Revision as of 19:22, 21 February 2015

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 16

Sunday school, Confirmation class, Catechumenate, Bible Study, Small Groups, Devotionals

I always get these terms mixed up, because Christians tend to use them to express the same thing - a place where Christians congregate and study the doctrines of their own denomination, the scriptures, and maybe a bit of relevant information from local everyday life. Are there any differences, and if so, what are the differences? How are they different structurally (that is, having a prayer at the beginning or the end or at both the beginning and end)? I notice that some churches have daycare programs. Do children begin learning about the Christian faith right in daycare? How long is each of the above things - Sunday school, Confirmation class, Catechumenate, Bible Study, Small Groups, Devotionals? Are there any overlaps between the terms? Can the baptized individual refuse to be confirmed, or is the confirmation necessary as finishing-up of the original baptism? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

They all involve similar things with lots of overlap- the precise definitions of each will vary by church, denomination, community, etc. Each has their own jargon. But some simple differences- confirmation class is for people who will soon be receiving confirmation. Catechumanate is probably similar, for someone (the Catechumen) anticipating some particular milestone. Sunday school happens on Sunday. Bible study involves studying the Bible, which is usually a part of all the others. As for baptism and confirmation, of course baptized people can refuse to be confirmed- anybody can refuse any of that stuff. Many denominations and communities (typically ones which exclusively practice adult baptism) don't have confirmation at all. Staecker (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You still did not describe the differences. You merely defined them. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What I said describes part of what is distinctive about each. Sunday school is only on sundays, the others can be on any day. So that's one difference. Staecker (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I still like RomanSpa's in-depth answer. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of Typical Church of England Meanings/Practices (based on my own experience):

Sunday School: Children attend only part (generally the first 40% or so) of the normal Sunday morning service. At an appropriate point (typically during the singing of the second or third hymn) children leave the service for some other room or building (generally the church hall), along with a couple of competent adults (the "Sunday School teachers"). Until the adult service is finished, the children are instructed in aspects of the Bible or doctrine, or are given history lessons about famous Christians. If you attend sufficient of these lessons during a year, you receive a small prize (generally a book of Bible stories, or another Bible to add to your family's collection). As well as serving an educational purpose, Sunday School keeps children out of the more adult aspects of the Sunday service, such as sermons on adult themes (i.e. sex) and Holy Communion (which is more or less limited to particular congregants, depending on religious denomination).

Confirmation Class: Attended by young people in the run-up to their Confirmation. Depending on the denomination of Christianity, these may attract people from ages 5-6 up to 50-60. (A good rule of thumb seems to be that the lower the church (that is, the more "protestant"), the higher the age at which one starts taking communion.) In the C of E these classes are generally taken somewhere in your mid-teens, and you probably have to sit through a course of about 15-20 hours before you can be confirmed. Classes last about an hour, and generally take place once a week, typically on weekday evenings or at a convenient time during the weekend, and are usually taught by the clergy of the church you attend, possibly with additional instruction being provided by visiting clergy from other nearby churches. Classes generally cover instruction in all aspects of doctrine, and you only get confirmed if the teacher(s) are convinced that you're serious in your belief in the doctrines of your denomination. In effect, at Confirmation you "confirm" that you are Christian, following your baptism as an infant, when your parents and godparents affirmed that you were a Christian on your behalf. You don't have to be confirmed following your baptism as a baby; this simply means that you aren't a full member of the church (though you're probably still welcome at the services, if you can be bothered to turn up). If you like, Confirmation is when you become a fully-paid-up member of the club and agree to obey its rules; up till that time, you got to use the facilities for free because your parents were members. And this takes us on to...

Catechumenate: If you weren't baptised as a child, you've never been any kind of member of the Church. To get to be a member as an adult, therefore, you have to catch up on all the stuff that you missed during Sunday School and Confirmation Classes. You become a catechumen - someone who is receiving instruction in all aspects of doctrine, with a view to being baptised as an adult, and immediately affirming (on your own behalf) that you're a Christian and immediately participating fully in all aspects of Church life. Although I don't know for sure, I imagine classes for this are similar to, but perhaps run for longer than, Confirmation Classes.

Saying Your Catechism: Many branches of Christianity, including the Church of England, have an explicit catechism. This is a highly ritualised set of questions and responses designed to allow the respondent to state clearly the beliefs that they hold. In previous generations in the Church of England children would have to learn these questions and responses verbatim, and a small prize was awarded (another book of Bible stories, probably) to each child able to "say his/her catechism" correctly. By the time I was growing up this had been replaced by more free-form approaches. My grandmother was still word-perfect on her catechism well into her nineties! Teaching of the catechism, either verbatim or in more general terms, is part of what happens in Sunday School.

Bible Study: This is exactly what it sounds like. Either on your own, or with a group of friends, you study some aspect of the Bible, generally by setting aside time each week to do so. If you're studying the Bible on your own, you might end up doing this every day, or if you're in a group it might be once or twice a week. Some denominations provide supporting reading material and notes, so as to provide that particular denomination's interpretation of particular passages. If studying in a group, you may from time to time be visited by your church's minister, but this depends on the denomination. Some denominations just let you get on with it, but other denominations are aware of the dangers posed by...

Small Groups: Where a small group of people meet for regular Bible study, there is a risk that strong personalities in these groups may steer them in particular ways. One significant risk is that these small groups may start inventing their own interpretations of the Bible and making up their own doctrines. At its worst this can lead to these groups breaking away in some sort of schism (for example, this is how Methodism started), but even a relatively doctrinally conservative small group can easily become a "church within a church", and this can lead to all sorts of social and doctrinal problems, or even the creation of cults or forms of religion strongly different from the church they appeared in. This sort of problem is much worse in the non-episcopal denominations, but can arise even in the Church of England: the Alpha Course began as a "small group" in the C of E, but has a great many cult-like characteristics (our article on the subject is surprisingly light on criticism; it should also be noted that the C of E has taken great pains to rein in the worst excesses of the Alpha Course).

Private Devotions: These are simply your private prayers. Christians are encouraged to set aside time on a regular basis to pray, and these private prayers are your private devotions. Typically, you pray for whatever matters most to you, perhaps using a prayer book (such as the Book of Common Prayer) to help you find the words you need. In some denominations there is also "Private Devotional Reading", which is just Bible Study by a different name.

I hope this has been of some use. RomanSpa (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Were there mnemonics to help you remember the whole catechism? Did you turn it into a song? I read Martin Luther's Small Catechism (no, I'm not Lutheran) before, and it's written as if the author intends that the child or developing Christian must repeat the words verbatim. Was there any freedom in putting the catechism into your own words, or is that a modern invention? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any mnemonics. From what I can work out, in "the old days" people simply learnt their catechism verbatim. I don't imagine it's much more difficult than learning your "times tables" or chunks of poetry. I had a reasonably traditional education, and although I don't know my catechism (as I went to Sunday School after the approach had changed to the modern "in your own words" one) I have still managed to pick up a fair number of collects and psalms, can recite the books of the Bible in order, and can recite reasonably large chunks of it by heart. (I also know the common logs of many numbers to 7dp. If you learn things as a child they stay with you forever!) RomanSpa (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In the olden times (of my youth), there were 150 Catholic catechism questions that you had to memorize the answers to in preparation for confirmation. The nuns would drill you in them so you didn't embarrass the parish in front of the bishop :) There were no tricks, just straight rote memorization, and woe unto you if you got even one word wrong. Enjoy yourself in Hell! Because you would go over the questions from beginning to end, and often not reach the end, you tend to remember the early questions later on in life, and the late ones...not so much. But nearly everyone who went through the process remembers the answer to #1: "Who is God?" and can recite the only acceptable answer: "God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things, and keeps them in existence." - Nunh-huh 07:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is true elsewhere in the world, but in Canada (or at least in Ontario), we have Catholic schools that are in every other way exactly the same as the public schools, except for the religion classes. So, I never went to "Sunday school", because every day in Catholic school was like Sunday school. Preparation for communion, confession, and confirmation was part of the school curriculum. None, or almost none, of my religious education actually took place in a church. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's also the case in NZ although not everyone attends and I'm not sure what options there are for those who don't but want the religious education. Perhaps not surprisingly this wasn't the case in Malaysia although Sunday school largely didn't happen at the church (considering at least 10 years, with I probably at least 30 or more people per year, there's no way that would have worked, actually suggests the number of students is now 1300 and I expect even in my time i may have been half that), but at a nearby school they had permission to use. Although there were perenially fears they would be kicked out, which was controversial for numerous reasons including the fact that the school use to be a Catholic school (although I think it was always government aided), and when it was turned in to a normal government school I think there were undertakings that they would have the right to use it for sunday school. Anyway they eventually managed to get their own building, actually house due to planning issues. But it was never really large enough anyway and considering the area was also residential and the size of the land, I'm not sure they ever had much chance of a building suitable for 1300. Anyway sunday school was held between the two morning church services (I believe there are now 3), we weren't kicked out of church, but were expected to attend before or after (or the evening mass). In the year where confirmation was expected, we had a bunch of extra stuff to attend, and there was obvious recognition we were going to be confirmed soon, but I don't remember it being called confirmation class much, although some do use the term . The earlier source I linked to calls it confirmation year. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You may find the articles Sunday school or Robert Raikes helpful. The original Sunday Schools were schools for the children of the working class poor, who were expected to work 6 days a week and not attend school. They were, therefore, places of education and children were taught to read and write using the Bible as the main textbook. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oral tradition

Have historians observed any oral tradition being passed down in an illiterate (or mostly illiterate) society? I mean that 1) something happened in this society, and historians know exactly what happened from reliable sources, and 2) traditions about the event continued circulating for decades or centuries. I'm curious about how quickly the oral tradition gets corrupted. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Stories of the Franklin Expedition were passed down orally...I guess this isn't exactly right since historians didn't really know what happened, but later research and archaeology more or less matches Inuit oral history. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like your requirements require the interaction of a literate culture (and hence reliable info) meeting an illiterate one, as in the above example. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Australian Aborigines never had any writing system whatsoever, as well as many African tribes and North/South American tribes, but their stories are well documented. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mycenaean Greece was illiterate before they invaded the Minoan empire. Mycenaean Greece was literate until the Bronze Age collapse attributed to the Doric invasion. During the Greek Dark Ages, Greece was illiterate and Homer's heroic poetry of the Trojan War was passed down orally. However, the Trojan War was not historical by contemporaries.
Sleigh (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Walter Ong writes great stuff on this subject. Orality and Literacy is the one I'm most familiar with. It's big with the media ecology crowd (Marshall McLuhan, Harold Innis, etc.) because it's all about how people think about things like history and tradition differently in primarily oral cultures vs. literate cultures. We have an article on Orality that may be of some help. Another place to look is early ethnography work in anthropology where literate researchers lived for extended periods with illiterate/pre-literate/non-literate groups. --— Rhododendrites \\ 03:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

98.232.12.250 -- Attila the Hun conquered and oppressed a lot of Germans in his lifetime, but by the time of the Nibelungenlied, centuries of folklore have transformed "Etzel" into something rather different... AnonMoos (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A great deal of research has gone into the works of Homer, which, according to a well attested theory, is a compilation of generations of orally-transmitted stories, including anachronisms, where aspects of life and culture of the day of the compiler have been attributed to a more ancient period. Start with our main article on Homer, then Homeric Question and go from there. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Illiterate" != "stupid." And the fact is that we have only one area where "oral tradition" can be tested scientifically - that is by the DNA passed down in the line of Jewish Kohanim and the apparent accuracy of the oral tradition was amazing. Once language exists, oral traditions also exist, and while minor changes get made, the gist seems to be kept intact. Even today, many people memorize works of many thousand words. Collect (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Norway no longer extradite prisoners to US

Someone told me that Norway no longer extradite prisoners to US due to the poor condition of US prisons. I'm highly skeptical of this. I managed to find one story back in 1999 that seems to partially corroborate it though. Has anyone been successfully extradited from Norway to US since said 1999 case? WinterWall (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This deal is still in effect, since 1980, at least according to List of United States extradition treaties.

Not sure about from Norway, but the US sent three of its prisoners to testify as material witnesses in a 2012 Norwegian case about a plot to attack Denmark. One of the defendants was Iraqi, the Norwegian swore he intended to attack the Chinese embassy instead and the one who got off lightest was an Uzbek. Courts can be very multicultural. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

Najmaddin Faraj Ahmad is accused (though not necessarily wanted by) the US for financing insurgents/designated terrorists in Iraq. Norway held him for a while on threat charges, then released him last month. That could suggest a lack of cooperation, but far from conclusive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

Consider the case of Gary McKinnon in the UK. He was accused of hacking into US military systems, arrested with a view to extradition, but after appealing and losing all the way to the ECHR and becoming a cause celebre in the British media, his extradition was blocked by the British government on human rights grounds, because he was considered likely to commit suicide. I remember (don't cite me, I know this is original research) the condition of the US prison system playing a big part in the campaign against his extradition. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, an extradition treaty doesn't ensure extradition will happen just because the country that wants that person back demands it. There are all sorts of issues at stake and it can be a complex business to decide who gets sent overseas for trial, who gets tried for the crime under the local justice system and who walks free. SteveBaker (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of Europe has outlawed the death penalty, and also refuse to extradite someone unless the requesting country agrees to waive the death penalty (or doesn't use it, themselves). This includes extraditions to the United States. LongHairedFop (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Are Catholics allowed to just take the flesh but not the blood of Christ?

Are Catholics allowed to just take the flesh but not the blood of Christ? Or are the accidents supposed to make the experience of taking communion unpleasant? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the second part of your question means, but the answer to the first is yes. It's perfectly fine to take just the body. My parish didn't even offer the cup until I was in my teens. Mingmingla (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems a little halfways to me, but I guess if a priest says it's OK, it's his house as much as the Lord's. If "accident" means getting drunk, there generally isn't enough for even a child to get buzzed. It's barely a bigger drink than a rum ball. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

The 'accidents' is the technical term for the outward appearance of the consecrated Host as bread, and the contents of the chalice as wine, which after they have been consecrated are held to have the 'real substance' (as distinct from accidents) of the most precious body and blood of Jesus. And if you don't like the taste of communion wine, but want to receive in both kinds, you may alternatively 'intinct' - which is to say to retain the bread until presented with the cup, and then dip the bread in the wine and eat it. It used to be the custom only to give the cup to the priests and servers; I think that it became customary (again) to offer the cup to all communicants after one of the Vatican Councils. And to answer the OP's second question: the accidents reflect the accidents of the Last Supper itself - a piece of unleavened bread from the Passover table, and a cup of wine for blessing after the meal. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And the relevant articles are Accident (philosophy) and Transubstantiation. - Lindert (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not exactly a terrible Catholic, but no star pupil. I knew the bigger word, for what it's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

In Malaysia or at least the Catholic church I went to , as of 15 or so years ago the wine still wasn't offered to anyone adult or child. It was obviously used by the priest during the consecration, and may have been taken by the priests and servers (I admit I never paid enough attention that I would know). I'm not sure whether they didn't get the message or had some other reason (alcohol can sometimes be a slightly touchy subject because of the Islamic influence and dominance but it's really not generally much of a problem for non Muslims particularly in a place like Petaling Jaya, provided you don't do anything stupid, which wouldn't really happen in a church setting, it is very heavily taxed though). From my search, it sounds like at least one Catholic church in Malaysia does offer wine to the general congregation or at least to those receiving first communion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

When I was a kid (brought up as catholic), I wasn't allowed to drink the wine. In fact nobody but the priest drunk it. I had first holy communion when I was about 10 or 11, then stopped going to church at age 12 (for two reasons: 1 was that it made no sense to me, and the 2nd was that I was too busy with school work - some of us have better things to do than live in a fantasy world). KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic, and maybe not representative, but in the Russian Orthodox churches I've attended with my Russian wife, everyone who receives communion drinks the wine. Even little babies get some dabbed on their lips. It is a very small sip, and the wine is diluted from a hot kettle beforehand, so I doubt it causes "accidents" :-) 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I also stopped going rather early (maybe I am a terrible Catholic), but my priest had no problem mixing alcohol with young boys. Of course, the connotations were different then. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

I know in some Catholic churches, the priest will dip the bread into the wine... so celebrants get both body and blood at the same time (I think this is called "tincture", but I may be incorrect.) Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

'Intinction', as I mentioned above. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This was a big issue at the Reformation, with Protestants insisting that Communion be given in both bread and wine ("two kinds" or "two species") whereas the Catholic practice at the time was for the priest to take bread and wine, but the ordinary people were only offered bread. This article, written from a Catholic viewpoint, says " the Council of Constance, in its 13th Session on 15 Jun 1415, totally rejected the need to reintroduce the practice of giving the chalice as well as the bread to the laity (Communion under both species), and prohibited it...". Meanwhile the Protestant reformers made it a central plank of their disagreements with Catholic theology. The Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles said (Article 30); "The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike." I don't know if the recent change in Catholic practice is a result of the Second Vatican Council or some other reform; perhaps another editor knows? Alansplodge (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think some catholic churches (and protestant ones) use non-alcoholic wine, so that everyone can have some. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, wine which contains alcohol is required by canon law in the Latin rite Catholic churches. The CofE has a similar requirement, although I believe there is a dispensation for non-alcoholic wine (which must still be made from fermented grapes) to be used for medical reasons. The use of non-alcoholic products for regular communion of the people is very much a feature of churches that are more Protestant than the Church of England. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• See Communion Under Both Kinds at the Catholic Encyclopedia. Tradition varies by rite. In the Ruthenian Catholic Church, as opposed to the Latin rite, the Host, which is bread shaped like a crouton, is dipped by the priest into the wine with a small fork, which he then uses to deposit the moistened bread in your mouth. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the saliva wiped off with a towel? Does the communicant's lips touch the fork? 140.254.136.178 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has an article: Communion under both kinds which is not very enlightening on this particular point. However, says; "...introduction of Communion under both species for lay persons in the 20th century began as a result of disobedience to the Pope... As a direct result of the calculated disobedience to papal authority perpetrated by the modernists in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, the practice of Communicating under both species may be tolerated by the Church ("the Vatican reluctantly surrendered on this point due to widespread and blatant disobedience"), but only under limited circumstances and under certain conditions." Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember about a towel, but wouldn't be surprised. The whole process was much longer than in a Roman Catholic church. Two lines formed on each side. The fork was long and fine, with two tines. There was a plate with the bread in 3/4" squares (and one never saw crust!) and a chalice. The priest speared a Host, dunked it, and you took it with your lips.

I certainly didn't close down on the fork, and I doubt most people did. But before you took communion you knelt down at a kneeler with a bar (wooden railing) that separated the congregants from the altar, and made the sign of the cross. I suspect the priest may have wiped the fork between administrations, but can't say. I have been an atheist since 16, and the last time i received communion was in the 80's, so it may be 30-35 years since I received it that way.

I understand the church was renovated after my last grandparent's funeral in 2001, which I attended, without taking communion, and they perform the liturgy mostly in English, not the Ruthenian Recension at this point. I would attend mass there with my nephews and niece just to introduce them to the tradition (their Father's an Irish-Catholic atheist himself) but there's not much left. My mother refuses to, for a combination of reasons, including my sister's death, which weakened my parents' faith, the Church's opposition to any military response to 9/11, the sex scandals, and especially the fact that the current pastor doesn't speak our Rusyn language, and is effeminate to the point of creepiness. It's amazing the difference a few decades make. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Followup: I called my mother, and she says they used a spoon, not a fork. It may have changed over time, or either of us could be misremembering. But she says she used to get to church early so as to sit in front and go first because they were supposed to drop it in, but the stari babi (old ladies) would gum the spoon, which was not wiped between congregants. This may have changed around the time of Vatican II. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to make explicit some of the content present in many of the links:

• Catholic teaching is that any single crumb or drop contains the entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ: therefore, while it is customary to refer to the former-bread as the "body" and the former-wine as the "blood", the teaching is that anyone only receiving under one 'kind' (just the former-bread or former-wine) is still receiving everything.
• This teaching, and misunderstandings of it, is at least partly why Communion under both kinds was restricted for the laity several centuries ago. The actual history is messier than that (and interesting), but the idea that the bread becomes the body while the wine becomes the blood is specifically a heresy which was supposed to be repudiated by having the laity only receive one of them.
• After Vatican II, the restriction was lifted (with some qualifying words about special occasions), as receiving under both kinds is supposed to be a more complete symbol of what is believed to be received, but it remains the case that nobody but an ordained minister celebrating Mass is obliged to receive both, that what the communicant receives is considered to be the same whether or not they receive under both kinds, and that actual practice is extremely variable. No priest has to offer the laity both kinds, and even parishes that regularly offer it on Sunday rarely offer it on weekdays.
• Many Catholics who were raised, or prepared for Communion, in a parish that only offered the former-bread rarely receive the former-wine when it is offered, because it's not what they're used to or comfortable with. I am surprised that any western Catholic belongs to a parish where receiving the former-wine is so ingrained (even for the children?) that they would imagine they weren't allowed to skip it.

I hope this helps. I'm also confused by the idea that drinking a sip of diluted wine could be interpreted as "supposed to make the experience of taking communion unpleasant", but the world is full of people I guess. 31.54.195.124 (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

February 17

Which language has the most international television stations/productions?

My belief is that there are more Spanish television stations and programs, since there are 20 countries where Spanish is the native language. While China has more speakers it is mostly limited to China and her offshoots. While English is spoken in the USA, UK and former dominions.

My belief is that, since each of these Spanish speaking countries has their own media, Spanish has the most television programs of any world language.

However I have not been able to find any evidence to support my beliefs, and I was hoping refdesk could help. --Gary123 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult question to answer, as, with the advent of satellite TV, all languages available are broadcast daily and continually. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if you're right, would a greater number of smaller stations with small audiences really prove anything? Seems like you'd have to consider viewing figures to get any idea of impact. I'm afraid I can't help with any data though. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd guess English, simply because global business speaks English and international TV is global business. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with InedibleHulk that English is the likely answer. 20 countries is frankly not very many (although there are surely more where it's popular enough that there are stations). And I suspect many commonwealth countries have at least some English productions (and probably televisions concentrating on English content even if it's not local productions), regardless of whether English is the native language. Note also that English is an official language in 58 countries per our List of territorial entities where English is an official language. (I mean heck, the Carribean countries plus US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ, South Africa is I think already 19.) I also agree with the above answer that the question is fairly complicated since it's not clear how you take in to account satellite broadcasts, co-productions etc. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, as for Spanish vs Chinese, I don't know if this is that simple either. With increasing Chinese immigration and lower costs for broadcasting, more countries are likely getting Chinese stations and some local Chinese content. E.g I know NZ does and I'm pretty sure Australia does too. (I presume US and probably Canada & UK too.) And Chinese content (also South Korean and Japanese to some extent), is popular in various parts of Asia, particularly I think SEA. Well obviously Malaysia and Singapore, but also places like Vietnam and Indonesia or possibly most of it . Depending on the country, some of this may be dubbed, but with satellite TV or other digital broadcasts, it wouldn't be that surprising if the original language is also availabl. Also, are you solely referring to Mandarin, or are you including Cantonese and others? (Although with the rise of China, I have doubt there's many countries with only Cantonese but no Mandarin.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of the Omni Television channels in Canada switch over to Mandarin, Cantonese, Punjabi or Italian for their news. Most of it is local news translated, but a bit comes from homelands. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Bear on a plane

Is it true that Boris Yeltsin once spent two days in his presidential plane, parked on the apron of Dublin Airport, too drunk to get out and take part in a G8 meeting being held there? I've heard this several times but it isn't in your article. Even if this was exaggerated though, the contrast with Putin goes a long way in explaining his popularity. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

According to G8#Annual_summit no G8 summit was ever held in Dublin.WinterWall (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, since Ireland isn't actually a member. Do you know if something like this happened elsewhere, or in Dublin on another occasion? I've heard it from several people on different occasions, who don't know each other, and I'm almost sure it was in a newspaper at the time. Must have been round about 1995. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's about http://www.independent.co.uk/news/yeltsin-too-tired-to-get-off-his-aircraft-1440023.html. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see this part of our article on Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin was returning to Russia from the United States, and it was planned for him to break his journey in Ireland. The plane landed at Shannon Airport (not in Dublin, but in County Clare), where Yeltsin was due to meet Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) Albert Reynolds. Reynolds was left waiting in the airport (highly embarrassing from a political and diplomatic point of view) as Yeltsin was unable to get off the plane. A planned dinner at nearby Dromoland Castle had to be cancelled. There is no unanimity on the reason why Yeltsin was indisposed: possible explanations include drunkenness, a heart attack, and a reaction to a prescription drug administered earlier in the day. RomanSpa (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I would bet that jet lag had something to do with it. Russia=>USA=>Ireland without enough time at any place to catch up would be a pretty brutal schedule. SteveBaker (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hamburg state election, 2015

I saw an article in The Guardian which included some German-language infographics which seemed to be readily comprehensible, but turned out not to be.

The second infographic, titled "Wanderung AfD", appears to indicate what parties the Alternative for Germany (AfD) voters in this past weekend's election had voted for in the previous state election (in 2011). It looks like 7,000 AfD voters had voted for Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) in the last election, 8,000 for Christian Democratic Union (Germany) (CDU), 1,000 for The Left (Germany) (Linke), 4,000 for Free Democratic Party (Germany) (FDP), 1,000 for Alliance '90/The Greens (Grüne), 8,000 had been nonvoters (Nichtwähler), and 9,000 for other parties (Andere). That's 38,000 votes. But AfD received 214,000 votes this time. The other 176,000 couldn't have been past AfD voters because AfD didn't exist at the time of the 2011 election. Am I misinterpreting this infographic? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think I've figured it out. Apparently Hamburg has cumulative voting, in which voters can cast 5 votes. That would account for most of the discrepancy. See http://wahl.tagesschau.de/wahlen/2015-02-15-LT-DE-HH/analyse-wanderung.shtml. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's the difference between votes and voters. There were 1.3 million eligible voters, and a turnout of 57%, for 741000 voters and (modulo undervoting and invalid votes) 3.7 million votes. So the 214000 votes correspond to the 6.1% for the AfD (and to about 42000 voters - close enough if you assume that the numbers of voters are all approximate and rounded to the next 1000, and that votes could even be split between parties). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Levi-Strauss in Praise of Marcel Mauss

§I am looking for a quote where Claude Levi-Strauss praises " The Gift" (1925) by Marcel Mauss and says something like Mauss' work is so great and pioneering that all the works that follow on Exchange/Gift will be like a footnote to Mauss' work.

Kindly help me locate it in Levi-Strauss' French ouvre or any of his English translations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.245.208 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In part 2 of Levi-Strauss's Introdution à l'œuvre de M. Mauss (1950) (text available here), he writes "En effet, et bien que l'Essai sur le don soit, sans contestation possible, le chef-d'oeuvre de Mauss, son ouvrage le plus justement célèbre et celui dont l'influence a été la plus profonde, on commettrait une grave erreur en l'isolant du reste.", which Google Translate gives as "Indeed, although The Gift is, without any doubt, the masterpiece of Mauss, his most justly famous and one whose influence has been most profound, one makes a great mistake in isolating it from the rest." This is really the opposite sentiment from the one in your question, but it may be the quote you're looking for. Tevildo (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That quote doesn't say that The Gift is the last word on the subject of exchanges; it says that it's wrong to think that Mauss's work can be reduced to that single book. --Xuxl (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How did King Lear plan to divide up his kingdom for his three daughters?

There is an incident in King Lear (the actual Shakespeare play's text, not any films or such) about which I am confused. In the very first scene, King Lear states that he wants to divide up his kingdom to each of his three daughters, offering the best piece to the daughter who says she loves him most. But, it seems to be the case that the map was already divided into equal thirds, right from the outset. No? Furthermore, a bit later on in the scene, he gives Goneril a third; then he gives Regan an equal third. Of course, this implies that there is one more "equal third" remaining. But, he says to Cordelia, paraphrased, "Tell me how much you love me in even stronger language, so that I can give you a piece of my kingdom more opulent than what your sisters received." So, I am a bit confused by this. Was the kingdom already divided into pre-determined equal thirds at the outset, before each daughter professed her love? And what about the discrepancy in giving Cordelia more than an equal share, after the other two-thirds are already gone and there is only one more equal third left to give? I am confused. Am I missing something? Or is this just some minor irrelevant detail that Shakespeare was not concerned with? It seems to be the crux of the entire scene (which sister gets what amount dependent upon how strongly she professes her love). So, I can't imagine it's an irrelevant point of minutiae, from the perspective of the playwright. Or is Lear just playing some form of mind games, asking each daughter to out-do the others, when his decision was already pre-determined, rendering their actions moot? Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, here's my take. At the beginning of the play there is a conversation about the king's plans to divide the kingdom. It's implied that it's not settled yet, but that the king is beginning to favour one of the Dukes over the other. The opening lines of the play are: "I thought the King had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall". Glou. "It did always seem so to us; but now, in the division of the kingdom, it appears not which of the Dukes he values most". Note that the conversation is about the Dukes - the males - who are seen as the negotiators, not their wives, Lear's daughters. It's implied that a deal is being done by the men which is intended to be sealed by the ritual declarations of adoration by their wives, but that if those declarations are not fulsome, the King might decide to switch to a different deal. It's about him using his daughters to keep his sons-in-law on tenterhooks. He always indended to give Cordelia the most "opulent" third, which would function as her dowry for her prospective husbands. It's made clear that the uncertainty is only about the division between the two Dukes. In a sense it's about "patriarchal" power (in both the feminist and traditional senses of the word). The women declare their gushing devotion to secure power for their husbands, or in Cordelia's case to secure a husband and demonstrate her servile femininity. But of course that's not how the play pans out. The women are the ones who dominate after Lear gives up his power. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I might add that such a division would never be equal in any straightforward way, since the sheer size of territory has to be set against its productive capacity, trade links, strategic significance, population size etc. The most "opulent" third might be physically smaller than a bigger bit comprising a lot of useless hills and heath. And of course Shakespeare is only following what Geoffrey says happened in King Leir's later life, though he dramatically departs from his historical sources towards the end of the play. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I still don't follow. Yes, I understand the opening lines of the play (the "does the King prefer Cornwall or Albany?" scene). Kent says: "Wow, everyone always thought he preferred one over the other!" Essentially, Gloucester replies: "Yes, that was always the conventional wisdom. But, now, it looks like a very equal split, 50/50, right down the middle." That's how I read that. Also, with Cordelia: the map is already divided; there is only an equal third remaining. No matter how weak or how strong she professes her love, she can only get (at best) that equal third, which is no more or no less than the other two sisters. So, hypothetically, let's say that Cordelia gave a very flowery devotion of love. She should now get the "best" division. But, there is no "best division" left. The equal third is the only third remaining, and hence, the only third to give her. I am still confused. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I I thought I'd already pointed out, there can be no such thing as an "equal" third in practice. The term "third" just refers to one of three parts. Even if the land were equally divided, Cordelia's could still be the more "opulent" third (containing the best land, a thriving seaport, copper mines... or whatever), which is what Lear says. In effect he's saying "now, I've got this last third, which is the most opulent, what are you going to say to me to thank me for it? Are you going to be more gushing than those two, because you really should be. Look at all that juicy farmland." Paul B (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess we are missing each other's point. When I talk about "thirds", I am not necessarily saying that the number of acres is exactly the same in each division. One might be bigger, one might be smaller. Agreed. I guess what I am saying is: there is only one "piece" left, after the first two daughters got their first two pieces. So, regardless of Cordelia's answer, she was going to get that last third piece, no matter what. The size or desirability (or whatever) was never going to change, contingent upon her answer. It was the last piece left. What exactly was she competing for? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

She's not competing. She just has to go along with her father's wishes and gush about what a fantastic guy he is. It's essentially a public ritual. The only competion is a kind of rhetorical one - 'top that, can you?' - which she doesn't want to participate in. Paul B (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I guess. So, the father says, "See if you can top that?" If she did indeed "top" that (her sisters' replies), then Coredlia would get _______ (what?). If she did indeed not "top" that (her sisters' replies), then Coredlia would get _______ (what?). Both of those blanks can be filled in only by the same thing (that last third piece). So, Cordelia's answer is irrelevant. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lear says "Now, our joy,/Although the last, not least....what can you say to draw/A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak." Our article Cordelia (King Lear) matches my memory but does not cite any lines in proof that Cordelia is expressly Lear's favorite. The order seems pre-determined, and the thirds are not larger or smaller, just that last is most opulent, i.e., richer in resources, as has been mentioned by Paul above. μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And to fill in Joseph's blanks, if she complies and gushes about her dad, Cordelia gets the piece of land Lear has set aside for her, and if not, she doesn't receive anything, but the audience can enjoy a great play as a result. --Xuxl (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not answer my question. We know that Cordelia says nothing and receives nothing. My question was not about that extreme end of the spectrum. My question was this. Scenario A: If Coredlia gushes and surpasses the sisters, she gets _____ (what?). Scenario B: If Coredlia offers a fair and mediocre protestation of love (and yet does not surpass the sisters), she gets _____ (what?). Scenario C: If Coredlia says nothing, she gets _____ (what?). So, we know all about Scenario C. So, I was asking about Scenario A versus B. Cordelia offers a response between the two extremes of "gushing" versus "says nothing". What does she receive? The King set up an odd premise. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Lear had a scenario B planned. Either she gushed sufficiently and received the land, or she did not and received nothing. Seeing she would be unable to top her elder sisters, Cordelia chose to say nothing and received nothing. Nothing indicates that King Lear had any finer gradation in his test of his daughters' love. --Xuxl (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was all about Lear's ego. And he was "toying" with (i.e., playing mind games with) his daughters. The first two decided to "go along" with his foolishness, fully realizing that it indeed was foolishness. And they had to play their part and comply. You stated: Seeing she would be unable to top her elder sisters, Cordelia chose to say nothing and received nothing. I would disagree with that assessment. Cordelia wanted to be genuine and sincere. To not tell Lear what he wanted to hear, simply because he wanted to hear it (when it was untrue). Cordelia wanted no part of that. That was her underlying reason and motivation. She did not say to herself: "Wow, I can never top what those two sisters said, so I just better shut up and not even try to do so." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Was Jun-Jun Sotto real, and if so did he win?

In 2011 a photo circulated the internet purportedly showing a Filipino election poster for "Jun-Jun Sotto" with the refreshingly honest slogan "I'll do my best but I can't promise anything" (in English). I recently stumbled upon the photo again, and was wondering: Is it real, and if so where is Jun-Jun Sotto now? The photo can be found at: http://i.imgur.com/VOQJtGJ.jpg. Many thanks 80.41.253.91 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

February 18

Why did the Pietists reject the "dead orthodoxy" of Lutheran Orthodoxy?

Eric W Gritsch writes in A History of Lutheranism that the Pietists rejected what they perceived as "dead orthodoxy" of Lutheran Orthodoxy in the early Lutheran church. He describes Lutheran Orthodoxy as getting too theological. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with focusing on the will and the intellect? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

unconstructive discussion that does not answer the question and that treats the OP's question non-seriously and off-topic 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)}}:You've started with a reference already in hand and are asking us why we would agree with it's interpretation? We don't engage in debate, perhaps someone can point you to a religious chat forum. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The reference is mainly concerned with the history, not theology. And no, I am not asking why you would agree with it's interpretation. I am asking for the reasoning behind Pietism and the social atmosphere at the time that might have contributed to Pietism. It's a history-based question, not an opinion-based question. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think my wording may have been misleading. It does sound a bit whine-y. :P 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it will be much easier to answer if we know you want information on Pietism in that context. Inter/intra-Protestant dialectic will have better specialists than me. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said this? There is no signature! 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add that my main obstacle is trying to visualize pietism. Perhaps, understanding the social atmosphere may help me understand why people thought that way and thus what were the real sentiments behind pietism. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The now signed statement above was me. I think if you realize Lutheranism is very close in form of worship to a reform version of Roman Catholicism not under Rome, the sentence from our article "True Christianity, became widely known and appreciated; Heinrich Müller...described the font, the pulpit, the confessional and the altar as "the four dumb idols of the Lutheran Church". These four dumb idols are symbols of the authority of clergyman. Pietism rejects pomp and ceremony as papist, and emphasizes bible reading and Christian living (presumably virtuous living and charity.) In any case, I am a lapsed Catholic reading this for you. The article seems clear, I suggest you read it and associated links and then ask if you have further specific questions. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh. That's slightly different from what I imagined. I thought pietism had something to do with anti-intellectualism. The A to Z of Lutheranism writes "While it is difficult to generalize Pietism, it seems to be ecumenical, emotional, lay-focused, and interested in institutions only if they are voluntary associations. It opposed Orthodoxy for its overattention to the will and the intellect, seeing it as encouraging a barren and arid assent rather than a living faith. Later, Pietism opposed its own child, Enlightenment rationalism, for its overattention to reason, seeing it as setting skepticism above faith." In my mind, I imagined that as "anti-intellectual", focusing on practical matters instead of on esoteric theological subjects that don't have much to do with reality. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to search "papist" on the two Misplaced Pages articles you linked to, pietism and Johann Arndt, and can't find the word. Can you give a cite where you get the idea it's related to papistry? My readings in the two said books lead me to believe that pietism was an anti-intellectual movement. So, I'm actually quite interested in how it is interpreted as something related to opposition to papistry. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Papistry is just a derogatory term Protestants use to refer to the things about the hierarchical, ceremonial, and theological things about the Catholic church they don't like. It's a bad name, not a thing. I really can't help you any further than the article at this point. μηδείς (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I already know what papistry means, and I already know, from my reading of Martin Luther's biography and early Lutheran history, that Martin Luther was convinced that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupted or "lost the gospel". But the Pietist movement actually occurred after Martin Luther's life, and all sources I've encountered to date does not suggest that the Pietist movement was inherently anti-Catholic. So, that never got into my mind. What I did thought, based on the descriptions, was that Pietism seemed to carry an anti-intellectual flavor, and this tendency to go against the intellect and go for the heart influenced other Christian denominations, including modern-day Evangelicals. Also note that Pietism focuses on ecumenism, and as far as I know of the current Roman Catholic Church, it seems that it does a lot of ecumenical work too. So, Pietism is hardly an anti-Catholic thing. You still need to explain where you get the idea that it has anything to do with anti-Catholicism. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already said Pietism rejected "the font, the pulpit, the confessional and the altar" which were seen as papist elements still remaining in "high church" Lutheranism, as well as an emphasis on theological argument, shared both by Catholicism and Luther (and others like Calvin and Zwingli). I said nothing about Pietists being necessarily hostile to Roman Catholics as such. You already have your sources, and your set opinions, which you seem to want to debate: "You still need to explain..." No, I do not need to explain anything. This is a volunteer desk where personal opinions are not the main focus and where obstinacy and rudeness don't invite others to invest their time on questions. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So, how did you know that "the font, the pulpit, the confessional, and the altar" were seen as papist elements still remaining in "high church Lutheranism"? Can you give a cite? I do not want to debate; I just want to know how you know it. As this is a volunteer desk where personal opinions are not the main focus and where obstinacy and rudeness don't invite others to invest their time on questions, I politely ask you to give some references. I am interested. I thought "the font, the pulpit, the confessional, and the altar" was in all churches. :P Sorry, but I really have not much personal experiences with churches, so I am just wondering if "the font, the pulpit, the confessional, and the altar" are the four characteristics of "high church". Is it? I'm just curious. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There was one time when I asked a librarian about the tabernacle, because I didn't have a clue what the article on the catholic encyclopedia was about. Then, the librarian told me that the "blessed sacrament" was really the eucharist. I probably completely skipped over it, because I didn't know that the blessed sacrament referred to the host, which referred to the eucharist. Sometimes, I wonder if I ask questions that are too simple that some people think I am not being serious or trying to confront them or something. I apologize for sounding too confrontational. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am going to ask a similar question on the Stack Exchange Network. Hopefully, I may get conclusive answers from the experts. Misplaced Pages is useful for general, basic information (both the articles and the Reference Desks), but if one wants more understanding, then Misplaced Pages usually cannot provide the answer, or the answer tends to be not well sourced. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that Medeis has merely skimmed through the Pietism article and picked one line out of the whole article: "Heinrich Müller, who described the font, the pulpit, the confessional and the altar as 'the four dumb idols of the Lutheran Church.'" As an ex-Catholic, Medeis probably thought the usage of the word "idols" in the Pietism context resembled the usage of the word "idols" when anti-Papistry Protestants talk about "idols" in the Catholic church. The line might have led Medeis to think that Lutheran Orthodoxy was high-church, and the Pietism movement essentially criticized this high-church liturgy.

This may call for a few interesting questions:

• Was the Pietism movement essentially an anti-Papistry movement?

Perhaps, my initial interpretation was mistaken, yet I still need to find support for the alternative interpretation. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This question has been answered here. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved by someone on another site quoting the Misplaced Pages article on Pietism. So whatever. Rmhermen (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Islam and music

According to this possibly unreliable website and many other Islamic websites, Islamic law forbids music. Music, something so fundamental to humanity that we have flutes as old as the oldest cave paintings. How many percent of Muslims actually buy into this? Have any polls been conducted to see whether it's just an obsession of fundamentalists, or a common belief?

(Forgive my inability to hide my disdain for this barbarism.) --Bowlhover (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:56, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

Please see Islamic music#Permissibility of music.--Shantavira| 09:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems there are more or less four schools of thought: that music is more or less entirely unacceptable to Islam (, for example); that only vocal-only music, or music that only uses vocals and basic percussion, is acceptable (); that music is acceptable as long as it doesn't incite debauchery, indecency or sin (which by some interpretations rules out most popular music) (); and that music is perfectly acceptable (). I can't find any sources regarding how common each view is, and googling the issue produces many results backing up each interpretation. Nasheeds, a form of usually vocal music, seem to be widely considered acceptable at least - according to this article, "most Islamic scholars now say nasheeds are acceptable, especially during wartime." It also points out that ISIS now has a nasheed associated with it as its "anthem," and that Osama bin Laden started a nasheed group as a teenager. So it seems that very few modern Muslims feel that all music is forbidden. A related topic that may be of interest to you is dancing bans, which have historically been common not just in Islam but in Christianity and Judaism as well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

IMDB hss no release dates for Footloose in any Muslim nation. They call it Yasak dans in Turkey, though, and Egypt and the UAE got the 2011 remake just a few weeks late. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:26, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

Fundamentalists do all sorts of stupid things (in any religion) and it doesn't usually affect regular people. I would say approximately 0% of Muslims "buy into" this supposed prohibition. Aside from the Islamic music article above, we also have Arabic music, and "Music of (country)" articles (Music of Egypt, Music of Saudi Arabia, etc). The music industry of the Arab world alone is huge. There is music of every genre you can think of and several more you've probably never imagined. I mean...what else can be said here? Go to YouTube and check out some Egyptian pop music or whatever. I find it difficult to believe this is even a serious question, given the parenthetical aside... Adam Bishop (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hussam "Flipperachi" Aseem starts his generic (but shiny) rap video with Ford product placement. Some true blue-chip Western decadence, with a vaguely Puerto Rican sound. Of course, he's a certified outlaw. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Bahrain isn't represented in the Arabic hip hop article. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:01, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

I highly doubt it's 0%, because most Islamic websites I've found on Google explain why music is forbidden. It seems to be at least a mainstream opinion, not a lunatic fringe. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Umm Kulthum, for which see Inta Omri, remnant of a civilized age, sung by a woman whose funeral was attended by more than that of Nasser. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

U.S Constitution

Hi everyone. I am from England so I know very little about this subject as we are not taught it at school! I am having a debate with an American friend over the ideology surrounding the U.S Constitution. So here is my question:

Was the U.S constitution of 1787 a 'conservative' document, or is it liberal? Thank you! --Clickrsona (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Define "conservative" and "liberal". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A generalized response: it tried to "balance" between both. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The US "revolution" was conservative in that it largely tried (and managed) to maintain the societal status quo. A lot of the rhetoric at the time spun around the "ancient rights of Englishmen" that King George (and Parliament) violated and that needed to be restored. But the written constitution and especially the Bill of Rights was heavily influenced by the climate of Enlightenment, and hence liberal in the original sense - separation of church and state, protections against government interference, codified rights of the individual, and so on, were all fairy progressive ideas. It is, however, a frequent misunderstanding that the US constitution is somehow static and sacrosanct. While the document only changes rarely, the interpretation is much more fluent with the Zeitgeist. Dred Scott v. Sandford or Schenck v. United States would not be decided now as they had been back then. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I see that, but it's a pretty tough sell to claim that establishment of a new sovereign nation by armed revolt is an overall appeal to maintain the status quo ... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, these words mean different things in different contexts, and also change through time. My understanding is that the document in question is largely rooted in the ideals of Classical_liberalism, which was being developed relatively concurrently. You'll need to read the article carefully to see how those concepts are different from some of the concepts of modern liberals in the USA and UK. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Clickrsona -- Charles A. Beard famously claimed that the U.S. constitution was written to serve the economic interests of the upper classes, launching a decades-long debate, but I'm not sure that too much survives of his "economic interpretation", except for the fact that the constitution is more creditor-friendly than debtor-friendly (providing for national bankruptcy laws) and eliminates various obstacles to trade (no interstate tariffs, no export tariffs etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are some rather stupid forms of taxation. Taxing something will tend to reduce it, so the result of those taxes would be to decrease exports and inter-state trade, both of which are bad for the national economy. Taxing imports, on the other hand, would tend to reduce imports, which mean your nation's money isn't sent overseas. This would be a very good thing, if not for the effect that other nations will then do the same to you. Sin taxes make even more sense, since you can reduce alcohol consumption, tobacco use, etc., while also bringing in money. (Of course, if you set them too high you will get cheating and/or a rebellion.) StuRat (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sin taxes are widely considered a Regressive_tax. It's very simple, tobacco, alcohol, and other "sinful" things have relatively inelastic demand - that means people buy almost as many cigarettes at $6 a pack as they did at $3 a pack . While rich people don't notice the difference between $3/6 per day, poor people certainly do. So sin taxes end up placing a disproportionate tax burden on the poor, and that is the very definition of a regressive tax. I will not argue with you about this, but I wanted to post some references that present the other side to your claim that sin taxes are good public policy. More refs and info at Sin_tax#Opposition. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Taxing imports, on the other hand, would tend to reduce imports, which mean your nation's money isn't sent overseas. This would be a very good thing, if not for the effect that other nations will then do the same to you." That is pretty close to the mercantilist argument, and it has been pretty thoroughly refuted by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. Basically, if you tax imports, you will import less. But then you have less of whatever you imported. It's been imported because whoever exported it too you offered it cheaper than the local economy could make it. So you're better of buying (say) iPhones in China, and use your own resources to (say) design the thing, program iOS, and play in the Super Bowl, all of which create more revenue than soldering tiny bits of semiconductors on tiny bits of metal. In a fair trade, both sides profit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the hat below this point since Shay's Rebellion (over the whiskey tax) and tariff policy before the Civil War and the 16th Amendment are highly important topics. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your question really does depend on what you mean by conservative and liberal. Also, you have specified the Constitution as it stood in 1787, before the addition of the Bill of Rights. In today's terms, that document, which assured little in the way of rights for citizens and which enshrined slavery, was profoundly conservative, indeed reactionary. But it doesn't make sense to measure a historic document by present-day standards. In its day, its opponents accused the original Constitution of being illiberal and conservative, in that it gave too much power to the government and did not guarantee the rights of individuals. Also, the Constitution created a powerful presidency that opponents found monarchical and therefore conservative. Under the previous constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, the federal government did not have a strong executive and required agreement from a majority, and sometimes a supermajority, of state governments before it could take action. So, in its immediate and local historical context, the Constitution was a moderately conservative document. However, in the larger context of Western history, and by comparison with the political systems of other countries at the time, the Constitution was an almost radically liberal document in subjecting government to democratic control and in checking the powers of the executive. Marco polo (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you're in England and your friend is in America, there's likely going to be a huge misunderstanding over terminology. "Liberal" and "Conservative" both mean very different things in the UK and US - neither the British Liberal nor Conservative parties would be considered as such in the USA, while some policies of American conservatives appear quite left-wing and radical to a European eye. Mogism (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like hear you name one American conservative position that would be regarded as "left-wing" in Europe. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading about Horseshoe theory. Also perhaps Radical right and British left. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Opposition to international integration (it's historically been the left who want out of the EU, and the right who want in—UKIP is a very recent phenomenon), immigration restriction (the British Labour Party has always been the anti-immigration party, as the unions who fund it see immigration as a threat to their members, while the business interests that fund the Conservative Party generally support cheap imported labour), an emphasis on religion and specifically Christianity (as has been seen this week, the Church of England and the Labour Party are very closely intertwined)... Our own Conservatism in the United States article includes in the lead that "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism." Mogism (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a quote from Ribuffo. We don't have to agree with it! Dbfirs 09:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that last quote of yours is not supportive of that theory. The "liberalism" in "neoliberalism" (or in what the rest of the call "liberalism") isn't used as "liberal" is used in the US, but used in the strict economic sense, which is certainly not in any way a left wing phenomenon. The quote merely throws light on the fact that the word "liberal" has different meanings. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think things are as simple as you suggest. Firstly you said European not UK. As far as I can tell, National Front (France) has always been fairly anti immigration. Describing them is complicated, particularly since their policies have changed over time. But as far as I can tell, they're generally more associated with the right than the left even in France. Notably, their were anti-communist and in their early days were more opposed than supportive of protectionism. Similarly Francoist Spain which is AFAIK considered fairly right wing even in France restored the Catholic church's privileges in Spain and made Catholic education mandatory (although in the later days particularly after Vatican II, there were problems which results in priests opposing the regime, some ending up as leftist politicians). Our article Religion in Spain notes that despite the traditional connection between religion and the right wing, voting preferences changed somewhat e.g. by 1982 many Catholics voted for the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and it had many Catholic members, although the leadership was agnostic and in 1980 82% of Spaniards still considered themselves Catholic. Perhaps it's more true on the more mainstream level, but I don't think it's even really true there. Consider even our Conservative Party (UK) says "Since accession to the EU, British membership has been a source of heated debate within the Conservative party." It's unsourced but AFAIK it's mostly true. In reality many of those things you highlighted have had people on both the left and right opposed for various reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

He might be mistaking some Libertarian politicians, like Ron Paul, for conservatives, since both are in the Republican Party. Libertarian policies, like avoiding foreign intervention, might indeed seem liberal. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So-called "paleoconservatives" were generally anti-interventionist, or "America-firsters", or "isolationists". So-called "neoconservatives" have tended to be warhawks. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Some things to look at. First, the Revolution itself came about because the Colonists considered themselves to have the full rights of Englishman as granted by the Magna Carta, and with no taxes to be raised without parliamentary consent. Yet special taxes on the colonists such as paper The Stamp Act and tea Boston Tea Party were passed by Parliament without either Colonial consent or Colonial representation in Parliament. The Proclamation Line of 1763 limiting colonists to the fringe of the East Coast, while Britain controlled all of the territory east of the Mississippi except for Florida was rightly seen as a means of keeping the Colonists under check by preventing the use of the west for farming and settlement. In so far as most colonists were family farmers and small businessmen, these were middle class interests. The conflict here was between Loyalists, like Benjamin Franklin's well-heeled son and royally-appointed governor of New Jersey, William Franklin, and those less tied to Britain by birth or connection with the established order.
  

Second, after the Revolution was won, the colonies were in essence separate nations. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no modern presidency, no way for the federal government to tax the states or raise an army without their consent. States could erect trade boundaries between themselves, and there was armed conflict within and among the states, e.g., Shay's Rebellion. The Constitution was drafted to remedy these deficiencies of a weak central government without returning to an overbearing system like the one they had overthrown.

Third, the drafters of the Constitution were educated and invested lawyers, statesmen and businessmen who had been through the Revolution, risked their lives on principle, and supported its classical-liberal causes. They had read John Locke and Suetonius's Lives of the Caesars and were familiar with English history from the Magna Carta through the English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell, and the Glorious Revolution. They knew how the Roman Republic had turned into the Empire. So they drafted a document with three branches of federal government, each able to check the other to prevent parliamentary or presidential dictatorship. They ultimately retained sovereignty for the people and states by regular elections, a Senate appointed by the state governments to preserve their sovereign interests, and a House to represent the people by number, as well as the Ninth and Tenth amendments stating that rights of the people not enumerated by the Constitution were not disparaged and powers not explicitly granted to the federal government were retained by the states or the people. The US Bill of Rights was instituted specifically to redress problems of colonial and revolutionary times--freedom of the press John Peter Zenger; freedom of religion (Puritan, Quaker, and Catholic ad other minority religious rights); trial by jury, habeas corpus, no search without a warrant, no forced quartering of troops (The Coercive Acts), etc.

Finally, compromises had to be made between the liberal and commercial interests of the small northern states and the existence of slavery in the southern states. The Constitution could not forbid slavery outright or the South would secede or return to England, which would pick off the northern states piecemeal. The North won in negotiations the end of the slave trade by 1801 and the forbidding of slavery in the area north of the Ohio river. The South got to keep slavery for now, and got the famous three-fifths clause. Other than the slavery compromises, for Europeans, the Constitution was a fully classical-liberal document. It was also informed by Roman, British, and American history, and was conservative (small c) in the sense that it was meant to uphold the traditional rights of Englishman, and not to disenfranchise any one class of people. Racially, blacks and Indians remained an issue. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding "Taxation without representation", note that this still exists in the US. For example, many cities have taxes on people who work there, but do not live there, and thus are not entitled to vote there. I believe California also tried to tax workers who are not allowed to vote there. Then there are taxes children pay, who can't vote (sales tax and sometimes income tax). Also, speed traps are designed not to improve safety, but to generate revenue from people who can't vote to stop the practice (in that town). There are many other examples. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• They're free to look for work elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, and the colonists were free to move elsewhere, to someplace where they would be represented. StuRat (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite its flaws, as viewed from a 1787 international standpoint, the US constitution certainly was one of the most liberal in the world at that time. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The biggest problem, or one of the biggest problems, with the original question, is that it assumes "liberal" and "conservative" are opposites. They are not. In fact, they measure completely different things.

Liberalism is a theory about how things ought to be. Traditionally, liberalism holds that the individual has inherent value, and seeks to provide guarantees for the individual against the state. In a more recent sense, it seeks to moderate (though not eliminate) economic inequality.

Conservatism, on the other hand, is a theory about how fast things ought to change. It is not so much about finding the ideal state of affairs as about moderating the disruptions caused in the attempt to get there.

So it is perfectly possible to be liberal and conservative at the same time, especially if you live in a country that is already liberal. Or you can be opposed to both liberalism and conservatism at the same time, if you seek radical change that does not offer guarantees for the individual against the state. --Trovatore (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• The problem, dear friends, is that people want terms like "Conservatism" and "Liberalism" to be universal political constants, so we can pigeonhole a particular political figure or event or movement into the definitions we work with today. The problem is that these terms are predicated on a specific relation to time and place. In the broadest sense, political "conservatism" seeks to "conserve" the political status quo while "liberalism" seeks to "liberalize" (expand) political power to more people. Unless we know what the political situation is in a particular place, at a particular time, we cannot define what is politically liberal or politically conservative. To define a particular political situation as "conservative" or "liberal" based solely on our current definitions of those terms based on where we live and when we live is folly. --Jayron32 03:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Conservatism is relative to the current society, but liberalism is not. That's why, as I was explaining, it is incorrect to treat them as opposites; they are not necessarily even in tension. That's the exact point I was making, and you are making the precise error I was calling out. Of course the way that people use the word changes, but that's different — liberalism is still about a desired form of social organization (though exactly which one is meant changes, but just as linguistic change, not in any predictable way relative to the society). The ones who really have the right to the honorable name "liberal", of course, are now more often called "libertarians". --Trovatore (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • No, Liberalism is relative too. It's why we had to invent a term like "classical liberalism" because the ideals of classical liberalism would be viewed as not very liberal in a modern society, where "liberal" have evolved. The sort of expansion of rights and liberties to the people that "classical liberalism" expanded rights and liberties to are now the very people who are in power, and liberalism as an ideology has moved on to liberalizing the political landscape for other disenfranchised people. The social classes enfranchised in the age when "classical liberalism" was just called "liberalism" are now the political elite, which is why they are now the conservatives. Remember, the stated ideals of "classical liberalism" was designed to benefit the merchant and "middle" classes as defined in late 18th century Anglo-American politics. The people who were the beneficiaries of classical liberalism were people who had money and wealth, but no political power (who the French called the Bourgeoisie), while those in political power were the landed nobility. The American and French revolutions occurred in this age, and were about limiting the power of the Monarchy and Nobility to allow for the moneyed (but not noble) classes to have access to the political power they lacked. Once those classes became the ruling classes, "classical liberalism", which was the liberal thought of their day, no longer was a political ideology that sought to advance rights of disenfranchised people. Instead, "classical liberalism" became the ideology of those in power, and new sorts of liberalism became new voices to provide political power towards those lower on the power ladder. Liberalism is always seeking to enfranchise (legally and culturally and socially) those people who lack access to political power. At a time when those people were white, rich, middle-class men who resented the Monarchy and Nobility for their hereditary power, that was liberal. Today, those people are in power, and so their philosophy is no longer "liberal" in regards to the changing political climate. --Jayron32 22:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
      • This is the standard line of so-called "progressives", at least the ones that still also want to call themselves "liberals" (I think the identity-politics crowd has, correctly, given up all pretense of being liberal, and on that point at least I have to give them credit). But this is a reinterpretation meant to justify a sort of historicism and class-based analysis that ultimately shares much with the ideas of Marx. Liberalism is not about distributing political power downwards; it's about structuring protections against political power. To the extent that this has changed, it's a change in the meaning of the word, not some sort of natural progression of history. --Trovatore (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Someone would have to check it on the full OED, which has a fuller etymology and historical usages, but requires a subscription for online use. Merriam-Webster has a similar respect as an American dictionary, though is somewhat less comprehensive than the full OED (well TBH, everything is less comprehensive than the full OED), but M-W defines liberalism as "belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress" for a first definition, and notes the usage dating from 1819. I would hardly call such usage novel. --Jayron32 02:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
          • There's a better definition in the first two sentences of our article: "Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism." Nothing about change per se; different desired organizations of society depending on the particular branch of liberalism, and change is desired if the actual society does not meet those ideals, but not when it does meet them. --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Except that Misplaced Pages itself is not a reliable source. It would really be nice to see what the OED says (if someone has a subscription and could look it up). It's nice that you prefer the Misplaced Pages definition because it supports your own idiosyncratic viewpoint, but I'll take the work of a respected dictionary which has been compiled by professional dictionary writers after years of etymological research. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy definition is, of course, more nuanced and complex than a simple dictionary definition, and notes that liberalism is primarly devoted to the pursuit of and protection of "liberty", which, of course, simply moves the locus of the need for definition one word over: one needs to define liberty, and its pursuit. Liberty is the rights of people to self-determination, don't take my word for it. The Stanford Encyclopedia itself notes that the definition of liberalism is always context-dependent, "Liberals disagree, however, about the concept of liberty, and as a result the liberal ideal of protecting individual liberty can lead to very different conceptions of the task of government" That's the point: the view of a "liberal" regarding the role of government depends on whether or not the "liberal" in question has access to the political power (and by extension, their own self-determination, their liberty). In a society where the government takes an active role in suppressing the liberty of individuals, liberalism tends to be anti-government. In a society where coercive forces come from those outside of the government per se (such as social institutions, commercial institutions, the culture at large) and where the government is actively fighting to provide liberty to people, and is at odds with those coercive forces, liberalism comes off as pro-government. Liberalism is still always about access to liberty and power over one's own life: not about government per see and its role in that regard. It's about what are the coercive forces restricting a person's liberty, and what is being done to remove those coercive forces. In the context of late 18th century political thought, it was the Monarchy and it's arcane, hereditary, absolutist ideas that were the barrier to the liberty of the people who didn't have it. Thus, liberalism in that context is to limit (or eliminate) the power of hereditary nobility and establish a system where people have the right to choose all of their leaders. It's inherently anti-state at that time, because it was the existing state at that time which represented the conservative situation. That particular historic situation is not necessarily analogous to every situation in every country. It's historic and geographic context is still required to understand if a particular political situation would be seen as liberal or conservative: does it seek to create every-growing liberty (that is, does is diffuse political power from those that have it concentrated in their own hands to people without access to it) or does it seek to maintain the political status quo. When a particular political instrument or group, be it a party, a document, a set of ideas, a platform, etc. etc. is a tool to maintain status quo, it is is conservative by definition. When said instrument is a tool to increase liberty to more people, it is liberal by definition. We can only judge it based on how, when, by whom, and for what purpose any political idea is being used before we decide if it is "liberal" or "conservative". --Jayron32 05:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked over the SEP article. I didn't read it in full detail (would take a while), but at the level I did read it, it looked excellent; a fine summary of the various strains of liberalism.

What I didn't see was really any support at all for your point of view. You claim it recognizes the importance of "context", but what I see is just different strains of a philosophy about the ideal organization of society. I think you're adding a historicist gloss that just isn't there. --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The OED has two (non-theological) definitions of liberalism: 1. Support for or advocacy of individual rights, civil liberties, and reform tending towards individual freedom, democracy, or social equality; a political and social philosophy based on these principles; spec. (freq. with capital initial) the doctrine or practice of the Liberal Party in Britain or elsewhere. and 2. Freedom from bias, prejudice, or bigotry; open-mindedess, tolerance; (Polit.) liberal left-wing political views and policies. (Third edition November 2010.) The definitions of liberal include: (Polit.) favouring social reform and a degree of state intervention in matters of economics and social justice; left-wing. and Supporting or advocating individual rights, civil liberties, and political and social reform tending towards individual freedom or democracy with little state intervention. and Freq. with capital initial. Designating any of various political parties advocating individual rights and freedoms and Chiefly with capital initial. A person advocating political and social reform tending towards individual freedom or democracy; a member or supporter of the Liberal Party. I don't know whether any of this helps. Dbfirs 10:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

shivraj singh chouhan cm of mp

he is not from a rajput family because rajput comes in general category, rajput comes in upper caste and shivraj singh chouhan comes in OBC category.Infact the people from sehore,budhni,hoshangabad who write singh chouhan as their sirname they all take scholarship of OBC category.They are not thakur or rajput people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.252.35.166 (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This would be better on Talk:Shivraj Singh Chouhan. The statement currently in the article that Chouhan is "Belonging to Kirar Rajput community" is uncited, and therefore can be removed per WP:BLP. But discussion on the article talk page is required. Tevildo (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

House price increases

What causes house prices to increase?—Wavelength (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, besides inflation, it would also be the lack of enough housing, making them more valuable. Bear in mind, though, that housing prices also decrease sometimes. You might as well be asking about why the price of bananas was higher than it was twenty years ago. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

To expand on "lack of available housing", this could be due to many causes:

1) People moving into the area faster than more homes can be built.

2) Destruction of many homes from some catastrophe, such as a fire, earthquake, or war.

3) A higher birth rate than can be accommodated.

4) Communism. This often had houses provided at lower price than they cost to build, which meant the government could only afford to build a few. So, after communism ends, there is a building boom to make up for the housing shortage. Until the housing demand is met, prices will remain high.

5) Limited geographic space. In some locations, like Singapore, there is very little room to build more houses.

6) In other places, there may be room, but building might not be permitted (maybe it's in a national park area, for example).

The other side of the equation is that people might have more money as a result of a growing economy, and thus be willing to spend more to get a good house. This will tend to increase all housing prices, but particularly the high end homes. Ironically, when the economy is down, this might actually increase the price of budget homes, as people downsize and a shortage in that market emerges. StuRat (talk)

Every one of your points is an aspect of "supply and demand". (That's all I know about economics, from Father Sarducci's Five-Minute University.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I see you're putting your 5-minute education to good use ! StuRat (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• We have a pretty good article on the Housing market. It is much better than any response anyone here can type up in five minutes. I suggest you read that article carefully and come back with any more specific questions. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The short answer, as others have pointed out, is that prices increase when demand exceeds supply. However, when you see a substantial increase over time, it's the LAND that's going up in value, not the house itself. Remember the maxim "Location, location, location?" The land IS the location; moreover, the supply of all land is fixed (just ask Lex_Luthor), meaning that it's value tends to appreciate in time even if demand stays relatively constant. OldTimeNESter (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

While the overall amount of land is somewhat fixed (with a few exceptions, like extending beaches outward with fill), the land available for houses in a given area is not. There's land reclamation, such as draining swamps and clearing forests, then there's land repurposing, like turning farms into subdivisions. And, of course, you can always fit more people into a given amount of land by building up and down. Now these things might be bad for the environment, but they do keep housing prices down. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Besides what is written in the housing market article linked to above, rises in productivity outside the home construction industry can also increase the value of a home. If a house built in 1970 took 1000 person-hours to create and it would take 1000 person-hours today to create an identical house then one could see the value of the house change as the dollar value of a person-hour changed between 1970 and today. If the number of person-hours needed to build the same house today was only 200 then the value of that 1970 house would drop to 1/5th as despite costing 1000-person hours when built, it's only worth 200 today. Though if wages also saw a five time boost the value would be the same as when it was built. So ya, a difference between supply and demand for labour changes wages which changes the value of goods though the cost of producing at least some goods could have been the change that affected the supply and demand of labour. The moral of the story is hire a group of North Korean construction workers as they work just as fast and skillfully but accept 1/4th the pay. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Along the lines of cheap labor, my experience as a past California real estate broker has been to buy "fixer-upper" properties and use Mexicans for labor as they worked for about 1/2 that of a legal U.S. citizen. Then the next trick was to get a motivated seller (somebody that really needed to sell fast) and purchase the property below the market. After the property was all fixed up I made the house price go up (+10% to +30%), keeping all the profits to myself. Made a good living doing this = now retired.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As an investor I was more interested in what caused house prices to decrease = to be below the market, so I could make a profit. Some reasons were family issues (i.e. divorce, separation), loss of job, foreclosure, Probates, Estate Sales, and couldn't manage the property.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• An answer to the O.P. of What causes house prices to increase? could relate to the motivation of the buyer and seller. The seller usually wants to get the highest price possible for their house that they are emotionally involved with. They usually think it has a value higher than houses in the neighborhood because their house "has a better.....(whatever)" than the others. Now IF the buyer is highly motivated to buy a house in that neighborhood with that feature (because they recently came into a bunch of money) they are motivated more than the average buyer and will purchase this house at full price (something slightly over the market) = making the neighborhood houses go up in value (causing higher property taxes). So I look more at motivation of the buyer and seller = which could relate somewhat to supply and demand. However the opposite of this is a foreclosure property where the seller is many times highly motivated to sell (even under the market), irregardless of the area 'supply and demand'. Making a fast sale is the most important thing in this case = highly motivated seller. This then sets up an opportunity for an investor with money to buy something under the market, to make a potential profit.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Pre-Song Chinese Female Footwear

What was the common forms/fashion of footwear of Chinese female commoners and noblewomen before the advent of footbinding?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure commoners didn't mostly go barefoot then ? StuRat (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What idiotic source told you they went barefoot instead of wearing their shoes? 70.50.123.188 (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Stu didn't make a claim, he merely asked a question. Do you have the answer? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, commoners go barefoot in some places even today, but, if you go back far enough, shoes were a major expense, and poor people couldn't afford them. Of course, weather conditions made shoes an absolute necessity in some places, and totally optional in other places, so that also had a major impact. I don't know what the situation was in China prior to the Song dynasty, but it's a question worth asking. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a major expense when you make your own clothes. Even Otzi the Iceman had shoes. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A simple google search will yield many valuable sources for the OP. In short, they made various sandals, shoes, and boots using materials ranging from grasses, hemp, cloth, silk, wood, and leather. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

February 19

raw-foodism and Nazism

Is there a link between the two? Or could a convincing case (argument) be made that there was? I mean, it's the same kind of pastoral-romanticist ludditic mindset that worships everything pre-industrial and rural that also gave rise to Nazism ("blood and soil" ideology specifically.) I do understand that people may believe similar things for very different reasons, but still? Asmrulz (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum. In any case, those Nazis were so pre-industrial they built massive motorways and huge quantities of tanks, aircraft and even ballistic missiles. Paul B (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I don't understand that. Perhaps they are confusing them with another genocidal regime, the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot, which most definitely did believe in a return to agriculture and abolishing industry. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Asmrulz -- Hitler was personally a vegetarian, but did not expect it of other Nazis. Not sure what the connection to raw-foodism is; Fads and Fallacies: In the Name of Science does not mention any such connection (though covering a number of Nazi-related pseudo-scientific endeavors). Gardner mentions only Jerome I. Rodale... AnonMoos (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Francis Brett Young novel "They seek a country"

Prisoners land at False Bay near The Cape. They escape North on foot. But are picked up and rescued from starvation a day or two later 500+ miles away near Grahamstown 146.90.38.137 (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Is that what the novel claims, and you want us to fact check if it actually happened ? (It would seem to be impossible to move that far in 2 days on foot, but they might have found some faster mode of transport.) StuRat (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at a map, it seems they'd be better of by sea than by land. Any mention of them finding a boat? I'm far from a nautical expert, though, no idea if that's a feasible distance to cover. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Château Gaillard architect and workers

I see in our article on Château Gaillard that it says, A master-mason is omitted, and military historian Allen Brown has suggested that it may be because Richard himself was the overall architect; this is supported by the interest Richard showed in the work through his frequent presence.
The article also says, Amongst those workmen mentioned in the rolls are quarrymen, masons, carpenters, smiths = all these sound like skilled craftsmen. Does that mean that Richard himself may have taught them these trades and skills, since many of them were needed in a short time period?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Richard wouldn't have had those skills himself and wouldn't have taught them to other people. Richard could have designed the castle himself, in the sense that he told them what he wanted and they carried it out, but an actually qualified mason would have been in charge of the construction. Something similar happened with Abbot Suger and the Basilica of St-Denis...Suger is generally credited as the architect, but I somehow doubt he was sawing wood and carving stone with his own hands. It's kind of like Richard was the executive producer of a movie. He gave them all the money and showed up to see how things were going, but he didn't actually do anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Also the article says, ...carters who transported the raw materials to the castle. What the heck is a "carter"? (Don't say a Jimmy!) AND what raw materials did they carry from where to the castle?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • A carter would probably be someone operating a cart. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

O.K. - so, in this case, what raw materials might they be carrying to the castle?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. - would the cart have been by man power only or pulled by an animal?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Normally the cart would be pulled by a beast of burden. The occupation of carter (Anglo-Norman careter, French charretier) has fairly recently been superseded by modern carriers and methods of delivery. The building materials would need to be transported. Dbfirs 08:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The main materials would have been stone and wood in enormous quantities. It's possible that they could have been transported by barge on the Seine, but then a cart (or rather, LOTS of carts) would have been needed to get them to the site. Alansplodge (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for all the great answers. Now I can sleep!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

family of Jesus Christ

Do not ask duplicate questions, see the miscellaneous desk. μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

February 20

Workplace behaviour

Why do people often say that in the workplace, if you're making a nuisance of yourself and people tell get annoyed by you bothering them, you're doing a good job? 194.66.246.80 (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The saying refers to situations where you are trying to effect changes that will be of benefit to your workplace, but facing resistance. Your co-workers may be content to do things a certain way, and don't want to take the time to consider that there could be a better way to do them. So they see your push for change as a nuisance and a bother. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

People seem to apply it to other situations in the workplace too though. Generally anything that requires communication to get things done. 194.66.246.39 (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Not meaning to be facetious but why not just ask the speaker of that comment what they mean by it? In my opinion you are asking a very open-ended question, by which I am trying to say that a wide variety of responses are possible. I don't feel that a definitive "answer" is possible. But perhaps others can weigh in with clearcut responses that genuinely address your question. Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather wait than speak

Even though it's likely always been the case, I've only noticed recently that in NY and further north, it's not all-together uncommon for one person to be blocking the way ever so slightly and another to eagerly (or awkwardly) wait for them to move rather than saying 'excuse me' or 'sorry' and brushing past. They'll wait for a person to move out of the way before continuing on. It seems horribly inefficient in my mind and I don't see it as much in DC, Southern England, or various parts of Italy, where people generally excuse themselves and carefully move by or Israel where people are Israeli and just brush past you. What is this kind of behaviour called and what's the cause of this? Is it some, sort of mild anthropophobia or fear of communicating with others? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 1 Adar 5775 14:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll be interested to read the answers, because I myself often behave like this (and reside in Southern England). However, I'll spare you from self-analysis unless it seems to become pertinent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait for the person to move? Say "excuse me"? Obviously Flinders has never been on the NYC Subway at rush hour. We just push pass without saying anything (or making eye contact). Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm from Northern England, and I always wait instead of asking, unless I am in a hurry, then I will ask "Excuse me, can I just get past please?" I find it exceptionally annoying when on escalators, people very often ignore the sign that says "Stand on the right" and just stand in the middle. The same goes for the flat version you see at airports (which are actually intended to help you go faster if you walk on them, while people just stand on them, watching the people on either side actually walk faster than them). KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure those automated walkways aren't designed to make it easier to move that distance, as opposed to faster ? At my local airport one must walk miles to get from the parking lot to the gate, and when carrying luggage that gets old fast. When you include the elderly or people in poor health, walking that distance might be impossible. With my father, who could walk short distances but not that far, we ended up putting him in a wheelchair, which he found humiliating. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I really believe they are for helping you to go faster, because, after all, every airport I have been to has had luggage trolleys (and some even have vehicles you can rent which drive within the airport building itself to help you with your luggage and get to your gate on time). The airports are more concerned with getting people out of them, rather than having a human traffic jam. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 23:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

My local airport is such a nightmare it requires going up stairs to get to the terminal. They do have an elevator for wheelchairs, but a scooter wouldn't fit in there. StuRat (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You must have incredibly small elevators, mate, if a scooter can't fit in there. :) KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not an answer, but some related references: NYC walks faster than London according to this research , and Singapore, Copenhagen and Madrid are the top three fastest walking cities. Radiolab has a nice story about walking speeds in various cities here . SemanticMantis (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Deborah Tannen has written about different styles of communication, so this might have a similar name.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Another option is to not speak, but still "make your presence known", by making loud footsteps as you approach, or maybe rattling your shopping basket/trolley if in the grocery store. StuRat (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

We have an article on conflict avoidance. It's a general thing, which envelops waiting for people to move themselves. Not sure if that has a particular name. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

This book may be useful, if you'd rather not wait, but I don't like the look of the guy on the cover. This face seems friendlier. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't care for that first title: "The Coward's Guide...". Wanting to avoid conflict isn't cowardice, it's proper social behavior. It's those who try to cause conflict who should be ostracized (unless doing so creates conflict, of course). StuRat (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I imagine you're also not fond of the term "sheeple". Not calling you that, but there's no consensus on proper social behaviour. What's good for the goose may be good for the gander, but doesn't work at all for the wolf (or even a busy beaver). "As conformity is a group phenomenon, factors such as group size, unanimity, cohesion, status, prior commitment, and public opinion help determine the level of conformity an individual displays." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

My natural instinct is to say something like "You know, a toddler could still possibly slip by, but you could make the aisle completely impassible if you angled your cart diagonally and then used your lard ass to block the rest". Fortunately, my conflict avoidance instinct has won the battle every time so far. StuRat (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So, despite all your rage, you're still just a rat in a cage? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

My favourite, which works on escalators, elevators, and in shopping aisles, is "So, I know you are wondering why I brought you here today..." in a really posh British accent. Works every time. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

February 21

Islamic ruling infertile woman vs. fertile man and fertile woman vs. infertile man married or single

Is there a Islamic ruling whether a married infertile man or single infertile man can have sexual intercourse with a single or married fertile woman and also whether a married or single infertile woman can have sexual intercourse with a single or married fertile man? Please no discussion, just answer and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.68 (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It will depend on the sect of Islam. Generally speaking, however, infertility does not matter, and sex before marriage is generally perceived as haram - forbidden. Adultery is considered as a sin, and is generally treated with the death penalty under Shariah law. You will have to expand on which type of Islamic ruling you are asking about, as there are many different types. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages has an article titled Islamic sexual jurisprudence which may be of use to answering your question. I would read the article, and then follow references made by the article to more reading within and outside Misplaced Pages, in order to answer the question for yourself. --Jayron32 02:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk