Revision as of 23:30, 20 March 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

March 14

2015 UK Election predictions

Hello Editors. What are the likely outcomes for the 2015 UK General Election? --Petridgos (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Some will win. Some will lose. Some were born to sing the blues. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

See Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election but there's a long way to go yet. Alansplodge (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Misplaced Pages has two related articles on the topic:

• Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election
• Opinion polling in United Kingdom constituencies, 2010–15

Or, you can look at top-line predictions by poll aggregators such as ElectionForecast or May2015 (New Statesman); or consult Betting markets. Abecedare (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This top Google result for "who will win the 2015 election?" doesn't even string the reader along, before declaring "ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN!" (their caps, my exclamation mark). I tend to trust that logic more than predictions. If we knew, we couldn't bet. But if I had to pick one prediction, it'd be from the reigning and defending most accurate pre-poll prophet. Go Labour and go Rafael dos Anjos! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

So Ellie Goulding is the winner for now. -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That's debatable. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

As for likely things, look at 25-1, then 50-45. Rolled the forerunner frontrunner up and smoked him. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

Some say you can tell who's going to win by just looking at their faces. But even then, it's only significantly better than flipping a coin. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

Party A will have 70% of winning the election and Party B will have 30% chance of doing so. Now go ahead and prove me wrong. Here is the problem. The election will only occur once and only once. So my probability value is hard to disprove as probability is defined as the percentage of success calculate by dividing the number of successful trials over the total number of trials as the limit of the number of trials approaches infinity. Now if only I have a TARDIS. 220.239.43.253 (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a common but mistaken criticism of election forecasts. See this useful summary page of methods for verifying forecasts in general (see in particular the section on Methods for probabilistic forecast). There is also a rich literature about election forecasts and methods used to evaluate them; Election Forecasting: Principles and Practice by Michael S Lewis-Beck, or the publications of J.E. Campbell (example) are good entry points. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You still have not answer my question. How do you show that forecast X for an event that will only occur once is more accurate than forecast Y? Since the event cannot be repeated, you do not know. Both forecast allows the event to have two different outcomes. So no matter which outcomes occurs both forecasts can claimed to be accurate. 175.45.116.65 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're just looking at that one outcome, then yes, a study that shows Labour has a 1% chance and that Labour has a 99% chance are both accurate, if Labour wins. Only those who gave them no chance would be wrong.

To weigh accuracy, you need to look at the details. How many seats did they guess? How many districts voted as expected, ratio-wise? Have more of their "more likely" guesses come true than "less likely" ones?

Takes a real psychic to play the proposition bets. I was 100% right about dos Anjos winning the belt, but made $550 instead of $2000, because I was 100% wrong about the finish. But he did only start passing guard in the fourth. I think he was betting on himself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

If mathematics is the language of quantitative thinking, what exactly is the language of qualitative thinking?

I always try to classify disciplines into three groups; the qualitative, the quantitative, and amalgam of the two. Whenever I think of qualitative disciplines, or those that involve value-judgments, literature, fine arts, and law come into my mind. What fascinates me about these “qualitative disciplines” is that they are not as objective or structured as quantitative disciplines like chemistry or physics in that they don’t measure the properties of things. Instead, they study the invisible and non-calculable properties of an object. Hence, while scientists can profess the use scientific method and mathematics in re-evaluating their calculations should they find their conclusions somewhat doubtful, qualitative scholars like lawyers can only rely on their unstructured and abstract interpretation of facts.

How, then, can we show that qualitative reasoning can also be systematic? In other words, if we can say that mathematics is the language of the natural sciences, then what is the language or tool used in qualitative disciplines?Rja2015 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

English works best. More words for more ideas, subtle or not. Absorbs terms from other languages without even trying, particularly in law. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

• As has been mentioned above, concepts are the mode of thought. Concepts are normally expressed as words, and words come in two types, catergorematic and syncategorematic terms. Categorematic terms include words that can express the subject or predicate of a proposition; snow, falls, white, roof. Syncategorematic terms cannot be the subject of a proposition unless they a referred to (e.g., "What the meaning of 'is' is."), rather than used; very, is, if, on, not. See H. W. B. Joseph, An Introduction to Logic, Chapter II.

μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Another way into this might be through looking at qualitative research methods. You can find many textbooks that deal with this. If they're any good, they will linger on the interface between qualitative and quantitative. If in a research project you are using a mainly qualitative approach, through interviews for example, you may still want to quantify. "Nearly all interviewees stressed that...". Software for qualitative research, like NVivo, helps researchers organise and structure their data. Coding responses is often important, even in ethnography. Discourse analysis necessarily has a subjective aspect, but can also take the form of a systematic content analysis. You mention the example of law, which is highly codified, split into statute law and common law, statutes with numbered clauses and agreed interpretations, organised chronologically and by various other criteria. There are right and wrong answers in the examinations that lawyers take. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The language of qualitative thinking is qualitative thinking. When you say that the language of quantitative thinking is mathematics you are using qualitative thinking. What is qualitative thinking? It is logical. It is understandable. It provides credible insights.wp:or Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Early Spanish contacts with Japan

This says the first Spaniard to reach Japan did so in 1587, after the Portuguese. According to Age of Discovery, the Portuguese got there in 1543.

But in 1930, "Prince Takamatsu traveled to Madrid to confer the Great Collar of the Chrysanthemum on King Alfonso XIII of Spain. This honor was intended, in part, to commemorate the diplomatic and trading history which existed long before other Western nations were officially aware of Japan's existence".

So, exactly how early was Spain engaged in relations with Japan? What does it mean for a nation to be "officially aware" of the existence of another nation?

Interestingly, we have many articles on Country A–Country B relations, but Japan–Spain relations is not among them. That's a curious omission, for a relationship that supposedly predates all other Western contacts with Japan. -- Jack of Oz 06:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It does not predate all other Western contacts with Japan, as the Portuguese got there first, via their colony in Aomen, which is usually called Macau. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Macau is Chinese. It's nowhere near Japan, and was rented to the Portuguese by the Ming Dynasty from 1557. RomanSpa (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a lot closer to Japan than Portugal, and it is possible to establish a colony on rented land. A large part of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong was leased from the Chinese, who got it back in the end. As a reference for Macau's colonial status, try Macau, China: A Political History of the Portuguese Colony's Transition to Chinese Rule. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies - I stand corrected. "The Portuguese administered the city under Chinese authority and sovereignty until 1887, when Macau became a colony of the Portuguese empire." Macao Country Study Guide Volume 1 Strategic Information and Developments (p. 12). "Trading settlement" might be a better description then. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

See Tenshō embassy. The first European power to have diplomatic relations with Japan was Portugal in 1584, followed by the Papal States and Spain. The Portuguese Francis Xavier visited Japan as a missionary in the late 1540s, which was probably the first high-level contact between Europeans and Japanese, as opposed to traders and explorers. Mogism (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Xavier worked with the Portuguese but he was personally a Basque from the Kingdom of Navarre (which was never part of Portugal, but is now part of Spain). -- Jack of Oz 17:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's also important to note that contact between cultures doesn't require one to meet the other on one of the other's territory. They could meet through an intermediary culture. For example, a Spanish envoy could be introduced to a Japanese envoy in another nation, and that could establish diplomatic contact, without having had a Spaniard set foot in Japan, or vise-versa. Also, if Portugal had established its first diplomatic relations with Japan in 1584, that means Spain did the same, at the same time, as from 1580-1640 Spain and Portugal shared a monarch. While technically still separate nations with separate institutions and governments, it seems unlikely that Spain would be said to have been ignorant of Japan if Portugal were simultaneously negotiating diplomatic relationships with them. --Jayron32 01:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting. I wonder why Prince Takamatsu honoured the Spanish king in 1930 but not the Portuguese who'd done most of the exploratory work in the Japanese region. Maybe because by then the Portuguese monarchy had been abolished, and a Prince would not lower himself to associate with commoners. -- Jack of Oz 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Corruption in the UK

Police forces in the UK, such as the Metropolitan Police Service in London, will have anti-corruption units, with the Met's being the Directorate of Professional Standards. How big are these kinds of units in the 'other agencies' of the UK, such as the National Crime Agency, MI5, MI6, and GCHQ? Where do they train their anti-corruption workers? Do they recruit from experienced members of the police? Will these departments make up a sizeable proportion of their respective agencies, given the importance of ensuring the integrity of the agencies? Does anyone have any further details to offer? Thanks. asyndeton talk 12:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

See this recent RefDesk thread about the Directorate of Professional Standards. More details of the DPS at Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary - Inspection of Metropolitan Police Service Professional Standards , which says that in 2006, "The DPS has an authorised strength of 421 police officers and 260 police staff..." (p. 7). See also BBC News - How the Met investigates its own. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

First from the Right

If we have a row of people, does the phrase 'first from the right' mean the person on the right end, or the person next to the person on the right end? Thanks. asyndeton talk 12:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In English as commonly spoken the 'first from the right' is the person next to the person on the right end. In a very small number of scientific or technical papers an alternative definition may be used, but if so this will be clearly indicated in the paper. RomanSpa (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree. A random sampling from Google, such as this, indicates that in a series of items, second from left is the second item, the leftmost being the first item; and second from right is next to last (sometimes called "second to last"), the last being rightmost. First from left or first from right would mean first and last, but it's easier to just say first and last. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Because of the ambiguity, the phrase 'first from the right' seems a very strange one to use. Isn't it more usual to say something like 'extreme right' or just 'on the right'? Perhaps RomanSpa was thinking of a phrase such as 'first in from the rightmost' which would mean the same as 'second on the right'. Dbfirs 13:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if this differs from country to country. RomanSpa (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

English is my second language but I have never (to my knowledge) heard of 'first from the right' not meaning the rightmost. That was the meaning in all ten Google hits I examined. They were all ordinary photos of a row of people, and none of them found need to explain the meaning. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm utterly astonished. I'll have to do a straw poll of my friends and relations! RomanSpa (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard "first from the right" either, but that's anecdotal. But it sounds functionally identical to "second on the right". Mingmingla (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We would normally say 'first on the right' to mean the person sitting/standing on the farmost right. 'First from the right' would mean the 'second on the right', meaning the person sitting/standing next to him. This, however, I have not heard. We would actually say 'second on the right'. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I am a native English-speaker and would only say "second on the right" in a context where "second" did not mean numbering from the end of the row. "Second from the right" means the person next to the end person on the right. "First from the right" is unusual but it would never occur to me that it means anyone except the end person.

For similar disagreements in other areas, see floor numbering#Numbering, year numbering#Dionysian-derived, natural number, and of course array data structure#Element identifier and addressing formulas. --65.94.48.86 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I interpret "first from the right" as "first, counting from the right", ie the rightmost. Didn't even realize that not everyone sees it that way! Abecedare (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hemisemidemiminim

Hi all,

I've come across this in the score to Gilbert and Sullivan's The Sorcerer. I've been playing piano for years but I've never seen this notation before. The time signature is 2/4 but the bars are filled with what appear to be hemisemidemiminims (no idea if that's the right word!). Can anybody explain this to me? Thanks! Thelb4 18:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A minim is a half note in the UK. Hemi, semi, and demi all indicate cut by half. so a hemisemidemiminim is a 1/16th note, also called a semiquaver (half of an 1/8 note). --Mark viking (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks an odd notation to me too, but I'm not a musician. Can anyone explain why Arthur Sullivan wrote it this way? Dbfirs 19:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think it's shortcut notation for 32nd note (demisemiquaver) tremolos to be played alternating between two notes each during an entire bar. See List_of_musical_symbols#Repetition_and_codas. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Sluzzelin got it. It's a fairly common notation device in orchestral notation and piano accompaniments, where such repetitive patterns occur frequently and would visually bloat the score if written out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that must be it. We have an article on tremolo notation. Isn't it at semiquaver speed (sixteenth), or have I got my arithmetic wrong? Dbfirs 21:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the triple beams have the same meaning as in regular notes, so they are nominally semidemiquavers. In practice, a pianist might substitute a free, unmetered tremolo instead though, just playing as fast as practically possible to get the effect of a dramatically pulsating background sound in a passage like that. Real 32nd-notes would probably be rather too fast to do here, by the looks of the vocal melody and the tempo likely appropriate for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

... but they are unfilled, not solid black, hence my confusion about the arithmetic because they would logically be semiquavers. I accept that the notation may not be what I would call "logical", so your interpretation is probably correct. I'm not a musician! Dbfirs 22:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not an obvious standard, admittedly, but the sum of the two minims actually is supposed to equal one minim, or one bar in 2/4 in the example we're talking about. If the tremolo were written with dotted minims, for example, it would imply a length of three quarter notes (crotchets), or one 3/4 bar. I guess the idea is that both notes of the tremolo sort of ring or are played during the entire length of that note (and also of a whole bar in this case). ... and I completely agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise: This kind of shortcut tremolo notation is also often used for any kind of fast tremolo, whether within meter or not, at the performer's discretion. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata is another example of this. The first measure of the Allegro of the 1st movement is written out in eighth notes alternating octaves, and in subsequent measures the same pattern is abbreviated as half notes alternating octaves joined by a single bar. (At least in Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms and the book of Beethoven Sonatas edited by Artur Schnabel.)--Wikimedes (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Neo nazism and young earth creationism

Are there any Neo nazis who are also young creationist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I can fully answer your question but I just thought I might link to the articles on Neo-Nazism and Young Earth creationism. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No bio on Misplaced Pages is categorized as both, at least. Just Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 3, User:Aarononsori/Books/Ransom for Faith and this page from a Google site search. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

Christian Identity groups are white supremecists who could be labelled neo-Nazis. They have had various forms of creationist/fundamentalist beliefs. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana Demographics: or how to surf census data

I'm trying to find the median income of Louisiana residents who are also homeowners. This is different from the widely published median household income or median family income, as households and families could be renters. Is there any way to select for the variable 'homeowner' with census data? Or is there some place that publishes the data I require? Thanks, -Andrew c  22:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The best I can find is the American Housing Survey, though I'm not sure it will give you more than an estimate. If this doesn't answer your question try posting again. It seems to give both the entire USA and cities (but I can't find States). Still, the New Orleans data pdf gives at least the median household income for owner-occupied units ($41,508) - not sure if more digging in that doc would bring up incomes for individual owners. Taknaran (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Census Bureau Data can be found through the website of the American FactFinder, here. If the U.S. Government has data on it, you can find it there. It is a very deep database, and searching it is pretty intuitive, but takes some playing around. If it can be found, you'll find it there. --Jayron32 01:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

March 15

Monarchs friendly with Leftwing parties

Are there any examples of Monarchs being allied with Leftwing political parties or movements in his country? --Gary123 (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

King Sihanouk?PiCo (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Does Castro qualify as a monarch? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's what comes to mind when I think of monarchs and left wings: . :-) StuRat (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I of Spain, although not exactly allied with the left wing, was certianly supportive enough of them to enable the Spanish transition to democracy. Tevildo (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The National Movement for Stability and Progress, founded by former Simeon II of Bulgaria? He wasn't monarch at the time though... Adam Bishop (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Louis Philippe I, the "Citizen King" was installed as King of the French by the July Revolution of 1830. The so-called July Monarchy of Louis-Philippe was centrist in its outlook, which makes it far to the left of the reactionary Bourbon Restoration. --Jayron32 01:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Netherlands: Queen Beatrix and the Pvda / D66 / VVD coalition
Sweden: King Carl XVI Gustaf and Stefan Lofven’s Swedish Social Democratic Party
Queen Elizibeth II and New Zealand’s Labour Party (PM Helen Clark), or Australian Labor Party (Paul Keating, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd) DOR (HK) (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In what way is Queen Elizabeth allied with the Labor Party of any of her realms, or any of the other parties that have been in government? ANSWER: She is not. She maintains correct constitutional relations with all of her governments, but has always scrupulously avoided displaying any political bias either towards or against any party. -- Jack of Oz 17:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

New technologies

Why is it that new technologies such as 4K or NFC need to be government driven for it to really take off? 194.66.246.48 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking. If you mean 4-kilopixel-wide video, that got its start in the movie industry, without any government intervention that I know about... AnonMoos (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Government does not pick winners. 220.239.43.253 (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC):

Well the English government did pick the East India Company, it did ok. PiCo (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There are cases where private industry alone can't get the job done:

1) Cost. Until recently, space shots were just too expensive for private industry. That's still the case for major projects, like sending people to Mars, although private industry could certainly launch satellites on their own, these days.

2) Slow return on investment. Some projects, again like sending people to Mars, just don't seem likely to generate a profit quickly enough to satisfy industry. They want a profit in years, not decades.

3) Motivation. In some cases, government may choose to do something that isn't likely to be profitable at all, but is for the general improvement of life. For example, various disaster preparedness technologies, like the Emergency Alert System, aren't likely to be profitable. StuRat (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Add three more to StuRat's list above:

• Many new technologies begin as classified military projects, which by definition involve a large degree of government intervention and subsidy;
• In most (possibly all) countries, the government is almost always the largest consumer, and the choices it makes can often determine which businesses succeed - so if the school system, the military, the public transport network etc adopt a particular technology, it can push it from the fringe into the mainstream. (A notorious example is the delay in rolling out the internet in France owing to the French government's attachment to the alternative Minitel technology.);
• The particular new technologies you mention both involve information transmission, which is government-regulated - if the government of a major consumer economy like the US or UK decided that 4K transmissions were using an unacceptable level of internet bandwidth, or that NFC transmissions caused an unacceptable level of radio interference, it could well be enough to send the developers into bankruptcy. With regards to anything involving over-the-air radio transmissions such as NFC/RFID, it needs to be explicitly authorised by government, who ultimately "own" the radio spectrum. 78.149.175.133 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Wand or Staff for a bishop

When a bishop takes office is there a wand or staff involved and transferred as a representation that the office power has been given over to another? If so, is there any special name for the 'transfer' or the staff?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In western Christianity, it's a stylised shepherd's crook called a crozier. It is presented at the bishop's enthronement. In this Anglican enthronement of the Bishop of Salisbury, "The Bishop is presented with his crozier by the Dean" at an early stage of the service. In the Anglican church, there's no "changeover" as the previous bishop will have already left the post, often leaving a brief interregnum. In the Catholic church, this gap is called the Sede vacante ("vacant seat"). Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just found a video of The Installation of Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. At 10 minutes into the clip, the new archbishop is presented with his crozier by his predecessor, Cormac Murphy-O'Connor. Note that this is a bit of a departure from the norm; all the previous Archbishops of Westminster had died in office, as retirement is a relatively recent innovation. Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Alansplodge.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I watched the video and that shows the point to my question and answers it. Thanks for finding video and answering my questions clearly.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Archbishop and direct positions below

What are the immediate positions directly below archbishop?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

See Holy orders, Hierarchy of the Catholic Church and Ranks in the Catholic clergy. Also Anglican ministry#Threefold order. Lutherans have bishops but not archbishops. Alansplodge (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Alansplodge. You have been most helpful.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Most welcome. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Universality of clapping

Is it true that not all cultures know applause as we know it as a sign of appreciation? I've heard the Chinese clap with one hand? Llaanngg (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Clapping is done in every culture that I know of. Chinese do not clap with one hand. I appreciate your attention to detail about Buddhism and the Koan "What is the sound of one hand clapping" but you are mistaken. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that clapping isn't always to say "well done". It's also sometimes used to get attention, such as clapping to get a pet to stop whatever destructive thing it's doing. The similar sounds of a gavel or drums may also be used to call a meeting to order. StuRat (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Can turn the lights, too. Dogs are more likely to misbehave in the dark. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

The last four paragraphs of Applause#Protocol_and_variations give some methods of showing appreciation other than clapping.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't find an article that covers this (neither clapping nor greeting does) but I recall a documentary many years ago about a trip to China of one of the principal British Orchestras (probably the LPO in 1972) where the visitors found that they would get welcomed to a town by clapping, but were told that they were expected to clap back; this response would not be normal in the West. --ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty normal for Western rock bands to lead a crowd in clapping to the beat, though. If you do it at a Neil Young show, just make sure you can count.

There are apparently a few classical tunes where it's fine, too.

We have a concert etiquette article, with multiple issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

I was once told that the British Sign Language way to clap is to wave both hands in the air. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Close; it's two actual claps followed by waving your hands. See NDCS - BSL for Applause. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

True. People who are 'hearing impaired' may not necessarily be completely deaf. There are various types of being hearing impaired, just as with visually impaired people, who may range from being able to see colours and shapes, or to being completely unable to see. I did Japanese Sign Language and worked with Japanese children who were hearing impaired. A lot of them could still hear some things, while others couldn't. The ones who couldn't would pay attention to me at all times, unless they were doing some activity I had assigned for them, in which case, if I wanted to talk to them about something, I would gently pat them on the shoulder, then use sign language and speech (to get them used to lip-reading) to tell them (or ask them) whatever it was. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, hardly anyone who's hearing impaired is so impaired as to be completely unable to hear sounds and live in a world of silence. Even they can feel vibrations. Some people are functionally stone deaf, in that, while they can hear sounds, they cannot understand speech unless they're lip readers (which is not foolproof). -- Jack of Oz 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Very true. Wasn't it Beethoven who used to lie on the floor to feel the vibrations of his own symphonies, because he couldn't actually hear them? KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 19:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

See also the very remarkable (and very much still with us) Evelyn Glennie. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

March 16

Presbyterian wedding

I attended a wedding this weekend. I've been to my share of weddings, most with some overarching religious backing, but I had never heard anything like what went on at this one. For background, it took place in a Presbyterian church in Toronto, Canada; the groom's family is also originally from Scotland, so I assume it was at least nominally a Presbyterian style ceremony. Anyway, the part that got me curious was a recurring theme that the pastors reiterated several times: that the groom was symbolically Christ and that the bride was symbolically the church. From this, it followed that she should "submit" to her husband in the same manner that the church must submit to Christ. Is this standard doctrine? To my old atheist ears, the allegory seemed bizarre and strained and the notion of female submission, especially uttered so matter-of-factly, struck me as anachronistic. That feeling was heightened by the way the pastors were both joking with the crows and acting quite familiar with the groom, even gently poking fun of his obvious nervousness and so on (i.e. these were not some old fossils who consider pants-wearing females to be ungodly). Matt Deres (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

See Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, specifically, Ephesians 5:22-33 and Colossians 3:18-25, famous passages about marriage. It is common in Christian weddings to have a wedding sermon based on a particular passage from the Bible dealing with weddings. Why one of these particular passagse was chosen for highlighting in this particular wedding is probably something negotiated between the minister and the bride and the groom. At my wedding (in a Southern Baptist church), we settled on 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. I'm not aware that the Presbyterian denomination requires the reading of the Ephesians or Colossians passage, though it may have been the desire of either the couple and/or the minister to read it. --Jayron32 05:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The allegory is straight from the Bible, as Jayron said. Besides the Ephesians and Colossians passages, there's also 1 Corinthians 11, where 11:3 reads "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife." On the matter of wives submitting to their husbands, see also 1 Timothy 2:11 ("Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man") and Titus 2:4-5 ("so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited"). My Bible translation notes that in 1 Timothy 2:11, "woman" could also be translated as "wife" and "man" as "husband".

(edit) I should add that 1 Corinthians 11 is not about marriage, but about proper behavior within the church. Paul's view of marriage is somewhat negative--he thinks the unmarried should not marry unless they can't control their sexual passions, in which case it's better to marry (1 Cor 7:8-9). --Bowlhover (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I was vaguely aware that such passages were in the Bible (I sure couldn't have cited them was done above, though), so I guess the thing that was surprising to me was their use rather than simply their existence. For example, my wife comes from a Catholic family and I've therefore been to more than a few Catholic-style wedding ceremonies and I've never heard those passages used. A handful of Anglican weddings and a few other Christian weddings of various denominations as well and there was nothing similar. When we discussed it afterwards, the Catholic relations in particular were amused/shocked by the choice of passages. As an outsider, my impression (albeit based on a single instance) was that one denomination stressed the submission of women more than another (or others) and I'm curious if that impression is more generally true or just idiosyncratic. If I were to attend a series of Presbyterian ceremonies, would I be likely to hear similar stuff again? Matt Deres (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have attended numerous presbyterian services. Note that in a general way presbyterianism is simply one of the three historically important ways of organising churches. Accordingly, there are many different denominations that use (or in the past used) the word "presbyterian" in their names. These vary from the relatively liberal Presbyterian Church of England (now merged into the United Reformed Church) to the grotesquely illiberal Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Depending on which denomination you attend you are less or more likely to hear such sentiments. Culturally, the various presbyterian denominations of Scotland have tended towards the "traditionalist" view of marriage. RomanSpa (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe this will help a bit: Presbyterian polity#Minister notes "Until the 20th century, only men had been eligible for ordination as elders or ministers of the word and sacrament. This is widely not the case any longer; although it is usually considered a demarcation issue, distinguishing "liberal" from "conservative" Presbyterian denominations. In North America, the Reformed Church in America, Christian Reformed Church in North America, (both of Dutch Reformed heritage), Presbyterian Church in Canada, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, Cumberland Presbyterian Church and Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are denominations with presbyterian polity which allow for the ordination of women." That is, the specific strain of Presbyterianism may vary based on its feelings towards the role of women. Not directly related to marriage, exactly, but there does appear to be a wide dysparity among various Presbyterian denominations regarding their attitudes towards women, and there is no general "All of Presbyterianism" doctrine on these things (it should be noted that this is quite true of almost any strain of Christianity, from Baptists to Methodists to Anglicans...) --Jayron32 02:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, guys; you've provided me with a bit of context. Matt Deres (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What is when a bishop is "received" at a church?

Looking for the definition here for "received" at a church. This would be an example. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a fancy way of saying that's when he first appeared in person in his new diocese. It could take awhile for someone to get where they needed to go (I can think of one example where someone was appointed, but did not arrive in person for almost 4 years). I'm not sure about Walter of Coutances specifically, but often a new bishop would go on a tour of his diocese, making sure all the clergy knew he was there, ensuring their loyalty (which could be a problem, if they had wanted a different candidate), probably collecting a bit of money from them. In this case, since Walter was an archbishop, he would probably also want to meet the six other bishops in Normandy who were now under his responsibility. So in a sense, "received" means that the other bishops and clergy in Normandy would "receive" him, as in accept him as their new boss. I wonder if it's an English usage of a technical/legal Latin term, since "recipere" in Latin can mean "accept". Adam Bishop (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So it would be when he was officially accepted or the officially entry? In some references for Walter of Coutances he is "received" on "24 Feb 1185". As in the French article on him. There seems to be a week difference (some say March 3) and perhaps this of the duties of 'a tour of his diocese' would account for this difference?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that is strange...I have no idea actually but I suppose it probably has something to do with the the original, contemporary sources, and the ways that they might be interpreted differently by modern historians. It's possible that the original sources don't give a specific date at all, and the date has to be inferred from other evidence, or they might describe the date in medieval terms (using the ancient Roman calendar, or referring to regnal dates of the king or the pope), or maybe different sources give different dates. I don't have have access to the sources in our Walter of Coutances article at the moment, but you could ask Ealdgyth (talk · contribs), Misplaced Pages's expert on medieval English bishops. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers on the bishops, Adam Bishop.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Neologism alert - some people call that kind of thing "eponysterical" :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This might help to indicate that the reception seems to more or less indicate the formal ceremony of his entry to his diocese. It certainly can be the case that a new bishop appears in his diocese before a formal reception, particularly if there are issues in the part he first appears in or if, for instance, he says a mass in his new diocese at an outlying parish on his way into the cathedral, and only later actually arrives at the cathedral for formal reception. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

French magazines automobiles

Are there magazines dealing with automobiles in French? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.120 (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Does fr:Catégorie:Média du sport automobile help? --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Go to Journaux.fr. In the blue sidebar, under "Familles de revues", open the section named "Auto / Moto & Transport". The first 4 items are specifically for car magazines. (the site isn't working for me right now). Cfmarenostrum (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

And now that the site works, I see it also sells some foreign (eg german and british) magazines. 92.154.7.156 (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

March 17

Why did Latin lose its central role?

Why did Latin lose its central role as language of science? I understand that uneducated people wouldn't have any advantage learning it, and went on with their own version of Latin, be it Spanish or French. For educated people, however, it was an academic lingua franca. It was a huge advantage to learn it, and have access to all academia, literature and people.--Llaanngg (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It fell out of fashion because people started writing in their own languages, just like Old Kingdom Egyptian was replaced by Middle Kingdom Egyptian and then by New Kingdom Egyptian, whilst Middle Kingdom Egyptian was retained for liturgical purposes, and then came Coptic (which is also used for liturgical purposes, as Egyptian Copts now speak Arabic). This is over a period of thousands of years, just has Latin has lost its central role over a period of thousands of years. It is still used occasionally for liturgical purposes, and for naming new animals and plants, and also in law (the odd phrase here and there), but has no other real function. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 02:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A big step in the eventual demise of Latin was the transition from Latin to vernacular languages, commensurate with the protestant reformation. According to the Misplaced Pages article on vernacular "In religion, Protestantism was a driving force in the use of the vernacular in Christian Europe, the Bible being translated from Latin into vernacular languages..." At around the same time, even Catholic writers began using the vernacular for their writing; Galileo, for example, wrote in Italian. Dante Alighieri actually became a proponent of the vernacular several centuries before the Reformation. The Divine Comedy was written in Italian (and not Latin), and he wrote in favor of popular writing in local vernacular in his De vulgari eloquentia (somewhat ironically written in Latin). In English, vernacular writing is usually traced to Wycliffe's Bible (liturgical) and the works of Geoffrey Chaucer, both from the generation after Dante. --Jayron32 02:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Geopolitical factors play a role as well. Latin was replaced by French as the language of European diplomacy from the early 1700s, due to the political influence of France at the time. English became the dominant language of science, medicine and engineering by the late 1800s. It is no coincidence that this corresponded with both the peak of the British Empire, and the emergence of America as an industrial power and later as a scientific power. (English also replaced French as the language of diplomacy during the 20th century, chiefly because of the heavyweight influence of the post-WWII America.) Manning (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalists

How do people become capitalists? Is it elected? Is it inherited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.116.90 (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

See Capitalism for a general overview. The word actually has several different meanings. It can mean "someone who lives in, and participates, in a society with a capitalism-based political and economic system" or it can mean "someone who supports political policies that favor capitalism" or it can mean "Someone who has lots of money and invests in businesses, and thus participates in the processes of capital development." So, it depends on what you mean by "Capitalist" before we can tell you how you get to become one. The easiest way is to read Adam Smith and say "Yeah, that sounds right..." --Jayron32 03:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

By capitalists I mean businesspeople, industrialists and tycoons.

60.241.116.90 (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

They can either be born into old money and given their position through nepotism, or climb the corporate ladder. Now everybody's got advice they just keep on giving, doesn't mean too much to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Chaos is a ladder. Like Baelish here, it helps if you're a psychopath, or act like one. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

In many places it's relatively easy to start a business, irrespective of the level of economic development. As soon as you start your own business you're a businessman or businesswoman. However, to become a "capitalist" you need to live in a society that has developed its economy enough for some other things to have happened. In particular, you need to live in a society that has developed the idea of money, rather than just doing business using barter. This is because capitalism is, in large part, about the efficient use of idle resources, and we measure these resources using an arbitrary measure called money. What distinguishes a "capitalist" from a "non-capitalist" business is best described by an example.

Suppose you're a cobbler. You might make a pleasant living by bartering the shoes you make for food (to keep you alive) and for raw leather (to make more shoes). It's pretty obvious, though, that this business is really not very big, because you have to eat the food that people pay you with before it spoils. If you have a good year you might get fat, but you won't get rich, in the sense that you'll still have to worry about where lunch will be coming from next year. Now suppose you're living in a money economy: the bartering is replaced with coins, and now if you have a good year you have a bag of coins under your mattress. This bag of coins is your "capital" - the wealth you've accumulated, and which is currently sitting idle, waiting to be spent later.

Now suppose you live in a town where there are several other businesses - as well as you, there's a butcher, a baker and a candlestick-maker. You notice that when your town holds its spring fair there's always huge demand for shoes, so a month before the fair you take all the coins in your moneybag and buy as much raw leather as you can, and turn it all into shoes. After the fair you've made a good profit, but you notice that you could have sold even more shoes, if you'd had them. So the next year you go to the candlestick-maker a month before the spring fair. You know that the candlestick-maker does most business in winter, so by spring he's got a large bag of money, but he won't need to buy the pewter to make more candlesticks till autumn, so it's just sitting idle. So you say to the candlestick maker, "If you lend me twenty gold pieces so I can buy extra leather before the spring fair, I'll make a bunch of extra shoes and pay you back the twenty gold pieces with the extra profits I make." The candlestick-maker looks at you and says, "OK, I know you, and I know you're honest, but this seems a bit risky to me, because I don't know the shoe business, so I'll lend you the money, but because this is risky for me I need you to pay me back more than twenty gold pieces." So you haggle a bit, and eventually agree that you'll borrow twenty gold pieces, and when these are repaid you'll add on an extra five gold pieces for the candlestick-maker to compensate him for the risk that the plan might go wrong for some reason (this compensation is called "interest", because the candlestick-maker is now rather interested in how your business is doing, in a way that he wasn't before). And so we leave you, the night before the spring fair, with a whole bunch of extra shoes to sell. Will they all sell and leave you and the candlestick-maker with a profit? Or have you made too many, so you're left with unsold stock? That's part of another story. For now, focus on one thing: you're now a capitalist.

What has made you a capitalist is this: you've used someone else's money that would otherwise be sitting idle, and put it to work. Your business has used capital - stored economic value - and agreed a price for that capital (the interest of five gold pieces). You're no longer just a cobbler, you're also, in a small way, a dealer in money. To be a capitalist, rather than just a businessman, you must be making other people's capital work. A nice thing about this is that it improves the efficiency of the overall economy - resources that were just sitting doing nothing are now used to create extra goods for society (more people have shoes). You had to do extra work to make those extra shoes, but it was worth it because now you've made some extra profit. The candlestick-maker, too, is better off. Notice that although the candlestick-maker may look like he was doing nothing, he was really taking a risk. If your plans succeed, he does okay, but if your plans fail, he hasn't just lost money, he also has fewer resources to support his own business when the time comes to buy pewter to meet next winter's demand for candlesticks. He's also now a capitalist, by the way - like you, he's put to work capital that would otherwise sit idle, but in this case he's provided the funds, while you've used them. In autumn, when it's time to make candlesticks, the situation may reverse.

In short: to be a capitalist you need to be putting other people's money to work, and rewarding them for the use of their money, or you need to have some money, and be being rewarded by someone else who's borrowed it from you for a while. In either case, there are risks involved. Perhaps you'll make a profit, and become a cobbler-tycoon. Or perhaps your plans will go wrong, and you and the candlestick-maker will lose out. If this happens, of course, you can always mutter that famous consolation to yourself: "That's shoe business!" RomanSpa (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RomanSpa, a friendly suggestion: that post would be a lot easier to read (and get more readers) if you put a space after each paragraph, and perhaps considered breaking some in two. I can't follow text like that. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind suggestion. RomanSpa (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so I see you've gone for the Maimonidean option. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to say that I don't know the aphorism or event that you're referring to... RomanSpa (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There was Maimonides, but I don't get it, either. As for the post, it was a bit blocky, but I liked the pun, too. Thanks for not burying it in the middle. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

RomanSpa, that's the best explanation of Capitalism I've ever read! And nice pun! 81.99.217.157 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an abbreviated version of a lecture I've given a couple of times. Glad you liked it. RomanSpa (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Percentage of the World's People who are Farmers

How many percent of the world's people are farmers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.116.90 (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

About one third of the world is engaged in agriculture. Incidentally, this was the very first hit when I typed "percentage of the world's population that are farmers" into Google. You can save yourself the step of having to ask people for help if you type your questions directly into Google. It's what nearly all people here will try first, and you'll save yourself time and others work if you try that first. --Jayron32 03:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Poor Farmers

In the past, most people were farmers. Farmers were poor. Why were most people farmers? Why were farmers poor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.116.90 (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

See the above link. Even today, the most common means of employment in the entire world is subsistence farming, being the practice of growing enough food to feed your family, and that's it. That is, more people simply grow enough food to feed their family than do any other single job in the world. Prior to the 20th century, more people were engaged in subsistence farming than all other jobs put together. It isn't like people have complete freedom of choice to decide what they do. People do what they need to feed themselves and their children. For many people, dropping seeds into some dust and praying for rain is the only option. --Jayron32 03:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Farmers were often poor because their parents were, and they were born into serfdom. Rich people's parents had claimed the land first. When you grew up on a farm, before electrical waves started making furniture talk, you didn't really know you were poor, or at least couldn't grasp quite how poor you were. You might see the horse and clothes the landlord's collector rode in on, and realize they're shinier than yours, but that was about the extent of your marginalization. The rest of the time, you were as rich as your poor family was, so it's all relatively good.

Now and then, a priest or politician would come by with some amazingly vivid stories. Again, the airwaves weren't a thing yet, so stories were a lot more thrilling than we give them credit for today. Like today's shows make some think "Why can't I have golden hubcaps?", those shows made some think "Why can't I have my own stuff?", and peasants revolted, most notably in the Peasants' Revolt. That last wave is a pretty common line to draw between "in the past" and "lately". InedibleHulk (talk) 07:22, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

If the only method of farming is only sufficient to provide enough food for the farmers themselves, ("subsistance farming", as mentioned above), then everyone will have to be a farmer, and they won't be able to have anything other than what they make or grow themselves. (In other words, they will be poor). If farming produces slightly more than enough for the farmers themselves, then they can either eat more comfortably, trade the excess to non-farmers for other goods and services (tools, clothes, luxury goods, etc), take time off work to do other things, or a combination of all those. The more efficient farming becomes, the fewer people have to farm (and instead can make stuff for farmers, or each other), and the more "stuff" the farmers (and everyone else) can have (i.e. the less poor they are). Of course, that's the ideal situation where farmers are free and trade is on even terms. In the real world, you have parasites like bandits or nobles who cream off some/all of the excess, leaving the farmers poor even if they can make more than they need themselves. Then there's all sorts of issues with land ownership, control of trade, etc, which affects how much the farmers can produce and what they can trade it for, which may make them poorer (or alternativly, richer) than they would be in a "fair" system. (Of course, what counts as "fair" is very much open to debate - with a lot of people defining it essentaily as "whatever would advantage people like me") Iapetus (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

World's oldest bureaucracy

Would it be accurate to say that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the world's oldest continuously-existing bureaucracies? --203.79.110.120 (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Those two aren't in full communion, so you'd have to pick one or the other after the Great Schism. Both organizations have changed their rules in major ways over the years, so it's not quite right to say their bureacracies have continuously existed. As you go further down each hierarchy, the rules are even less unanimous. How it works in one town isn't necessarily the way it goes in the next.

But yeah, they're definitely contenders. China is another. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Not since 1948, when it became Communist. Everything changed then. I believe the OP is asking about the oldest continuously existing bureaucracies still in existence. I would think Iceland might be a contender. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 08:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That was a weird year. The World Council of Churches sprung up, and the United Nations basically told the old world spider to clean out its desk.

I say "contender" instead of "champion" because of this. Change is the most continuous thing of all, and what exactly counts as the point of transformation depends on how you frame it.

Iceland's more undisputed, if you mean parliament by "bureacracy". It's been off-and-on-again with Denmark, though, and only off again (in a notarized and triplicated way) since 1944. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Anecdote alert: I used to have an Icelandic girlfriend and she said that many people there go bankrupt multiple times. Shortly after she went home, the entire country went bankrupt. However, it still maintains it's parliament, since viking times, though occasionally 'helped' by Denmark. I think it's called the 'Alþing', which is a direct translation of the Latin 'Res Publica'. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 21:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You think? Have you ever heard of Misplaced Pages, where one can look up Althing?  :) -- Jack of Oz 21:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack, I had never heard of Misplaced Pages before. I had to get it from the top of my head..... :) Thank you for the link. Actually I was in a hurry, to be honest. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 22:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think integrae servandae holds the record for most understated change. Even those involved didn't know if they were still technically competent to ban books. Took seven months to be ecclesiastically positive. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Fun Fact: The concordat of Worms is called the Concordat of Worms. Beyond that, it's a very dry read. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

The University of Bologna (another fun name) goes back to Schism days, and is the oldest university. There too, of course, the rules have changed, but it's something. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Venus of Tan-Tan

Is Venus of Tan-Tan the oldest artwork?--79.46.22.6 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If you mean by a human, and if a human made it, yes. But answers like that don't come easy hundreds of thousands of years later. I think we're stuck on maybe.

If you count non-humans, these psychedelic sponge etchings were done well before animals were supposed to exist.

If you count non-organic artists, here's a picture of the oldest anything ever. Trippy. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:06, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

We don't know. This and its pal the Venus of Berekhat Ram are basically pebbles that happen by chance to have a vaguely human shape to them. There are scratch markings that might or might not be attempts to enhance that shape, or they might just be scratches. There's a huge gap in time between these and the earliest definite art works. BTW, it's obviously not the oldest artifact. If you are going to use the word 'art' to refer to anything that has been made, there are a lot of flints. Paul B (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that a distinction should be made between "oldest artwork we know of" and "oldest artwork". Even if you say the Venus of Tan-Tan is a human made work of art, and even if you use a definition which excludes flints etc which might be primarily utilitarian in nature, you'd either have to come up with a very artificial definition, or have gotten very very lucky that we just happened to have found the real oldest work of art if it's something like Venus of Tan-Tan. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Will the Christians allow us to make a Hanuman temple in the Vatican?"

Surendra Jain made some statements following the destruction of two churches in India and the gang rape of a nun, as described: Though I know Vatican City is a very small "country" without much room, and one with an unusual theological structure, I do wonder: is the construction of some small thing qualifying as a Hanuman temple allowed, or has it even been done? After all, there are various interfaith things they do, and some of their workers and tourists might be non-Christian. One version of the statement seemed to use the word mandir, if that helps define the question - our articles focus on vast beautifully architected temples but unfortunately don't address what they look like when at their most rudimentary and rustic form. Wnt (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The Vatican City is really a sui generis type of country. There has not, AFAIK, ever been any construction of any other religious buildings within the Vatican City territory. Part of the reason to understand why (besides the fact that it's controlled by the Catholic Church) is to really understand the size and scope of it. It has almost no official residents/citizens which aren't already Catholic Clergy, so there's no need to meet religious needs of anyone else. It's also fantastically small in area, when one hears things like "The smallest country in the world", people don't really grasp how small it is in terms of area, almost none of the "land" it controls (and has controlled since its creation in its current form) is open for development in any way: The entirety of the country is a handful of buildings and some connecting streets and public spaces. At best, one could envision perhaps building something in the Vatican Gardens, which is a green space that takes up about half of its territory, but fat chance of doing that; it isn't undeveloped wilderness, but a carefully manicured garden. All of Vatican City takes up an area of 44 hectares, or 110 acres. To give you an idea of that size, if you paced out a square a little more than 2000 feet on a side, that's about the size of the Vatican; you can cover the extreme points in a comfortable 5-10 minute stroll. There's just no where to build an actual non-Catholic religious building. When you visit Vatican City, you don't stay in Vatican city, you stay somewhere in the greater Rome area, and Rome has religious buildings for various faiths. Tourists and workers use those. Also, the very notion of India as a country which is historically non-Christian is laughable, it has had native Indian Christians for Almost 2000 years or quite literally almost longer than Rome itself has. Certainly longer than Christendom has used Rome as an official capital. --Jayron32 15:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

By contrast, the town of Bill, Wyoming, one of the tiniest communities in America, could contain multiple replicas of the entirety of Vatican City. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically, I suppose, maybe, at some point, it might be possible for an individual to erect a murti of Hanuman in a residence in the Vatican, if an individual already living there chose to do so in the place where they lived. And I think there may be, maybe, a few statues or murtis or other similar non-Christian objects of veneration or devotion somewhere in the Vatican already, like in the Vatican Library, which one might conceivably be able to pay homage or worship to within the Vatican City limits. But, I have to agree with the others, I have extremely serious problems seeing any of the limited space available in the Vatican, all of which is I think "owned" by the Catholic Church, being used to set up any sort of permanent non-Christian worship site. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A useful point of comparison:

• Rashtrapati Bhavan (official residence of President of India): 130 hectare
• Vatican City: 44 hectare

I'll let others come up with the, "If they won't let me do <blank> in Rashtrapati Bhavan, how can I..." analogies. Abecedare (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that they have a good sized garden at the Vatican, maybe the best bet would be to lobby for a bird house or bird feeder designed as a miniature version of the temple. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should hasten to add, that size is just one issue. The comparison to a theocracy only makes sense if one presumes that India should be one. Does anyone know what the situation is in Iran, Saudi Arabia etc? Maybe VHP can use those for comparison next time. :-) Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Christianity in Iran should help a bit; Christianity is not outlawed in Iran, though Christians can face persecution and social problems, as with religious or ethnic minorities in any country. Several denominations of Christianity have been active in Iran since before the beginnings of Islam, and there is also a small number of Evangelical Christians being recent converts to Western Protestant denominations. It's important to note that, comparatively speaking, especially in urban areas, Iran is much more liberal than many in the West imagine it to be. Saudi Arabia is a different story, see Christianity in Saudi Arabia. Officially, all residents and citizens of Saudi Arabia are automatically treated as Muslims under Saudi law, and permanent residents are subject to laws against apostasy for not adhering to Islam as a religion. For that reason, though there are more Christians in Saudi Arabia than in Iran (and given the population differences, that means Christians make up a larger proportion of Saudia Arabia's residents than it does Iran), open worship is not allowed in Saudi Arabia (in Iran, especially among traditional Iranian Christian denominations, there's some protection afforded by the government, and there are public worship sites). That means that one cannot actually find an actual Christian church building in Saudi Arabia (on can do so in Iran) and all worship occurs in private homes. Possessing, or even attempting to enter the country, in possession of a Bible is actually punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. Among majority Muslim states, Saudi Arabia is perhaps one of the more opressive regimes to live in for religious minorities, in the whole World. Far more so than Iran, which gets caricatured as such, but is far more liberal in its social situation. --Jayron32 19:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Iran was traditionally friendly with the west, and might have remained so had not Jimmy Carter foolishly embraced the deposed shah, triggering a nightmare relationship which persists to this day. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

VHP would never stand up for Muslims, but Park 51 was pehaps the example they were looking for. Some recent events in both India and US have demonstrated how freedom of religion and expression, even in secular countries, can be held hostage to the sentiment of fringe right groups. Even the desecration, vandalism etc. have American parallels. Amitrochates (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a Hanuman temple in the Vatican, but there is a (small, portable) Vishnu one. — Kpalion 23:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

March 18

Did Horace translate the Iliad or Odyssey

Did Horace translate part or all of Homer's works, the Iliad or the Odyssey, to Latin? If so, how much of it? Have these translation survived to our times? If not, who has translated Homer's epics to Latin, and/or what works of art, especially poetry, has Horace translated? Our articles don't seem to mention any of this.

I'm asking because Devecseri Gábor seems to have considered Horace (as well as Babits Mihály) his master and role model in poetry and translation. I've had the impression that this is because Horace was a translator, as opposed to merely a poet who has borrowed a lot of good ideas and style from ancient Greek poetry, but maybe I've misunderstood something. – b_jonas 07:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Educated Romans read Homer in the original Greek, so I'm not sure there was great demand for a written literary translation into Latin. There was the Ilias Latina, which was kind of "downmarket" (not a full translation, and not very literary). AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Attius Labeo was renowned for the badness of his translations of Homer, so there was clearly a market. Paul B (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Livius Andronicus (c. 284 – c. 204 BC) was possibly the first who translated the Odyssey into Latin, but his translation has not survived. There have been many Latin translations of Homer over the centuries, but the oldest surviving seems to be by Leontius Pilatus (died 1366): - Lindert (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. I guess I'll have to re-read Devecseri to see what he actually says about this. – b_jonas 11:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Were the US and Britain ever equally powerful?

According to common knowledge, the United Kingdom was the dominant world power for much of the 19th Century, while the United States held that position for much of the 20th Century. In the views of historians, was there ever a time when the two countries were roughly equal in global power? And more generally, have any historians or political scientists studied the application of the Intermediate value theorem to international relations?--131.202.169.16 (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Composite Index of National Capability projected back in time gives 1896–97 as the year when US and UK were roughly equal in power. I am not aware of any precise historical studies on this. National power falls more in the domain of Political Science than History. However, historians do use Suez Crisis as an example of the decline in UK's status as a world power. Intermediate Value theorem is used in Economics and is found in domains intersecting both Political Science and Economics. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy for instance uses the intermediate value theorem in its dynamic model of democratization. Amitrochates (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the British prominence in the 19th century was based on the fact it had the most powerful navy in the world. This changed first when Germany built up a concurrent Navy in the last couple of decades of the century (although it proved not to be so formidable when tested in battle during World War I), and the significant drain on Britain's resources caused by World War I. That conflict is usually seen as the time when the balance of power tipped over, with the US entering the war in 1917, shortly before the final successful push against Germany, and the prominent US role in the settlements that followed the war. But, to make things more complicated, the US soon fell back into an isolationist policy, then was more badly hit than Europe by the Great Depression, so it did not truly become the dominant world power until it began to turn over the tide of World War II, some time around 1943-1944. --Xuxl (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Xuxl's answer is correct. While the United States had the world's largest economy by the late 1890s, it did not prioritize military power or empire to nearly the same extent as Britain, so it remained a second-tier military power. (It beat Spain in the Spanish-American War, but Spain was very much lower second tier by then.) The United States showed its potential to be a dominant military power in World War I and was probably seen as Britain's equal in 1918, but the United States dismantled much of its military capacity over the next couple of years, leaving Britain the leading military power through the 1920s and early 30s. In the mid-1930s, Germany's rapid militarization may have made it the leading military power, with the United States maybe in third or fourth place behind Britain and perhaps France. Meanwhile, Japan's militarization made it a rival of the United States until the Roosevelt administration began seriously mobilizing around 1940. With military mobilization in the United States accelerating rapidly in 1942, it probably equalled and surpassed Britain as a military power (permanently) at some point during that year or early in 1943. Marco polo (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Amitrochates that any cross-over point would likely be in the 1890s, when the U.S. was consolidating its massive industrial/economic strength and its respectable naval strength, while the U.K.'s share of the world's total industry and navies was consistently going down. The U.S. asserted itself in the Spanish-American War, and a number of European countries upgraded their diplomatic representation in the U.S. from "missions" to full embassies. However, the U.S.'s international power was still somewhat potential, since it confined itself to a limited role (staying out of direct involvement with Africa except Liberia, staying out of direct involvement with Asia except the Philippines, and staying out of direct involvement with Europe altogether). For extended discussion, you can see The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy... AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In terms of military power, in 1914 the US Army (including reserves) was rather smaller than the Bulgarian army. At sea in 1914, the Royal Navy had 38 Dreadnought battleships and battlecruisers, whereas the US Navy had 10. The US Navy didn't exceed the Royal Navy until 1944 if I recall correctly - I can't find a reference for that at present. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

An anecdotal ref (I was a year out): ...one frosty spring morning in 1943 on the North Atlantic, a division of frisky new American destroyers raced up to an embattled westbound convoy south of Iceland, to take over escort duties from a squadron of of British warships. Washington had just announced that the US fleet was now the largest in the world, and the commander of the lead destroyer flashed a message to his English counterpart: Good morning! How's the world's second largest navy?” Over the gray waters from His Majesty's proud line of storm-beaten ships came the reply: “Fine. How's the world's second best?". Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• By definition, if two lines cross, they cross at a point, so the answer is yes, assuming one thinks Britain was once more powerful and the US was later more powerful. Defining that point is a matter of the opinion of historians, unless you want to go be relatively objective numbers, like GDP in hard money. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In this amateur historian's opinion, the point was August 6, 1945, at 8:15:44.4 am, Hiroshima time. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

British historian Peter Clarke considers that the tipping point was the Tehran Conference in December 1943, when Churchill didn't get his way and "realised for the first time what a very small country this is". Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Edward VIII as privy council member

I know that Edward VIII was made a member of the privy council in 1920, before his accession. After his abdication was he ever reinstated? Sotakeit (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No. It's possible to confirm this by searching our List of Privy Counsellors (1936–52) and List of Privy Counsellors (1952–present) using the search term "Edward". None of the Edwards in those lists is the Duke of Windsor, as Edward was styled after his abdication. Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Empire of Kipjak

Was there ever a specific entity known as the "Empire of Kipjak", and if so, what do we call it today? I'm finding a bunch of late 18th-century references to it; my first encounter with the term was on the final page of a book by John Brown of Haddington, who records that in AD 1210, "Jenghiz Kan begins his wars ; and, within 50 years, he and his ſons erect the three empires of Iran, China, and Kipjak." Page 25 of Joseph Priestley's A Description of a New Chart of History says of this place that "THIS country, which comprehends Aſtrakan, Caſan, and the north-weſt parts of Tartary, was conquered by Jugi the ſon of Jenghiſkhan, who died in 1226, ſix months before his father. When it recovered its independency is not known. In 1553 the Ruſſians conquered the whole country." So apparently it's somewhere in southwestern Siberia and far eastern European Russia, but today do we have a name for this region? Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This was the empire usually known as the khanate of the Golden Horde. Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

See also: Kipchaks and Cumania. — Kpalion 20:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The Golden Horde didn't come to mind (even though it should have), and I've never heard the term "Kipchak" before. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just created a redirect to Kipchak at Kipjak. — Kpalion 12:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This word has a lot of alternate spellings, the one I am used to seeing, Kpalion, is wikt:Qipchak, the entry for which shows alternatives. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, there should be a redirect for all of them. — Kpalion 21:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

March 19

Political parties israel threshold 3.25%

Which political parties voted in favour for the threshold to be raised from 2% to 3.25% and is there is a website that shows the result? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.154 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Took some searching, but I found the tally of 67-0. It looks like the whole coalition, minus one (I would guess Tzipi Livni as she was firmly against the bill according to sources), voted for it and everyone else was against it and chose to abstain. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 28 Adar 5775 03:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Science in the bible

Many events described in the bible are not possible under current scientific understanding. Do religious people believe that God changed the laws of physics to make such events possible, or that the people performing the miracles changed the laws of physics themselves? My Little Question Can't be This Interesting (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find the vast majority of people (whether they believe in God/miracles or not), never think quite that far about science in the first place to come up with that question. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That said, that still leaves a large number of people who do think that far. And among those people my guess is there are some who subscribe to one or the other of your two differing suggestions and still others who subscribe to every possibility in-between, around, above, and below your suggestions. We all have to make sense of the world around us, and we can use whatever information we chose in whatever manner we chose in order to do so. There are no limits to how people think about existence, how it is we got here, what it is we are doing here, and how that will impact our life.128.229.4.2 (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of changing the laws of physics, but rather not being bound by them. Christians/Jews/Muslims etc. are supernaturalists, so they believe that there are things or beings beyond the natural world, things that do not have to follow the patterns that we observe in nature, which we call "laws of physics". Typically, theists believe that people performing miracles do so by the power of God, and not by their own ability. - Lindert (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As a semi-aside, I've seen it asserted that a passage in the Old Testament describing a large bronze vessel as having (in modern terms) a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 means that π = 3.0 (or did, or the Israelites thought it did, or something). However, if you reasonably assume that the 10 and 30 are rounded to the nearest whole unit, the true value of π falls within the possible range (roughly 2.81–3.21). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Supernaturalism quite isn't the only view. God is usually regarded as above natural law (so, yes, supernatural), but may be the basis of natural law in a panentheistic sense. In this view, God is about as supernatural as we are super-esophageal. Angels and demons may be regarded as symbols for aspects of the psyche, or a coping mechanism to handle the altered state of consciousness regarded by the faithful as divine revelation, or are considered to be bound by natural law (if in ways different from us). A somewhat medieval analogy would be that the difference between humans and angels is like that between fish and humans (able to survive in conditions we cannot, able to move through substances we cannot, and a hell of a lot smarter). In the writings of Philip K. Dick, these were hyperevolved beings from the future. "Paranatural" would be more apt than "supernatural" in those cases. Not advocating any sort of scientific existence of angels, just pointing out that it's not quite all supernaturalism.

This also extends to miracles performed by God. In the 19th and to a lesser degree 20th centuries, some theologians liked to look for scientifically plausible ways different miracles could have been accomplished, such as attributing the plagues of Egypt to a volcanic eruption. There are plenty of religious people who view the creation account in Genesis as poetry, not science or history, and are consequently open to viewing the other stories of miracles as Jewish or Christian mythology (in a positive sense, a la Jung/Joseph Campbell or Tolkien/Lewis). The main exception to this would be Christian perception of at least the resurrection of Jesus (though possibly open to the possibility that it was still within natural law, even if particular proposals offend), which would be (in C.S. Lewis's words) "a true myth" written by God instead of humanity. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In the old days, religious people didn't even know what the stars were, but now we have Mars, which is the only planet entirely populated by robots. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You ask "Do religious people believe that God changed the laws of physics to make such events possible, or that the people performing the miracles changed the laws of physics themselves?" Are those the only possible explanations for the "events" you refer to? Didn't metaphor exist a few thousands of years ago? The bible is an example of early writing but the same impetus to communicate in metaphor probably existed then as now. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, metaphor existed in those days, but metaphor is not an excuse for actually not knowing anything and not being bothered (or having the ability) to even find out when someone asks. I am also sure that the word 'dunno' was present in olden times. Showing them a computer and getting them to watch a YouTube video would be a 'miracle' to them. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec)The Bible is chock-full of metaphors, allegories, parables, symbols, etc. Some Jews and Christians don't accept that everything is a metaphor, only those things which are explicitly identified as such... and sometimes not even then, as some Christians believe literally in transubstantiation and that Jesus was nominating Peter to be the founder of the Church, while others do not. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published the article "Science and the Bible—Do They Really Contradict Each Other?" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005241?q=science+bible&p=par. You can press the search button for additional results from the same search terms.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• The only essential belief for Catholics was that Jesus was the son of God, God incarnate, that he died for our sins, and that the sacriments are efficacious. All the other things like Noah's flood, The stopping of the sun in its course, and Jonah and the Whale are treated as stories the truth of which is symbolic or metaphorical. For example, the Church has no problem whatsoever with evolution or the big bang. So yes, it is supernaturalist in the belief in God and the afterlife and the Messiah and the sacriments, but it is not textually literalist in the way of Islam and of (especially evangelical) Protestantism. Modern Judaism is similar to Catholicism in its insistence on interpretation and in the conservative belief that one need follow the 613 commandments as currently interpreted to be a good Jew, no belief in whale-swallowing events needed. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I was in the kitchen once, you know, the modern type, with plumbing and stuff, and one of the pipes was blocked or broken, so when I came to empty the sink, there was flooding all over the place. I shouted "No! Aaaagh". This was "No! Aaagh"'s flood. Of course, all the animals in existence happened to be within walking distance of my house, so I was able to save them all, build a boat, stop them eating each other and get rid of their faeces for 40 days while I sent off a bird to find land (which never came back), so sent off the other bird to find land, and apparently it did, and then miraculously birds still exist, despite the fact that there was only one of them left. I think we all know enough about physiology to realize it usually takes two to tango. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 19:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We have no record of any eggs being laid on either your arc or Noah's, but who knows? Dbfirs 22:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a few individuals who are extremely strict biblical literalists out there who give the literal interpretation of the word of the Bible status as absolute truth. Most of them are Christians of some sort. But even the majority of Christians at this point, while they may well accept some of the miracles of the Bible as being truly miraculous, tend to see the cosmological descriptions in the Bible and some of the other details as being, basically, outdated. While it might have been based on the best views of science available at the time the Bible was first written, most will now see it as being in some way metaphorical. This isn't saying that all people who believe in the Bible believe in all of what we call science today either, but that the stuff that is really "out there" by modern standards tends to be seen as being in some way figurative or metaphorical. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

To add some numbers to what Carter (and others) have said: According to PEW data, about one-third of Americans say that the Bible is word of God that should be taken literally word-for-word; a third agree that it is word of God, but say that it should not be taken literally; while the rest don't believe it to be the word of God. I didn't find any equivalent global data, but a survey of Evangelical leaders from across the world showed that even they are 50-50 split on whether the Bible is to be read literally.

And in my judgment more people are likely to say to a pollster that they believe that everything in the Bible is literally true (perhaps as a signal of group identity), than act pursuant to that professed belief. So take even these survey numbers with a pinch of salt. Abecedare (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

Why is nobody answering the actual question? The OP asked if, in the Bible stories, God performed the miracles directly or if the people performed the miracles themselves. Surely there's been differing opinions on this by Christian theologians throughout the ages. If you focus on Jesus, we see "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Mt 28:18), or "Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power" (Jn 13:3). These suggest to me that God (the father) gave power to Jesus, and then Jesus used that power himself to perform miracles (rather than God simply doing them directly). Miracle-workers other than Jesus would seem to be less clear-cut. I'm not a theology expert. Anybody knowledgeable care to answer the question that was actually asked? Staecker (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

When we make miracles, we're just being vessels of God. According to some. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

I think the greatest miracle of all was done by people: we made God. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 04:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Necessity is the mother of invention. We also make new people and destroy old ones. Though it often seems mundane, that's some crazy power to wield alone. Saying God made me do something is the same as saying the Devil did, just for different situations. People fear realizing their potential more than they fear not realizing it. According to some. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for all religious people, but I can speak for myself. I believe that Genesis is a divinely inspired, poetic collection of several non-related, semi-historical, oral accounts, from vastly different times, and tribes, dating from about the 80th millennium BC to about the 2nd millennium BC. I do not believe that it is scientifically, or historically accurate. Meaning, I don't believe that the Creation event as described, occurred either, ergo no natural laws were implicitly broken to achieve the Creation. Regarding miracles, I believe that the Lord can override natural laws to accomplish a miracle, but not the person performing said miracle, as it says, of themselves they can do nothing (paraphrasing). Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean 8th millenium? It's OK if you didn't, just wondering. That's a long time. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I meant 80th. That is a long time indeed! Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

For instance, in the multiplying of the fish and loaves, one possible override could be where matter is taken from elsewhere in the universe, whose absence won't be missed, and reassembled into the complex molecules that comprise the micro/macrostructure of the foods. Conservation of mass-energy. The only natural law that I'm aware of being broken is the thermodynamic law entropy. Technically speaking, it is entirely plausible for this event to occur spontaneously in the universe, just extremely unlikely. My observations lead me to believe that the Lord tends to act via the butterfly effect. I've investigated several historic movements and interactions of civilizations covered in the Bible, and have attempted to trace the cause and effect line as far back as I can. In every case that I've looked at, it stops with the environment, such as but not limited to the climate. Famines, pestilences, war, migrations, etc. were all natural consequences of changes in the environment of at least one portion of the affected population(s). Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to recommend Daniel C. Matt, God & the Big Bang: Discovering Harmony Between Science and Spirituality, Jewish Lights Publishing, 1996. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read the review, and I see that the ideas in the book are based on Kabbalah. I am strongly aligned against Kabbalah - I view it as blasphemy in the form of pretense to divinity. Various forms of black magic is also heavily based upon the precepts of Kabbalah. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Kuzari discusses this question, among many others. So do many other works of Jewish philosophy and mysticism, not just the Kabbalistic (has anyone linked to Zohar yet?) ones. There are many different interpretations and understandings of this. But in essence, here's a thought: if you believe that an omnipotent power created the laws of science, why wouldn't you believe that that same being can suspend them? And here's another: science is very good at stating that it understands something and it's also very good at stating that it's discovered something that changes the way it previously understood something. The certainty of the former is replaced by the certainty of the current until it too is replaced by a new certainty. Religious people (and, to be fair, good scientists) are really quite interested in lack of certainty. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

History

What are the dtes of the reign of Tiberius Ceasar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.159.62 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Tiberius. Just click on the blue link. Paul B (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Teens more intelligent?

I was wondering about the prospect of how possible and common it is to lose intelligence. I recall in my early teens I was getting B grades and C grades at a bad school. I was in the top 25%. However, nowadays I feel like anything requiring intelligence I fail at. I volunteered at a wiki on another site and they all said I'm too dumb to help. This March I failed my fourth driving test in a row. I applied for a simple supervisal assistant role and failed a test that most people pass. I also forget a lot of stuff. I feel like the fibers, sensory receptors and neurons inside my skull are useless. I thought people become wiser as they age but I have become dumber, but I'm only 27. Is it common for people to be more intelligent during their teens than during their adulthood? Losing intelligence (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Depends what happens in the meantime. I used to feel smarter, too, before a few concussions, a bunch of weed and refined fructose and a lack of thinking practice. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

• See this hot off the press article on when various cognitive abilities peak, and note that there is considerable variation even in normal healthy people. As for your personal case: unfortunately we cannot help in any medical diagnosis, and can only suggest that you see a qualified professional. Abecedare (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If student grades are the reason for your question, see Grade inflation. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Confused about satire

Hi there. I read an article (link) on a usually serious news website and I'm not sure if it's satire or serious. I can't find anything on Google. Perhaps somebody here is better than me at using Google and can enlighten me. Thanks for your help--Asker of questions (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's serious.
Sleigh (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure it's usually "serious"? I can't see the point, if that article is satirical. Flippant, sure. The one it links to is what I'd call serious, though I reach the page in error. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

Destruction of copyright-infringing works

Let's say I'm an obscure photographer, and I publish some photos that get copied (without permission) and sold by a more famous artist whose works sell for large amounts of money. If I sue him for copyright infringement and win, why would destruction of the unsold copies be ordered by the court? See Cariou v. Prince: I don't understand why the district court would order the destruction of the unsold prints, rather than ordering that all royalties go to the original photographer or something of the sort. It's not like a professional photographer would be likely to request destruction if the alternative was being awarded potentially large amounts of money. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

They didn't order the prints destroyed. They ordered the defendants to "within ten days of the date of this Order deliver up for impounding, destruction, or other disposition, as Plaintiff determines, all infringing copies of the Photographs, including the Paintings and unsold copies of the Canal Zone exhibition book, in their possession, custody, or control and all transparencies, plates, masters, tapes, film negatives, discs, and other articles for making such infringing copies." (Emphasis added.) It is, of course, within the rights of the copyright holder to decide how many copies of his work will exist. --65.94.50.15 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Swapping sisters

I am attracted to the sister of one of my friends. But my friend is also single and so are two of my sisters. So a thought crossed my mind. He could introduces me to his sister, and I introduce him to either of my sisters. I don't date so I'm only interested in marriage. So is such a thing common, and is there an article about it on wikipedia? Recent questioners12 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes also known as "parallel marriage" or "parallel weddings", here's an academic paper on the topic , it also discusses cousins marrying cousins, and other types of marriage arrangements done in Baragon. This says that "sister swapping" is also a Kurdish tradition, known as "Berdel." SemanticMantis (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the brief stub article on Berdel from the Tr Misplaced Pages . SemanticMantis (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

See also double cousin, the term used to describe the relation between the children of such marriages. -- ToE 23:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Jonas in the Whale

In Moby-Dick, chapter LV (Of the Monstrous Pictures of Whales), Melville wrote:

In old Harris's collection of voyages there are some plates of whales extracted from a Dutch book of voyages, A.D. 1671, entitled "A Whaling Voyage to Spitzbergen in the ship Jonas in the Whale, Peter Peterson of Friesland, master." In one of those plates the whales, like great rafts of logs, are represented lying among ice-isles, with white bears running over their living backs. In another plate, the prodigious blunder is made of representing the whale with perpendicular flukes.

Are Harris's collection and the Dutch book authentic historical works, and do they survive today? -- ToE 22:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any information about the supposed Dutch book, but Friderich Martens published a German book in 1675 that does describe that voyage, which is definitely historical. It can be found on google books, but I don't see the described plates in that book. - Lindert (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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