From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< January 4	<< Dec | January | Feb >>	January 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

Contents 1 January 5 1.1 Miguel Barnet's inspiration to write _Autobiography of a Runaway Slave_ 1.2 "Lorem Ipsum" 1.3 Egypt today 1.4 Added Holiday 1.5 Arabs in Toronto 1.6 Information Regarding Cummings v. Richmond County Board of Education 1.7 "my view is different from others" 1.8 Disposition of a squirrel 1.9 Youngest congressman 1.10 Trafalgar Square 1.11 Anglican Baptism 1.12 Unofficial representative offices? 1.13 Knowledge buffs needed 1.14 German bomings of London 1.15 Do women prefer men who are soft or do they prefer men who are hard while sex 1.16 british law banning catholics 1.17 What are the qualities of Che Guevara's "New Man"? 1.18 Age of consent in Thailand? 1.19 Chain of Custody of Codex Vaticanus 1.20 A street called Straight 1.21 Persian Empire in 500 BCE 1.22 Searching for pictures of old Bible covers to identify mine. 1.23 Folktale or Legend 1.24 History 1.25 Etiquette help 1.26 British civil law question

[edit] January 5

[edit] Miguel Barnet's inspiration to write _Autobiography of a Runaway Slave_

Dear Wikipedia,

I was looking for more information about the two newspaper articles that led Miguel Barnet to interview Esteban Montejo. I have searched for the articles--or a more detailed description of them--in all archives that are available to me, but I have only found information on Wikipedia. The following description, from Wikipedia's article, made me wonder if I might learn more about these two articles, or possibly read the articles themselves:

"In 1963, Barnet was intrigued by two newspaper articles reporting on Cuban citizens who had lived for more than a century. One article described an ex-slave and santera. The other pertained to Esteban Montejo, a 105-year-old Cuban man of African descent who had lived as a slave in captivity, a fugitive slave in the Las Villas wilderness (el monte), and a soldier in the Cuban War for Independence. A series of interviews with Montejo at the Veteran’s Home followed..."

Can someone give me more information about these articles or a citation so that I might research further? Thank you so much for your help,

140.247.43.92 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Kimberly

I read about this last week. It is mentioned in a recently published book on slavery, titled "Inhuman Bondage." I don't know the author's name. The book is astounding. It is a scholarly book so it will be noted.75Janice 02:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)75Janice 9:09 UTC 7 January 2007

[edit] "Lorem Ipsum"

What does "lorem ipsum" mean? Loomis 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. See the page you've linked to. --ColinFine 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't what? Loomis 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lorem Ipsum" has no real meaning, it's just a filler. The article gives a pretty good explanation, including where the original text of the "Lorem Ipsum" filler came from. It also claims that "Lorem Ipsum" is sometimes used to indicate something that is just taking up space, but I must confess that I'm not familiar with this usage. Carom 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It was quite common when I was learning how to do page layout — it helps the brain see the layout without focusing on the content. Which I guess is sometimes useful, though personally I stopped using it pretty quickly (if I were being theoretical about it, I'd probably say that the idea of separating content from layout is somewhat retrograde). --24.147.86.187 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, it's from the term "dolorem ipsem," which means "pain itself." So you could say "lorem ipsum" means "ain itself." -- Mwalcoff 03:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Or dolorem ipsum => pain itself. In itself. Whatever, it's wrong anyway --froth^{T C} 05:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egypt today

Do Egyptians still believe in the afterlife and the like?

If you mean the like in the days of the Pharao then no. According to our Religion in Egypt article, 90% of Egyptians today are Muslim. Vespine 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to ancient Egyptians or the Egyptians of today? If the former, then, well, being "ancient", they're all dead. As for the Egyptians of today, see Vespine's answer above. Loomis 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Holiday

(http://www.nationalstepfamilyday.com/) September 16th is Stepfamily Day. This year marks Stepfamily Day’s 10th year anniversary. Stepfamily Day is supported by National Stepfamily Resource Center (NSRC) of Auburn University.

Stepfamily Day was placed in the United States Congressional Records September 13, 2000 Archive: gov/us/fed/congress/record/ 2000/sep/13/2000CRE1476B [Congressional Record: September 13, 2000 (Extensions)] [Page E1476] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr13se00-99]'

49 States have Supported and Proclaimed Stepfamily Day. 50 States celebrate Stepfamily Day with a National Stepfamily Picnic.

Here is a copy of the Stepfamily Day 2007 Proclamation.

Stepfamily Day 2007

Whereas, Stepfamily Day is enhanced by our strong commitment to support the stepfamilies of our nation in their mission to raise their children, create strong family structures to support the individual members of the family, instill in them a sense of responsibility to all extended family members.

Whereas, Approximately half of all Americans are currently involved in some form of stepfamily relationship and it is the vision of Founder Christy Borgeld and the National Stepfamily Resource Center (NSRC) of Auburn University. that all stepfamilies in the United States be accepted, supported and seccessful.

Whereas, Our nation has been blessed by thousands upon thousands of loving stepparents and stepchildren who are daily reminders of the joy, trials, and triumphs of the stepfamily experience and of the boundless love contained in the bond between all types of parents and children.

Whereas, Stepfamily Day is a day to celebrate the many invaluable contributions stepfamilies have made to enriching the lives and life experience of the children and parents of America and to strengthening the fabric of American families and society.

Christy Borgeld Stepfamily Day Founder EST. 1997

http://www.nationalstepfamilyday.com/

If you have any questions, please feel free to email @ nationalstepfamilyday@yahoo.com

[edit] Arabs in Toronto

In Toronto, which country do these Arabs represents and what is the reason why they migrated to Toronto, Canada?

Toronto is possibly the most multicultural city in the world. I do believe that every Arabic country has representation there. As for why they migrated, I can only guess that they were looking for free health care. --The Dark Side 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many good reasons why Arabi peoples would travel the world to find a second home. Sydney too, is touted as the worlds most multicultural city. I think your question is poorly phrased. Arabs are not necessarily Islamic and are as diverse a people as to be found anywhere on Earth. I imagine that Toronto has many economic refugees. Compare GNP of any Middle Eastern nation with Canada and you will see a compelling argument for migration. DDB 08:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver is massively-multicultural, too. The largest subset of Vancouver proper's population is Sino-Canadian. Vranak

[edit] Information Regarding Cummings v. Richmond County Board of Education

I searched but to no avail for further information on this court case. Am especially looking for a summary which could be comprehended by schoolchildren.

Try [1], [2], [3]. Anchoress 03:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE :

" In accordance with that decision, the Superior Court upon the return of the cause from the Supreme Court of the State, refused the relief asked by the plaintiffs and dismissed their petition. Thereafter, the plaintiffs appealed that order to the United States Supreme Court as being in derogation of their rights under the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court affirmed." From the wiki entry.

So, essentially, since their petition for review was denied by the court, this was in violation of their rights and they took the case to the supreme court?

I don't have time now for a detailed analysis. I have some expertise in civil rights law. Apparently, after the Civil War, white Southerners closed a public school for African-Americans. The African-Americans sought injunctive relief to force the schools open. The Court denied the injunction concluding it was a state matter and held that under Plessy v. Ferguson's separate but equal doctrine there was no federal constitutional violation. I would try the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the National Constitution Center. There may not be material for children on this particular case but Reconstruction and its aftermath are in history texts. Of course, law reviews and history journals will discuss this case in detail. If you have access to LEXIS-NEXIS, it would be the best place to look.75Janice 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)75Janice 9:04 UTC 7 January 2007

[edit] "my view is different from others"

I do my work with dedication but it differ from all age of my friends. I do study and all activity with something will known, but all my friends take easy they not take stress more but do well, but me work hard I also do same things. In my point of view I do somethings useful for me and someone what I can do? how I can improve knowledge ?

Is this what you meant to say ? "I try very hard in school but don't do as well as many of my friends, some of whom are slackers. What can I do to improve my study methods ?". StuRat 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If so, you may have a learning disability, like ADD, ADHD, or dyslexia, or you may just need to find a learning method that works for you, like doing an activity instead of reading about it, for example. StuRat 06:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of good reasons why you might not achieve as well as others, yet work hard and have unique views in subject areas. Despite education propaganda, your teachers are not looking for unique views from you. Your teachers want you to show them that you have understood, and can critically evaluate the knowledge they have given you.

Question is vaguer than that, and I am not so sure it is about grades. About all we can surmise is that questioner doesnt feel he "does as well" as his less earnest or less striving friends. What age? School or work or life in general? He may be noticing that effort brings some kinds of success but not others, or that no matter how hard you work there will be someone who seems to get rewarded for less effort or that there are types of "doing well" that do not depend on exerted effort. This is especially true of situations that involve social selection. Some of our social capital is earned and can be worked for but much is just imputed to us based on a hundred things we have less or little control over (height, weight, ethnic group, class, manners, speech, attractiveness, athletic talent, personality, awareness of others' cues, empathy, age, social confidence, etc). It is possible that disadvantages in these latter areas are the source of his frustration. alteripse 11:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disposition of a squirrel

I’ve had to remove a squirrel’s nest (along with the material they put in the area where they choose to urinate and defecate inside) three times from my car port turned garage. They do not seem to be getting the message so I finally had to use a trap. Someone suggested I find a good recipe but I just can’t seem to bring myself to eat a former house guest. What is the minimum distance I would have to relocate the little guy or girl since he or she will not take no for an answer? (Thank goodness there are no children evolved involved! …either the squirrel’s or mine!) -- Barringa 09:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, squirrels that have evolved into children would be a bit scary, LOL. But seriously, why not let them live in your yard, since you seem to be a humanitarian. You could build them a squirrel house something like a large bird house, nailed to the side of a tree. Also, you need to seal whatever holes there are in your garage or else other squirrels and animals will continue to live in there, even if you get rid of this squirrel. A place protected from the environment to which animals have access is just too irresistible to animals. StuRat 12:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This link suggests they have a homing instinct of "several miles". Our squirrel article suggests they can be put off by the scent of cat or dog fur. Also you can buy deterrent sprays (mine is called "Squirrel Stop") at garden stores.--Shantavira 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

When I had a squirrel/raccoon problem, I think that I usually deported the squirrels to the next county (about ten miles). I never found a spray that really worked, but this was a couple years ago, so I can't really speak for any of the products on the maket now. Carom 14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd let the little fella make a nest in my home. The day I wake up with a squirrel biting my face, though, I'd reconsider. Vranak

[edit] Youngest congressman

Who is the current youngest member of the US House of Representavies? And who is the all-time youngest? Catchpole 10:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently the youngest is Patrick McHenry from North Carolina, born in 1975. Historically, anyone?Wolfgangus 12:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

William C.C. Claiborne was the youngest ever -- actually, unconstitutionally young, having been elected when he was 22. Harold Ford, Jr. was the youngest of legal age. How did that Claiborne thing happen? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trafalgar Square

I wrote asking for help in dating a postcard of Trafalgar Square in December 2006. Thank you everyone for your assistance. I apologise for not answering sooner, but my computer has been down for some time. I do not know the sites to scan my postcard into so that you can see it. Am I able to scan into this site? If so, how do I do that? Thank you again. 60.246.249.109 11:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)fayekj

Do you have a home page you can scan it into ? That would be best, if it's not something that belongs in Wikipedia permanently. If not, you can scan it into Wikipedia temporarily and then have it deleted. You can upload a file to Wikipedia here: Special:Upload. StuRat 12:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Easier still is to upload it to a free image hosting site like this one, then post the link to it here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trafalgarsquarepostcardca7.jpg (Wikified --Anonymous, Jan. 6, 04:25 (UTC).)

Thank you for your help again. If it helps to identify the time of postcard, I will also send copy of back. The back has nothing written on it. It is in English & French and I think the photographer is french. 60.246.248.253 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Fayekj

[edit] Anglican Baptism

I was "baptised" or "christened" as a child, into the Anglican church (Church of England). Is it possible to reverse this process somehow, so that I would be recognised as a non-christened person in the eyes of the church? Thanks, jamesgibbon 13:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can be "un-baptized". In addition to welcoming a child into the church, baptism is also seen to remove the guilt of Original Sin from the new-born. I don't see how forgiveness, once given, can be revoked. That said, if what you want is to stop being seen as a Christian or an Anglican, it shouldn't be that hard. A simple renunciation of your faith would probably do it, making you apostate. If you were Roman Catholic, I'd suggest trying to get yourself excommunicated. You could always try to commit some act of heresy - that would probably work too. - Eron ^Talk 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a little bit about the C of E within the excommunication article, but basically the Church does not make provision for this sort of thing. Several friends of mine have looked for such a procedure upon becoming Buddhists, without success. Some of them ended up writing a formal letter of resignation, but I don't know whether these letters were ever acknowledged. I suppose you could write your own ritual of declaration of your beliefs (perhaps including a bit of blasphemy) and see if it works on a subjective level.--Shantavira 14:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

James, the church does not 'perceive' you as a Christian in any abstract sense, and you will not be married or buried (sorry to raise a gloomy subject!) as such, unless you specifically request this. You are only an Anglican if you practice as an Anglican, even if you only pay lip-service to the outward forms of ritual and belief. Otherwise, your Anglican baptism will not preclude you from becoming a Catholic, a Muslim, a Satanist, or anything else you may wish. Clio the Muse 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A distinction should be made between one's status as a baptized person and one's status as a member of a church. The C of E, along with most other churches, regards baptism as an indellible mark of God's grace. As such, it can never be undone. The C of E (again, like most churches) believes it does not have the power or ability to undo your baptism. Membership in a church, however, can be renounced. Writing a letter to the bishop whose diocese you're in is probably the proper course of action, but I'm not certain. The C of E, and all mainstream Christians, will continue to regard you as a baptized person, only one who has apostatized, as Eron said. Being excommunicated or committing heresy will not undo the baptism (neither for Anglicans nor Catholics). Excommunication means you're not allowed to receive the sacraments until you repent of whatever it is you were excommunicated for. It doesn't even necessarily involve a loss of one's formal membership in a church. Heresy is by definition when a baptized Christian knowingly and willingly endorses heterodox doctrine, so it also has no effect on the fact that you're baptized. Evan Josephson 06:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unofficial representative offices?

Are there other countries except for the UK and USA where states operate unofficial representative offices like those of the TRNC?

The wikipedia link on the TRNC unnoficial representative office is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TRNC_Representative_Office_to_the_United_States&oldid=83581783

Thanks Ashwin

I don't know about the TRNC, but Taiwan runs unofficial representatives (usually called a Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office) in countries like Canada. - Eron ^Talk 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ISTR that the Knights Hospitallers of Malta have semi-official diplomatic status in several countries (not to be confused with the Republic of Malta). And I'm pretty sure that Mount Athos has diplomatic representation to Greece, the country which surrounds it, despite being hardly recognised by anyone. Palestine's another place where there is almost certainly unofficial representation in many countries- especially those within the Arab world - despite its questionable status in terms of full international recognition. Grutness...wha? 12:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Many states have unofficial representation through a Third Party when they lack a consulate/embassy in a particular state. The Swiss often serve as such. Somewhat different is when countries share representation officially. EG: No Candian citizens will be helped by a British embassy in some countries which lack a Canadian embassy.

[edit] Knowledge buffs needed

Users knowledgeable in various subject areas are needed to add missing links to the basic topic lists (they are listed at Lists of basic topics).

How many missing basic topics can you spot?

Suggestions and critiques are also welcome!

 The Transhumanist   14:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German bomings of London

German's dropped incinerary bombs on London there is a famous photograph of an evening raid with most of London in flames except St. Paul's Cathedral. It is untouched (it seems). I've been told there were many citizens on the grounds of St. Paul's tha night (as well as other nights) running to put out the fires! Do you have an image of this picture?Arbonnebcf 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• This one? Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have one small point to make in reference to what you have written here, Arbonne:St. Paul's stands right in the heart of London and does not have extensive grounds; so I doubt there were many ordinary people standing around that night. However, there were, on Churchill's specific orders, units of the London fire brigade, ready to prevent nearby blazes catching hold of the cathedral. In addition to this, there were volunteer fire watchers, stationed in and around the cupola, ready to extinguish incendiary bombs, one of which almost took hold. Clio the Muse 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do women prefer men who are soft or do they prefer men who are hard while sex

While having sex, do women prefer a man who would have soft, gentle and slow sex or do women prefer a man who is fast, furious and hard hitting? We all see movies which show men hitting/torturing and having sex as if there is no tomorrow. Thats why I am asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.114.92 (talk • contribs)

Short answer: Different strokes for different folks

Long Answer: I tend to see slow passionate love making in movies, maybe i'm watching too much You've Got Mail and too little action movies? There seems to be an underlying theme that sex is portrayed towards women as deep and meaningful, love making and towards men it is portrayed as passion-filled, on the counter-top, vigorous activity. Both are perfectly good forms if you ask me, but you should probably try to do what works best for the enjoyment of you and your partner. Disclaimer...i'm a male, maybe a female wikipedian might be provide more valuable insight...ny156uk 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the woman, and the body part... =S 惑乱 分からん 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that most women prefer lovers who are a) clear about what they want and willing to communicate their wishes; b) interested enough in what their lover wants to ask her; and c) willing and able to strike a balance between the two. In between foot rubs and taking out the garbage. ;-) Anchoress 18:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be said in many ways, but this way (Anchoress) sounds as good as any. Atom 13:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Minus the 'hitting/torturing' part, do it just as they do it in the movies. When she doesn't come back, you'll know for certain that the film industry can't teach you anything of applicable value about sex. Next time, do it the way you feel like doing it - which should be what she inspires in you to do. I'm guessing she'll come back.Wolfgangus 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Imagine your a woman... no that's too strange, imagine your gay. What would you want from a man? Same style all the time? It depends on the what you feel like at the time. Sometimes your just in the mood for long and slow, sometimes you might be on a schedule and hard and short just right. Now, should this be moved to Entertainment or Miscellaneous? :) But when I first saw this question, on my first reading of Hard or Soft, the answer was definitely "Hard" ;) 217.43.184.59 01:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See zipless f***. Vranak

Women are people. They're not all carbon-copy cookie-cutter identical. Some women do like a man to be soft and gentle, but others hate that. Ask the individual woman what she wants. There is no greater turn-on than a man who is willing to actually do what the woman wants. There is no greater turn-off than the guy who assumes that what he likes is sex, and what he doesn't like isn't sex. --Charlene 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] british law banning catholics

I read that Catherine_of_Braganza wasnt crowned as a queen because of an old British law that banned roman catholics from Anglican services. Is there still a law like that or has it been amended. nids(♂) 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There were various anti-Catholic laws in Britain, but the one I am most aware of pertaining to the succession of the monarchy is the Act of Settlement 1701. - Eron ^Talk 18:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

More generally with regard to Catholics in Britain see Test Acts and Act of Uniformity and the various articles leading off of them and Roman Catholicism in Great Britain (although I think that that article needs some NPOVing). Jooler

There's a lot of anti-Catholic history that could be reviewed, all interesting, but bigoted laws are not necessarily the reason Catherine wasn't crowned. No British queen consort has been crowned in a ceremony separate from her husband since Anne Boleyn was crowned in 1533. And Catherine couldn't have been crowned with her husband, for he was crowned in 1651 and she married him in 1662. - Nunh-huh 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Nids. Actually, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion here: there was never any law banning Catholics from taking part in Anglican services. The Test Act of 1673 merely prohibited the holding of state office to all those who refused to take the Sacrament in accordance with the rite practiced in the Church of England. The suggestion that Catherine of Braganza, or Henrietta Maria, the earlier Catholic queen, were denied coronation because of their faith is plainly wrong, even if you did read it in Wikipedia! They were not crowned because, as Nunh-huh indicates, they were married after their husbands had come to the throne, and queen consorts were not given a separate coronation. Consider this: if there really was such a law in England James II could never have come to the throne. As it was, both he and his Catholic consort, Mary of Modena, were crowned in 1685. Eron is quite correct: Catholic succession to the throne was only finally outlawed by the 1701 Act of Settlement. Clio the Muse 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are the qualities of Che Guevara's "New Man"?

What defines (or demands) the "New Man" in 1960s Cuba? (Is there a theoretical or secondary source that defines the "New Man" in detail?) thanks! 140.247.40.231 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Kimberly

The paper you need to look over is one he wrote in 1965, entitled Socialism and Man in Cuba. You will find a copy here [4]. Clio the Muse 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New question: is there a capatalized or quoted new man or similar in Karl Marx? Anything prior to José Martí? In his many incarnations, was The New Man first a revolutionist, a marxist, or a communist?—eric 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Eric, what a question! It would seem more fitting for a possible doctoral thesis, than a quick Wikipedia answer. Where to begin, and what terms of reference to use? First and foremost Marxism, unlike more traditional forms of utopian socialism, is essentially a critique of capitalism, rather than a philosophical prescription for new forms of human behaviour as such. You could say, I suppose, that in a Marxist view, human beings are as much a product as anything else within a capitalist system, with one important difference-as products they remain incomplete, objects rather than subjects. In the Theses on Feuerbach, Marx wrote-The materialist doctrine that men are the products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are the products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances, and that the educator must himself be educated. Revolution then becomes a way of liberating the subject, a way of finishing, if you like, the whole process of human production. It becomes, in a sense, a form of both collective and individual realization. I can think of one quotation from Che Guevara which might simplify this; There is nothing, he wrote, that can educate a person...like living through a revolution. On this whole question might I suggest that you also have a look over George Lukacs' History and Class Consciousness, as well as the notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, especially where he deals with problems of education and cultural hegemony. I'm sorry, this answer is far more complex than I would have wished; but it simply reflects the nature of the subject! Clio the Muse 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're giving my question more credit than it deserves, i was trying to solve a little rhetorical puzzle, and as an American, it's probably both beneath and beyond me to try and understand Marxism. I ran across a number of references to The New Man and a few mentions of old Adam, even a source which attempted to make a religion of Marxism—and used the passage you quote above to define marxist 'redemption'. But i could not find a use of The New Man prior to Martí's nuevo hombre—who i gather was only a revolutionary and just occasionaly suspected socialist. Which New Man was the first to take up the class struggle? Or is all this just an artifact of the translations, the allusion to the biblical New Man only in the English?—eric 22:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the term is so general that you will likely find it in many contexts. As far as I am aware, expressions like 'the New Man and the Old Adam' really apply to sexual politics, used to define reformed and unregenerate attitudes. It has no specific meaning in Marxist theory and practice, which views man, as I have indicated, in politically evolutionary terms. Marti, incidentally, was a poet and a Cuban nationalist, and not a Marxist, and is admired as a political icon in both Havana and Little Havana. Clio the Muse 23:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age of consent in Thailand?

A question has arisen at Talk:Ages of consent in Asia about the age of consent in Thailand. Most websites list an age of consent of 15 (and 18 if prostitution is involved), but they all seem to be somewhat outdated, and recently the lead singer of the popular Thai band Big Ass was charged with statutory rape for allegedly having sex with a girl who was 16 at the time (see last paragraph of Big Ass and references given there). Can anyone offer insights? Is there anything akin to a legal reference desk or portal on the Thai Wikipedia where I could ask this question? Thanks, AxelBoldt 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• My first question would be if there was prostitution involved. That would mean the 18 bit would be relevant. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chain of Custody of Codex Vaticanus

My understanding of the term Chain of custody is a record of each person that had that particular document or manuscript through time. It would be equal to that in real estate called "Chain of Title" showing the recorded title of a property through time as a history all the way back as far as possible (i.e. a land grant from a government). For the Codex Vaticanus the only verifiable Chain of custody is the date 1475 from the Vatican Library from their own earliest catalog. Now if the library was founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448 would there not have been an initial inventory and catalog as to what the library initially consisted of? Either way the earliest Chain of custody is the middle of the Fifteenth Century. They even admit: Its place of origin and the history of the manuscript is uncertain. So anything prior to their inventory and catalog is pure speculation where this Codex came from and when. It could have just as easily came from Avignon in 1400 as from anyplace since there is no good Chain of custody records. How much weight is there placed on Chain of custody? I would think this to be very important. In our legal system of today it is. Even in the records of real estate as far back as the formation of the United States a "Chain of Title" records has been kept. Apparently this concept came from Europe, perhaps England or Italy; don't know for sure. Anybody know? Even royalty keep track of genealogies (a type of Chain of Custody) so that the next in line (sons) would inherit the land and power. This is even recorded in Egyptian history going back thousands of years. So based on this idea of Chain of custody then who is to say the Codex Vaticanus is much older than just 1475 (i.e. coming from Avignon in 1400 where it was made up in the Fourteenth Century). There is otherwise no scientific proof of its age, so I would think the next best is the Chain of custody. Anything beyond that in determining its age is pure spectulation since there is no other documentation. --Doug 20:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following. What is the question? - Eron ^Talk 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the question is "What do you know about the great conspiracy to hide the fact that the Bible was written around 1475?" --Carnildo 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that question. Well, as a good Roman Catholic, I'll have to take the Fifth on this one. - Eron ^Talk 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty close on that answer of 1475. I am thinking closer to 1373. I believe the New Testament (not Old Testament) to be from the Fourteenth Century, not of the first few centuries as some say. If there is no records (even from the Vatican itself) that anybody possessed (Chain of custody records) the Codex Vaticanus any sooner than 1475, then how does one know of its true age and "dating"? I believe it came from the Avignon library material moved to Rome about 1400. There is no scientific proof that it is any older than from Fourteenth Century. --Doug 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing you may wish to consider: there are other forms of Christianity from the Roman form, that do not rely on the Codex Vaticanus or any descent through the church in Rome. If the New Testament is a 14th Century European forgery, how do we explain the existence of the various forms of Eastern Christianity such as the Coptic Christians, whose documented existence greatly predates the Codex? - Eron ^Talk 21:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't tell you about that since I have not researched any of that. Only know of the 27 books of the New Testament. I have figured out that this is from the Fourteenth Century. It was written by Petrarch. It is not a faked document, but rather a document that was written in code (in secret). The reason for this was because of the powers to be of Avignon. Petrarch had this translated in Greek (for protection) from his original Latin Vulgate version. Petrarch then placed this with the Avignon library material which about the year 1400 was moved to Rome. Then later when Pope Nicholas V formed what we know today as the Vatican Library it was later cataloged as to its inventory. In the inventory was found this in Greek manuscript, now called the Codex Vaticanus. I know most of the elements to The Petrarch Code. When the four Gospels are decoded it reveals a history of the French and English royalty surrounding Avignon. Of course the other books of the New Testament are other items that Petrarch wrote about. Acts of the Apostles just happens to be a list of 28 ancient Lives. The information for these 28 moral biographies Petrarch obtained from the ancient historians Livy and Polybius. Petrarch refers to this as Chronicle of Universal History of 28 homilies. What is an homilie?--Doug 23:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, take a look at those links. There are other sects of Christianity besides the Church of Rome. If your contention is that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century, you'll need to explain how groups such as the Coptic Church were established following various New Testament traditions. You'll also need to determine how early Christian writers like Origen were able to study and write about the New Testament more than 1000 years before Petrarch was born.

And, a homily is a sermon or religious lecture. - Eron ^Talk 02:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A street called Straight

In Acts 9:11 there is reference to a street called Straight. Also there is reference to Tarsus. Now it just so happens that the Appian Way (a.k.a. Via Appia or via recta) was a great Roman road (notorious for going straight) that went to Taras. This to me is just to close to being just a mere coincidence. Are they not in fact talking of one and the same thing?
That being of this street called Straight being the Appian Way or Via Appia (a great Roman road or via recta) and that it went to the town of Taras. --Doug 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think it far more likely that there was some street in Tarsus called Straight, to which the verse refers. This passage is just one of several in Acts that refers to the city of Tarsus. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. - Eron ^Talk 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You have pointed out exactly my argument. I believe in each case it is refering to Taras. There is not a street in Tarsus called Straight, however there is a Straight street in Taras. I know because I already research this to find out. It then connects that this street called Straight is the Appian Way because it went to Taras. --Doug 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're hopelessly muddled. Saul was from Tarsus, but Acts 9:1-19 takes place in Damascus. Damascus is in Asia Minor, not Italy. Indeed, the article on Damascus mentions the street called Straight, under Damascus#Historical sites. –EdC 03:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting about your Appian Way theory over and over and over will not, unfortunately, make it any more true. I would suggest that perhaps Wikipedia is not really the reference nor the webhost (see WP:NOT) you're looking for. — Lomn 07:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is getting a little tiresome. BenC7 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A side note - I never knew where the phrase "kicking against the pricks" came from before, but there it is in Acts:9... Grutness...wha? 00:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this expression was already proverbial in Classical Greek. Many believe that the writer of Acts had in mind a specific passage of Greek tragedy (Euripides, Bacchae lines 794-5, "I would sacrifice to the god rather [795] than kick against his spurs in anger, a mortal against a god"). Certainly, this usage is strikingly compatible (also referring to a theomachos, one who fights against a god). Wareh 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persian Empire in 500 BCE

Is it not true that the Persian Empire in 500 BCE was the largest anicent land mass under one empire? How many "providences" or Countries did it have at this time; all under this same Empire? Has it been the largest land mass of people of Countries collected under one Empire ever (even to modern times)? --Doug 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was the largest of it's time (about the size of the US); the Mongol Empire was bigger though. As for "providences", they probably had them by their names before conquest (i.e. Mesopotamia or Egypt). Also, like I said, the Mongols had a larger empire, as did the Russians later. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The page on List of largest empires gives all the relative sizes. The first Persian entry, that for the Achaemenid under Darius the Great, comes in at number eleven in the list of all empires, and number six in the list of contiguous empires. You'll find maps on the pages about Darius the Great and the Achaemenid Empire Clio the Muse 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on that information on the empires from you all. That is most useful on my research. In this Achaemenid Empire of the Persian Empire which I do in fact believe these provinces had their names before conquest. I believe Cyrus son Cambyses was a part of Egypt, while Smerdis (or usurper) was part of the eastern provinces. What I am interested in is the total of the provinces in the year 500 BC? Even if it is a best guess (i.e. "50" or "100" or "150" or "200")? Is there a way to find out? Livy or Polybius? --Doug 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Go a little more slowly, Doug, and read the articles highlighted. You will discover that the empire was divided into twenty provinces under Darius, each with its own governor or satrap. I do not kown the precise form these subdivisions took. However, you may be able to find more detailed information in the pages of Herodotus. Clio the Muse 23:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Searching for pictures of old Bible covers to identify mine.

I have only the cover of a antique family Bible and I 'm trying to find the origin and age. It's leather with gold leafing etched in pictures of Bible events on the cover. The old temple santuary,Adam/Eve's casting out of the garden,Nativity,Jesus entering Jerusalem on donkey,Arc of covenet,etc.There were no other pages or instriptions anywhere on cover. Are there pictures in your encyclopedia that I can look at to compare?

The date and location of printing, the printer and perhaps the society the Bible was printed for will be on the title page or its verso, or on the verso of the blank page preceding it. Since the leather binding will have been original to the printing or later, that gives you a terminus post quem. --Wetman 04:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that about 5-6 billion Bibles have been sold in the world, I don't like the chances of finding that particular one. Sorry. BenC7 12:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folktale or Legend

I have got a classwork as " My ideas about a Folktale or Legend" . Could anyone please give me Some ideas about it. How ca I write it.?

Have a look at Folklore and Legend, which should give you some good general ideas. Perhaps the simplest notion is one of collective memory, traditions and beliefs carried down generations. Clio the Muse 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots of folktales focus on someone helping the poor, or doing something dangerous for the person they love. Robin Hood characters exist almost every nation's folklore. A modern take on a folktale could perhaps have a strong female saving her man (as opposed to the other way around). Look at the wikipedia articles on folklore and legend and see, there are a lot of common themes for these sorts of things. ny156uk 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ny, a female slant on the Robin Hood legend, an excellent suggestion! Not so long ago, growing up in England, my favourite TV show was Maid Marian and her Merry Men. It gave me a lot of confidence! Clio the Muse 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many folk tales and legends which seem to contain at least a grain of truth, like the tale of Johnny Appleseed (almost entirely true) and the legend of the Trojan War (parts of which are true), as told in the Iliad. StuRat 19:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

why does the history page have this:

"As an academic field, history is the study of a black man in the ghetto past human activities when he shoots white people in a drive-by and is generally considered a social science"...

on it? I dont' really get the joke and that should probably be removed.

thanks

It was just a repulsive piece of vandalism, now removed. Thanks for your concern. Clio the Muse 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etiquette help

I seem to have upset a woman friend of mine by mentioning to her (in public hearing of a few people) that her ears looked a bit red. Is she right to take offence. Or was I wrong to mention it?--Light current 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It probably depends on the reason for her ears being red (and on the various reasons you, she, and the other people might have presumed). If you were warning her that she was in danger of sunburn then in most circumstances it seems like a good thing to do; but if you were pointing out that her ears were betraying her embarrassment at something then it probably increased her embarrassment, which is not generally a good thing to do.

However, since you can't change the past, possibly a more useful question is to ask what would be good etiquette for your behaviour now. It seems that whatever your intentions, you have upset her. Additionally it seems to me that going back to her and saying "The interweb says I'm right and you're wrong" is not under very many circumstances at all good etiquette. So as a matter of etiquette I'd recommend apologising to her for upsetting her, assuring her that you meant no offense, and promising to be more careful in future. (If you can't say this all sincerely, then settle for the most you can say sincerely. An insincere apology is almost always worse than none at all.) --Zeborah 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As the author of more than a few articles on etiquette, I have to hand it to Zeborah -- that is dynamite advice. Take it.Wolfgangus 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this seems good advice to me and almost identical to what I had decided myself:

Apologising to her for upsetting her, assuring her that you meant no offense, and promising to be more careful in future.--Light current 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a Baby Animals CD titled 'Let Go Of My Ears.'

I thought the title innocent, until a friend talked of the sexual practise, in oral terms. DDB 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I hadnt thought of that. Are there any other things that might turn the lower part of the ears red?--Light current 08:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bluntly, Sex. --Judged 09:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from sex?--Light current 10:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Infected ear lobes are common following a piercing, especially if they were lax on hygiene. StuRat 19:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but as shes not so young I guess she was pierced many years ago 8-|--Light current 20:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and make sure your apology doesn't imply she was unreasonable to be offended. That would sound more like getting at her than actually apologising. And it may very well have been the way you said her ears were red: we cannot know exactly what words you used, and with what tone and body language. That, by itself, may be the cause of the offence. 86.139.237.132 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The question "was she right to take offence" is an interesting one. If you say something intended as a compliment, but the other person is somehow offended by your statement, the fact is that some offence has occurred. There's no right or wrong about it. JackofOz 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But you shouldn't just assume that if you offend somebody you must have done something wrong. If you say "you look nice today", and the person takes offense, by interpreting that as meaning they look horrid the rest of the time, is it really your fault or is the fault in the offended person ? StuRat 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you came up to me and said, "You look nice...today", then I'm more likely to be offended than if you say, "You look nice today", although that could offend the people around me! Or what about, "You look nice today" (but I smell?) Skittle 02:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To StuRat: I specifically removed the concept of right/wrong from the equation, because it's not useful. You've now introduced the notion of fault, equally unuseful. When I said "There's no right or wrong about it", perhaps I should have gone on to say that one cannot simply ignore the fact of an offence, whatever the speaker's intention may have been. If you intended to offend, then you've succeeded, and you're happy. But if you didn't intend to offend, nothing is achieved by taking the line of "I didn't mean it, so you have no right to be offended", or "I didn't mean it, so fuck you for getting uptight", or "I didn't mean it, so if you're offended it's your own fault", or anything else that does not acknowledge the actual outcome - offence. Acknowledgement of the offence, and an expression of regret that this occurred (which has nothing to do with admitting guilt or fault or wrongness; or, indeed, imposing such burdens on the other person), are better ways ahead. An apology does not have to equate to an admission of personal liability; it acknowledges that one's involvement in a communication contributed to an undesirable outcome. JackofOz 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Her ears could have been red from an infection (they can set in decades after piercing, as I have found out personally), by the metals in her earrings, or even by some skin condition that she hoped nobody would notice. She might have interpreted your comment as, "Gee! Your eczema is really obvious today!! Why is that?" She might have been a bit guilty that she couldn't fix it herself (people are like that, men and women alike) or that she hadn't 'tried hard enough' to make them look right (again, even if trying wasn't part of it). Best just to apologize, and not follow the apology with a justification. --Charlene 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British civil law question

Would it be possible for a british legal entity like an estate to sue a foreign legal entity such as a chartered NP society in another EU country in a british court or would it have to resort to the courts of the society's home country, especially when the society specifies a legal seat in its charter? --84.60.107.82 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Countries have legal control of its citizens, so you can't sue another country's citizens in a British court. But if for example, a foreign company has a manufacturing plant in Britain, you may be able to sue that company. --Bowlhover 00:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the EU, jurisdiction is regulated by the Brussels Regime. As a general rule, the appropriate jurisdiction is the domicile of the defendant, though there are various exceptions. –EdC 03:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)