Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 18

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.

March 18

Tahitian surfer with same last name

Is Tahitian surfer Manoa Drollet in any way related to the unfortunate Dag Drollet?72.229.136.18 (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah the Dag Droll-ay connection... Manoa doesn't mention any names here[1] but can be contacted via Tahiti Surf Club. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Laundering money

People who want to launder money or just want to avoid paying income or sales tax do something quite interesting I never thought of. Lets say you owe a person $950,000 for drug/prostitution deals to keep your clients happy and they expect payment. Instead of paying them in cash you build a house or office or buy a diamond broach or acquire land or whatever appraised at $950,000. If you "sell" the property to them no one can require you to show that the buyer actually paid. Transfer of title can be made without a corresponding deposit in your bank account that can be tracked and the property becomes a payment made only to appear as a sale. Does everyone except bureaucrats think that no one is going to transfer title without being paid know that this is how to work the system or how the system works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.15.115 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be trivial to see if the person receiving the title paid anything close to market value for the item by checking their bank accounts, which may be why you do not hear about this sort of transaction that much. A much more common method is to buy something at market value and sell to the person you want to benefit at well-below market rates.--droptone (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the law does not require that the trail leading up to any particular transaction be verified. In fact doing so under current law is considered an act of privacy invasion even possibly under a court order. The reason you do not hear about this all the time is because it is done all the time and is very easy to do and to get away with doing. Designating a transaction as a gift is by far the more common means in use to cover a discrepancy in price. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.15.115 (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have examined many deeds for houses or land in the U.S. which described the property and said it was sold for "$1 and other considerations" without anywhere stating the total price. The "other consideration" could have been an unrecorded lease on some other property, or it could have been personal property, or it could have been art or bearer bonds. There is more to "consideration" than money in bank accounts. Edison (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

An explanation of the Jews

Recently I overheard someone use the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey to explain what happened to the Jews. The idea goes like this: The Jews having escaped Egypt and taking with them their belief of being God’s chosen people and incapable of sin or imperfection (some Jews at least) took on the personal attitude of self-perfection about themselves identical to the computer in the movie named HAL. Although believing themselves to be perfect or to have reached a state of perfection they failed to see anything they did wrong not as being the result of their own error but rather as the result of an error made by someone else. The problem being that other reasonable or logical beings faced with the absolute facts reached the opposite conclusion. Eventually this awareness of self deception was conveyed to a Jew (Jesus Christ) who was one of their own who realized the need to convey this knowledge to his fellow Jews with the idea that the only way he might convince them of his sincerity was to sacrifice his life.. The comparison deviates here somewhat in that the self sacrifice of Jesus’ life did not succeed and the Jews continued to see themselves as incapable of wrong doing or sin (error). The Holocaust then was the attempt to shut the Jews down long enough for them to go through a reset and perhaps then come to realize that they are in fact capable of error and need to question themselves based on the idea that they are not incapable of error and are not perfect despite the conflicting expectation of anyone told they are on a special mission as a child of God. Having heard this I am now curious as to whether the Jews actually believe themselves to be perfect or more perfect than or superior to others in the sense that they are in fact acting as the children of God under God’s direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.15.115 (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you that your friend is completely ignorant of the Bible and of Jewish history. If you read the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), you'll find it's full of sins that the Jews committed, from the Golden Calf to the idolotry of Solomon's wives to the rejection of the prophets like Jeremiah. Clearly, by adopting the books of the Hebrew Bible as their holy text, the Jews were acknowledging their own failings. The Bible also makes it clear that many of the bad things that happened to the Jews, such as the scattering of the Ten Tribes and the Babylonian Captivity, were due to their own sins rather than to "an error made by someone else." A Talmud story says that the Messiah will come only when (the people of) Israel repent for their sins and heed the voice of God. So undoubtedly, Jews are and have always been very attuned to their own sins and think themselves far from perfect. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

...and is part of the acknowledgment of their own imperfection the believe that God must absolutely conform to their reading of the Scriptures and in the event of God's assessment that His covenant with them had been broken could not become flesh and sacrifice that flesh as the final effort to save them from the consequences of their own undoing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.15.115 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your last question appears not to be a question but rather a diatribe or an attempt to start a debate on Jesus. Both diatribes and debates are improper for the reference desk, as the instructions above specify. There are many religion forums on the Internet where you can post such material. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. However, if the Wikipedia reference desk is unable to provide unbiased clarification for the purpose of resolution in support of universal comprehension, enlightenment and understanding then entering into a debate here would be a bit like arguing with HAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.15.115 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing ,Dave?hotclaws 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Easily half of Judaism is about how much sin and imperfection Jews have and how angry God is on account of it. Honestly your friend doesn't know a thing about Judaism. Throwing in misc. junk about Jesus (which shows a total lack of knowledge of the New Testament) plus a dubious literary interpretation of the Holocaust (which seems to make it sound almost necessary or beneficial!!) really tops the cake. Your friend, and probably you too, if you entertained this nonsense, have a great depth of ignorance on these subjects. If you'd like to be pointed to some resources that would give a better understanding, I'm sure we can do that on here, but somehow I suspect you're already self-satisfied with your goofy answer because it plays to some other desires you have. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the only interpretation I have heard. In another one HAL is characterized instead as the Devil who rebels against God. In another the idea is that HAL is a symbol of God being an imperfect creation of man rather than the other way around. Perhaps you have me confused with a Jehovah's Witness. If you have other resources as to what HAL might symbolize, please refer away. If you have any other resources as to what God might symbolize, likewise refer away. Same for Jesus and the Jews since you are partly right, I have no idea of my own. 71.100.15.115 (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Technical colleges

What are the advantages of attending a technical college? Also what are the career opportunities you may find? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.236.111 (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Practical skills? Mo practical less theory. Shorter time scale for graduation. Mo employability through recognised qualifications, trade and other certificates etc, less ...? Talking to a career counsellor at any tech college would help. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mo? Odd argot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Like "ho'" I suppose. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I hear tut-tutting? No Bielle, not like ho. I was rushing at the time. Feel free to answer the OP's question anytime, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Tut-tutting"? Not from me. Don't have a licence to drive one, for a start. I was just following Tagishsimon's comment with an example of a similar construction. It is similar, and thus not as odd an "argot" as he/she suggested, isn't it? I feel as if I am missing a point here. You have done a fine job in answering the question. Ms Ross; I have nothing more I could possibly add. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

mo is the adjective whose comparative is more, of course. —Tamfang (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

global warming

moved to science desk FiggyBee (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC) what is the meaning of figgybee meanwhile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.126.151 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

FiggyBee is a banana bender from Down Under. On her/his user page s/he writes: "My username is a reference to acalolepta vastator, the Fig Longicorn Beetle." --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Need help finding melody

Hi, I am looking for a melody that is stuck in my head. I have already gone to Musipedia and used the various searches (keyboard, contour, rhythm, etc.) but have no luck. I am not good at music. I experimented with different things on the keyboard and after a while I put together something that sounds vaguely like it, although it is probably off key and wrong in many places (this is what was entered on the keyboard search field, and click play to hear it):

b''4. a''4. g''4 f''4 d''4 c''2 d''4 f''8 e''8 f''4. d''4 c''8 d''8 c''4 a'2 b''4. a''4. g''4 f''4 d''4 c''2 d''4 f''8 e''8 f''4. d''4 c''8 b'8 c''4 d''4 

If anyone has any ideas I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, --75.7.61.2 (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[Irish accent] Before a, for -- gee -- for Ef$@*!idy -- foresee to the four effate afore! Before sea ate the ate sea, for -- aye -- too before! Aye, for! Gee, for afore the foresee to the fore for 88-F, for... . The foresee ate? Be ate, see! -- For the fore!

Makes perfect sense to me. I'm selling translations into English for $1,000 a pop, if anyone's interested.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear (an imperfect rendering of) a well-known melody. Unfortunately I don't know where it is from, but I'm really amazed no one has identified it. It is in particular the following phrase (which I've slightly modified):

d''4 f''8 e''8 f''4. d''8 c''8 d''8 c''4 a'2

that triggers a sense of recognition.  --Lambiam 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Love is Blue? --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 09:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First World War in Boys' Books (British)

I'm looking for information and leads on how the First World war was depicted in literature aimed at British boys in the early part of the twentieth century. I'm particularly interested in the way in which writers and publishers attempted to maintain a heroic illusion in the face of the realities of total war. Hope someone can help. Captain Wentworth (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help with the early part of the 20th century, but I can tell you that boys' annuals in the 60s and 70s were maintaining a heroic illusion in their telling of 1st and 2nd world war stories. It's easy really: you just don't mention the pathetic bits and dwell on tales of daring do. All of this was helped by the reluctance of those who came back from the trenches to talk about it. Skittle (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your starting point for this is definitely Biggles, though I would imagine you've found him already. He may be a special case as he started in adult books (I mean books aimed at adults, not adult literature) and became a boys character later. But he, and W.E. Johns other characters might get you started. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think, Captain Wentworth, that you should begin by trying to understand the general structure of boy's fiction at the time, a genre that was remarkably resistant to change. In essence the parameters had been set even before the Great War, in the kind of fiction offered by the likes of G A Henty, Herbert Strang, Percy F. Westerman and Robert Leighton. You will also find the kind of themes these authors preferred-tales of individual heroism against a late imperial setting-in weeklies like The Boy's Own Paper (which my father remembers with some fondness!), Pluck and The Boy's Friend. The atmosphere and semiotics of these publications, and others in a similar vein, is wonderfully captured by George Orwell in his essay Boy's Weeklies.

So, the generation of 1914 grew up against the kind of plucky and chivalric sentiment expressed by Henry Newbolt in Vitaï Lampada, with war depicted in a uniquely English way as a game of cricket;

The sand of the desert is sodden red-

Red with the wreck of the square that broke

The gatling's jammed and the colonel dead,

And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.

The river of death has brimmed its banks,

And England's far, and Honour a name,

But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks-

"Play up! Play up! And play the game!"

For some the actual experience of war, the unheroic ugliness of the whole thing, did nothing to moderate these fictional depictions. In 1915 Captain F. S. Brereton published With French at the Front, whose hero, Jim Fletcher, could have leaped straight out of the pages of Henty. He is killed in a German attack, calling on his men to fight 'for the sake of old England.' Inspired by his example the Tommies fight on "the thin khaki line of heroes, the cool, calm, cherry sons of Empire", beating back the Hun. It's romantic; it's glorious: it's a lie.

Brereton went on treating the war through a prism of rosy and heroic optimism. In his 1917 novel, Under Haig in Flanders, he paints a nice and cosy picture of life at the front, where the Tommies feed on "frizzling bacon, not to be beaten anywhere, bread that might have graced the table of a Ritz hotel, and jam that would have been the envy of any housewife." He goes on to depict the Battle of the Somme, with the great blood-letting of 1 July, one of the worst days in British military history, described as a "triumph for the Allies and a bitter blow to our ruthless enemy."

This kind of literature, and much more besides, clearly has a propaganda purpose, intended to attract more and more young men to the front with a promise of high adventure. The reality must have been truly shocking. But even after the war, when no further purpose was served by these fairy tales, the genre continued, largely unaffected by the revelations of Robert Graves, Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. Brereton's novels remained in print throughout the inter-war period, and were popular as school and Sunday school prizes.

If you want to take this further I would suggest A War Imagined: The First World War and English Culture by Samuel Hynes (Pimlico, 1992). Clio the Muse (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Buster Keation - related to Diane or Michael?

Are either Michael Keaton or Diane Keaton related to Buster Keaton? I know that both can't be as the article says they are not related to eachother. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Michael Keaton's name is actually Michael Douglas, so no; Diane Keaton doesn't seem to be related to him (she actually changed her name too, but Keaton was her mother's last name, so it's still possible I suppose). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have found an unverified "quiz answer"[2] saying : "the relationship is the brother to the mother of Diane Keaton". -- Q Chris (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find that mentioned anywhere else, and Buster Keaton's sister's name was Louise, whereas Diane Keaton's mother's name was Dorothy. FiggyBee (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Carr, Thompson, and Hobsbawm

This book review quotes the editor of the book as saying, "anything that has been condemned by Carr, Thompson and Hobsbawm must have something to recommend it." I know who Hobsbawm is, but was wondering who the author of the quote might have been referring to by 'Carr' and 'Thompson'. These two, perhaps? --superioridad ^(discusión) 12:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

according to this essay, "Some professional historians have gone as far as to dismiss counterfactualism as, in the case of E.H. Carr, a “parlour game” and a “red herring.”2 Indeed, E.P. Thompson went as far as to condemn what he called “counterfactual fictions” as “Geschichtswissenschlopff, unhistorical shit.”3" (2 E.H. Carr “What is History?” (1961)3 E.P. Thompson “The Poverty of Theory” (1978)) SaundersW (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are the two. They are two of the best-known British historians (even a lazy American like me is well-acquainted with their works). Carr in particular, in his What is History?, makes quite a show of how silly some forms of counterfactual history are, like the idea that if Trotsky had not had a cold then Stalin would have never taken power, etc. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It might also interest you to know, superioridad, that the author of the book in question, Andrew Roberts, comes from an altogether different tradition from the 'three witches' of British Marxist academic history. His contempt for them is altogether more broadly based, going well-beyond their negative views on counter-factual history! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian Jews in London

Years ago, when I was growing up in London's East-End, my great-grandmother told me about the generally hostile reception received by Jewish refugees fleeing the pogroms in Russia towards the end of the nineteenth century. I've been looking around here for any more details on this, though I can find little beyond a brief article on the Aliens Act of 1905. It would seem clear that there was widespread resentment against these Jewish asylum seekers, just as there is often resentment against other asylum seekers today. Does anyone know any more, particularly on how politicians reacted to popular pressure? Dora Kaplan (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The arrival of large groups of destitute people, concentrated in already poor and overcrowded areas of the East-End, caused a rather unpleasant moral panic, Dora, one focused on fears for the racial purity of the nation. In 1904, Howard Vincent, the MP for Sheffield Central, wrote "While 260,000 people emigrated from the United Kingdom last year, their places were taken by no less than 82,000 of the scum of Europe." Arnold White, a leading eugenicist and racial theorist, considered most of the new arrivals in London to be 'diseased and destitute, a threat to British workers' While admitting that the Russian excesses had been 'regrettable', he said that this was based on a recognition by Russian statesmen that their country was threatened by a Jewish takeover. White was an influential figure, whose views of the Jews as diseased-ridden criminals, on the one hand, and exploitative international financiers, on the other, were widely disseminated. He included none other than Lord Salisbury, leader of the Conservative Party and three-times Prime Minister, among his correspondents.

It was Salisbury, while in opposition, who introduced a Bill in the House of Lords, calling for the expulsion of aliens, who 'threatened the peace and tranquility of the realm.' Destitute aliens, like those who were coming to the East-End, were also to be kept out.

In 1900, during the Khaki election, the anti-immigration East London Observer noted "Surely for Londoners, the election should have one object and that above all party politics. I refer to the presence in their midst of these foreign Jews." The cause was taken up by William Evans-Gordon, soldier, author and Member of Parliament. He co-operated closely with the British Brothers League in having a Royal Commission on immigration set, to which he was appointed chairman. It was as a result of this agitation that the Aliens Act 1905 was finally passed, though, in the event, it was far less restrictive than Evans-Gordon and his supporters would have liked.

It might also interest you to note that it was against this background that Bram Stoker's Dracula made its appearance, carrying themes of pollution by blood and disease, carried to England from Eastern Europe, giving it a particular relevance for the debates of the day. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the geographic centre of Chinese politics?

Or, in other words, where does the Politburo meet? What's the Chinese equivalent of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.? AlmostCrimes (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Zhongnanhai. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure...

...that this is the appropriate place for this question but it is the most likely (i think) to give me a helpful response. I work at a living history museum (pioneer village..though we eschew that title). We need the grass to look like it has been scythed but we don't have the manpower to scythe it all. We have used sickle bar mowers in the past BUT there are 2 problems: 1) the most reliable models/designs don't give us the uneven look that is historically accurate. 2) the brands & models we've used to date, break down too quickly.

Grazing animals might be ideal but would not have been tolerated in the front lawns of the more prominent families.

Any ideas/help would be most appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.90.6 (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Advertise for volunteers - and give them a cookie when they've finished. Maybe put up an advert in a local college - those places are full of people with lots of energy and time.87.102.47.176 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also you could get an uneven finish using strimmers see String trimmer87.102.47.176 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would grazing animals be a problem for the "more prominent" families? If they were good enough for the President of the United States? — Michael J 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The string trimmer ( I call it a whipper snipper) mentioned above also has the added advantage of giving a scythe like pattern to the grass, as the operator does swing it from side to side in a fairly identical fashion and posture, using the pelvis as a fulcrum.

It is certainly faster (and much cheaper) than using a scythe but presumably slower than the sickle bar mowers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Grazing animals have the mild disadvantage of depositing the metabolistic left overs of digested grass. Some visitors may turn up their noses at historical verism of such olfactory accuracy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Expanses of scythed grass with no grazing animals in sight are anachronistic anyway. In what general region is this recreation? --Wetman (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You could scythe the front lawns of the "prominent families" houses only; acquire sheep/geese/etc. for everywhere else. WikiJedits (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You could try different sorts of scythes and, especially, techniques. The Scythe Connection has photos of seven year old girls scything wide strips of grass with ergonomic efficiency. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Iran

I recently read some where, i have forgotten where, but, In Iran you can have gender reasignment surgery, but being homosexual is punishable by death, there fore my question is, before one goes for the op, surely one is gay, and therefore cant get it done because. some one please explain this. Am i stupid, misinformed or is there something I am missing, oh, and I fully support gay rights as a straigh dude. just thought that should be pointed out. Cheers and Beers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on definitions. Most gays don't want gender reassignment, and people who want gender reassignment see themselves as "born in the wrong body" rather than gay. Also, I don't know about Iran but in most countries with homosexuality laws the law was against homosexual acts, so a non-practising homosexual would be OK. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The assumption that one who chooses gender reassignment surgery is gay is the problem. There is some discussion of this in the gender terminology section of the transsexualism article. --LarryMac | Talk 16:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The timing of your question suggests you are referring to the BBC TV program "Transexuals in Iran" which aired on BBC 2 on Monday 25th February 2008 at 9pm, or to stories in other media ancilliary to that, such as this BBC radio 4 Woman's Hour segment. From memory, one interviewee said that as Iran is a conservative society, those in charge like things black-and-white; that men should fulfil a traditional male role, women likewise, and that a man+woman+kids family is the only valid domestic configuration. Homosexuality challenges this structure, as it implies a more complex and varied social unit: the resulting grey-areas vex the conservatives. So the government actively promotes (and pays toward) gender reassignment surgery - it's an effort to make the vexing homosexual conform to that rigid nuclear family template. It also smacks a bit of expediency in the face of rigid religious rule - if the prevailing dogma is that man+man=bad, but doesn't say that men can't become women, then changing one man in the unit into a woman "fixes" the problem in a theologically compliant way. The program also featured an interview with a gay Iranian man who said he was pressured into having the surgery; I believe the program implied that many or most of the gender surgeries done in Iran were really homosexuals seeking to find a livable existence, rather than people who would (in freer circumstances) have chosen gender reassignment. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

An older BBC story, in much the same vein, is here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that merely being homosexual in nature is punishable in Iran, or is the punishment against homosexual acts? If a man told the authorities he was sexually attracted to men, but truthfully said he had successfully resisted these attractions and had never committed any homosexual acts, would he be in hot water? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me this is a joke!

So scientologists are saying that this "xenu" took his people to Earth in a DC-8? What the fuck? Can someone verify this isn't some kind of hoax or vandalism? --TV-VCR watch 16:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a DC-8, but a space ship that looks just like one. See Space opera in Scientology. It's all well verified. Friday (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be in Wikipedia if it were not well verified, would it? For comparitive purposes, Days of Our Lives is also well verified, as are the Bible and the Qoran ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he means that it's verified that scientologists actualy believe that. It's worth mentioning, because if you didn't already know, you might think that it was some sort of negative smear/hoax to make Scientology look silly. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, people catalog it precisely to make Scientology look silly. Unlike, say, Christianity, which has adherents who catalog its absurd beliefs in earnest -- scientologists don't do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.9.122 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia catalogs it because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. To not do so would be an omission. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One reason they do not want us using stem cells to grow new body parts is because as you grow older in most cases you grow wiser too - or at least are not as gullible. Selling odd stuff like off base religions requires an audience which has not yet been there.

Using rationality in arguments about inherently mystic and unverifiable concepts is, by definition, futile.

Freedom of opinion and speech must apply, particularly if one feels the opinion stated is absurdly ludicrous. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientologists actually believe this? I mean seriously, just chopping off the engines of a Douglas DC-8, putting it on a space background, and claiming it was what a green martian from some space agency used to fly millions of people to earth to blow them up with H-bombs? My brain is going to melt from how stupid this whole "religion" is. Cockatoo, this is more than absurdly ludicrous... --TV-VCR watch 00:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As there are those among us who may feel that some of the most cherished beliefs of the world's religions (except our own, of course) are not dissimilar in logic or scientific evidence as to what is believed by Scientologists, it ill behooves the Ref Desk to fall into religious name calling. I strongly suggest this thread stop here before we get into winged humanoids, the raising the of the dead or 72 virgin attendants. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree... If Scientology is about all those things then I'm outahere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.15.115 (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Christian and not terribly fond of Scientology, but let's have the decency to show them some respect. I agree with Bielle, let's stop this name-calling now. AllenHansen (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology has all the ridiculous theology of a major religion without the millennia of history to justify it. Imagine if Christianity were invented in the 20th century. Wouldn't that be absurd? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And when things bear signs of their own cultural context, the hand of their creator, it makes it harder to regard them as mystical. As an example, in Paradise Lost Milton has the angels fighting in heaven with muskets and cannons, which is pretty much the same effect as a religion revolving around using a DC-8. When we recognize the creators of a religion as people more like ourselves, we start to suspect them as being just as dubious as anyone we know these days. Personally I find Mormonism suffers from the same problem—it reads to me (a historian) like something could have only come out of the early 19th-century imagination. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Inflation, It's cause

18:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)18:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)~~Is failure to establish a constant legal value for the dollar a significant open door to inflation ? (Lack of "Gold standard") (Establishment of a "labor Unit" as measurement, for example ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.84.229 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Empirically, no; at least in the sense that inflation a problem for gold standard currencies - see Gold standard#Disadvantages. Meanwhile Inflation#Causes of inflation may or may not assist you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

When the major currencies were directly defined by gold, the explosion (especially after the opening up of the Witwatersrand gold mines) in the quantity of gold in circulation had some big effects, not least in increasing the amount of capital available for economic development. We tend to think of inflation as always bad, but it isn't so simple. Xn4 21:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

hummm... a labor standard for the dollar. I like it. Trouble is that whether or not you extend it to mental labor or not you have the problem posed in the past by horses and today by machines. Even surgery has proven itself to be within the capacity of computer programming. Even computer programming now is within the ability of a neural networks to perform. What about intellect you say certainly human intellect can not be surpassed by a computer. Wrong again. Computers are fully capable of performing optimal classification and reducing multiple state equations to minimum form. Going by the capacity of a computer to play chess. I think we might be living with a dollar worth less than a few cents if we based it on human labor or the ability of human labor to get a job done.

old testament

what is inside the ARK of the Covenant? 24.182.28.106 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See Ark of the Covenant. --Sean 18:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ark of the Covenant is described in the Bible as a sacred container, wherein rested the Tablets of stone containing the Ten Commandments as well as other sacred Israelite pieces.

Good isn't it.87.102.47.176 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Leadership of Muslim communities/mosques

Who other than the Imam is in the (religious/administrative/...) leadership of a Muslim community or mosque? So, if a Muslim community intends to build a mosque somewhere--who would lead negotiations? Are their official positions, inofficial leaders (i.e. simply those John Does who step forward and do it), etc.? I realize that it may differ between schools of Islam; I'd be most interested in communities most popular at the US East Coast and in Western Europe. Thanks for all help, Ibn Battuta (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A ra'is can be anything from a community leader to a president. A qadi was/is also a community leader. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not an authoritative answer, but in general I'd expect there to be a committee formed of individuals from the community who have taken the initiative, who have the respect and support of the community, and are willing to represent it. Negotiations would be held with the committee, of which a few members may have been more specifically designated to be the primary spokespersons for outside contact, while other members may be more engaged with rallying support and fund raising in the local Muslim community. One of these committee members may happen to be an imam, but in general imams are supposed to be spiritual guides rather than administrators.  --Lambiam 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ark of the covenant and Tablets of stone

The page referenced says that the stones therein were made of sapphire.

Question: what is the interpretation of sapphire here - slabs of corundrum seem unlikely, could they be by any chance made of lapis lazuli?

Your expertise, guesses and links appreciated.87.102.47.176 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

One rather down-to-earth explanation I've seen is that the Hebrew word for book, sefer is related to the word for sapphire, sapir. I gather sapir was used rather generally for things of great value, so when the Talmud mentions a sapphire-like stone that shouldn't be taken literally as meaning a blue stone. But Hebrew isn't my subject. Xn4 22:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Our article states that sapphire was not known until the emergence of the Roman Empire and does, indeed, suggest lapis lazuli (used by the Egyptians in Mosaic times). As Xn4 above, I am neither a Bible scholar nor a Judaist. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a "Judaist" (I guess) but not a Bible scholar, either. I did look up Tables of the Law in the early-1900s Jewish Encyclopedia, and it says that the "sapphire" of the Tables was "was of a nature that admitted of the tables being rolled up." So clearly we're not talking normal sapphire here. The material was "quarried from the solar disk." The use of the word "sapphire" in various languages to describe the Tables apparently dates to the Early Medieval period or Late Antiquity. The writers of the Midrashim presumably thought it was the best word to describe the literally other-worldly material of the Tables. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

@ 87.102.47.176, I was in a mini-conundrum about your word "corundrum", assuming it was a mis-spelling of carborundum. But then I discovered you must have been referring to corundum, something I had never heard of. So thanks for the opportunity to expand my vocab. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The word carborundum is a portmanteau formed from carbon + corundum. Let us hope you will never be in a carbonumdrum.  --Lambiam 23:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the tablets themselves are only identified in Biblical texts as being of "stone". The sapphire reference occurs a few verses earlier (in Exodus 24:10), in reference to what Moses and his cronies see as they are brought into the presence of God. Since they are (presumably) prostrate, they only see the ground at the feet of God, which appears "like the working of a pavement of lapis lazuli." I am not a Hebrew scholar, but the relevant phrase is:

כמעשׁה לבנת הספיר

Gwinva (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the Hebrew word sappir predates the English word "sapphire" by a couple thousand years or so. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, sappir appeared in the Septuagint as "sapphiros" (with both the "p" and "ph" pronounced). The Greeks seem to have adopted the word "sapphiros" to refer to both the Biblical "sapphire" and to lapus lazuli. When "our" sapphire was discovered, the Greeks probably called it "uakinthos" and the Romans called it "hyacinthus." Latin must have adopted the "sapphirus" to refer to our sapphire before it split into the various Romance languages of today. English takes the term from Old French. Incidentally, the OED says the word "sapphire" is probably not of Semitic origin. "Some scholars have conjectured" that it may ultimately be a Sanskrit word meaning "dear to the planet Saturn" and referred to "some dark gem" -- perhaps even sapphire! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks that was very interesting - I don't know the hebrew alphabet, or hebrew so on any interpretations of translations I rely on you. So... When an english bible says 'sapphire' it means 'lapis lazuli' or maybe lazurite or at least not the sapphire of today, and possibly just means a special material. Hoshen says a similar thing. Another question(s)

"quarried from the solar disk."

Anything you can tell me surrounding this would be great. Are there any other mentions of a 'solar disc' in this literature. Is it anyway similar to the 'vault of the heavens'?83.100.183.180 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia translation of a word in Canticles Rabbah, also known as the Song of Songs Rabbah, an Early Medieval Midrash. You'll need to go to a really big library (or a Jewish library) to find more information -- unless there's someone out there with quite a home collection of Jewish books. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The "solar disc/disk" is simply the sun, as seen from earth. That is, people who believe in a "solar disk" believe the sun is a disk in the sky. So the "solar disk" is hanging from the "vault of the heavens" in this primitive cosmology; a "solar disk" can also be the depiction of this solar disk (as in hieroglyphics). I confess I don't see any reasonable explanation for something being mined from the solar disk, though what unreasonable explanation there is I can't say. - Nunh-huh 06:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks - might have been just a single reference, don't think I'll be able to follow this up right now. Maybe in the future. Thanks.83.100.183.180 (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See also: Atenism#Link to Judaism, Exodus 24:9-12, Psalm 104 and Great Hymn to the Aten.—eric 15:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again83.100.183.180 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

First black woman mayor in the United States

Mrs. Dessie Lee Patterson of South Mansfeild, Louisian is the first Black woman mayor in the United States, elected in March of 1971. Is there any documentation of this woman and her accomplishments?

Sincerely,

Vicki Lynn Mayweather (email removed)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.161.21 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vicki Lynn, your question will get attention without the all caps header, thanks. The protocol is to read the big box at the top of this page, check for your item in the search box, then ask your question as you did, without an email. Best, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

According to various sources, e.g. this and this, she was the first black woman mayor in Louisiana, and she wasn't elected in 1971, just appointed (although she did win several mayoral elections later on). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they're not freely avaiable sources, but maybe your library has one of these publications or can help you get the respective pages. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)