Misplaced Pages

:Reference desk/Humanities - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tamfang (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 24 February 2015 (→Non-involvement in marriage). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:31, 24 February 2015 by Tamfang (talk | contribs) (→Non-involvement in marriage)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?

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.


Ready? Ask a new question!


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.
See also:


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)
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)
Sir, I ride the roving entertainment known as our subway thrice each weekday. I deftly move betwixt people, automatically saying excuse me and sorry and on occasion help people out and even enagage in conversation with random people. Trying to spread good will one person at a time. People generally never shove past me though as apparently I look somewhat intimidating even though I'm rather short. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 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)
Totally with you there. You don't want to walk on the escalator? I'm not judging. Maybe you had a hard day. Maybe you have physical challenges. Maybe you just don't want to and it's none of my business why. It's all good. Just please leave room for people to get by. --Trovatore (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I should say I'm thinking more about people who let's say get on a train and rather than brush past someone to find a seat will wait behind them with an awkward uncomfortable look trying to decide if they should say something or wait and potentially get tossed about by the train. If I'm elsewhere and not in a hurry then I'll just wait politely (especially if there's an older person involved) As for escalators, that's a one-way ticket to be snapped at in DC. When I lived there I would on occasion inform hapless tourists about this before someone else snapped at them. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 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)
I suspect that Stu might use a motorised scooter and you're about to feel a bit silly, my good Northerner. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I do indeed also know what our esteemed friend meant, it's just that 'scooters' is not what we call them. We generally call them 'motorized (wheel)chair' (when it refers to the ones for elderly or handicapped people, which are generally not much bigger than a mountain bike, in terms of length). The ones at airports, where you have a dedicated driver, are, of course, much bigger, as they need to carry luggage, but the drivers do know the way to the gate, because that is, bizarrely, what their job is. Elevator or no elevator. 'Scooter' means something completely different in Br.Eng., as referred to in my link above. KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 22:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I assume at my poorly designed airport they would have one scooter take the person to the elevator, put them in a wheelchair for the elevator ride, then put them on another scooter at the other level. Any elderly or handicapped person would find all this jostling quite annoying. (As for how the scooters get to the upper level in the first place, there must be a freight elevator somewhere.) StuRat (talk) 16:36, 23 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)
Indeed the case. Londoners also have this weird aversion to J-walking. Even when there's no cars for 50m! Absolutely inefficient. Especially when you've an appointment to keep. Odd about the top three though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 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)
The work of Deborah Tannen is really worth exploring here. Her older books are the most interesting for this question. The field of research, I think, is called sociolinguistics. See http://faculty.georgetown.edu/tannend/books.html. They were a real eye-opener for me. --Judithcomm (talk) 16:11, 23 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)
In cases like that I might wait and if the person looked particularly grouchy I've played ignorant and said, "Terribly sorry, didn't realise you were there." Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 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)
It depends on what we consider conflict. A polite exchange wherein a person is made aware that they're blocking someone's way and the other person is friendly about it is perfectly fine and makes people more likely to be polite in other situations. It's another thing if we're talking about unnecessarily making an ass of oneself or intervening by pointing out someone's attempt to cause conflict is causing a nuisance to other people. For instance, yesterday at a grocery store after I'd checked out, a Norwegian (based on his accent) gentleman was reading a magazine and waiting for a loyalty club card form after having put all his items on the belt. The cashier was doing her thing and no action was required by the man, but this older fellow behind him (who looked like a Menonite based on his beard actually) said, "You should read that at home" in a voice most grumpy. The Norwegian was surprised and asked the guy to repeat himself and the man repeated what he said twice in an angry voice. I said to the angry fellow twice, "That's really not necessary" with a disgusted look on his face and he was silent afterwards. There was another instance where I had to tell off a lady in a car who was being rude to my friend's mother simply because she was standing in a parking spot to save it for her husband (all of them were our guests and the lady in the car was giving a poor impression of the local hospitality). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 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)
Conformity and conflict avoidance are by no means the same. For example, if somebody has purple hair, the conformist would be upset by that and say so, while conflict avoidance would lead to the attitude that "as long as they aren't causing any harm, let them do their own thing". StuRat (talk) 18:21, 23 February 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)
What? I don't get that one, KageTora. "why I brought you here today"??? What is it you are implying in this funny statement? --Lgriot (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It's sometimes used by managers when starting a staff meeting after a tense silence at the beginning... or at least that is a stereotype. :) KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 17:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how a potentially scouse accent could ever be considered posh (one of my least favourite terms along with boffin), my good sir. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 3 Adar 5775 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, dear chap, I do apologize for my failure to inform you that I have spent most of my life abroad, worked mostly with foreigners (as I still do), and therefore do not, in my daily life, actually have a Scouse accent, but only use it when I 'need' it. It is my native dialect, but, believe it or not, there are people who are perfectly capable of Code-switching. KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 21:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Shock, I have something in common with Stu. “And with just a bit more effort, you could block both these intersecting passages!” —Tamfang (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
What ever happened to just saying pardon me?
That certainly is appropriate when somebody is shopping in a considerate way and just happens to have their cart where you need to go. But then you have people who abandon their cart blocking a main aisle, with no attempt to park it out of the way, before they go get whatever item they forgot. It seems like such inconsiderate behavior demands stronger words. However, I've come to understand that a large portion of these people suffer from a mental deficiency. That is, they don't even think that leaving their cart in the way of everybody else will be inconvenience, because they simply can't view things from the perspective of others. Those with autism spectrum disorders are one such group. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 22 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)

Real estate customers

When a real estate broker facilitates a sale between a house buyer and a house seller, (a) does the real estate broker serve the buyer (by negotiating a low price for the house), (b) does the real estate broker serve the seller (by negotiating a high price for the house), or (c) does the real estate broker serve both the buyer and the seller (by negotiating a compromised price for the house)?
—Wavelength (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither and both and all three. Both the buyer and the seller can hire a real estate broker to represent their interests, and the two brokers negotiate the best deal for their own client, and then each take their cut of the sale. There are also dual agents, though these are rare, and in some cases, may be against the rules, depending on jurisdiction. That's because both the buyer's agent and the seller's agent each have a Fiduciary responsibility to their client, and the buyer and seller have exactly competing interests. If only one of the parties has an agent (which is actually pretty common, perhaps the most common arrangement) it is more common to have a seller's agent; buyers are more likely to act on their own than the sellers, but there are still plenty of transactions involving two agents. There are also situations known as "FSBO" (often pronounced "fizzbo" in certain dialects) or For sale by owner situations, but that gets tricky, because the seller has to hire all of the lawyers and inspectors and file all the paperwork themselves. The seller's agent usually does all that dirty work, which is what they get their 6% commission for. Buyer's agents (which are a fairly recent phenomenon) typically get a 3% commission rather than 6% because they don't have to handle all the legal rigmarole the seller's agent does. --Jayron32 22:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if Modern Family was written by a real estate agent, as one of the characters is a real estate agent, and another has an alter-ego clown named "Fizzbo". StuRat (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
While practices vary from state to state, in the United States there typically is a listing broker, who has a relationship with the seller, and a selling broker, who has a relationship with the buyer (or, often, buyers) and takes the buyer to see houses listed by a variety of sellers. Except in the somewhat unusual case of the buyer's agent, however, both the listing broker and the selling broker are deemed to represent the seller. In practice, while the listing broker is fairly focused on getting the highest price, the selling broker's strongest incentive is to promote the consummation of a transaction, with price a secondary consideration. In addition, notwithstanding that their legal obligation is to the seller, selling brokers often feel a considerable degree of loyalty to the buyer with whom they have a relationship. John M Baker (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

February 22

What is this painting?

This is the best shot I can find, but it displays behind the bar at a renovated church in Southampton, UK?

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186299-d732578-i35680787-The_Vestry_Restaurant_Bar-Southampton_Hampshire_England.html#35680787

--81.101.105.36 (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Isabella, by John Everett Millais, currently on display in the Walker Art Gallery. 195.89.37.174 (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Isabella (Millais painting) Nanonic (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Inflation

Hypothetically and in theory, if every country had a certain amount of money and more money was made so that the amount of money per person was made exactly the same and the amount of money in the world was doubled, and all prices for things were frozen, would inflation still occur? And why? I know this would never work in reality and is flawed in many ways but would it work in theory? 94.14.210.10 (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What would be the mechanism by which prices were kept the same? See this discussion of government price-fixing: . 31.54.195.124 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
We also have an article Price controls, but it could use some loving attention. 31.54.195.124 (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You're basically describing the United States at the time of the western gold and silver strikes—because the US had a bimetallic gold and silver standard, adding more gold and silver to circulation literally increased the money supply. As more and more money goes into circulation, its value goes down, so prices rise to compensate, causing inflation. If (as you postulate) prices were frozen, then with real-terms prices falling (as money is worth less), there would be less incentive to produce goods. Assuming a relatively free market in other respects (e.g., people not being forced at gunpoint to keep productivity levels up), you would get shortages accompanied by either rationing or queueing. In the real world in this situation, some of the money flows overseas (think all those buildings owned by oil-rich countries), which in the short term stabilises the economies of both the newly-rich country and those countries without oil/gold/diamonds etc who are suddenly relatively poorer. 78.146.17.69 (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, inflation would occur by definition; you've described a situation in which "more money was made", and that's inflation. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that is inflation, but rather it's one factor which causes inflation. If there were strong enough factors fighting inflation at the same time, it would be possible to increase the money supply without any inflation. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You're inflating the money supply: that is inflation. If your population and economy grow rapidly fast while the money supply is inflated very slowly, you might end up having simultaneous inflation and falling prices. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
"In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time." So no, it's not inflating the money supply. That's related, but not the same thing. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That definition appears to conflate the symptom with the (presumed) cause. —Tamfang (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I assume that your tabbing was off, and you meant to say that about Nyttend's definition. My def comes straight from our article, and says nothing about expanding the money supply. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm more careful about my tabbing than many around here. I assume you'll agree that we must be wary about relying on a Misplaced Pages article as a final authority. —Tamfang (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Price controls don't work in the long term, for several reasons:
1) Changes in the relative cost of items. For example, digital camera prices are coming down relative to film cameras, and any price controls that set them at the same price would lead to cheating (selling digital cameras cheaper).
2) Changes in technology. Cars, for example, are not the same as they were 50 years ago, with all sorts of new features that didn't exist then. So, any price controls set back then really wouldn't apply now.
3) Uncontrollable inputs. Farmers in particular have to deal with changing weather, etc., so the price to produce a given amount of food can go up. If they can no longer sell that food at a profit, they will go out of business and a food shortage will result.
4) Changes in the popularity of items. Lobster used to be considered food for poor people, then it became fashionable. If the price stayed the same, the natural stocks would have been wiped out due to over-fishing (and it wouldn't have been profitable to farm them). It's only the high price that prevents this. (I'd eat lobster every day if I could afford it.)
What really happens under price controls is that they need to constantly adjust the "fixed prices", which follow the natural changes in prices (including inflation), just in steps instead of continuously. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Inflation is not a situation in which more money is made. That’s simply an increase in the money supply. Inflation is when a specifically defined basket of goods and services costs more in a subsequent time period than it did in the previous time period. While that may be facilitated by a rise in the money supply, more money in circulation is not, per se, inflation. Nyttend uses the term inflating the money supply to equate an increase in the money supply with an increase in prices; the two are not the same.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said: you couldn't have "simultaneous inflation and falling prices" if increases in the money supply and prices were equated. Inflation is the process of increasing the money supply, regardless of what else happens; of course it's normally rising prices, but not absolutely necessarily. I was slightly wrong, but not badly; let me quote OED. Great or undue expansion or enlargement; increase beyond proper limits; esp. of prices, the issue of paper money, etc. spec. An undue increase in the quantity of money in relation to the goods available for purchase; (in lay use) an inordinate rise in prices. So it's not simply increasing the supply, but increasing faster than demand. Let's not stoop to the "lay use": we need to use the educated terminology, i.e. money supply's being increased faster than money demand. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It didn't say "not simply increasing the supply, but increasing faster than demand", and I should point out that increasing the money supply faster than the money demand is also not guaranteed to raise prices, as other factors also control prices. That seems like a poor definition, since it defines inflation as two different, and at times contradictory, ways. This is what happens when non-economists define economics terms. Look it up in an economics text and you will only find the increase in the price of goods and services. Here's some: , . StuRat (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
As StuRat already pointed out, "In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time." So no, it's not inflating the money supply. That's related, but not the same thing. (Trust me? I'm an economist!) DOR (HK) (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Brazil-Portugal during the Spanish American wars of independence

What activities did Rio de Janeiro conduct during the wars of independence, i.e. what relations did it have with the rebels, with high Spanish officials, what border incidents occurred, etc.? Spanish American wars of independence doesn't mention Brazil (aside from remarks that its independence occurred in the same context as the Spanish colonies) or Portugal outside the footnotes. I'm aware of the Cisplatine War and related disputes, but that's all I can remember hearing about. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Brazil's path to independence actually occurs in a different context than did most of the Spanish colonies. The events that led to the Brazilian independence are wrapped up in the Napoleonic Wars, specifically the Transfer of the Portuguese Court to Brazil where the Portuguese monarchy transferred their capital to Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro remained the capital of Portugal until the Liberal Revolution back in European Portugal caused the King of Portugal, John VI of Portugal, to return to Europe. Shortly thereafter his son, Pedro declared Brazil independent, and himself a constitutional monarch as Emperor of Brazil. Thus, while most of the Spanish colonies became independent through Republican revolutions, the Independence of Brazil occurred due to a dynastic split in the House of Braganza. Shortly after Brazilian independence, a small portion of southern Brazil (which was Spanish speaking, unlike the rest of the country) became independent as the Republic of Uruguay in the Treaty of Montevideo (1828). Other than the Cisplatine War which led to Uruguayan independence, I'm not sure that Brazil played a major role in the independence movements in the other South American nations. --Jayron32 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I was asking a different kind of question. What relationships were there between Rio and the various colonial and anticolonial forces of the Spanish areas during the wars of independence? Either they had some sort of relationships (diplomats here and there, border crossings, approaches to dealing with Indians), or these relationships were absent, and historians knowledgeable on the subject could presumably write a good deal about it. Did they generally have relations with the rebels, e.g. co-maintaining border crossings, exchanging diplomats, and recognising each other's customs officers, or did they generally work only with the Spanish, or were there significant variations from place to place and time to time? I'd just like to know what routine parts P-B played, if any, in the long period of warfare. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You may find some of the machinations of Carlota Joaquina of Spain, Queen Consort of Portugal and Brazil, to be interesting. --Jayron32 03:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, a British naval officer, was involved in the Wars of Independence for Brazil, Chile, and Peru. He may provide some connection, diplomatically or militarily, between the nations. --Jayron32 03:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I did, and Carlotism too. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Central African Republic Constitution

How many constitutions has the Central African Republic had, and in what years were they promulgated? Also, I would like to know when any of them might have been suspended, and if so, for how long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:49D2:A5AA:F06A:1780 (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

See History of the Central African Republic. In chronological order:
  • 1 December 1958 (Boganda)
  • 13 August 1960 (Dacko)
  • (Bokassa as President)
  • 4 December 1976 (Bokassa as Emperor)
  • (Dacko)
  • (Kolingba as military ruler)
  • 29 November 1986 (Kolingba as President)
  • 14 January 1995 (Patassé)
  • 5 December 2004 (Bozizé)
  • (Djotodia)

Samba-Panza is therefore "interim president" at the moment, but with no actual constituional documents to support her (unless it's the 2004 constitution). The state is described as a "provisional republic" in our main article. Tevildo (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

February 23

Mankind given dominion over the world

In the Bible, mankind is allowed to rule over the whole world by God. In which religions do god/gods specifically give mankind dominion over the world? Are any of these religions completely unrelated to Judaism? --98.232.12.250 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not in Buddhism/Hinduism, can't speak for the rest.PiCo (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I've only ever seen that phrase written in the Old Testament. Also, bear in mind, many religions don't have gods, in the sense of 'the one and only creator of the world'. I think that only Abrahamic religions only have one god, whilst the rest which have gods generally have a pantheon of gods, all with complex relationships. Buddhism doesn't have any. Many shamanistic and animalistic religions don't have gods, just spirits. The concept of a monotheistic religion with only a single god is, as far as I can recall, purely Abrahamic. As a side note, even the Ancient Greeks knew the concept of infinity, as they have stories about Titans who existed before the Greek pantheon of Gods existed, to (sort of) explain how all these gods turned up (because all the Titans were in never-ending conflict and ended up killing each other). KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 20:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean animistic rather than animalistic. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, February 24, 2015 (UTC)
See Category:Monotheistic_religions. Atenism and Zoroastrianism are of at least comparable age to the Israelite religion, and relegate other spirits to roles comparable to archangels in the Abrahamic religions. Tenrikyo, Cao Đài, Cheondoism, and (debatably) Tengrism postdate Islam, but are not identified as Abrahamic (though Cao Đài was definitely influenced by Christianity). Henotheism and pantheism also blurs boundaries between monotheism and hierarchical polytheism, resulting in some sects of Chinese Heaven worship, Hinduism (especially Vaishnavism), and traditional African religions (particularly worship of Waaq, Olodumare, and Nyame) as being at least complementary to monotheism (again, by framing any other figures in the pantheon as occupying a role comparable to archangels in the Abrahamic religions, or arguing that ancestor spirits simply affirm the immortality of the soul, not polytheism). There were also the Hypsistarians, who (like with the Zoroastrians) scholars are split on whether their monotheism was influenced by Judaism, influenced Judaism, or evolved in parallel. Over all, the Roman empire would have become monotheistic thanks to Neoplatonism, the cult of Sol Invictus, and Mithraism; even if Constantine or even Jesus had never been born.
As for other religions holding humanity being in charge of the world, Hermeticism sort of said that, but in a more cosmic sense. How unrelated it is to Judaism is a matter of debate, but most secular scholars I've read tend to favor the idea that Hermeticism influenced Judaism (Kabbalah) and Christianity (Gnosticism), while only occasionally grabbing some names from Judaism just to be trendy (such as incorporating Iao and Pipi into the Greek Magical Papyri, but favoring a more Neoplatonic panentheistic monotheism). Hermeticism saw humanity as the shattered, scattered, and ignorant remains of the nature-creating demiurge, however (though, unlike many forms of Gnosticism, it didn't see the material world as evil so much as a foreign land). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Genesis 1:26 (World English Bible),

God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

—Wavelength (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
That "us" thing, which implies "gods" rather than "God", historically has required jumping through some theological hoops to explain. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Even though I acknowledge that it was a historical reference to Henotheism, "angels" is still a simple enough resolution. Still, attempts to use the Trinity to explain it while trying to avoid tritheism are not as simple. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Translating אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) in Genesis 1 as "gods", rather than "God" is far more difficult to defend grammatically however, because every time it occurs (31 times in this chapter) it is accompanied by a singular verb. And even comparing verse 26 with the next verse shows that the meaning is singular. - Lindert (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly the verse I was referring to. I have another question: in which other religions is mankind specifically said to be in the image of God/gods? Of course anthropomorphic gods are as common as dust, but I'm curious if other religious texts make it as explicit as the Bible. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, make what as explicit as in the Bible? I don't understand this last question. KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That humans look like gods, and were made to be that way. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you looking for non-Abrahamic parallels to the Imago Dei, or would you count religions that believe humanity is descended from the gods or patterned after some cosmic man (e.g. Keyumars, Pangu, or Ymir)? Because the Imago Dei concept is firmly rooted in Genesis and would only be found in religions influenced by it. As for the broader scope for examining religions that affirm a divinity-of-humanity, it would probably be easier to list those that reject the idea (and even then, there'd likely be exceptions once the religion got over a certain size). This could also open up opinionated debate on which religions treat people better, something the refdesk is not meant for. Off the top of my head, the Canaanite religion had currents in it that depicted humanity as the undignified slaves of the gods, while some of the Indian religions view humanity as just another consciousness that needs to either be extinguished or reabsorbed into Brahman -- but some forms of the Canaanite religion depicted cities (and so its citizens) as the brides of their patron god, and some Indian religions regard humanity as the minimum form of life capable of achieving enlightenment (and so comparable to the gods in that respect). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Imago Dei is only found in Abrahamic religions? I would have thought that human arrogance and anthropocentrism would make it a recurring theme in many religions, but I guess I'm too cynical. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Scientists would probably say that microbes actually have dominion over the globe. The writers of the Bible obviously knew nothing about microbes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit like saying the people of North Korea have dominion over their government. They're much more numerous than the government, but they can't act together in a meaningful way. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not a valid comparison. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not a clear refutation. —Tamfang (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How many copies of 'Revolution' by Russell Brand have been sold worldwide to date?

I can't seem to find any sales figures online, are they usually not public or am I just poor at searching? 88.106.151.77 (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sales figures are often publicized for best seller lists, otherwise often not. Best I could find was these figures from shortly after the book was released . Amazon has some info too, they say it was a "national best seller" and was at one point their number 1 best seller in "political humor" . SemanticMantis (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hatred against Israel

Why do Palestinians along with Most of the rest of the Middle East hate Israel so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.52 (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's extremely complicated. To begin with not all Palestinians do hate Israel, and of the ones who do many also hate the Palestinian authorities too. Other countries in the Middle East also have quite complicated relationships with Israel, the Israeli government, the Israeli people, and the Jewish Israeli people (all four of those groups are different). But a short and very limited answer would be that the establishment of Israel in the Middle East back in 1948 transplanted a lot of Jews and Europeans into a very Muslim and Arab area, and that has caused tension ever since. Additionally, the manner in which almost every action from 1930 in the Middle East has been done has caused tensions too. Whether one side is to blame or not, and if so which side, is for you to decide for yourself. But suffice to say I'd start with the WP article on ] and then read it and linked articles before you form a concrete judgement. There has been an enormous amount of fault on both sides: some people think one side's actions are justifiable, others think the other side's are, some think neither. As for what we do now to solve it, if you figure that one out you deserve (and will win) a Nobel Peace Prize. 88.106.151.77 (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It's only reasonable that a people under a brutal military occupation hate their oppressors. The actual question is why do Israelis hate Palestinians so much. The answer for that begins with many Jewish Israelis believing that their god gave them all of Greater Israel and they are unhappy that those native to the land are still there. This issue for some turned into racist indoctrination, militarism, and jingoism for most. Arab states, and other Palestine supporters around the world, have offered to normalize relations with Israel if only Israel would return her military back to Israel. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Or, more pragmatically, they're weary of those self-same Palestinians blowing them up. --Jayron32 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Or sending their rockets to land harmlessly in open spaces, as the majority do. But yeah, it's still a bit of an annoyance firing up the jets for the mass revenge killing and demolition, when the very odd rocket does kill an Israeli. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, February 24, 2015 (UTC)
Have you read our article on Israeli–Palestinian_conflict? SemanticMantis (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
As Israel is one of America's dearest friends, a lot of Anti-Americanism also rubs off of them. Goes way beyond Arabs and Jews. Without that rub, the sentiment would be far more local, and only pop up in relevant online comment boxes. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

State of American academia and universities

So there's this article, which seems to be reliable and comes from a very professional looking site that portrays American universities and academics in a quite negative light. According to the article, these universities are hotbeds for leftist dogma instead of the teaching of facts, and the people who study and teach there are highly dogmatic. Is this article accurate in its portrayal of the state of American academia? Will having courses teach about conservatism really alleviate these issues? 74.14.49.84 (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you hold that American universities are hotbeds for leftist dogma, why would you believe that having courses teach about conservatism would help things? Teaching something from a negative perspective generally won't help its cause, after all. What makes that question come to mind? To your first question, it's well established that American universities are generally left of ordinary Americans, or that ordinary Americans are generally right of American universities, or however you want to put it. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
University students are not stupid. If a professor is slanting his lectures towards one political extreme or the other, the students will quickly become aware of the professor's bias, and take it in stride. Some (the better students) will openly challenge the professor when he/she starts to spout dogma. Others will be less brave, and will pretend to adopt the teacher's bias (in the mistaken idea that doing so will earn them a better grade). But in either case, the students will understand that the professor is biased, and take that bias into account as they learn.
Of course the really good teachers (whatever their politics may be) teach their students how to think for themselves, and actually encourage their students to always question what they are told. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The first thing to note is that the website where this article is posted is that of a journal that is generally right-wing in its stance, and it is clear from an inspection of the list of the journal's contributors that some of them are not thinkers in the mainstream of the evidence-based academic community. Some of the contributors to the journal are from what we might call the "academically respectable" right-wing, but some others fall into the category of "clearly nuts". It's also worth noting that the article's author is certainly from the right-of-centre, but that he appears to adopt stances that are reasonably well grounded in reality. The article itself isn't an academic article, and relies largely on anecdote rather than quantified facts, and should thus be taken as a piece of rhetoric in favour of its author's personal views.
As for your interpretation of the article, it seems to me you have misread it in at least two places. First, the author doesn't suggest that all universities are "hotbeds for leftist dogma", but that some departments within some (perhaps many, though he doesn't really say) universities are largely dominated by a particular kind of thought, which he characterises as a "grievance university, mired in the morass of postmodern obsession with oppression and privilege". Second, the author was not hired to teach "about conservatism" - he is quite explicit about this, and made it a condition of his hiring that he simply taught courses like any other academic - and his article explicitly gives reasons why teaching courses such as "conservative studies" would, in his view, be unwise and counterproductive.
However, with these caveats made, it is possible to make some useful comments. First, it is not difficult to find working papers and professional publications that provide evidence in support of the general contention that academics, as a group, tend to adopt more "left wing" positions than the population at large. (For example, this working paper.) However, I wasn't able to find evidence that corrects these results for raw intelligence/level of education (though this may be available); it may simply be that more intelligent people, or people with more education, tend to adopt more left-wing positions irrespective of whether they are academics or not. I vaguely recall reading research that suggests that the higher the average education in a state, the more likely that state is to vote Democratic in a US presidential election. For example, economic theories suggest that it is certainly the case that several important social goods can best be delivered through a "left wing" solution, and these theories tend to be well-supported by empirical evidence, so a reasonably well-educated economist is likely to appear "left wing" in respect of these issues. I imagine that the same is true in other disciplines. I should say, for clarity, that in this paragraph I have used the phrase "left wing" to refer to what we might call the "academically respectable" left-wing - that is, people who have reached their conclusions on the basis of careful consideration of observable facts and soundly argued theory.
Second, however, is what I believe is the substance of your concern, and indeed the principal concern of the article: what we might call the "modern left wing". The article suggests that this kind of "left wing", described as those "whose main focus is the holy trinity of race, class, and gender, along with their close correlates, post-colonialist, postmodern, and post-structural analysis", and whose principal goals seem to be to enforce a particular set of political positions and require a particular set of personal beliefs from the population (both academic and general), is becoming increasingly dominant in many non-STEM departments in many universities. Your question is whether the article is correct in its assertion. The best answer we have at the moment seems to be "we don't know". I have not been able to find any empirical evidence to support the anecdotal contents of the article. This is not to say that the article is wrong, but just that we don't have evidence one way or the other.
That said, I can give you a couple of observations from my own experience, which is in the UK. I have the strong impression that there are some departments at some universities where free academic discourse must be handled with great care. For example, I am aware of a research project at a leading university in London that was quietly re-purposed when it became clear from preliminary results that members of different ethnic groups seemed to have slightly different language capabilities at a neurological level. It was deemed unwise to present the results without providing a carefully-written "context", so that nobody could take offence. Language, and the ability to avoid upsetting particular interest groups, was important. Contrariwise, I am aware of a UK classicist whose facility with Latin and Greek is, I am told by experts in that area whose opinion I trust, noticeably poorer than might be expected, but who has nevertheless built a career for herself by concentrating on "classical studies" with a particular emphasis on the position of women and other politically disadvantaged groups in the classical era. She has, I suppose, the ability to say the "right" thing. These are, if you like, anecdotes that convey a general impression of what can and cannot be said, and who does well in such an environment. That said, I should stress that "grievance academics" are much less common in the UK than they seem to be in the US. All of this paragraph, though, is just anecdote. The truth is that we don't yet have real evidence one way or the other.
Returning finally to your last question, the article itself argues against the teaching of "conservative studies", taking the view that conservatism "is a point of view or disposition that informs nearly all the traditional disciplines". That is, it's a way of thinking, and not a subject in itself. This is not to say that particular "conservative" doctrines can't be studied. For example, some academics study the sociological aspects of heterodox economics - why, for example, do certain kinds of people subscribe to Marxian economics, Georgism or the Austrian school, even in the face of good evidence against these approaches? These studies, however, fall into the normal realm of academic research, and thus don't meet the requirements of an unbiased taught course on "conservative studies".
My apologies for the long response. I think the short answer to your underlying question, though, is probably "we don't know whether the article is accurate, because it cites anecdotes rather than data, and we don't yet have enough real data". RomanSpa (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Since educational generally pays less than other business opportunities available to someone with that background, yet has the potential to do more societal good, academia often attracts more altruistic individuals. You can judge for yourself whether such people are more likely to be liberal or conservative.
As for a correlation in lack of education and conservatism, the cause and effect might be reversed. That is, once conservatives get control over the school curriculum, they set about dismantling anything that might cause one to question a literal interpretation of the Bible. Evolution has to go, of course, but all science is a threat, since geology can teach that some rocks are billions of years old, astronomy and physics that the stars and subatomic particles are, biology can teach that dinosaurs once existed millions of years ago, anthropology teaches that Neanderthals and other hominids once existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
At least one scientist has claimed that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives . So that might explain why many academics tend to be liberal. WP:OR I've spent almost 20 years in academia, never once met a dogmatic professor, conservative or liberal. Dogma is pretty much the antithesis of academics, so we tend to not promote people who rely on dogma. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a good point. In what I said earlier, I was using the phrase "academically respectable" as more-or-less a synonym for "undogmatic". In most areas of economics (and, I suppose, many other areas of the humanities) there are legitimate ranges of interpretation for many topics, and this is reflected in the positions that people adopt. For example, there is a legitimate debate on how all sorts of things should be paid for, with some people adopting positions that we might call "left wing" and others being more "right wing". The "academically respectable" person, whether left wing or right wing, should be able to change his mind if new evidence is introduced into the debate. (I should say that I personally hate it when someone forces me to move to a new position; my tactic is generally to change the subject to something else for several days, then quietly take up the new position when I think nobody's watching, possibly with a brief sentence along the lines of "however, bearing in mind X's results, we may also wish to consider...".) RomanSpa (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In the US in particular, there is a certain anti-intellectualism en-vogue with conservatives, partially because modern science does not agree with religious views (see creationism) or economic/ecological wishful thinking (see climate change), and partially because cultural icons are being challenged in academia (see Jefferson–Hemings controversy or even IAU definition of planet). Not all of this is a necessary alignment, but it is the current situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good point. We have an article on Anti-intellectualism that has some good info and refs, though it is currently lacking a section on 21st century USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a number of things to note about this article. It's clearly written from a humanities perspective. In proper research and teaching (the sciences), politics is largely irrelevant at the university level (politically motivated government spendings decision are very different of course). Secondly, of course (and as mentioned above), demographical difference to the general population make a massive difference. Amongst the students, average age is going to be lower, and it's well known that the politics move right with age on average. Further demographical difference, amongst both the students and staff, you would expect a higher than average intelligence (well, in the sciences at least), so it's entirely logical that they are more left-wing than the general population. All things to take into account! The exact same things are seen here in the UK and on the wider continent. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Conservatism, but its very definition, is the political stance that seeks to maintain existing cultural, social, and political structures as status quo. Academia, by definition, is the pursuit of new knowledge. Insofar as new knowledge --> new understandings --> new paradigms --> new ways to deal with the world, there's a natural tension between conservatism and academia for that very reason. Academia which says "We've looked at things in deep detail, and everything you already know about the world is exactly what we've already thought", and which does that forever, is not very realistic. Which is not to say that academics cannot be politically conservative, or deeply religious, or anything else, for that matter. But the tension between a philosophy of perpetual status quo and the pursuit of change has some natural tensions... --Jayron32 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a very good point, I feel. To be a conservative is to always be on the losing side. None of what we would regard as the major positive social changes in our society over the past hundred years has been a conservative cause. Conservatives always lose: extension of the franchise to non-property owners, votes for women, improved civil rights for people who aren't white, letting women have control over their own bodies, the elimination of the death penalty (at least in Europe, if not yet in the US), and improved rights for lesbians and gay men - all were opposed by conservatives. I can understand that this must be very uncomfortable for conservatives, particularly in times of economic stress when it's convenient to find some group of people to blame for their discomfort. I don't think you can be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and an academic, because the academic mind has to be open to change. RomanSpa (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily. There's no inherent contradiction between political conservatism and academia, only a tension. It isn't as though political conservatives have to be "wrong" or on the "losing side". The one does not cause the other like hitting a baseball causes it to fly in a specific direction and speed. It's merely something we need to be cognizant of when looking at the situation. --Jayron32 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
We may be using the word "conservative" in different ways. In my comment I meant it in the sense of "being unwilling to change under any circumstances" - this is why I added the qualifying "dyed-in-the-wool". This is dogmatism, and I feel is entirely incompatible with the necessary flexibility required in academia. RomanSpa (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
All this, however, is light years away from the positions adopted by the "grievance politics" of some of the academics in the article we're discussing. This kind of "modern left wing" approach seems to me to be as uninterested in evidence as any conservative. I have from time to time been in meetings with third wave feminists, for example, and the predominant impression I've had is that they're more interested in policing thought than advancing it, and in attacking (white heterosexual) males than advancing women. As an outsider, some of what I've seen has looked to me very much like bullying, and I think the article is largely concerned with developments of this kind on US campuses. RomanSpa (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
We should also be careful about the etymological fallacy, not all "conservatives" are explicitly about maintaining the status quo, and we have social conservatism as well as Fiscal_conservatism as fairly distinct concepts. The latter, IMO is alive and well when the deans meet with the provosts... and that also explains why most universities in the USA have many more classes taught by adjuncts than they did 20 years ago. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The author's opinion is not entirely negative. I think this quote is representative of his opinion:

Gradually coming into focus is the plain fact that today we have two universities — the traditional university, which, while mostly left-liberal, still resides on Planet Earth, and the grievance university, mired in the morass of postmodern obsession with oppression and privilege. You can still get a decent education, even from very liberal professors — I had several excellent ones as both an undergraduate and a graduate student — if they teach the subject matter reasonably, and I came to respect several far-left professors at Boulder who plainly held to traditional views about the importance of reason, objectivity, and truth. But these traditional hallmarks of the university — one might call them the original holy trinity of higher education — are fighting words to the postmodern Left, which openly rejects reason, objectivity, and truth as tools of oppression.

In other words, there is one faction of the university that he respects, even if it is mostly left-liberal. There's another faction (which he seems to see as a loud and aggressive minority) that he doesn't. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This has a bit of the "some of my best friends are " trope, though... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Rafael Trujillo

When Rafael Trujillo was in power, how long was a presidential term in the Dominican Republic, and were there ever any term limits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:18BC:9212:6F41:596F (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to this, he refused to run in 1938, citing American two term practice, rather than any written law. When Roosevelt took a third term, Trujillo again decided to follow suit. A term was four years. Not sure if that was codified in Trujillo's day or if it was also just because America did it that way.
Now, at least according to List of Presidents of the Dominican Republic, they go four years, max two terms. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Non-involvement in marriage

Lately, I've been seeing people offer as a third option in the marriage debate that we should "get the government out of marriage". What exactly is meant by this because it makes no sense, conceptually or grammatically to me. — Melab±1 ☎ 21:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is the religious marriage and also the legal one. Historically, these have been the same thing. However, it doesn't have to be that way. You could have religious marriage(s) to whomever or whatever you want, so long as your priest, imam, rabbi or witch doctor agreed, while a legal marriage, perhaps called a "civil union", could be arranged by sending in a form to the government. Only the legal marriage would count for tax purposes, adoption, the "can't testify against your spouse" law, etc. This would finally separate the state and church in regards to marriage, and each could then define their own rules for it, without stepping on each other's toes. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It basically means that the government should not give benefits to married couples or make any distinction in the law between married and unmarried persons/couples. The idea is that marriage is purely a private thing, something that the government should not be involved with (e.g. by granting marriage licenses). - Lindert (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Similar to what StuRat said, another proposal is that the government could recognize some form of households but not concern itself in any way with the makeup of those households. Side remark: for years, these proposals came almost entirely from social radicals generally opposed to the institution of marriage. Once many governments began to recognize same-sex marriages, the same proposal of getting the state out of the marriage business was suddenly coming from the opposite side of the political spectrum. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
But as far as I know that comes from the kind of conservatism that says "Don't let the government change what I'm used to, including any governmental favoritism from which I benefit." —Tamfang (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's useful to understand why churches got into the marriage business in the first place. In earlier times, marriage, at least where one or both parties came from families with some wealth (however little) was to some extent a business deal. The historical use of the phrase "to contract a marriage" makes this very obvious. Marriage contracts were recorded by churches because the clergy had a long-standing historical role as witnesses to political, social and business contracts of all kinds (for example, the Magna Carta was witnessed by two archbishops, ten bishops and twenty abbots), and because in pre-medieval times in most places the only person who could read and write was the local clergyman. The church's official position for a long time was that celibacy was preferable to marriage, but when the church was intertwined with the state the church inevitably got involved in writing and witnessing all kinds of contracts. This was so institutionalised that scriveners in England were even authorised by the Archbishop of Canterbury as "minor clergy" in 1392. Inevitably, this led to the church eventually taking the view that marriage was a contract that could only be entered into in church.
You can't get government out of the marriage business, since marriages are still contracts, and these contracts must from time to time be enforced or (more commonly these days) arbitrated through the courts. In the past, churches got into the marriage business because the government needed people who could read and write contracts. Now that churches no longer have a monopoly on literacy, it seems reasonable to get churches out of the civil marriage business. You can't get government out of the civil marriage business, though, because there will always be civil contracts between people. Christians who want to "get government out of the marriage business" really mean they want to "get government out of the same-sex marriage business" - they still want to be able to use the government to enforce "opposite-sex marriage". RomanSpa (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In some countries, only "civil ceremonies" are valid (e.g. Mexico). Churches were big into ceremonies as a result of the Catholic definition of the Sacraments. Any ceremony officiated over by a Catholic cleric which is not in accord with theology is not only invalid, but a major sin (likely true of some other groups as well). There is no way to overcome the difference between "Sacramental Matrimony" and any civil ceremony to that Church. The support for "civil partnership" is large, but no courts have sought that solution, so who knows what will happen in the next fifty years - we has alcohol Prohibition, then repeal, Marijuana prohibition, then relaxation of the laws, and unlimited consumption of sugar and tobacco which some would not restrict (Prohibition of tobacco, anyone?) Society has never been truly static, I think. Collect (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ông Địa

Ông Địa

Does anyone know a Chinese term for this figure in the East Asian lion dance? The Vietnamese call him Ông Địa.

Our article on the Lion dance suggests it is a Vietnamese cultural addition to the broader tradition of the lion dance. Could it be that the figure doesn't traditionally appear in the Chinese version? If it did appear, they might use the "traditional" Vietnamese name? St★lwart 22:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Good question. The people who do the lion dancing here in Seattle are associated with a martial arts group (Mak Fai Kung Fu Club) that I presume is Chinese in origin, and lion dancing here goes back far enough that our older pictures of it are public domain from pre-1923 publication, but there is enough cross-cultural interaction in the A.P.I. community here that such an adaptation would be possible. - Jmabel | Talk 22:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
And did that character feature in those pre-1923 lion dances or is he a relatively new addition to the Seattle scene? St★lwart 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
As for the old stuff, hard to know because there are only a very few pictures. I'd suspect a later addition, and it could well be from the Vietnamese (in which case it wouldn't just be post-1923 but almost certainly post-1970). I'm hoping someone might weigh in here who actually knows. I wasn't planning on doing a research project just to describe my photo accurately, but it wouldn't be unprecedented if I have to. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This paper contains the following sentence: "the concept ‘Ông Địa’ is truly culture-specific. It is a famous and unique character in Vietnamese water puppetry and cannot be found in any other cultures."--William Thweatt 05:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

February 24

Introduction of serfdom in Russia

When was serfdom introduced in Russia? Our article History of serfdom says "Serfdom Eastern Europe became dominant around the 15th century." (no citation), while Ivan Grozny#Domestic policy states (also without citation) that it was he who introduced "the first laws restricting the mobility of the peasants, which would eventually lead to serfdom." Which one is it, or is the truth somewhere in the middle? — Sebastian 06:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's possible to have serfdom without laws codifying it, although I don't know if this happened in Russia. StuRat (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but the two claims are still contradictory, the second saying the codes led to the already allegedly dominant serfdom. I also don't know which one is lying, but it sure isn't neither. Could be both. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, February 24, 2015 (UTC)
Or wait, no, could be neither. There really is no limit on what counts as "around the 15th century". Depends how far back you stand to look at it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, February 24, 2015 (UTC)
This astute observation has the potential to greatly simplify my life. Henceforth, when anyone asks me where anything is, I can always reply "around here", considering that the earth itself shrinks to a Pale Blue Dot when seen from our solar backyard. — Sebastian 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been saying for years that there is always a bigger picture. My life quest is to discover what the Universe looks like from the outside looking in. -- Jack of Oz 08:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Fitting to the topic, I already used this new insight here for Boris Godunov.— Sebastian 08:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
"Eastern Europe" is a bit more defined, but also wiggle room there. It definitely isn't exactly the same as "Russia". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, February 24, 2015 (UTC)
This sentence was added as part of this big edit by an IP account who did no other edit. — Sebastian 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


Forms of serfdom were very common all over Medieval Europe. People could actually be regarded as the property of a landowner or they were bound to the land they were working on without owning it. It's not an exclusively Russian phenomenon, so it may not be all that relevant when exactly it was 'introduced'. There is a short article about the subject in Dutch Misplaced Pages: http://nl.wikipedia.org/Lijfeigenschap --Judithcomm (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories: