I've got hardly any experience with spoken Low German, though.) Figuring out written Dutch is fairly easy with some practice, especially when the subject is already familiar. I've read Beekes's introduction to Indo-European studies in both English and Dutch, and I read the English translation first, but when I could later only find the Dutch version, I ended up reading it again in the original. Under less ideal circumstances, however, I struggle more. When I visited the Netherlands, I found that following spoken Dutch is much, much harder, however, despite all my previous knowledge. It was very much dependent on circumstances (context and non-verbal cues helped a real lot); sometimes I could follow and then I lost the thread again. So the languages are definitely not mutually intelligible.

With my native Bavarian competence, and linguistic knowledge, Swiss German was considerably easier to get, but also uneven: "Standard" Swiss German (based on the dialect of Zurich and surroundings) on TV I could manage, but Berne dialect was too foreign, and even with Zurich dialect (or something close) rapid, fluent speech (Swiss people can talk quite rapidly!) proved impossible to follow. That's not what I call "mutually intelligible". Just yesterday I saw a video clip where Michelle Hunziker was interviewed in Swiss German, and she answered in something that sounded like Bernese with her native Italian accent, and I could half understand it, but not perfectly, only stretches and parts, just enough to get the gist of what was said. That is, intelligibility is still quite poor, despite my previous exposure.

To sum up, even Swiss German and Standard German are definitely not mutually intelligible, spontaneously, without considerable, extensive preparation (which is equivalent to studying the language, so doesn't count as "instant", as implied by the concept), and Dutch is even more different, so, absolutely not mutually intelligible with Standard German in any meaningful sense. I reject any claims to the contrary as bunk, and am confident well-designed experiments would show this instantly. See also Mutual intelligibility, where such claims are rightly heavily qualified ("partial" or even "limited" intelligibility, to my mind, isn't real intelligibility in the sense of what is required to support a claim that two idioms are not different languages). (Note that mutual intelligibility is heavily affected by divergent vocabulary: if two languages are identical or nearly identical in pronunciation and grammar but have radically different lexicon, they will end up completely mutually unintelligible.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Native German speaker here. Lindert states above that he as a native Dutch speaker can understand most spoken or written German. I as a native High German speaker without exposure to Dutch can understand only very little spoken Dutch, wheras written Dutch is mostly understandable on a basic level. The mutual intelligibility may be asymmetric. For spoken Dutch I would assume about 10% comprehensibility to a native German speaker from central Germany, far too low to understand it. It is - in my opinion - two steps away. Dutch and Low German are mutually intelligible at a say 50% level and so are Low German and High German at a 50% level. So a Low German speaker would be needed in a conversation as an interlocutor. A typical Dutch or German speaker is also competent in his local dialect. The local dialect spoken around Cleves (Germany) is closer to standard Dutch than half of the Dutch dialects itself, so in Cleves (Germany) the mutual intelligibility rises to 100%. Roughly spoken northwestern German dialects are closer to Dutch than standard German, wheras southeastern German dialects differ even more from Dutch than standard German does. Hence speakers of northwestern German dialects can profit from their dialect in understanding Dutch. There must be a line in northwestern Germany where the mutual intelligibility of the Dutch and German dialects increases to over 50%, say the line Cologne-Bremen or wherever. --91.50.21.59 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

‘Sun’ and ‘Stars’ and ‘Planets’ mythology

Does anyone know any mythological stories for the entitled quoted words, and relative iconic figures? -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC))

Hundreds. Where to start? The Sun in culture. Category:Astronomical myths. List of lunar deities. The mythology section in most wikipedia articles about constellations. Pleiades in folklore and literature. 184.147.116.102 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well this is gonna be a big headache to read... I have to come back to this... I'll read the ones you stated... Thank you. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC))

Apollo, Ra. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you guys know anything about the (a) 'pyramid' and the three 'suns' story? One at the right, one at the top and one at the left? Any mythology and or any story? -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC))

That doesn't appear to be a proper story so much as a Theosophical/New Age concept. The oldest I can find the concept appear in Manly Palmer Hall's Secret Teachings of All Ages, based on his interpretation of some alchemical teachings, possibly influenced somewhat by the .

As for actual connection to the pyramids, I'm mostly seeing it in New age literature that appears to have just made it up, such as Voyages of the Pyramid Builders by Robert M. Schoch, which claims that Pyramids appear around the world not because it's the easiest way to stack a bunch of rocks without them falling over for a long time, but because some advanced culture taught all those (coincidentally mostly non-white) cultures how to build pyramids. Of course, then there's the question of who taught that advanced culture. All of this goes back to Ignatius Donelly.

I'm flipping through searched Wouter Hanegraaff's Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esoterism and J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology but haven't found anything yet. didn't find anything relevant.

It could maybe be a part of Mesoamerican mythology, but my initial search makes me doubt that. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I've not found anything either. Have you seen Stargate (1996)? It shows three Moons in the movie. though they defined being in another another planet/galaxy, they created, what I said about the sun/moon, a symbolic icon, the last code for the gate to open... I have not found anything in Stargate_(device) either. I can't recall where I got the three suns from, it will definitely be a pseudoscience (mixed with planet nibiru (as I've seen images of three suns with it...) if no one can find out... Anyways thank you for your help -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC))

St. Valentine's Day in Saudi Arabia

This month's edition of Helsingin Sanomat monthly supplement says that celebrating St. Valentine's Day is strictly forbidden in Saudi Arabia, and can lead to punishments of over a decade in prison and several hundred lashes of the whip. Does someone know if this is actually true? If so, what is the reasoning behind it? The article only says that a group of men celebrating St. Valentine's Day with a group of women were punished. Do women get a punishment too for this? JIP | Talk 19:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Saudi Arabian Mutaween (Arabic: مطوعين), or Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (i.e., the religious police) prohibits the practice of any religion other than Islam" according to our Christianity in Saudi Arabia article. Although Valantine's Day may not be anything to do with religion in the West, the commemoration of "a widely recognized third-century Roman saint " might not go down too well. Also the strict rules about how men and women associate, as BBC News - Saudis clamp down on valentines points out. According to the Daily Mail, the heavy punishments meted out for an illegal Valentine's party in 2014 were for "charges of illicit seclusion with unrelated women, dancing and drinking" . Alansplodge (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And this we call an ally? Oy. So why are not Christians routinely arrested when they visit Saudi Arabia? Or maybe they are? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Prohibiting a practice is different from prohibiting practicioners. According to Christianity in Saudi Arabia, there are at least several hundred thousand Christians, including a million Roman Catholics. Zero churches, and the "small number" of Christians congregate online. Some sketchy counting, maybe. Also see Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite bizarre on the counting...Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

To answer Bugs' question a little more directly: Christians (or Westerners generally – I'm the latter but certainly not the former) are generally given advice before going to Saudi Arabia (by whoever's sending them, or by their Foreign Office) about how to behave and not behave in public. The Mutaween will not generally intrude into the private residences or premises of western infidels in search of transgressions, but will likely take action if any non-Islamic practices (like being drunk, visibly wearing a cross/crucifix, being too immodestly dressed if female, etc., etc.) are exhibited in public.

Ironically, a lot of these behaviours are practiced by well-off Saudi Arabians as well, in private. If you (a Westerner) visit the home or office of a prominent Saudi citizen/Prince/businessman/-woman, you may well be offered alcoholic drink and see women in "immodest" 'western' dress. Many Saudis of this class (i.e. Royalty and the other rich) are educated in Western schools/Universities and own property in the West, where they live (and shop) for significant portions of the year. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the relevance of St Valentine to the Saudis. Saints are out - Saudi Wahhabism rules out any saint's day, Christian or Muslim, as idolatry. Most Western residents live in compounds where they are safely segregated from the locals, and the religious police are more concerned with siddiqi (moonshine) than the romantic festivals of the foreigners. If this sort of thing leaked into the local community, I can imagine severe consequences, but I'd like to see concrete examples before I could believe it happened. This seems to be relevant, and tells a slightly different tale. The Huffpost has picked up on a normal over-reaction, but few European or American ex-pats are so badly briefed as to be affected. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I gather from the comments above that there is a major distinction between public and private behavior. Of course a family is likely to be less formal within the confines of their home. And it explains why women reporters are typically shown in a headscarf, which is simply "public decency" and not necessarily signifying Muslim. I expect the reason Valentine's Day would be publicly banned is for being associated with hedonism, as it's certainly not treated like a religious holiday at this point in western culture. I imagine they might ban St. Patrick's Day for the same general reason. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

'Guardian angel' and 'Watcher (angel)'

Peeps, what is the difference between the entitled quoted words? The words figurative meanings seem to be the same; they both seem to perform the same kind of work. But only the watcher angels went an extra length and some became the so called fallen angels, fathered Nephilim... The 'watcher angels', they still do exist like the 'guardian angels', right? Just the words are stated indifferently in religious denominations…? Am I correct? -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC))

A guardian angel is an angel assigned to watch after a particular person, though there's debate as to whether a person has multiple angels, or if one angel might be looking after the same person. "Watcher angel" (both words) could be used colloquially to refer to a guardian angel, while a type of angel known as a Watcher is a completely different type of figure. According to the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees (both only accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church), and some derived sources, these were the angels who fathered the Nephilim. The Book of Enoch describes the watchers as falling from grace because of their lust for mortal women (being immortal, they have no need to reproduce), and for teaching humanity secrets they were not meant to know (mostly magical, but also how to make weapons of war). Belief in one type of angel does not necessary entail belief in the other, and they are entirely different concepts. Many commentators, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant, would argue that the books of Enoch and Jubilees are just fiction meant to elaborate on a cryptic part of Genesis 6 while parodying other religions' stories of demigods. Some (more likely Protestant) do accept the Watchers interpretation of Genesis 6 (while still rejecting Enoch), believing that the angels ended up alongside Satan in Hell. A few Jewish sources (such as certain readings of Enoch and the derived 3 Enoch) seem to imply that only the worst offenders were permanently damned, while the rest resumed their old posts in heaven. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification Ian.thomson. Regards. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC))

This much we know: "The angels who guard you when you drive / Usually retire at 65." --Burma-Shave. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

February 9

Title for the article Sage (sophos)

I just encountered the article Sage (sophos). Wouldn't Sage (philosophy) be a more obvious title? The current title assumes too much background knowledge, I think. If you don't know what a "sophos" is supposed to be, it's rather mystifying. Article titles should be as self-explanatory as possible and not essentially require that you already know the subject the article is about. "Sage" is a more commonly known and used word, so it's like an obscurum per obscurius explanation. Is there any reason not to use an alternative title like the one I suggested? (Feel free to move the article on your own if you agree with me and can't see any drawback or possible objection. I just wanted to solicit other opinions in case I am overlooking some relevant point.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a major problem. Anyone who knows the subject sufficiently would have no trouble finding it. Now that I think about it, even those in the know might have trouble guessing what to type. Ignoramuses (like me) would only stumble upon it in Sage (disambiguation), which has a clear enough description. However, I wouldn't object to a page move. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note also Sophos, and Sophos_(disambiguation). I think the real problem here is that _(sophos) seems to only occur for that sage article. By analogy common suffixes such as _(medicine), _(video game) and _(computer science), etc. occur for dozens of articles each. (Is there a name for that parenthetical classification part of an article title?)

The candidate _(philosophy) also gets plenty of use. I'd outright support a move to Sage_(philosophy). I'd do it myself but I'm not quite sure how :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Moved it per arguments. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That parenthetical classification part of an article title – I call it a disambiguator. — Kpalion 13:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Can Catholics become re-baptized after showing a de-baptismal certificate?

If a Catholic becomes successful at removing himself from the parish register, and after 25 or years or so, can he choose to become re-baptized? 140.254.226.195 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

According to this source, the Catholic Church feels that it is impossible to become "de-baptized". Also, after having grown up Catholic, I can't recall my parents ever putting their name in a register. There was a parish phone directory that you could submit your name/address/number to but that was entirely voluntary and not a requirement for attendance. Dismas| 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So, what's the point of a de-baptismal ceremony if the church actually doesn't keep track of attendants? 140.254.226.195 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. But that's a separate thing from attendance. If you're baptized in one Catholic church and then go on to attend another, you don't have to let either the old or the new church know. When you go up to receive the eucharist, they assume that you've had your baptism and first communion. I don't see why they'd need your name and address unless they send out flyers and donation requests for needy orphans or such. But that's a function of their charity, not strictly part of the religion. Dismas| 17:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

De-Baptism is not a Catholic concept, it's a New Atheist concept that religiously rejects religion apparently without understanding the irony. It's kind of like asking if the Catholic church will issue a de-circumcision certificate for Jews who convert, and if Jews will issue re-circumcise those converts should they decide to return to Judaism. De-Baptism certificates are for people who want to claim to be atheists, but don't get that that means that ceremonies like De-Baptism are at least as worthless as baptism. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Presumably the people who participate in "de-baptism" rituals do it for fun, or at worst to gain acceptance in some social group. I don't know how you can possibly imagine that there's some irony that they fail to see. Ritual ceremonies are not intrinsically religious any more than singing is intrinsically religious. -- BenRG (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Was planning to say the same thing. As far as I can tell, debaptism is commonly more tongue in cheek than anything. It's way some atheists mock the concept of baptism. The de-baptism certificate, obviously connected with the baptism certificate and shared a similar goal as the debaptism. This isn't to say it can't have a serious intent as well. Just as some may choose to defect from the Catholic church when it was possible (as below), some may choose ceremonial method of celebrating and recognising their rejecting of Christianity and the baptism which was probably performed without their consent. Whether because of their rejection of what the church represents or what baptism is claimed to represent or simple rejection of that which they consider was basically forced on them or whatever, there's surely nothing unusual or contradictory with a person wanting to do so. Remembering that from the OPs history we can be fairly sure they've never been baptised, I'm fairly sure most people who chose to be debaptised aren't as confused as the OP. They don't think it's something that the church will recognise. And just as an atheist may still have a wedding or funeral ceremony, there's nothing contradictory with atheists doing ceremonial or ritualistic stuff if it's solely intended to convey something to the world we live in (rather than intended to also represent something in the spiritual sense). Don't get me wrong, despite being a baptised and confirmed Catholic who's now agnostic or atheist, debaptism is not something I'd bother with, but I also don't think there's anything that weird that some may choose to do so. A waste of time may be, but we all waste time on different things. Now perhaps if someone get's debaptised despite never having been baptised (or worse, get's baptised just so they can be debaptised) I would agree it's a little odd. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to ask someone who thinks they do something. The Baptismal register is a legal document in some countries. It plays a role in religious affairs in a Catholic context purely because, if you want to receive other Sacraments, there needs to be a record that you've been Baptised, and when you receive other Sacraments it will be recorded next to your name on the Baptismal register of wherever you were Baptised, purely so a) you can prove you received these Sacraments and b) you can prove you haven't been previously married in a Catholic church if you want to get married. This sort of thing is also why it is a legal document in some countries.

So, the Baptismal register is in no way a membership list, nor is it used to levy fees or anything. Many parishes in many countries separately maintain lists of members of their parish, where people register themselves and can unregister themselves: these are useful administratively, and in some countries are used for tax purposes. These are unrelated to the Baptismal register.

From a Catholic point of view, Baptism is a one-time thing that leaves a permanent mark on your soul, and nobody has the power to reverse or undo it at all, ever. You can no more be debaptised than you can be deborn. Having your name removed from the register of births will not change the fact that you were born, nor can you choose to be born at a different hospital later on. Having a special ceremony will not change this. A de-baptismal ceremony, from a Catholic point of view, is as meaningless as a rebaptism ceremony: nothing is considered to happen. 86.175.86.97 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the points above, are you also getting confused with Formal act of defection from the Catholic Church (as also mentioned e.g. )? Firstly, the process was apparently abolished in 2009. Secondly, this didn't debaptise you, and as several people have pointed out above, this simply isn't possibly according to the Catholic church view. Thirdly, your name wasn't removed from the register, instead a note was simply made on your baptismal record that you did it. All 3 are mentioned in the article if there remains any confusion. As has been pointed out above and also noted in the additional sources, a baptismal record in the parish register is effectively a record of something that happened (whether or not you think it has any spiritual significance) so the concept of removing a name from it doesn't really make much sense. (I guess perhaps in exceptional circumstances like where something was added to it which shouldn't have been, although even then I expect more likely it'll just be noted.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A quick Google search reveals that some atheists feel the need to undergo a "de-Baptism" ceremony to confirm that they renounce their former faith. One such American ceremony involves a hairdryer, which suggests that it's not entirely serious. Should you need such a thing, you can obtain a "DeBaptismal Certificate" from an organisation called the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Fear not though User:140, apparently the Catholic Church Says 'De-baptism' Is 'Impossible'. Some information about Catholic Parish Registers is here. Finally, you might like to look at the Parable of the Lost Sheep - I'm certain that they'll be pleased that you're back. Alansplodge (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems that history repeats itself. Anabaptists got their name from "being baptized again". Like baptists and modern new atheists, they reject their infant baptisms and feel the need to conduct a new ceremony in their adult lives. At least they share that in common. 140.254.226.195 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Adult baptism is not the wholesale rejection of the very concept of baptism, though, but the rejection of any baptism done without one's consent and awareness. That's at least internally consistent. De-baptism is like denying vampires exist but hanging garlic to keep them away. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly right. You can't become "un-baptised" by another church (or entity) to then be "re-baptised" by the Catholic Church. You can only be baptised once. A parish priest might hear your confession (in which you detail your attempt to turn away from the Lord) and thereafter allow you to reaffirm your faith or confirmation but I would think that would be an individual, holistic thing rather than anything canonical. Here are a couple of links (from my native Australia): and . St★lwart 00:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

*****This has got to be the best RD thread in the last year. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC) *****

Baptism (especially as an adult) confirms one's belief in something. So "de-baptizing" would confirm one's non-belief in something. Reminds me of a long-ago Woody Allen line about his girlfriend being atheist and he being agnostic (or maybe vice-versa), and they broke up because they couldn't agree on what not to believe in. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget confirmation which serves the specific purpose of confirming one's belief in something, especially given a child can be baptised without his or her knowledge or belief (see also: Limbo#Limbo_of_Infants). In essence (in the Catholic Church) baptism is designed to reveal a person to God and have them receive God's blessing. So being "un-baptised" would be an attempt to "hide" someone from God. The Church simply wouldn't acknowledge a person's ability to do that and so their original baptism stands. Whether they might go through a process of "re-confirmation" I imagine depends on the Priest in question and the parishioner. St★lwart 06:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As if God somehow wouldn't know they existed until they were baptized. But I see the distinction. Confirmation would be kind of like a Catholic version of Bar Mitzvah or Bat Mitzvah, i.e. it would be a decision to be made at age 12 or 13 or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it in one. St★lwart 08:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the most important result of baptism in the Catholic Church is cleansing the baby's soul from their original sin. Once you're freed from your original sin, there's no way you can get it back. Of course, you can commit all sorts of new sins throughout your life, but that doesn't make you debaptized, it just makes you a sinner. What's more, the Catholic Church recognizes baptisms made in some other denominations as long as some basic criteria are met (see Validity considerations by some churches). So even if you were baptized in the Orthodox, Anglican or Lutheran Church, and wish to convert to Catholicism, you're not going to rebaptized, because your original baptism is considered valid by the Catholic Church. — Kpalion 12:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually almost all good-faith baptisms are now accepted as valid. The gist of it is, there's no need for re-baptism, being baptized by anyone in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is sufficient. Which most Protestant groups do. Collect (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is tantamount to the Catholic Church saying that virtually any recognised Christian church will do, to ensure the child has a sporting chance of getting to Heaven rather than being consigned to Limbo for eternity. Doesn't this sort of water down their claimed status from "the one and only true Church" to "just another sect of Christianity"? -- Jack of Oz 16:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really, because the Catholic Church doesn't teach that Baptism guarantees Salvation (it believes you can turn away from God, and lose your Salvation). It just considers that Baptism is the minimum requirement to be a Christian, and is necessary to Salvation, and that it is therefore made easy for people to achieve. And I say this every time Confirmation comes up, but the Catholic view of Confirmation (sacrament) is in no way that it is about teenagers 'confirming' the decision made for them at Baptism: babies can be Confirmed, and adult converts are Confirmed even when they are being Baptised. The whole 'make the decision for yourself' angle is an Anglican thing, imported by some Catholics in Protestant-dominated countries. Confirmation is considered as permanent as Baptism, and so cannot be repeated. However, unlike Baptism, it is not consider by the Catholic Church to be possible for just anyone to Confirm: it takes a validly ordained minister. This means that adult converts who were Confirmed in a Church of England church, for example, will be Confirmed on entering the Catholic Church, because the Church won't consider that they actually have been Confirmed. 86.175.86.97 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Can't say I entirely agree with that. If you look for example, it stated that the idea of confirmation being a sign of maturity actually originated in the middle ages, not with Protestants. Similarly (albeit for Roman Rite only) and . This isn't to say it's accurate to claim that the confirmation is about confirming a decision made before someone was mature enough to make it in the Catholic church, but it's clear that in the Roman rite, confirmation is generally seen as a sign someone has hopefully maken a more concious decision to be part of the church and matured in their fath. And I don't see anything to suggest this is rejected by the church, provided it doesn't lead to the misleading belief someone who is confirmed is completely mature or automatically mature in their faith. I can say in Malaysia, which isn't a protestant country*, I'm fairly sure it wasn't uncommon for sunday school teachers to ask you if you're sure you want to be confirmed, I think it was ask of me and it was definitely asked of a sibling, the only one who said no. The fact that sometimes confirmation doesn't work like that in the Catholic church doesn't negate it often working like that (and the evidence suggests not just because of Anglican influence). Similarly, the fact that adults are confirmed straight away if anything reenforces this view since they're already making that concious decision. (*) I can't find statistics and am not that suprised since I don't think the government is very good at collecting info on Christian denomination. Christianity in Malaysia does give 3, and it may be Catholicism is in the minority among Christians. But I can't see I saw much sign of Anglican or other protestant influence in Malaysia Catholicism. Catholicism does have a fairly long history in Malaysia Roman Catholicism in Malaysia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Lucy Baines Johnson, daughter of President Lyndon Johnson, had been baptized in the Episcopal church, but got herself rebaptized when she became Roman Catholic, causing outrage among some Episcopals, since the Epispocal baptism should have been considered valid under Catholic doctrine. Episcopal bishop James Pike said repetition of a sacrament was "totally devoid of any sacramental effect and thus sacrilegious." A Catholic priest said "A re-administration of the sacrament is to be done only when there is prudent doubt about the fact of a prior baptism or about its validity." The Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches, along with the Lutheran have similar views on baptism: It is an "indelible mark" despite any renunciation of the faith. Rebaptism is done by a church when they can't tell whether there was ever a baptism, such as for an anonymous foundling, or when do not view the initial baptism as valid, such as when it was done to an infant and a denomination practices only adult baptism, or when there is a difference between the two churches in acceptance of the Holy Trinity. See Rebaptism. Edison (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In the early church, confirmation was not practiced as a distinct rite. It was practiced as a part of the baptism ceremony. But when the baptism of infants became universal and the Bishop was not present to do the last rite of the baptismal ceremony, confirmation became a distinct sacrament on its own. Therefore, 86.175.86.97 is correct about the whole teenager thing. (The A to Z of Lutheranism). 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Growing up in the Ruthenian Catholic church I was confirmed when I was baptised, as was my sister. We had to go to the classes for confirmation, but only the Latins deserved punching. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

See above. It's perhaps worth remembering that as modern travel has advanced such that it's likely no problem in most places for the bishop to perform confirmations every year (or really more frequent if it was needed), confirmations have in fact tended to be performed at a later age, not at an earlier age. So it's fairly difficult to argue that in the modern Roman Catholic church, the age of confirmation has much to do with the requirement for a bishop, regardless of whether that may have been the initial reason they were seperated. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The "rebaptism" of Luci Baines Johnson was, as Roman Catholic tradition requires in such circumstances, a conditional rebaptism that is used when there is suspicion that one of the two elements necessary for a valid baptism (running water, and a trinitarian formula) may have been lacking in the original baptism. In this conditional rebaptism, the traditional formula is replaced by "If you have not been baptized, I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The Episcopal Church was annoyed at the time because they assumed Luci's doubt about her baptism's validity was because it was Episcopalian, but if that were the doubt, the conditional baptism wouldn't have been performed. - Nunh-huh 11:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my Grandfather had a conditional baptism on his deathbed as he had long practiced Catholicism, but had been born to a Lutheran father, and had no baptismal records. The priest made it quite clear this was a precaution, not an invalidation (or even a revalidation) of the first one, assuming it happened. In contrast to this, my mother recently confessed that she gave me an baptism of necessity in the kitchen sink, because we would be flying across country to hold my baptism, and news of jetliner crashes in the US was much more frequent at the time. Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia entry in case it hasn't already been given. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Jean Terrasson

Hello,

I am needing your help. I was reading the article Jean Terrasson and Sethos too and because of my university study I need more info about. I please you so so much, let me know and write me: in which books or documents you found all the data (date of birth, about his life etc...). I am working on my graduate work with Jean Terrasson and i am searching for ANY sources I can find ANYTHING in. Please help me to find out, which sources I should see.

So every book, evry document where i can read about Terrasson, please let me know.

Thank you, Wishing all the best Markéta Medková — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.31.69 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean this Jean_Terrasson, right? Have you gotten the two books mentioned there (refs 2,3) from your library? You may need to use inter-library loan. Here's a few hits I found on google books . The second link gives a birth year and a brief bio. I have to tell you though, the best person to ask about this is your graduate adviser, so please talk to him/her and your local university library. You can probably even visit a real-life reference desk to get assistance from trained professionals who are paid to help you! SemanticMantis (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i am trying to find any book, where i can read about Terrasson, everything i can use for my work. Really thank you for your help, i helped me as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.31.69 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WorldCat? It's an international library database, which shows libraries worldwide that own a particular book. It has records for all three books that are cited in the article. See , , and for the first book (three different editions), for the second, and and for the third. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, i never heard about it. Im just trying to understand the system, is that like I had to visit tady owner library or they would send me it online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.31.69 (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You can search for things in WorldCat online, but to actually get a copy of most books, you'll have to use your university library. As I said above, it might be best to go through an inter-library loan program. Sometimes you can get someone to scan a book chapter or short paper and send it to you via email, but that is not always possible. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This paper, analyzing Séthos, may be useful to you. If you need more information on the book's influence, Not Out of Africa by Mary Lefkowitz and Napoleon's Sorcerers by Darius Alexander Spieth each spend several pages on it, judging by the Google Books previews. A. Parrot (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

February 10

Interstate housing

There are occasional buildings in the USA that, through incompetent surveying, intentional placement, or other misadventure, are constructed on state lines, so that one part of the building's in one state and the other's in another. Some of these buildings are even houses; see David Mathews House and Merestone for a couple of examples. If you live in such a building, how is it decided where you live, pay taxes, go for voting, etc.? Is there some federal law that addresses this situation (i.e. it's treated as a kind of interstate commerce), or do states typically work out such situations through congressionally approved interstate compacts? Bonus points if you know how other provisions such as building codes are handled. I can only once before remember encountering the multistate building concept: in the film Sergeant York, York goes to a bar that's half in Tennessee and half in Kentucky, and because one state is dry while the other wet, the owner draws the state line on his floor and will only sell liquour from one side of the building. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's an international border, so a bit different, but the towns of Derby Line, Vermont and Stanstead, Quebec is instructive. See, for example, Haskell Free Library and Opera House and search Google for oddities there. As far as state borders go, check out the history of the Pheasant Lane Mall in New Hampshire. The original plans had it crossing the state border with Massachusetts, it had to be redesigned to keep it all within one state, so as to avoid headaches associated with two different tax codes. Also see the Cal Neva Lodge & Casino, which is actually built across the border of California and Nevada. The laws of California apply on their side of the building, thus there's no gambling on that side. Here is a story of a building straddling the Netherlands-Germany international border, and the issues that causes. The article on the United States Post Office and Courthouse (Texarkana, Arkansas-Texas) may be an interesting read for you; besides Texarkana, there's also Bristol, Virginia and Bristol, Tennessee or Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas, both of which are contiguous conurbations, and may likely have many buildings lying in both states. Just some avenues for your research. --Jayron32 01:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I started to write "Bristol's not likely to be relevant", because State Street goes down the line, but a quick Google Maps check shows that it turns south as you go east, and numerous subdivisions have houses on both sides. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just as a further digression, when France surrendered in 1940, the Germans occupied the northern part of the country but left the southern part as a nominally independent country. Part of the boundary followed a river, but still divided a building because it extended across the river. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In Baarle, where 23 little pieces of Belgium are surrounded by The Netherlands, some things – like where a household pays tax, iirc – depend on where the front door is. —Tamfang (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

List_of_enclaves_and_exclaves might be a place to look. In the USA, there's even a List_of_enclaves_in_Pennsylvania. Kentucky Bend probably deals with these issues too. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The PA enclaves is for things such as municipal enclaves, which aren't relevant because they're all governed by Pennsylvania law, unlike buildings on state lines, which might not be governable by just one state's laws. The Kentucky Bend isn't relevant: aside from an east-west line, where no houses are located, it's entirely surrounded by the river. Does anyone know what's done specifically with houses that lie on borders? Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In at least once case I know of (NY-CT line) the place of the main bedroom (or bed itself) governs the actual house location for taxation, with the land taxed proportionately on what part of the land is in which state. Post office addresses, by the way, are frequently different from the tax address of the house. Collect (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

anti-navigation treaty

In an article about the role of slavery in the early history of the United States ("The price of independence", University of Chicago Magazine, Sept–Oct 2010), I find this passage:

Northern states also accepted a sectional division of national territory through the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and, in return, informally agreed to abandon their efforts to obtain a Spanish treaty that would have closed the Mississippi River to navigation for decades.

Why would they seek such a treaty? —Tamfang (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How bizarre. Even here in western Pennsylvania, the Ohio River was critical to the local economy for regional purposes; go farther west, and it was even more important in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, while in Illinois it was likewise critical (even though they have just a small chunk of it; the state's largest city of the period is on the Ohio), and the Mississippi River was important in the 1770s. I wonder if the author's made a mistake? Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I just found the Jay-Gardoqui Treaty article; I think this is the treaty in question. It looks like the author's misunderstood somewhat or placed emphasis on a side element of the treaty. Judging by our article, the treaty did lots of things, including giving commercial advantages to northern states; while it also had the effect of closing the Mississippi, that definitely wasn't the basic purpose of the treaty. This treaty ultimately failed, as Congress didn't ratify it; apparently the author means that the northern states decided to stop attempting ratification. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yea, "would have closed the Mississippi River" is the wrong wording, as it was already closed. "Accepted the continued closure of the Mississippi for 25 more years" would be the correct way to say it. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

February 11

Ethical questions for drivers and for autonomous cars

SteveBaker raised (at WP:RD/S#Three cars colliding) some good ethical questions about how autonomous cars should behave in collisions. That made me realize that everybody who steers a car in dense traffic, be it a human or a robot, makes ethical decisions every second, namely, when we decide what distance we keep to the car in front of us. The more distance we keep, the more we contribute to public safety, but the easier we make it for others to cut in line. This creates an ethical dilemma, on which we probably haven't spent much thought, because it is harder (or sometimes impossible, as Steve points out) to change the behavior of millions of humans under stress. But designers and buyers of autonomous cars will make that decision with ample deliberation time. If autonomous cars come in different driving styles, what are the ethical implications of supplying or demanding a more aggressive one? — Sebastian 02:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just so this doesn't look like a request for predictions about a hypothetical thing, cars are getting aggressive/"assertive". The ethical idea, according to software guy Nathaniel Fairfield, is "If you're always yielding and conservative, basically everybody will just stomp on you all day." Apparently, shoppers hate getting stomped. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

• You'll probably want a book on driver's ed, and the local DMV will have one. We were taught something like, given the choice, hit a bush before a tree, a tree before a building, a building before a car, a car before a person, and a person before a crowd--the idea being to do the least damage, including to the driver. If you have ever driven in New York City, aggressive driving is the expected and preferred method. People who drive slow and who don't immediately take advantage of openings are a hindrance and pain-in-the-ass. The opposite is true in rural and suburban South Jersey. There everyone yields and waves the other driver on. The difficult part is North Jersey where you can't predict whether the driver will be aggressive or not, making it very hard to predict the best course of action. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was amazed at the driver etiquette in West Orange, New Jersey. There somebody pulled out right in the path of oncoming traffic, making everybody in two lanes stop until he could get across the street and make a left. Nobody seemed upset by that, so I have to assume that extremely selfish behavior is par for the course. On the other hand, somebody waited a second too long to go at a green light, and the guy behind him just laid on the horn until he moved. Apparently inconveniencing others is OK, but only so long as it benefits yourself. StuRat (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the problem in that area; Newark, Jersey City, The Oranges, is that old roads like US Route 1 started out as small highways and then expanded to 4, 6, or 8 lanes or more. Given the inability to take major highways out of commission for upgrades, you do run into situations where what used to be a left across one lane has become a left across two lanes, and you simply either have to pull out and block traffic, or get nowhere. As for the horn-blowing, people are more quick on that especially if the first car is so far forward they may not have seen the light change. And of course there are the texters. They should be honked at when the opposing light tuns red, before your light turns green. If it gets the attention of a cop, the texter will get a hefty ticket. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting usage of "ethical decisions". Cynically, I'd say the decisions are mostly about self-preservation and self-interest, rather than ethics. Even a veritable saint would have to make many decisions without time to rationalise sufficiently for ethics. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I find your statement odd. Are you actually saying ethics has nothing to do with self-preservation and self-interest?, Dweller? μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The original context here was this: I observed that if you're sitting still in traffic and believe that you're about to be rear-ended by a fast-moving vehicle that you spot in your rear-view mirror, then applying the brakes will lessen your likely whiplash injury...but it comes at the price of actively worsening the injuries of the people in the car that's about to rear-end you. Irrespective of your feelings for the idiot who was driving too fast for the conditions and who is about to cause you a lot of future grief, there is a moral aspect to this - suppose (s)he has a small child on board? In reality, it doesn't matter because you really don't have the time to consider all of the moral angles before doing something...and self-preservation is a big behavioral driver that's hard to overcome even with conscious effort. So this isn't a practical moral decision...only a mere theoretical one.

HOWEVER, (and here is the practical issue): if this is a "self-driving" car - or a car with 'accident avoidance' features...and especially if the car that's about to hit you is ALSO a self-driving car...as will increasingly be the case in the future...then the car itself has to be pre-programmed to make the correct moral decision. If it detects the likely impact using its onboard radar even one second before it happens, it has plenty of time to fully explore the issues involved before commanding the brakes to be applied. What greatly complicates the reasoning is that I also hypothesized that these cars will probably be interconnected so they can share data about what's around the next bend or whatever. In that case, the two cars will have time to exchange data before the impact happens. Obviously, some part of the conversation goes "You're going too fast, I believe that you're about to rear-end me, please slam on your brakes!"...but it also occurs to me that the conversation might include: "Do the pressure sensors in your seats indicate that you have a small child on board?" or "Does the terms of the accident coverage of your auto insurance policy include a co-pay that's larger than $200?" ...all of which could possibly factor into the stationary car's moral decision about whether to apply its own brakes in order to protect its owner, or whether to deliberately allow its owner to get a worse case of whiplash in order to avoid injuring a child - or to follow policies set out by the insurance companies about who should get hurt and who should not.

SInce we already have cars with the ability to automatically apply the brakes - and which have fancy rear-pointing sensors - this is no longer an abstract, hypothetical question. We already have cars that could (in theory) be programmed to either apply or release the brakes when they detect that they will be rear-ended half a second from now.

That's the original moral dilemma that I was pointing out here. It's been discussed in some detail in some autonomous robotics forums, and it leads you to think about Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics and the inadequacy thereof in situations where we're really going to have to enact them in actual, for-real software out there in the real world over the next few years.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If these autonomous cars are interconnected, and indeed I don't see how they could not be interconnected, then their program is designed so that collisions cannot possibly happen. They are designed to know in advance whether another car is too close or driving towards a collision pace or direction. Akseli9 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: "collisions cannot possibly happen" ? Sorry, but no device is perfect. Sensors will fail (optical sensors could be covered with mud or salt spray), programs will have bugs in them, CPUs will fail, unpredictable weather conditions like sudden wind gusts will still happen, tires will blow when they hit potholes, etc. Indeed, people must make thousands of correct decisions each time they drive to avoid an accident, so any autonomous driving system has to be very good just to match the performance of humans. And a weakness of computer programs is the inability to deal with the unexpected. What to do if there's a cow in the road ? Would it just park on the road until the cow moves ? That could mean the car would be rear-ended. I might lay on the horn to try to convince the cow to move, and maybe gently push it with the car if that didn't do it, then call 911 to tell them about the danger. Would a computer program figure this out ? Or would the program know that deer running next to the road is a danger because they often dart into the road right in front of cars ? StuRat (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nowadays computer technology certainly cannot drive a car the way you rightly describe, with thousands of micro smart decisions made every second. But it's the ultimate aim programmers seek. Before this happens, before we finally get a car that can properly drive autonomous, my guess is that we are going to get a lot of clumsy shitty behavior that they will undoubtedly sell us as "security precautions" and such bullshit, when we are going to complain about the systems being far less efficient than human driving... Akseli9 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think the big advantage of automated driving will be that it will ultimately put an end to or drastically minimize stop-and-go driving. For example, we were told when in a line at a red light to take our foot off the brake and begin slowly accelerating as soon as the light turned green and not only after the car in front of us started moving. But of course people are off in their little worlds and don't accelerate before the car directly in front of them has already started moving, if even then. So instead of all the cars moving steadily and immediately at once, you have to wait for each of the ten people ahead of you to wake up and make an individual decision.

In the time it takes for 10 cars to get through a little, a train of 40 automated cars could have gone through the intersection. I'd certainly accept a tradeoff where my trip is a constant 50mph, instead of stop-and go traffic and standing waves alternating with 75-mph mad-dashes. Consider that the Jersey Turnpike actually has electronic warning signs that say "Slow Down, Slow Traffic Ahead". With an automated system they'd all be getting the signal to speed up simultaneously. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Mayan caves in the Yucatan ( seeking additional information for this article)

Hello ! I have a question about Maya archeology . In the mid- 90s . I watched an interesting TV show . In it a group of people studied karst system in the Yucatan . At the deepest and furthest from the surface of the cave they found a small, stuffy stones input ( such as having the right kind of masonry ) , allegedly leading to the lower world (or sanctuary) Maya. This entry allegedly walled Mayan priests to keep out strangers in a holy place (like Spanish ) when they invaded their land. Log in to open did not. In this TV show is over. For information about entering I have never found . If you know , please tell me : what was this cave , and where in fact this is the input? Thank you in advance. text in Russian - http://www.mezoamerica.ru/forum1/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2131 . Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean a cave, built/sealed by the Mayans somewhere in the Yucatan? You said mid-90s but this was found more recently. There's also this (also from National Geographic) about exploring Mayan cave ruins on the Yucatan Peninsula. Our article on Mesoamerican cave sites might have more information. St★lwart 08:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Our article on Mesoamerican cave sites (written partially by the OP) would need some care with respect to the language and content, by the way. --84.58.246.235 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, didn't realise Vyacheslav84 had contributed extensively to that article. Probably didn't need to point him there. St★lwart 10:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom: Parliamentary Sovereignty

What are the current challenges to Britain’s traditional system of parliamentary sovereignty? --Spoœekspaar (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That really reads like a homework question. Sorry for the assumption of bad faith, but:

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

If it's not a homework question, wording it in a way that tells us what you're really interested in would help, because that's a broad and vague question - the type teachers too often like to ask, and not really the type that ordinary people do. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Saladin

In Saladin#Family it says, Al-Afdal's mother bore Saladin another child in 1177. So, who was the father of this child, since Saladin left Egypt in 1174?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think she didn't go with him? See Camp follower. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, in the way it is worded as I understand Saladin left Egypt, but it didn't say with his wife. Also it didn't say Saladin was back in around 1176. Also it says, A letter preserved by Qalqashandi records that a twelfth son was born in May 1178, while on Imad al-Din's list, he appears as Saladin's seventh son. = which seems strange. Explanation?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Differences in enumerating - live issue? Ooh, a juicy refdesk inspired redlink. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your original question is disappointingly prosaic and unsalacious. See Saladin#Return_to_Cairo_and_forays_in_Outremer. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for link. I'm not sure what all you meant or were implying by disappointingly prosaic and unsalacious = perhaps it had something to do with Differences in enumerating.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I mean he was back in Egypt in time to father a child in 1177, so his wife wasn't necessarily cuckolding him. --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The article also says, Saladin's oldest son, al-Afdal, was born in 1170, and Uthman was born in 1172 to Shamsa who accompanied Saladin to Syria. = two women with sons?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it was two women with sons! --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly = that's what I thought. Therefore it could then be a twelfth son was born in May 1178 that also could be Saladin's seventh son. Who knows how many women??? = perhaps 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

No idea. But Saladin was quite a guy. The stories of his chivalrous behaviour at the siege of Krak in Moab and following his overwhelming victory at the Battle of Hattin are two of my favourite stories from history. What makes it all the more remarkable is that we read of his admirable behaviour from Christian sources, as well as Muslim. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it past him to have seven wives. That's how 12 sons could have been produced. But who knows for sure. Perhaps that information is hidden away in some old manuscript somewhere.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

He certainly had more than one wife. Our article quotes (or actually copies directly, which it shouldn't do) Lyons and Jackson's book about Saladin, which contains all the information you're going to be able to find about his wives (on page 135). Nothing hidden away anywhere, unfortunately; it's just that no one bothered to write anything down about his wives, so we just don't know very much. That's typical for medieval Muslim women, we don't know a whole lot about any of them. It could be that some of his children died (also not uncommon in the Middle Ages), so the 12th one named by Qalqashandi was the 7th one still alive on Imad ad-Din's list. Or maybe the 12th son was actually the 12th child, boy or girl. Personally I'd trust Imad ad-Din since he was a member of Saladin's retinue... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Adam for the lead. I have ordered the book through I.L.L. so I can study up on him. Looks like a very interesting character.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

contemporary art

What is the oldest museum of contemporary art?--82.55.179.186 (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Contemporary art could mean many things. Do you mean art that was current, at the time the museum containing it was founded ? StuRat (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes.--82.55.179.186 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Global net worth distribution

Where can I find a worldwide version of this chart? WinterWall (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm only interested in the negative net worth portion. There are tons of global net worth charts, but I can't seem to find one that contain the negative net worth data. WinterWall (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You might have more luck looking under "personal debt". StuRat (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Communist influence in America since 60's?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This essay by a academic claims the following:

"What this means is that if you look for Americans in 1913 who have the same basic worldview of an ordinary American college student in 2013, you can find them. But you can't find a lot of them. The cultural mainstream of 2013 is not descended from the cultural mainstream of 1913, most of whose traditions are entirely extinct. Rather, it is descended from a very small cultural aristocracy in 1913, whose bizarre, shocking and decadent tropes and behaviors are confined almost entirely to exclusive upper-crust circles found only in places such as Harvard and Greenwich Village.

What were these people called? By themselves and others? Communists, generally. Though when they wanted to confuse outsiders, they'd say "progressive" - and still do. But poking at this paper-thin euphemism, or any of its friends - "radical," "activist," and a thousand like it - is "Red-baiting" and just not done."

And goes on to further claim that modern America is a communist nation controlled by a narrow group of aristocratic communists. That Negros in America were prospering before anti-racism at the hands of this communist aristocracy came along. There are many other claims and such, too. Would these claims be accurate and backed up by historical fact and/or the analyses of other academics in the relevant fields? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.128.228 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe ask the author? I don't see a real name listed, or anything that says it's an "academic" author. The "about" page claims he knows something about programming languages. Skimming the blog post, I didn't see any references to academic sources, just links to other blogs and things (and some Misplaced Pages articles).

	+	

My impression is that this is fringe crackpot territory (the "red pill" and "blue pill" are a big tip off there). I don't think you'll find credible academic reports that the USA is a communist nation. I also don't think you will find respectable historians saying that black people had it better in the USA before the civil rights act. The burden of proof for these claims lies on the author, and the lack of credible citations is telling... far from "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

	+	

We'll see if anybody wants to try to find supportive citations, but I won't waste my time with the much harder task of finding a reference that explicitly refutes these specific silly claims. SemanticMantis (talk) 1:54 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I closed this before, SemanticMantis, but the IP reopened it-- the source he calls a scholar is a blogspot post by a "Mencius Moldburg" and the IP is trying to draw us into an off-wiki debate. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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