Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 24

Christian leadership formation throughout church history

Does anyone have any information about Christian leadership formation throughout church history? Specifically the periods A.D. 200-300; A.D. 1000-1200; and the Reformation period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.25.62 (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

See History of the Papacy and History of Christianity and History of the Eastern Orthodox Church for some good launching off points. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. I need information on how the church trained it's leaders (preists, etc.) during the forementioned time periods. In modern times, we have Bible Colleges and Seminaries, but what did they do during those times specifically? 209.161.25.62 (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In the middle ages (so, covering 1000-1200) they had schools, not quite like modern bible colleges and seminaries, but the same sort of idea. Youths attended school in the cathedral or the monastery, where they would learn basic Catholic doctrines and Latin, and perhaps other subjects like mathematics. When they were a little older they would learn the trivium and later the quadrivium. They would learn those at the universities, maybe not as early as 1000, but certainly after 1100. In more advanced studies they would learn theology and canon law. This is, at least, the course of study for someone who wanted to advance far in the church; I'm not sure about regular parish priests. Considering the amount of time the bishop had to spend correcting and retraining his parish priests, a lot of them apparently had only the most basic education. I think they would have simply trained as an apprentice to the existing priest, as in any other medieval profession. (I know there is a lot of information about this, since I know so many people studying it; I'll see what else I can find.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There's obvious biblical evidence for younger leaders being trained by others (for example, Timothy travelling with Paul), so I'd be surprised if this weren't done to an extent during the period you're talking about. Given that Christianity was always either illegal or subject to become illegal throughout most of the area that it covered until the Edict of Milan, I would doubt that anything formal would have been established; it would have been much safer for younger men to be mentored by older. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Puqu

Puqu was established by China in occupied Tibet in 2004 for Tibetean inhabitants. Is Puqu considered an "illegal settlement" by the international community? Chesdovi (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that China sees Tibet as an integral part of their national territory, and not occupied land; and that China also has veto power in the U.N. security council, and thus itself has a hand in determining legality of such settlements, I highly doubt it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The UN Security Council has neither jurisdiction nor competence to determine the legality of an act.

That said, the international community has always recognised Tibet as part of China, whether before or after 1949. All other relevant parties, including the Dalai Lama, regard Tibet as today part of China. If approached from this position, for a country's government to construct a settlement for its own citizens is certainly not illegal at international law per se.

A second assumption in the OP's question is that the settlement was constructed by "China". Tibet has a functioning sub-national government in the form of the government of the Tibet Autonomous Region, which descends directly from the administration of the Dalai Lama in Tibet; the Dalai Lama was its first Chairman.

Whether a settlement constructed by an occupying power is illegal is an open question. The Palestinian territories are widely seen as under military occupation within the meaning of the law of war, and thus, Israel has certain obligations under the 4th Geneva Convention and also under the Hague Convention. Israeli settlements for Israelis in the Palestinian territories are widely regarded as illegal, because they are inconsistent with the requirements of those conventionsl. However, this position is not universally accepted.

A further point of distinction should be noted: Israeli settlements involve 1) the forced removal of Palestinians from their land, and 2) the settlement of people from Israel, the occupying power, into the occupied territories. A Tibetan settlement for Tibetans is not the same.

Ultimately, the laws of war are unlikely to apply because today, none of the major parties in the debate - the Chinese government, the international community, the Dalai Lama - regard Tibet as being under military occupation in the international legal sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is migration of non ethnic Tibetians to Tibet although I don't know if Puqu is involved and whether there is actually most government involvement (one of the areas where there's so much propaganda both sides I will take care with all sources). A better comparison would be something like Indonesia's Transmigration program then the Israeli settlements in Palestine. I would note that if Israel were to annex the Palestinian territories in their entirety without the expulsion of Palestinians and with the guarantee of equal rights that situation would probably be less controversial then the current one. They won't though since in that case (former) Palestinians would outnumber Israelis Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Automobiles and Greek architecture

Yes, they're two rather different subjects, but I have two rather different questions about the same picture, shown here to the right.

• I've put this in Commons:Category:Greek Revival architecture, because of its Doric columns. Is this an appropriate classification?
• On the other subject: can someone identify the cars parked in front of the building? Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The yellow sun chariot appears to be a Mini Cooper S, coupe. Happy holidays, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a good example of Greek Revival architecture. The architectural style is a late derivative of the Greek Revival school that has conventionally been used for banks in the United States. Clues in your photo suggest that the building pictured dates to 1890-1920, whereas the Greek Revival was a movement of the early to mid-1800s. On the other hand, it would be safe to class this as an example of the broader category neoclassical architecture. Marco polo (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that the blue car is a Pontiac GTO. It's almost certainly a Pontiac, because of the "pointy nose". I'm rubbish at knowing/guessing years though. --LarryMac | Talk 18:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The car gurus might boo, but the blue car looks a lot like a Ford Thunderbird - [1] - to me.76.97.245.5 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We already had user:Julia Rossi, who is not a car guru but a can-guru. Boohoo. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As indicated above, I'm no guru, but still . . . "Boo." Almost certainly a 1970 GTO. Note, in particlar, the wraparound, squared-off, rear bumper with the cut-out for the brake light. From the searches I've been doing, the 1969 didn't have that type of bumper, and the grill on the 1971 was different. --LarryMac | Talk 19:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Admit my first thought was T-bird, but the grills vary alot and the noses are quite heavy. Does the front chromed bumper match anything? Otherwise everything compares including the lifted line over the rear wheels, space for the logo near the front wheel, the (painted) strip under the doors. So my vote's in for the GTO. Nicely interrelated pic with all that neo-classic design. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Thanks for the input, everyone! I agree that it's an interesting scene, but someone else gets the credit, even though I uploaded it; I found the picture online and got permission from the website owner to upload. Two things:

• Marco: unless you looked at the article about the bank, great guess! The building was built in 1920. Going by your opinion, I've removed it from the Greek Revival category.
• I've placed the picture into Commons:Category:Pontiac GTO and Commons:Category:Mini Cooper S. If discussion continues and concludes that they're not these two cars, please modify the categories. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Patent law book

Can anyone suggest a good book which describes patent law in an interesting manner. I tried reading the MPEP but that's rather drab. Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Which jurisdiction are you in? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in India but I'm interested mainly in US law. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.114.34 (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought Boyle's Shamans, Software, and Spleens was a pretty fun read, and has a lot about how US patent law works in it. It's not a doctrinaire text but in my opinion when it comes to patent (and copyright) law the extreme, borderline cases tell you more than the "run of the mill" cases do. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you 98.217.8.46, I will definitely check that book out. :-) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Venetian Court by Charles Harness is a science fiction novel which is very much about patent law (his day job was as a patent lawyer), and is certainly interesting. (As far as I can remember, under a strange set of circumstances the US government has made patent infringement into a capital crime). You would not want to take it as a legal textbook, however! --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

date of birth of prophet muhammad

what is the true date of birth of prophet muhammed in Islmic (hajeri) calender, 12th of 3rd month of Islameic calender or 9th of 3rd month of islamic calender . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khubab (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that both the date and the year of his birth are a matter of dispute amongst scholars. Sunni Muslims prefer the 12th Rabi' al-awwal 570 AD, Shia Muslims the 17th Rabi' al-awwal 570 AD. Similar to the arbitrary date of birth assigned to Jesus Christ (which escapes me momentarily), it may be mainly a matter of tradition of differing schools of thought. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Miss Black Virginia USA

I was told that my submission may be deleted - I am not sure why? It said that it seems to be for advertising or promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseofL (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Reference Desk doesn't really deal with reasons for the deletion of articles. We handle factual questions. You might want to try the Help Desk. Marco polo (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)