Humanities desk
< August 27	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 29 >

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.

August 28

Prophet Daniel

Does the Qur'an say anything about Prophet Daniel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.33 (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Hardly less incredible and conflicting legends concerning Daniel's life and place of burial are met with in Arabic literature, although his name is not mentioned in the Koran" from [1] --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest epic found

Did archaeologist just recently find an epic older than Gilgamesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ry6305 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the Epic of Gilgamesh was an oral story for thousands of years before being written. The oldest written form appears to be 7th century BC. Similarly, Mahābhārata was an oral tradition for thousands of years before being written. The oldest written form appears to be 8th century BC. It is not possible to know which epic came first since they were essentially campfire stories that grew into bigger-than-life epics. -- kainaw ™ 12:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PALOMA - Mascot of the 1968 Summer Olympic Games in Mexico City - a white on black dove or a red jaguar?

I just read the Wikipedia articles on "Olympic Symbols" and "Olympic Macots", and both define the mascot as a dove, which is also supported by the graphics display, that portrays a white on black dove figure. I also know that "Paloma" is a well known name meaning "a dove" in Spanish and that Picasso named his famous "dove of peace" drawing "La Paloma". That been said, googling "Paloma mascot Mexico 1968 Olympics" yielded several references to sources that describe the mascot of the 1968 Summer Olympics as a "Red Jaguar". Can anyone explain what is going on and help me find out the real nature of this mascot? THANK YOU! --Bergeronz (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IOC says that the 1972 Games [in Munich] were also the first to have a named mascot: Waldi the dachshund. The IOC website also doesn't show any mascot for the 1968 Mexico summer olympics.[2] So I'd be wary of any claims that they even had a mascot. I have been unable to find Image:Olympicmascot.jpg at the alleged source. Lupo 10:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you might ask Jeff Z. Klein at the New York Times Blog about his source: [3] Lupo 11:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the LA84 foundation also claims it was a red jaguar. Lupo 11:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this book lists the unnamed red jaguar, plus the peace dove as "unofficial" mascot. Lupo 11:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace environment restrictions

Is it proper for a small business owner to force his employees to shut all blinds and shades to prevent any daylight from entering the office because of high air conditioning costs? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking if it's legal for an owner to do such a thing, sorry, but we don't offer legal advice here. If you're asking if it's right or wrong, well, sorry, we still can't say that! If, on the other hand, you're asking if it'd help with the air conditioning costs, I'd say that it probably would help a small bit, but not very much. In highly-lit areas, sunlight could raise the temperature by several degrees, but if it's just a little bit of light, keeping it out isn't going to cut costs much. Besides, if you remove external sunlight, you have to pay more for electric lights! --Alinnisawest, Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 14:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "right or wrong" can be addressed if one invokes property rights. The business belongs to the owner, therefore the owner has the right to impose whatever restrictions he wants. Similarly, the labor belongs to the employees, so they are free to leave the employ of the firm. To require the employees to remain against their wills is to imply that they are slaves to the business owner. To require that the business owner set working conditions against his will is to imply that he is a slave to the workers. Wikiant (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(IANAL and please don't intepret this as legal advice, merely my private personal opinion.) That probably wouldn't work in Australia. Employees' rights under OH&S legislation translate to employers' responsibilities, and they would generally override employers' rights to reduce their running costs. They certainly have a general right to make changes that will result in lower running costs, but not by the shortcut of infringing the rights of the employees in the process. Denial of natural light when it's available by merely opening the blinds may well constitute a breach of the law, if anyone wanted to test it in court. Either party can terminate the contract of employment for legitimate reasons, but being forced out because of a technically unsafe workplace is not such a reason. This is already veering way too close to what could be perceived as legal advice despite my disclaimer, so I'll shut up. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JackofOz. In Europe, too, there certainly are legal restrictions. So it would probably very much depend on the jurisdiction. Bessel Dekker (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US GDP Inputs - % Breakdown?

I was wondering if anyone had a recent general percentage breakdown of US GDP inputs in terms of C+I+G+X-M? For example, I have heard Consumption (C) can account for anywhere from 60% to 75% of total GDP. Can anyone narrow that down? - of course I understand it changes. As well, possibly providing very general precentages for the other inputs? I have looked on the BEA and Dept. of Commerce websites but those numbers are a bit overwhelming. Thank you. Bwebster99 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to www.freelunch.com (it's free, but you have to register to obtain the data). Click on GDP and you'll find historical data on the components of GDP. (For 2008-II, GDP was $14.3 trillion and consumption was $10.1 trillion, making C around 70.6% of GDP.) Wikiant (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of yesterday's revisions, US nominal GDP in the second quarter of this year breaks down (excuse the pun) as follows: o Private consumption expenditure (PCE): 70.9% o Government Consumption Expenditure (GVT): 20.1% o Gross Fixed Capital Formation (CAP): 14.0% o Change in Private Inventories (STK): -0.5% o Goods and Services Exports (EXP): 13.5% o Minus: Goods and Services Imports (IMP): 18.4% = Net Trade -5.0% o Domestic Demand (DD): 109.9% Source: US Dept of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis DOR (HK) (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you. Much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwebster99 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Jeffrey Dahmer a murderer of children?

I watched on TV an interview. He said he liked 'MEN' and not boys. 'I would never kill a child' he said. So, why is he an 'American murderer of children' according to Wikipedia? --Maru-Spanish (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He killed boys. In most countries, 14 years old is still considered a boy, not a man. -- kainaw ™ 18:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Jeffrey_Dahmer#Known_victims? Corvus cornix_talk 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he said he didn't really know they were 14. --Maru-Spanish (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he was still an American who murdered children, regardless of whether he knew it or not, which is why that article is categorized in that way. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he could have been lying when he said that. --Anon, 20:10 UTC, August 28, 2008.

Also, whatever their ages were, and whether he knew their ages or not, he "liked" them so much that he killed and ate them. That's really tough love. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A piece of scum who murdered and ate children might also lie. Edison2 (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the victims. The ones who are 14 are boys. There would be no mistaking them for "men". --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Americans with health insurance denied coverage

I have tried to find, and have come up empty in my search here to find out how many Americans are bankrupted or left to die because of their insurance claims being denied.

I have looked everywhere for this! If someone can help it would be greately appreciated!

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfan7roe (talk • contribs) 18:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of the existence of data on this, though I believe it's likely a small number. Un- and under-insurance is a terrible thing, but the incidence of it tends to be blown out of proportion in the media. For example, the number of uninsured people in the US has remained steady in the range of 13% to 16% of the population since the 1990's. Also, when you break it down by age, children and 55-64 year olds have the smallest incidence of uninsurance (the US has nationalized health for 65+ year olds -- it's called Medicare), while 25-30 year olds have the greatest incidence of uninsurance. This suggests that some of the uninsured are uninsured by choice (i.e., they're at the prime of their health and so choose to spend their money elsewhere). Wikiant (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather an offensive point of view to those of us who are currently uninsured due to no fault of our own. Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he says there are less people then the media claims does not insult those who do not have coverage. --mboverload @ 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Well I didn't come here to find out what we all believe, as that is often terribly wrong. I came to find out the facts! Hopefully someone out there can lend a helping hand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfan7roe (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Google search, I came up with these articles saying that 18,000 to 22,000 people die each year because of this. Searching for bankruptcy rates now... --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article claims that up to 2 million people are driven to bankruptcy every year because of illness. However, it appears to be talking about all people, including those with health insurance, so I doubt that's exactly what you're looking for. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This blogger argues that those figures are bogus as that would include everyone who filed for bankruptcy. —D. Monack ^talk 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 2 million people are affected by medical-related bankruptcy - that's not the same as 2 million bankruptcy filings. One filing can affect dependants of the bankrupt too, such as their children. Here is another link that says "Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Of course, illness/medical bills causing bankruptcy would include those who *did* have health coverage, too. When looking up some stuff above, I came across a rather surprising article that mentioned how many people driven to bankruptcy by medical bills/illness actually do have insurance, and it's not always just that it's not very good insurance. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The (only) insurance at one of my wife's previous jobs had a 40% co-pay for in-network providers. Fortunately, I was able to put her on my insurance. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line - if you get ill in the USA the prevailing attitude is "please just die already so you don't cost anyone anything" Exxolon (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communal politics.

My quest is about communal politics in India. Its main events that has occured, History, Future, where will it lead to India. and what ever related information i can get about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.74.35 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the history of intercommunal relations, you might want to start with the following articles:

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it contains only facts, or events that happened in the past, and interpretation of facts. It cannot predict the future. Marco polo (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most serious threat to India's secularism is Hindu nationalism. Hindutva, a proto-fascistic ideology, has become a menace in present day Indian society. Regarding the future of Indian communal harmony, I will say the future is certainly not pleasant unless the spread of Hindu nationalism is stopped. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can also read the article about the genocide of the Muslim population in Gujarat carried out by the Bharatiya Janata Party government. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of WP:NPOV I would point out that the article Otolemur links to under the name 'genocide of the Muslim population' is actually titled '2002 Gujarat violence'. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat Genocide 2002 is redirecting to 2002 Gujarat violence. Do you know anything about Indian politics? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When is there only a judge and when is there a jury?

I'm in the middle of reading the brilliant article on Microsofts anti-trust trial that ran in Wired a few years ago (it's absolutely fascinating, if you are interested in the subject and have time for a 60+ page article, I highly recommend you read it), and it's brought up a question that I've been wondering about for some time. It seems to me that most criminal and civil trials in the US are handled by a judge and a jury, but occasionally, it's just a judge making the decision (like in the Microsoft case or the Kitzmiller case, for instance). Why is that? What makes a trial a jury trial or a judge-only trial? I've done some searching around on wikipedia but haven't been able to come up with a good reason. My first instinctual thinking was that in cases that weighed upon the specific interpretation of some law, a judge made that decision, where jury's were tasked with a role more about finding out the truth of someone's guilt a case when the law was clear. But that doesn't really apply to either Kitzmiller or the Microsoft case, both those trials where about whether the parties actually had committed a crime or not, and not matters of interpreting the law (it seems like the question "Is intelligent design really a rebranding of creationism or not?" is something that a jury should decide).

Also, Microsoft was charged under the Sherman Antitrust Act which is a criminal charge (specifically a felony), and Article III of the US Constitution states that "Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury" (I realise that my understanding of constitutional law is somewhat limited, so I may be wildly misreading that part). So how is it that Microsoft didn't have to defend themselves before a jury? Can a party waive a jury trial in favour of a judge-only trial? It seems to me that Article III wouldn't allow that, but I guess some precedent or amendment might have stated that you could (or, again, I'm wildly misreading the text).

I realise that this might be one of those issues that really requires fourteen pages of intense legal discussion filled with references to a multitude of trials to be properly answered, but I'm only looking for some basic guidance here (to make it easier perhaps, we can allow ourselves to restrict the discussion to federal cases). Feel free to hand-wave the finer points if you wish. When does a defendant have to face a jury, and when does he/she only have to face a judge? 90.235.6.11 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from looking at Jury trial and Bench trial that the criminal defence can, in certain places, waive the right to a jury. I have no idea about law though so could be misinterpreting the pages but from what I see i am assuming that in the Microsoft example they chose to have a 'bench trial' instead - hopefully a knowledgeable law-person will come by and correct/confirm a more definitive answer. ny156uk (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that Microsoft should be in Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but I they wouldn't (I think) have any in Military commissions. See also Diplock courts, when there was a security risk to the jurors. In English law, you don't (normally) get a jury if you plead guilty, as their main job is to decide a verdict. Judge does the sentence, if any.My name is anetta (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the angel of the lord

The Angel of the Lord appears frequently in the Old Testament and is understood by Christians to be the preincarnate Jesus. My question is, who do people of the Jewish faith see the Angel of the Lord to be? My Bible class is very interested in learning as much as possible about other faiths. Several of us have asked friends who are Jewish this question, and so far none of them have an answer. I hope that you can help us. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandihr (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone knows this, please add the information to Angel of the Lord as well. Algebraist 22:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the ORT Bible at [4], it appears that the Jewish translation is an angel of God, not the angel of God. So each angel mentioned in the Hebrew Bible is just one of many angels. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A biblical angel is a messenger, like the boys who used to deliver telegrams, but with extra powers. Edison2 (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short Christians as a whole do not understand The Angel of the Lord to mean Jesus. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People of the Jewish faith do not consider Jesus Christ to be the Messiah, regardless of the nature of angels. For your Bible class, try searching the Internet for sites such as this, or one with a "Contact us" feature where Jewish scholars of the Old Testament answer particular questions. Perhaps your class can invite a rabbi (and leaders of other faiths) to address this and related matters in person. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Encyclopedia ([5] via search box) says: In the earlier Biblical writings the term "Malak YHWH" (messenger of the Lord) occurs chiefly in the singular, and signifies a special self-manifestation of God (see Gen. xxxi. 11-13, where the angel of God says, "I am the God of Beth-el"; Ex. iii. 2-6, where the angel of the Lord who appeared to Moses in the flame of fire says, "I am the God of thy father"; compare Gen. xxii. 11; Judges, vi. 11-22) (my emphasis). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]