Humanities desk
< October 28	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 30 >

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.

October 29[edit]

third largest diplomatic mission[edit]

U.S.A. has the largest diplomatic network and France has the second largest. Who has the third largest diplomatic network? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.180 (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find the data about the US and France? Contact Basemetal here 02:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarifications would be good here. A network consists of many missions. Are you asking about the relative sizes of missions (as per your header) or of networks (as per the text of your question). If it's about missions, the "size" of a mission can be measured in at least two ways I can think of. Are you asking about the number of people there, or the physical area of the land on which the building(s) are located? If the question is about networks, are you asking about the number of missions in each network or the total number of people involved in each network? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to the article "List of diplomatic missions of France", the last sentence of the paragraph says "..France has the world's second largest diplomatic network, second to the network of the United States." Yes, I am talking about diplomatic missions, meaning who has the largest numbers of embassies or high commissions in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.180 (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user who added that information to the article (w/o source; presumably he simply counted the number of embassies) is the creator of the article namely an editor going by the username of Kransky. He's still active. Why don't you ask him? If you get an answer please come back here and update us. Note that a question regarding the contents of a specific article can also be asked on that article's talk page. Contact Basemetal here 23:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS To leave a message for that user go to his talk page. Alternatively you can ping him like I'm doing now: @Kransky: We've been mentioning you. He'll be notified he's been mentioned on this page, will come here, will see what's going on and may give us an answer if he so chooses. Contact Basemetal here 23:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might not get a reply from Kransky, or at least a speedy reply — he's made just three edits this month, five in the last six months, and fourteen since the beginning of 2013. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And his global contributions are these. You can see he's got a Commons account (last edit 2011!) and a Wikiquote account (last edit 2007!). Oh well. I gave it my best shot. Could he have non-SUL accounts besides these? I believe he's Russian so he may have an account on the Russian WP. But I think I'll stop here. @OP: I tried my best to help you. If you really must know you still may count the number of embassies for various "List of diplomatic missions of ..." articles. If you intend to do that I'd suggest you check these first: List of diplomatic missions of Russia, List of diplomatic missions of Germany, List of diplomatic missions of China, List of diplomatic missions of Japan, List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom, List of diplomatic missions of the European Union, before you go on to check say List of diplomatic missions of Liechtenstein. But you will not know for sure you've got the right answer until you check all of them. Contact Basemetal here 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the foregoing, this might result in something. No harm trying. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP, as you guessed, it is likely that the claim in the article is based upon the "Total numbers of embassies" that a country has, by which measure (see link here) US is on the top with 172; France second with 154; and, UK and Germany a joint third with 149. However that is data from 2000 and, as Jack pointed out above, there are different ways of measuring the size of diplomatic missions/network. So the claim needs to be at least clarified and ideally updated with more recent numbers.

PS: I am also not sure whether the numbers I quote above corresponds to embassies in the country, or of the country although its possible that those two numbers match in any case (anyone know for certain?) Abecedare (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they may not: compare List of diplomatic missions of Liechtenstein and List of diplomatic missions in Liechtenstein. Contact Basemetal here 03:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That confirms that the numbers need not match and leaves open the question as to what the numbers quoted in the excel sheet I linked to, mean exactly. Abecedare (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy See sees even more than the Five Eyes through its missions. Technically, more about religion, but if you know how to spread God's word and hear back from him, you can do the same for a Pope. Or a Cardinal. Or a Bishop. Anyone really. Who knows what they confess in those booths? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS recruits[edit]

Does ISIS have any female fighters on the front lines? --Bowlhover (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have Al' Khansaa and Umm al' Rayan. Not sure if they meet whatever the definition of "front line" is in a war like this, but they're for quashing rebellion within the territory, rather than expanding it. Sort of like police. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These "stupid little girls" didn't quite make the team. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also ISIS Is Actively Recruiting Female Fighters To Brutalize Other Women. Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If life were as simple and direct as Business Insider's headlines, all the "other women" would sign up for ISIS, and there'd be nobody left to brutalize. Except a "significantly escalated" ISIS, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Social class just prior to the Communist era in China?[edit]

What was the social class hierarchy prior to the Communist era in China? Specifically, what did it mean to be a writing teacher who owned farmland? What about a restaurant owner? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The class system in China was in flux during the early 20th century. Are you referring to the (20th century) period immediately prior to the Communist victory in 1949? Or are you referring to the imperial era that preceded it? During the imperial era, a landowner who taught writing would have been a member of the landed gentry, the class with the highest social status, though there was wide variation in wealth and status within that class. A restaurant owner was a kind of merchant. In imperial China, merchants were officially the class with one of the lowest statuses (below that of peasants but above that of slaves), though in practice, wealthy merchants lived more comfortable lives and received more deferential treatment than peasants. The owner of an ordinary restaurant, though, would probably not have been wealthy and would have had low status. The Republic of China (1912–1949) had a more capitalistic and commercial orientation, and merchants, including even small merchants such as restaurant owners, gained in status relative to peasants. At the same time, the landed gentry tended to decline in status, especially if they were not owners of large amounts of land. As is the case in most capitalist societies, status in the Republican era tended to correlate more with wealth or connection to wealth than with occupation or family of origin. Marco polo (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the early part of the 20th century. From the turn of the century to the rise of the Communist party. What would be the status of a writing teacher who owns farmland but may hire workers to farm the land during the Republican era? How common, during the Republican era, would a teacher-landowner's child marry a restaurant owner's child, and both children live in the city, doing unskilled labor? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it would have been illegal for the child of the landed gentry to marry a merchant's child under imperial law. After the Xinhai Revolution of 1912, the law prohibiting marriage between classes remained on the books, but it was not always enforced. Freedom of marriage was not enshrined in the law until the passage of a new family law in the Republic in 1931. Basically, at least before the 1930s, it would have been unlikely and surprising for a child of the landed gentry to marry the child of a restaurant owner. However, if the restaurant owner's income were greater than that of the teacher, then the marriage, though of questionable legality, might have taken place. The teacher might feel uncomfortable about his child marrying into a petty merchant family, but declining gentry might consider trading status for money in a marriage. That said, of course love knows no laws, and the child of the landed gentry might find a way to marry the person he or she loved without concern for the law or parental approval. Such an action would have been exceptional and somewhat scandalous in China at that time, however. As for the likelihood that the newlyweds would do unskilled labor, again, this would be surprising and somewhat scandalous in the eyes of at least the landed gentry. It would be unlikely unless the child of the landed gentry had married surreptitiously and without parental approval and either 1) the restaurant owner had little income and could not offer his child an opportunity better than unskilled work or 2) the child of the restaurant owner also defied his or her parent's wishes and both newlyweds were cut off from their families. Basically, the scenario you propose would be unusual and bordering on scandalous in the social context you mention, at least before the 1930s. The manual labor part is hard to imagine after 1931 unless one or both families had low incomes and/or the newlyweds married against their parents' wishes at a time when few Chinese would do such a thing. Marco polo (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure literacy and the teaching profession were limited to the landed gentry? I do remember reading that people from all social classes could take the imperial examinations. Also, the peasant families, in contrast to their European counterparts, were not bound to the land. Perhaps, some rural families could have owned a patch of land and, if they were literate, used their knowledge to teach or record family trees. As far as I know, my paternal grandparents are described by my father to be urban factory workers who met after they lived in the city for a while. My father's paternal grandfather owned land in the countryside and was a teacher by trade. My father's maternal grandfather was a restaurant owner in the city. My father has personal anecdotes of going to his father's side of the family, the rural country, on holidays, so his father was probably on good terms with his family. It's also my father's rural side of the family that keeps a family tree by male descent. My father showed me a picture of the family tree, and I noticed that I was on there too. My mother's side of the family is even stranger. My maternal grandmother, my mother's mother, attended medical school and practiced modern medicine, and my maternal grandfather was the director of a company. My maternal grandmother's brother and his son also practiced medicine and were the first to come to the United States. What's the likelihood that a family would have educated a daughter? What was the likelihood of Chinese women practicing medicine in the 1950s and 1960s? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this, but Imperial_examination seems like it has some useful info. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've set off on the wrong foot here. "Owned land" is not necessarily the same as "landed gentry". There are many possible scenarios because early 20th century China was a society in flux: ancient families found themselves penniless refugees while Chairman Mao went from working as a peasant to being de facto president. It's very possible that your grandfather was a teacher in some kind of public school who supplemented his unreliable income with a small piece of farmland (not working it himself but hiring labour or bringing in relatives). The family tree might well have been something that the whole village recorded communally, so it says your grandfather was a least a peasant but not much more. Your mother's side, I agree, sounds exceptional. One avenue worth exploring: does your family have a Christian heritage? That would make this story more likely: your paternal grandfather working in a missonary school; a Christian family would have been far more likely to educate your maternal grandmother in the early 20th century. The Communists (for different reasons) have also promoted women's education and in the 1950s and '60s,it would have been quite common to have female doctors on the Mainland. Any details of dates would reduce the amount of guesswork. And if you'd like to get a feel for social change in this era, then why not start by reading Fortress Besieged? Matt's talk 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not aware of any Christians in the family. The Communists promoting women's education in the 1950s and 60s would be more plausible, because my grandmother presumably was educated and worked during that time period. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talmudic (?) quotation[edit]

I've been trying to track down the source of a particular sentence that has been running through my head:

A truth that does not bring peace is not the truth.

I first heard or read it a few years ago, definitely either in conversation with a rabbi or while studying Judaism. I thought it was a quotation from the Talmud, and I seem to have connected it in my memory to Ketuboth 16b, which concerns a debate over whether or not it is morally permissible to tell a woman (specifically, a bride on her wedding day) that she is beautiful if one does not really think she is beautiful. I may have the particular context wrong, but I am close to certain that it is a saying from a Jewish legal text of some kind. That doesn't exactly narrow it down, I know, but I know we have some well-read scholars of Judaism here, and any help would be appreciated. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, "truth" and "peace" are all too common words, if not so commonly found together in the world. Might try this strategy: find a likely scriptural inspiration for quote and work scholarly indexes. Possibly derived from the sense (one without other folly, e.g., contradiction) of Psalm 85? That (stub) article says, "Verse 8 is the fifth verse of Hoshia Et Amecha from Pesukei Dezimra. (ref:) The Complete Artscroll Siddur page 64." If not there, Ps. 85 - or another apropos Biblical verse - might still help in using other scriptural indexes to presumed Talmudic sources. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second thoughts: My first reading conflates two hierarchical terms; your quote valorizes peace over truth. That sense of the priority of peace over truth is caught in this gloss of Genesis 50:16-17:

On the basis of this, a rabbi in the Talmud ruled that "it is permissible for a person to modify a statement in the interest of peace." Another rabbi maintained that one was required to do so (b. Yebam. 65b). The brothers' lie is defensible because of the good relations it enured - a result that Jacob, on a plain-sense reading, surely desired.

The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford (2004), p.100

With that as at least one likely Talmudic source for variations on the theme (and note, that Yevamot deals with your recalled context of marriage), I'll leave it to others who have access to the texts. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's lot of Talmudic texts available on the net. Contact Basemetal here 02:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing? Are you certain this might not be an English paraphrase a bit removed from the original? Or else maybe something giving the gist of a longer discussion, not something literally present in any text? "A truth that does not bring peace is not the truth" doesn't immediately strike me as Talmudic. It seems to contain an idiomatic English litotes ("does not bring peace" for "brings strife") and the context you mentioned actually speaks of lies that are well-meant, so something more like "A lie that aims to avoid strife is not a [real] lie" would have looked more appropriate in that context. Contact Basemetal here 17:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]