Humanities desk
< October 4	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 6 >

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 5[edit]

Error mitigation:[edit]

Peeps, I found the following quoted sentence in two articles, "He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52/3:7)", one mentioning (Isaiah 52:7) and the other (Isaiah 53:7). Which one is correct?

Also, whom can I show my work for check ups, corrections, to add extras if required and so on?

(Russell.mo (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

www.biblegateway.com will allow you to look up verses in many versions and langauges. Isaiah 53:7 is "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace, who brings good tidings of good, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, Your God reigns!". Rmhermen (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The website you stated baffled me, I inserted my query in the search engine and it retrieved the following,

How beautiful on the mountains

are the feet of those who bring good news,

who proclaim peace,

who bring good tidings,

who proclaim salvation,

who say to Zion,

“Your God reigns!”

Do yo think what Wikipedia stated in their article(s) is a fugitive meaning? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Do you mean 'fugitive', or 'figurative'?

In any case, in the Authorized/King James version, Isaiah 52:7 is "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!", while Isaiah 53:7 is "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." Both famous passages, but neither one says quite what the articles you mention say it says. Can you provide links to the Wikipedia articles in question, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexTiefling: I meant hidden meaning basically, next time I'll use your the 'figurative'. I can't recall the article btw, I kind of mixed my work... I'll search for it and let you know. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

@AlexTiefling: I managed to find one link; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism. I don't know what browser you are using, open the 'find' option in your browser then type number 52, it will take you straight there. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Assurance required.[edit]

Can some please view this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog#Bibliography, click the '2 Text' link from the Contents and tell me whether section 2.1,2,3 is meant for/from Hebrew/Jewish Bible or not? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You mean this section?

The first two subsections ("Genesis and Chronicles" and "Ezekiel") are in the Hebrew Bible. The third section ("Intertestamental period") covers pseudepigrapha covers a number of sources, namely:

The Sibylline Oracles, which are not part of any Biblical canon
The Book of Jubilees and 1 Enoch, which is only considered part of the Hebrew Bible by Beta Israel Jews (i.e. Ethiopian Jews) and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, which contains a mixture of materials considered Biblical canon by the group at Qumran who wrote them, and stuff they considered only commentary or homily. I have heard of a few modern fringe neo-Gnostic claiming to incorporate them into their canons, but that's hardly representative and they don't appear especially worked about the coming (or presence) of the Wicked Priest.
The Septuagint (or Greek Old Testament), which was accepted by Hellenistic Jews as a fair enough translation of the Hebrew Bible, was also accepted by early Christians (which is probably why Judaism dropped it), though outside of the Orthodox Church most Christians usually only refer to it as supplemental materials (that is, a modern translation will probably stick with the oldest Hebrew manuscripts, including some footnotes on differences in the Septuagint)

After that is the section "Book of Revelation", which is the last book of the Christian Bible as is accepted by all churches (even though Martin Luther considered throwing it out).

The section ends with a bit on the Qur'an, which is Muslim. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Septuagint is treated as straightforwardly canonical by (Roman) Catholics, as well as by the Eastern Orthodox? To the OP: Although the term 'apocrypha' covers all the sorts of pseudepigrapha that Ian.thomson mentions above, the term 'The Apocrypha' is often used to refer to a collection of writings consisting of exactly those texts, and parts of texts, which are in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the standards of "Churches who use the books in it under different forums," it's certainly canonical for all Christian sects (ignoring Protestants' complaints about the Deuterocanon and folks like the Marcionites), but I was under the impression that most Catholic Bibles usually use the same approach I described (going with the oldest Hebrew text and noting differences) or translating from the Vulgate (again perhaps with footnotes for differences). Either approach completely preferable to the King James Only movement. As for churches that use the actual Septuagint as their direct scriptures or the main source for translation, that'd be the Eastern Orthodox Church. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All true. But when it comes to entire passages (eg Daniel and Susanna) or books (1 & 2 Maccabees) that are exclusive to the Septuagint, a Catholic Bible will often have them bound in as a seamless part of the OT, and of their parent books where relevant, while (say) an Anglican one will have the texts found in the Hebrew Bible as its 'Old Testament', then a separately presented apocrypha with the extra bits, and then the New Testament. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you know, I say something and mean something else... Thanks for the correction Ian.thomson, well I mean thank you for everything so far.

I'm a bit lost guys. do you know with whom I should speak to check whether the work I am doing is getting done appropriately or not? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hey Russell! You're doing okay. The Teahouse, which I see you've already found, is the best place for questions about getting started. Most articles on Wikipedia have various people watching them, to track changes, but some are rarely viewed and so you might get little feedback. This (the reference desk) is sometimes a good place to get feedback on sources and how you've used them, and the Help Desk can be a good place to ask about how Wikipedia works. Some articles are also part of WP:Wikiprojects, which can sometimes be good places to ask for feedback and help editing those articles. I hope this helps. :) 31.54.195.38 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you 31.54.195.38 -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Binge drinking in young people[edit]

When did binge drinking culture start in young people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.207.239 (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably when alcohol was first distilled. Teens taking crazy risks and trying to prove their manhood (or womanhood) seems to predate humans. Adolescent male elephants, for example, seem just as reckless. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binge drinking might involve "drinking parties" such as those mentioned in 1 Peter 4:3 (English Standard Version).

—Wavelength (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may also refer to the drinking mentioned in Genesis 9:21 given Noah's relatively youthfulness compared to others of his era (Genesis 5:27). Hack (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binge drinking, rather than plain drunkenness, is largely a result of puritanical US laws that prevent minors from learning to drink without getting sick, and the prevalence of distilled liquor. (See also Gin Act 1751, Gin Craze) Before that, and generalized sanitation, dilute beer and wine cut with water were the safest hygienic beverages. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binge drinking is more of a problem outside the US, such as in the UK. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the Daily Mail is a reliable source, but see U.S. teens worst in western world for binge-drinking, drugs and violent deaths, quoting research published in The Lancet. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I was young, pretty much everyone I knew drank a beer or two at family parties or a little wine on holidays and so forth. By the time I got to college MADD had put an end to this (as if teenage drunk drivers were killing people) and the drinking age rose to 21 in almost every state, and many states outlawed even private drinking at home under adult supervision. In the mid eighties I went to a tour of the German-speaking Alpine countries. We were asked to have our parents sign a waver allowing or disallowing us to drink wine and beer on the trip, and not a single parent refused. We got drunk, but no one got sick or blacked out or so forth.

Once I went to college, it became regular for frat pledges to die of alcohol poisoning from hard liquor. I got sick once at a party on liquor, and that was the only time ever. When my four-year-younger sister turned of age, I took her out and let her drink till she got sick. That was also the last time she did that. But I think it's clear that a lot of Americans have no experience with alcohol until they reach what is essentially a magical day, when the government thinks they have gone from incompetent minors to responsible adults--without ever having allowed them a transitional period during which to grow up.

As for the Brits, it's all to do with the scourge called soccer. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously never been to a Rugby Club then! [1] Alansplodge (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't call them the Molson Centre and John Labatt Centre for nothing, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever authority figures stress it's not the cool thing to do, it'll be the cool thing to do. Part of teenage rebellion. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[This is not a direct answer, but I think it's relevant.] Kate Fox, in her book Watching the English: the Hidden Rules of Englishness refers to research (but doesn't give references) which she says shows that people who believe they have been drinking alcohol tend to behave in ways that their culture says that drunk people behave. She goes on to contrast the alcohol culture of Britain and Northern Europe, (with binge drinking and aqggression), with Mediterranean habits. I've made occasional attempts to track down the research, but not found anything conclusive. --ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works with weed, too. There was this kid in ninth grade that I'd sell the odd "joint" to. At least twice after lunch, he showed up to class with his eyes squinted, talking like Spicolli and stressing how trippy everything was. Once at a party, too. A couple of years later, after he'd grown up a bit and we became something like friends, I finally admitted he'd been smoking grass. He wasn't impressed, but didn't ask for any money back. Life lesson, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: this is indeed an interesting effect, and I definitely believe it because I'm quite susceptible to contact high myself, particularly regarding alcohol. Simply finding myself in a crowd of drunk people for 15 minutes can make me feel unsteady on my feet. The only rational explanation I could think of is rather peculiar: that drunkenness evolved as a mental state before alcohol had been discovered, and that in the past people entered this state by some other means, perhaps social. It's easy nowadays to read that people caught up in religious phenomena such as the loa or dancing mania and think they were affected by drugs or toxins, but maybe that's not how human history actually worked. Perhaps drunkenness and even some other intoxicated states were part of the original evolutionary design of social interaction, and drugs are simply a substitute used to try to recapture these states after the benefits of primitive culture have been lost. Wnt (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't directly answer your question, but a lot of recent evidence points to a decline in binge drinking among teenagers. See for example these 2014 articles. There have been suggestions that it's linked with alcohol prices, availability and opening times of bars. Valenciano (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binge drinking was widespread in the cultural life of 5th century Athens, as can be seen from our article Symposium, with its evidence of drinking to unconsciousness or until men vomited, fighting and smashing up the furniture, drinking games, drunken nudity etc (the ancient Greeks did not frown on nudity so much, though). So that's a little more than 2400 years ago. Some of the events and individuals mentioned there were at the absolute height of cultural, intellectual and political society at the time; some of their fame has endured despite or because of their youthful antics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the average age and inebriation level of the average soccer rioter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be obsessed with the link between football and drinking. Most of the low-level public disorder in the UK at present is outside town centre pubs and bars and not associated with sport. The last notable British occurrence, at or after a match, was the 2009 Upton Park riot (20 people injured); meanwhile, we have the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot (140 people injured). There have been basketball riots in Los Ageles in 2010,[2] and a few months ago at Tucson University.[3]. Our article Michigan State University student riots lists disorder in 1999, 2005 and 2013 associated with sports fixtures. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asking one question does not qualify as "obsessed". However, in fan altercations at various American sports, alcohol often seems to be the fuel. I would be shocked if such were not the same at the typical soccer riots in England, e.g. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Bugs, I was conflating your question with Medeis's statement above; "As for the Brits, it's all to do with the scourge called soccer". Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In football hooliganism, it seems they wake up sober on game day with the idea already in their head to fuck up the other fans. They may incidentally get drunk along the way, but it typically doesn't start the fire. According to that article, the main causes are the media, the police, the football authorities and opposing fans. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like the old expression, "I went to a fight and a soccer match broke out." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a variation of a quote attributed to Rodney Dangerfield relating to an ice hockey match.[4] Hack (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Football hooliganism#Causes does contain: The main causes are "the media, the police, the football authorities and opposing fans."[5] That sounded like an odd quote so I examined the source which actually says: However, Perryman (2002: 17) argues that the conditions should not be permitted to excuse the victim culture which he considers to be evident when accounting for hooliganism. He suggests that “...there is a pervasive tendency to blame everybody else. The usual suspects are, and remain, the media, the police, the football authorities and opposing fans” This research therefore sought to look beyond the existence and nature of “excuses”, and focus on perceptions of causality. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of hooliganism in that article is pretty broad. It seems to encompass organised violence (generally the definition used in England); violence/disorder involving ultras (and other organised groups); and general fan misbehaviour. Hack (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]