Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< April 20 << Mar | April | May >> April 22 >
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.


April 21[edit]

Italian Pope[edit]

Why there haven't been any other Pope rather than Italian Pope since 16 century until Pope John Paul II? What made Italians so powerful in Christianity?Pendragon5 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious answer is that of proximity: Rome / the Holy See is in Italy (or rather on the Italian peninsula as the state of Italy was not united until Garibaldi in 1871, but that is neither here nor there) and was the capital of the old catholicized Roman Empire. You have to remember that it took a long time to get to the other countries back then and moreover in the 16th century the Protestant Reformation was going on which undoubtedly made the (mostly Italian) cardinals wary of any non-Italians as possible heretics. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a bit: the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and for most of history, he was also the secular leader of the Papal States which occupied most of what is now central Italy. The fact that the Pope was almost always Italian did upset other parts of Western Christendom, which is why the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism occured. Once that matter was settled, the Pope went back to being Italian, for the most part. --Jayron32 03:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at our List of Popes, you also notice that from the beginning of the 15th century to the end of the 19th, only one Pope is recognised as a saint, and only two are beatified. Compare that to earlier centuries (although the 10th is also without canonised Popes), and with the 20th century. That gives some idea of the quality of person chosen for the Papacy in those years, and how they were generally viewed by the Church. There's a whole load of Catholic saints from the period who are especially remembered for their teaching to laypeople and lower ranking religious on how to handle scandalous behaviour in those above them: e.g. St Francis de Sales. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a movement to canonize Pope Pius IX, and any objections to this are really not on the basis of any perceived faults of personal piety or morality, but are much more based on his actions towards the Jews, his apparent hatred of democracy and pluralism, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canonise Pius IX? No, No!  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 13:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a typo. What they really need to do is cannonize. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you missed why Jack's comment was funny. If you search our article on Pope Pius IX for the phrase "Pio no no", you will understand. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common names of far-right[edit]

What are common names of far-right parties in Europe regardless of their nationality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.245 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Far-right politics should get you started on your research. --Jayron32 03:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The words "National", "Nationalist" and "Patriot" are common in the names of far-right parties. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 03:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Freedom" also seems to be popular in the names of European right-wing parties. LANTZYTALK 18:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
National Front is an especially common name, although not every group that has used it is/was far-right; but a lot of them are/were. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr vs Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Wikimedia Commons is a free media hosting site, Flickr is non-free (well to get good features you have to upgrade to pro account). Commons has improved features like categorization of photos to easily find them, and other editors will assist you in improving your contribution. But still Flickr is more popular than Commons. Why? --SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because many people want to 1) upload personal photos without worrying about whether they'll be "realistically useful for an educational purpose", or 2) without releasing their control over future re-uses (which is required by all Common licenses). AnonMoos (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr is an image hosting service while Wikimedia Commons is supposed to host files that have some potential for use on one of the Wikimedia projects. So while File:Gold Range Hotel.jpg can be on both Commons and Flickr other images such as this would really have no place at Commons. As AnonMoos points out the license requirements can be different. All the images that I uploaded to Commons have the same licence as at Flickr but the other images at Flickr, like the second example, have an "All Rights Reserved" license. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, photos on Wikimedia can be deleted if other users decide they're not of any value. If you upload photos to Flickr they won't be deleted till you say so (although they may be hidden if you have too many for a free account). --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Inequality[edit]

I've heard that rich people are rich and deserve to be rich because they are hard-working and poor people are poor and deserve to be poor because they are lazy.

But then how come this? Rich people are always few. Poor people are always many. Few people were nobles. Most people were peasants. Few people are capitalists. Most people are workers. Few people live in developed countries. Most people live in developing countries. But what about this? How come this? How do you explain this?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a weird generalising answer, almost as nonsensical as the first sentence in the OP. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are intelligent and hard-working people who voluntarily or involuntarily work as blue-collar worker. There are a few really intelligent people (far more intelligent than the average newspaper editor) who work as a blue-collar worker, such as Eric Hoffer, but they are handful in number. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 09:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also circumstances can make a really intelligent, hard-working and ambitious person poor. Say, a person who is suffering from a personality disorder (such as social anxiety or schizophrenia) will find it difficult to get employment and will suffer from poverty. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 09:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence in OP's statement is an arbitrary and incorrect conclusion. The correct statement will be, "Not all poor people are lazy, but all lazy people are poor". --SupernovaExplosion Talk 09:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed. You can e.g. have a wealthy and lazy heir or lottery winner.Sjö (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in India, there are a few beggars who make a lot of money, more than an average college lecturer or grocery store owner. See this video (language not in English) where a beggar got an account in India's largest bank. A beggar in Mumbai earns INR 2000-2500 per day, making their monthly income INR 60000-80000, which is far more than the salary of a senior reader of a college. See "Rich Beggars In India-Mumbai". All they have to do is to look very poor in need of help, sure they need intelligence to do so. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 10:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old boys network and Social Class are more relevant here than any attempt to identify poverty as a function of individual personality. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scruples or lack of also play a big part in who cannot afford to buy a yacht or has to make do with an air mattress.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Cuba, there's a bizarre situation where doctors, paid by the government, are poor, while waiters, who get tips from rich tourists, are often rich in comparison. So, does this mean the doctors have low IQs and/or are lazy ? StuRat (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. good example how government intervention destroys talent and knowledge. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 22:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the connection. Could you please clarify? →Στc. 23:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the Cuban government did not restrict private practice for doctors, they could have earned a lot more. If Cuba had a market economy, purchasing power of the people would have been much higher, enabling them to pay highers fees to doctors. But due to government restriction, the people are poor, and doctors earn a lot less. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 01:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A doctor in Cuba earns $15/month, and a prostitute in Cuba earns $100/night. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 22:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if you have an anal fetish, save money and go to a proctologist, instead. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]
I assume the prostitutes' clients are overwhelmingly waiters. Gives a new meaning to the phrase "service with a smile"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the doctors don't need prostitutes, since they're already getting screwed on a daily basis. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Well, that's another tried and tested way of surrendering to an anal fetish. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Rich people are rich, by and large, because they were either born rich, or born with access to the avenues to get rich (i.e. access to the correct schools where they could become involved in the correct social networks to enable them access to very high-paying jobs). There are enough anecdotes of real people who were born abjectly poor and became rich to confuse people and make them think it is possible for them to do the same. Hard work has nothing to do with it. They guys spreading asphault in the hot sun for 10 hours a day work hard, but they will never get rich doing that activity. It also doesn't mean that rich people don't work hard either: a stock broker may put in as many hours, and work just as hard as the pavement spreader, for his six figure salary. But there is no correlation, positive or negative, between hard work and socioeconomic class: it is largely a function of your environment (again, with enough exceptions to give you false hope). That also doesn't mean that people in any socioeconomic class cannot be happy, satisfied, or well-balanced in their life, since those things are largely unrelated to money either. --Jayron32 23:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked with both pay-remuneration studies, and the study of satisfaction amongst the IR/HR/Organisational Studies areas; the idea of a "sufficient" living was quite popular, justified both by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and by factory pay structure studies in industrial sociology. This of course is an expansion on both Taylor's insight into pay motivation versus exertion, and the general idea you note that many satisfactions are external to the circulation of material commodities. I expect that similar concrete insights from workers is what leads to the class consciousness of "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work," being a grounding, but not sufficient condition for human happiness. What this means is that after a certain amount of material satisfactions in a particular society, current research indicates that further satisfactions aren't related to wealth or income's capacity for consumption of goods and services. (Though wealth or income could be elements of serving "higher needs," for example, if they're used as a "score" in self-expression). I haven't seen similar analyses of bourgeois class consciousness in relation to earnt income, but these studies hold true for 90%+ of most industrial populations on a class basis alone. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laissez Faire[edit]

One important part of capitalism is laissez faire. Laissez faire is the lack of control or intervention by the government of the economy.

But why laissez faire? I mean, wouldn't the government help the economy and help it develop by its control or intervention of it?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your worldview. If you are a Marxist, you will say government helps the capital owners and oppresses the workers, if you are a Keynesian, you will say government intervention is necessary to fix defects of the market, if you are a libertarian, you will say government disrupts the market. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 09:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You will notice in the Laissez-faire article that "A laissez-faire state and completely free market has never existed, though the degree of government regulation varies considerably". So obviously most people do think that government intervention in the economy to some degree is a necessity. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it is observed countries which are more free market oriented have higher standard of living (Hong Kong, New Zealand). On the contrary, countries with dictatorship of the proletariat, such as North Korea, are absolute hell for the working class. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 09:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Poverty#Economic_freedoms. Government intervention generally helps the established big businesses and harms small business owners. The more free the economy, the more people are business owners. The more restricted the market, few people are business owners and most are workers or unemployed. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 09:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concrete experience of New Zealand is a combination of deep and utter fear, insecurity and self-loathing. This is applied like a plaster atop a lathe of precarious employment and poverty. And yes North Korea is worse; but North Korea claims to be a Juche state, and not to have implemented a "dictatorship of the proletariat," which, in Marx, is visible as a kind of executive parliament of workers themselves. New Zealand's standard of living is unacceptable, and has collapsed since the Boys from Chicago raped New Zealand society as an experiment. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Bakunin, another critique of capitalism, said that for the Marxists, "anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved." --SupernovaExplosion Talk 10:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with North Korea is not that they do not adhere to laissez faire economic principles. The problem is that it is a crushing, Stalinist, invasive dictatorial state that systematically and quite literally enslaves its own people. They are not a good example to use for any economic theory; they are waaay out there on the exceptional spectrum and the causes and results of their woes are far more complicated than their economic model. They are not the alternative to laissez faire policies, just as Somalian anarchy is not the alternative to regulation. More useful comparisons would be made between the standards of living of culturally similar economies, e.g. the Scandinavian countries (which have high regulation but also high standard of living), other European states (which are a mix), the United States (which is a mix), and so on. There is a lot of evidence that lack of regulation can easily lead to practices that undermine the benefits of capitalism (such as monopoly, tragedies of the commons, irresponsible externalities, etc.). There is also a lot of evidence that the organs of regulation are easily captured by industry or special interests and can be used in ways that are also undermining (many monopolies are government supported in various ways, for example). There's no simple, one answer to this, unless you believe in economic fairy tales. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it's possible to have 100% laissez faire without also having anarchy. For example, a military causes major market distortions, by purchasing from some companies (presumable those who bribe the most Congressmen) and not from others. You would need to eliminate all purchases and have an all-volunteer army where each person brings their own clothing, food, weapons, tents, etc. This would create a rather weak military, but perhaps one strong enough for a small island that nobody else wants. You'd also need volunteer firemen and police. Education could be at alternating people's homes, using different people each day as the teachers. There could be no public building of roads, airports, ports, etc., as, again, that would tend to favor some and not others. I hate to think what network of roads would result from everybody building their own little chunk. I picture lots of dirt roads and few highways. So, you might end up with something looking like an Amish community. Lack of government regulations would mean anyone could sell water with white dye as milk. I imagine everyone would need to test everything before they buy it, then (and maybe make the seller taste it, in case it contained something toxic). StuRat (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article's definition says it means "an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies." There are still such environments on a small scale. Garage sales come to mind. However, if you're running a business, you have to comply with with the public has decided are proper rules and regulations (which can change over time, obviously). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Token objection to equating legislators with "the public". —Tamfang (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As in "representative democracy". As "the consent of the governed". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? ¶ One theory holds that legislation is left to representatives precisely because specialists can do it better than the general public. Another holds that politicians, no matter how exquisitely fair and honest their elections may be, are a distinct interest group. Either way, the representatives are not the represented, and it's foolish or dishonest to pretend they are. ¶ And in direct democracy, a plurality of the public is not the whole public. ¶ Publius mostly didn't try to peddle such obfuscation, and "he" was pro bigger government! —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the OP's second question, "wouldn't the government help the economy...?" that is demonstrably true. Spending, including government spending, fuels the economy. I'm not going to argue that that approach doesn't have potential dangers - such as the outrageous size of the national debt. But it does work, for awhile at least. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, of course, any money the gov spends must come from somewhere, such as taxes, and detractors would argue that this means that much less money is now available for the private sector to spend. I do agree, however, that gov borrowing and spending can stimulate the economy, and taxing and paying down the debt can cool down an overheated economy, but, unfortunately, they never seem to get around to that last part. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ernest Mandel argues quite cogently in the introduction to Volume II of the Penguin Edition of Capital that state spending on waste, luxury goods, or war items (perceived as an equivalent set of "departments" of production, in a multi-department model) can alleviate the tendency to over production for extended periods of time. Mandel's argument is that state expenditure emerges primarily as access to surplus labour in terms of taxes placed on proletarian consumption. In Mandel's schema, this forced capitalisation to produce certain goods can stave off both crisis and declining rates of profit, by rationally aligning capitalist expenditure on production with goals of longer term stability. So one issue regarding the extent of laissez faire versus regulated capitalist production—if your aim is near-optimum maintenance of capitalism itself—is the extent to which private capital is currently in crisis, or unable to effectively circulate capital. A similar view emerges in Keynsianism, though it aims to ameliorate the business cycle, rather than resolve contradictions in a crisis. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hair colour eye colour germanic people[edit]

What are main hair colours and eyes colours of Germanic people: English, Scottish German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and Icelandic peoples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.61 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to resurrect obsolete "race science"? There are the standard half-true stereotyped clichés (such as Celtic=red-haired and Scandinavian=blond); if you want to go beyond them, then you can try to find rigorous quantitative studies (because I don't think anything else would be very useful)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you assume the OP was trying to do that?! The question is just asking about common eye and hair colors. You do realize that, despite migration, different people around the world do, on average, look different? Why on earth would you leap to "race science" from that question? Shadowjams (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's no real useful or valid answer in between the well-known half-true stereotyped clichés and rigorous data-driven comprehensive quantitative studies, but the way that the question was phrased seemed to imply that the questioner thought there was... AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're projecting a lot into this. Are you claiming the graphics bellow are made up; or the peer reviewed studies in our article on human skin color? Are you actually asserting that 1) the idea people from northern latitudes have fairer complexions on average is incorrect, and 2) that acknowledging that fact is a hair's breadth away from genocide? Maybe you read a different question than me. Comparing a question about what's the predominate hair and eye color in a country to a disgusting ideology (and others below to genocide, apparently) is downright offensive to the OP, but also a crazy projection. Maybe he could have worded it more eloquently, but your attack against the OP is absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- the questioner did not ask about skin color, and the conversation was not about skin color until you chose to irrelevantly intrude the subject. "Race science" (which is really not the same as Nazism, by the way) often consisted of armchair yahoos making a very few (completely statistically inadequate) measurements of "dolichocephaly" and "brachycephaly", combining this with vague subjectivistic impressions of hair and eye color, and correlating this with selectively chosen snippets of history to arrive at broad sweeping categorical conclusions about national and/or racial differences. ("Race science" was often associated with pre-WW2 studies of "national character", for some reason not mentioned in our National character article, though the two were not the same.) Concerning the subjects which the original questioner actually asked about (as opposed to things which 174.89.40.61 DIDN'T ask about), I really don't think that there's any useful medium or valid intermediate stage between the standard half-true stereotyped clichés and rigorous data-driven comprehensive quantitative studies, and I said so. For reasons best known to yourself, you have chosen to attack me to a significantly greater degree than I could be said to have attacked the original questioner... AnonMoos (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This reference desk has a storied history of people answering the question, or topic they want to hear, and not the one that's asked. The fact that you wanted to talk about "race science" but then say I'm off topic when I link to skin and hair color (as though they have zero link to pigmentation) speaks volumes. You implied the OP wanted to talk about "race science" because they asked about geographical differences in hair and eye pigmentation. I cannot fathom how that is not "irrelevantly intrud[ing] [on] the subject." Shadowjams (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I always found it odd that the Nazi's stated that blue eyes, blond hair, and tall stature were the ideal "Aryan" features, since those are more Nordic features than Germanic. Germans, being smack dab in the center of Europe, have a wide range of features. Hitler, for example, wasn't any of those "ideals". StuRat (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of actual facts, the Nazis held the Aryans to be more or less identical with the idealized "Nordic race". But neither Hitler nor the pseudo-anthropologists he took this characterization from thought the Germans were a 100% Nordic people (most Germans were part of the "Alpine race" under this form of European racialism). You might think this was a disadvantage to adopting such a theory, but it works perfectly for the Nazi agenda: it sets up a situation in which you need to constantly be sifting through people's pasts, constantly working to increase purity, and so on, which was the basis of many of the Nazis' social policies (and inhumanities). --Mr.98 (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've managed to break Godwin's law in less than 3 responses. New record? Shadowjams (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of doubt that, but this thread would hardly count anyway, as it's virtually crying out for a nazi/Hitler reference. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 02:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All discussions of Germans or hair color automatically lead to facism? Grow up. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? That wasn't what I said. And speaking of fuzzy thinking and misquoting things, you're actually talking about this thread confirming Godwin's law, not breaking it. To break it would be to have an extremely long thread that had zero reference to Hitler or the Nazis. What we have here is the polar opposite of that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 13:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you got me on a technicality there. Shadowjams (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, the same sort of "technicality" as Barack Obama is technically the President of the USA.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As they said, the ideal Nazi was blond as Hitler, tall as Goebbels, and slim as Göring! (and presumably as straight as Röhm). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. The German (Berlin) anti-nazi folk wit could be quite spot on. Another one was the description of the Volkssturm, saved for posterity courtesy of Victor Klemperer: "The Volkssturm: Silver in their hair, gold in their teeth and lead in their limbs.". --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blond and ginger, blue and green.
  • Hair colour distribution
    Hair colour distribution
  • Eye colour distribution
    Eye colour distribution
These might be useful (click on the images for the legend - note that confusingly the colours don't correspond to the most common eye colours but to the number of people with light hair/eyes), but even within countries, there's quite a bit of variation in hair colour (for instance, see the map at the bottom of this page, showing the distribution of red hair across Great Britain). Smurrayinchester 21:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I've never noticed that folk in the north of England were blonder than in the south; however across the sea in the Netherlands, there seem to me to be a striking number of blond-haired people. But what do I know? Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting if those two maps weren't the most obvious bollocks on the Internet. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the original question: The eye and hair colors run the gamut. Hair: Black, brown, blond, red. Eyes: Brown, green, hazel, blue. Putting any finer discussion on it panders to the profiling. 68.32.251.73 (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, the English and Scots have red, black, blonde and brown hair and blue, green, brown and hazel eyes but to the rest of the Germanic people they only have blonde and brown hair and brown, blue and green and hazel eyes. Okay, I get it. 174.89.40.61|174.89.40.61 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.179 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wall of China in Korea[edit]

Did the Qin Dynasty or Han Dynasty have the Great Wall extend into their territories in North Korea? This map seems to show that they did but I can't find anything on wikipedia that mentions anything about it or if any ruins still stand.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John 4:38[edit]

Can you explain further the meaning of this in the King James Bible: I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours. Is there other verses with similar meaning to look at? Is this idea ONLY in the New Testament?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some commentary on it, which might or might not help.[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The labour spoken of is the work done by God to prepare a person for conversion, the reaping is the act conversion done by disciples such as the 12. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a position held by any theologians or Christian thinkers I can think of. It certainly doesn't match any of the commentary that Bugs has cited. Most of the commentary notes that Jesus was probably refering to the all of the prophets that came before him. He's reminding the disciples to be humble in their work as Christians, and that they are but one in a long line of God's workers. --Jayron32 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also tried to give a message of humility, those prophets did God's work did they not? Jesus reminded them that it is not entirely their achievement, that they fullfill only a part of a bigger plan. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jayron32 hits the mark for these verses. The verse is clear that 'other men' laboured, while it is the 'you' that reap. Two different 'men' with two different roles are clearly delineated. Plasmic is correct to say that God prepares a person for conversion. However, God achieves that work through speaking through the mouths of his messengers as they articulate the message of God. It is wrong to say, though, that 'the reaping is the act conversion (sic) done by disciples', because disciples cannot 'act' to convert anybody -- that act is the work of Holy Spirit alone as he acts on the person's heart. What the disciples do, by way of the act of reaping, is preach a message of repentance and faith to hearts prepared by the 'law, prophets and writings'. They are the harvest, those who respond and believe by God's grace. Benyoch Don't panic! Don't panic! 06:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)
Random thought -- I wonder if any Roman Catholic theologians have tried to apply this to the concept of the Treasury of Merit. Beyond that I have no input, other than to suggest you check out a better translation than the KJV. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Holy Spirit can, but does not work alone, but through the disciples, which is what I meant; they are medium for the reaping of the Holy Spirit. The master of the field provides the sowers with the means to sow - a fertile plot of land, seeds, etc., without which the sowers could do nothing; likewise, the master provides for the reapers - a blade such as a sickle to reap with, or as the Bible calls it - a sharp two edged sword, without which the reapers cannot reap. All that remains after the harvest, is to collect the grain, and separate the wheat from the chaff. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the commentary from St. Augustine of Hippo

“Say ye not, that there are yet four months, and then comes harvest?” He was aglow for the work, and was arranging to send forth laborers. You count four months to the harvest; I show you another harvest, white and ready. Behold, I say unto you, “Lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are already white for the harvest.” Therefore He is going to send forth the reapers. “For in this is the saying true, that one reaps, another sows: that both he that sows and he that reaps may rejoice together. I have sent you to reap that on which you have not labored: others have labored, and you are entered into their labor.” What then? He sent reapers; sent He not the sowers? Whither the reapers? Where others labored already. For where labor had already been bestowed, surely there had been sowing; and what had been sown had now become ripe, and required the sickle and the threshing. Whither, then, were the reapers to be sent? Where the prophets had already preached before; for they were the sowers. For had they not been the sowers, whence had this come to the woman, “I know that Messias will come”? That woman was now ripened fruit, and the harvest fields were white, and sought the sickle. “I sent you,” then. Whither? “To reap what you have not sown: others sowed, and you are entered into their labors.” Who labored? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Read their labors; in all their labors there is a prophecy of Christ, and for that reason they were sowers. Moses, and all the other patriarchs, and all the prophets, how much they suffered in that cold season when they sowed! Therefore was the harvest now ready in Judea. Justly was the grain there said to be as it were ripe, when so many thousands of men brought the price of their goods, and, laying them at the apostles' feet, having eased their shoulders of this worldly baggage, began to follow the Lord Christ. Verily the harvest was ripe. What was made of it? Of that harvest a few grains were thrown out, and sowed the whole world; and another harvest is rising which is to be reaped in the end of the world. Of that harvest it is said, “They that sow in tears shall reap with joy.” But to that harvest not apostles, but angels, shall be sent forth. “The reapers,” says He, “are the angels.” Matthew 13:39 That harvest, then, is growing among tares, and is awaiting to be purged in the end of the world. But that harvest to which the disciples were sent first, where the prophets labored, was already ripe. But yet, brethren, observe what was said: “may rejoice together, both he that sows and he that reaps.” They had dissimilar labors in time, but the rejoicing they shall enjoy alike equally; they shall receive for their wages together eternal life.

[2] 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is exactly what I was trying to say, but this Augustine does it much better. There is more to be said on this topic, but I think that this is sufficient to answer the original question. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_April_21&oldid=1138605476"