Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 October 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 8 <<Sep | Humanities desk | Nov>> October 10 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Contents

[edit] Are There Any Wikipedia Articles That Discuss The Mistranlastion Of Homosexuality In The Bible?

Danke schön.100110100 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your question. "Homosexuality" is never actually mentioned in the Bible per se. All that is discussed is "a man laying with a man as with a woman" being an "abomination". As to what that means, your guess is as good as mine. Loomis 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
When you asked this on the Miscellaneous desk earlier, you were pointed towards The Bible and homosexuality, I'm sure if we have any more they'll be linked to from there. --Mnemeson 01:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Saying "mistranslation" would probably be labeled as POV or OR. Obviously, God is against the behaviour, not the person. God would not condemn someone for something that they could not change. BenC7 05:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That might be obvious to you and me, but I wouldn't say it's a universal assumption. Just look at the concept of predestination. Or more recently, Fred Phelps. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have heard that homosexuality has been mistranslated, so condemned so.100110100 10:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, if the word "homosexuality" appears in any Bible, it's a mistranslation, as there is no such word in the original texts. - Outerlimits 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Some (not myself, but some, mostly those opposed to homosexuality) would say that sexual orientation is something a person can change, although this seems to go against most of the scientific inquiry into the subject as well as many individual non-heterosexuals' accounts (especially those who have had others try to change their orientation). CameoAppearance orate 07:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see why it's always the homos that have to be the test subject and asked if they can change their orientation. Heteros are oblivious to it too.100110100 10:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
When will they ever learn? Forcing "normality" on people didn't work with left-handers. If they believe it's just a question of choice, have they ever wondered why people throughout history would choose to be subject to vilification, discrimination, violence and even murder, if it were in their power to choose something safer? Could a straight person choose to be gay? Could a straight man choose from tomorrow onwards to get involuntary erections at the sight of other men's naked bodies, when previously they had no such effect? Hardly. Why would it be any different the other way around? JackofOz 07:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure Jack. But nice to see some spirit in you! In any case, it's quite known according to the Bible that King David "lay with another man". It's also quite known that Onan, son of Judah, was killed by God on the spot for "spilling his seed". Many interpret that as meaning that masturbation is a sin, punishable by instant death from God. Well, let me just say, if that were true, none of us, including Ben, (I like you Ben, but be honest with yourself!) would be alive today to have this discussion! That's not to say I'm not a religious person who takes the Bible seriously, and who fears God. It's just to say that I, just like anyone else, am mystified by certain of its otherwise "apparent" meanings. Loomis 09:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to mistranslate the words. It's also fairly hard to change their interpretation, but that won't stop anyone trying. It's not particularly clear from the Bible that King David "lay with another man". What's debated is whether the description of his love for Jonathan exceeding the love between a man a woman means that they had a gay relationship or not. Onan was not punished for spilling his seed. If you read the text (Gen 38:8 and 9), you can see he's punished for the reason why he spilled his seed. I've never heard any preacher of any religion claim that masturbation is a sin "punishable by instant death from God", but I'm sure there's some right-winger out there that could fulfil this shortcoming. --Dweller 09:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the story of Onan has been used regularly as a "Biblical" prohibition on masturbation. That other interpretations differ is irrelevant; all that matters is that the Bible provide the raw material from which justification for one's own beliefs can be fashioned. It has ever been thus. - Outerlimits 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
All I know about Onan is that was the name of Dorothy Parker's pet bird. She called him that because he had a habit of spilling his seed. JackofOz 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That's the best thing I've heard today! To the original poster, I believe godlovesfags.com used to be a good resource for this sort of thing - theories about whether the Bible really condemns homosexuality or not. Ah, here we go: this might be what you're looking for. I have to admit, though, as far as I'm concerned it's all a bit like arguing over how many reindeer Santa has. :) --Grace 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. Santa has exactly 9 reindeer. The Bible says so! And they can all dance on top of a pin. - Outerlimits 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
About BenC7's "Obviously, God is against the behaviour". No one owns God's agenda. You may infer, from someone's acts and fate, that it was punishable : it is your opinion.
As we say Gnu's not Unix, whe could say God only does. When we see someone doing something, he does it in the hands of God. As we say that God's name is ineffable, God's thoughts are unthinkable. -- DLL .. T 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, all of this is beside the point. The question is about mistranslation in the Bible. My first observation is that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Strictly speaking, there is no translation in the Bible at all. ;-)
Now, what our questioner probably means is that he or she believes that some English version of the Bible uses the word "homosexual" and that this is a mistranslation of the original. (correct me if that is not the question.)
The word is used by the following translations in 1 Cor. 6:9 -- Contempory English Version, English Standard, Good News Translation, God's Word, International Standard Version, New American Bible, New American Standard Version, New International Version, New King James Bible, the Living Bible and the New Living Bible. In 1 Timothy 1:10, Contempory English Version, English Standard, God's Word, International Standard Version, New American Bible, New American Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, the Living Bible and the New Living Bible use it. God's Word also uses it in Jude 7.
The next question, then, is: Do these translations mistranslate the passages? In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, The greek words come from the root = ἀρσενοκοῖτ-. The definition of the word in Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker's lexicon is "a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3rd ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 135.) This translation, then is correct in substance. (although "male homosexuality") would be a better translation. The Jude passage is more generally immorality.
Since the term is correctly translated, then, no article is likely to address the mistranslation, since there is none. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you said 'the Jude passage is more generally immorality.'???!!!! I'm confused; what do you mean?100110100 10:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If you think "pederast" and "homosexual" are synonyms, perhaps your opinions about mistranslation are best ignored. "ἀρσενοκοίτης" means "malefucker". What that might mean in terms used today is ambiguous. But it's certainly not precisely identical with "homosexual", either. - Outerlimits 03:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, to those who might not know, the fairly clear implication of "homosexual" is that

the person has clear romantic feelings for people of the same sex. Note that the clear distinctions between homosexuals and heterosexuals did not exist in ancient Rome; people would lie with men and women, regardless of their own sex -- it was not considered taboo. The only major limit was perhaps in regards to having sex with children, which was considered immoral.

The point here is that translators are virtually unanimous in translating the word as homosexual, the lexica support the translation and so to claim a mistranslation here is simply to be out of the mainstream of scholarship. In Wikipedia terms, it is a minor POV to charge all these translators with mistranslation. You cannot change that by simply disparging that opinion or mine.
How do they come to choose what seems a more generic term? Whether it is to your tastes or not, English translations tend to proceed euphemistically (as when Paul opposes the circumcision party, and he says they might as well finish the job and cut it off completely, the translators do no get as graphic as the New Testament Greek does). Also, until very recent times, homosexuality was defined by Christian Churches as sexual relations between persons of the same sex. In this case, it is clear that 1 Corinithians and 1 Timothy condemn the Graeco-Roman practice of sexual relations between men. Thus the translation. You are free to choose how you wish to label it, but there is little ambiguity here. Paul claims that God forbids homosexual relations in the same breath as he condemns heterosexual relations outside of marriage. That is all I am trying to say. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hence we have the distinction; at that time in particular, when a man lay with another man, it was not part of a romantic relationship: it was for the experience of being with another man. Inasmuch as the passage about Onan can be looked, then, in both ways, so can this: one could argue, then, that the Bible says nothing against homosexual marriage -- the teachings of Jesus could imply that such freedom may be reasonable (because he would have probably treated them in much the same way as he treated the tax collectors and prostitute)s; it wouldn't be a matter of "free love" that it was back then. I don't know for certain just how much everyone is clear on this fact -- you all might be, but sometimes I don't get that same feeling from hearing the "general public" or some politicians. E Liquere 03:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The old Testament sources (in Hebrew) that refer to this subject prohibit as "abomination" homosexual intercourse, not homosexuality or gay love. As with Onan, the translation of the words is unambiguous. --Dweller 07:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never said that the "common" interpretation of the story of Onan was the correct one. In fact, from my studies, what I believe, (and after all, it's all a matter of opinion,) is that God killed Onan not for "masturbating", as he wasn't "masturbating" at all! What he was doing was practicing what we would call coitus interruptus; that is, he "withdrew" before ejaculation in order to intentionally not get his levirate wife pregnant. Thus his sin wasn't in "masturbating", but rather in disobeying God's commandment to "go forth and multiply". Basically, he was killed because he had no interest in having children with his wife, not because he "literally" spilled his seed.
When you think about it, spilling seed is an inevitable act that the most pious of believers cannot avoid. How many million sperm cells is it that are produced by one ejaculation? I forget. But it's millions. And the best one can hope for is that one (or perhaps a few, in the case of twins, triplets, etc. but certainly not millions!) manages to fertilize an egg. As for the rest...only God knows what happens to them. And then there are infirtile couples, like the pious Abraham and Sarah, who, up until she was told by God that she would have a son at the ripe old age of ninety-something, was barren. Of course she had plenty of sex with Abraham beforehand, otherwise how would she know she was barren? Yet sex between infirtile couples is obviously not a sin either, as Abraham wasn't singled out for death for all the "seed" he spilled in his 100+ year lifetime (that's a whole lotta seed!). Similarly, heterosexual couples aren't forbidden from having sex once the female goes through menopause and is no longer able to bear children. Still, (hopefully in a good relationship!) a lot of seed spilling is going on!
To get back to my original point, (and again, this is purely my take on it,) Onan wasn't killed by God at all for masturbation. He was killed by God because he deliberately chose to disobey God's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply". Now, what does "multiply" mean? Once you have a couple of kids, have you fulfilled your obligation to (at least try to) "multiply"? I think so. I think it's perfectly fine to call enough enough, and begin to use birth control. And what about before? What if you're young and you have every intention of having kids, but you just don't feel ready yet? I think birth control is ok there too. Ok I went on about it enough, and that wasn't even the original question! Just a clarification of my "Onan" remark. Now it's Jack's turn to pick on me for my lack of concision and focus. :) Loomis 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Thank you all for the awesome insight. So I have a new question. What is the significance of the story of David and Johnathan? Why did the writer include it if homosexuality is bad?100110100 10:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

David and Jonathon had a deep friendship; that does not mean that they were having a homosexual relationship. There is nothing in Scripture to imply anything of the sort. BenC7 06:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I strongly believe they did. See David and Jonathon.100110100 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The link is red. BenC7 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a typo; see David and Jonathan. Ziggurat 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The romantic section of that article has dubious factual accuracy in places and is argumentitive. BenC7 00:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that the Bible is anti-homosexual. But it's also pro-slavery, pro-genocide, and encouraged parents to murder their kids if they thought God wanted them to, so I would look for a higher moral authority than what people thought (and wrote down) thousands of years ago. StuRat 12:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bible is against homosexual behaviour. I don't know where you get pro-slavery from; God set a rule in effect that anyone who had slaves was to free them after 7 years, and if the slave wished to remain with their master, then the master was to take an awl and drive it through the slave's earlobe into their front door. I don't know that there would have been many slaves wishing to pick that.
As for pro-genocide, most killing was done in the context of war, and many times the Israelites were severely outnumbered and outpowered.
As for the Bible "encouraging parents to murder their children if they thought God wanted them to", I assume you are referring to Abraham and Isaac. God prevented Abraham from sacrificing his son: Just as he was about to do it, an angel appeared and said, "Abraham! Do not lay a hand on the boy, or do anything to him". It was a demonstration of what God would later do in sending his Son to be the sacrifice for our sins. BenC7 00:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You won't find anywhere in the Bible where it says it's OK for men to lust after other men (homosexuality) so long as they don't act on it. And you somehow take God saying it's OK to keep slaves for 7 years to be an absolute prohibition against slavery ? The genocide was after the warfare was over, and "God commanded" the Jews to kill EVERYONE who had surrendered, not just the enemey soldiers, but women and children, too. God wanted Abraham to be willing to murder Isaac, that was the whole point. If you aren't willing to murder your children for God, then you aren't a proper Christian. StuRat 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It's futile to argue for or against the validity of the Bible. Just look at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. People who really "believe" in the Bible won't be swayed by that. A text can be interpreted to further any conceivable agenda. A more pertinent question might be why you should appeal to the Bible instead of, say, the Qur'an or the Vedas or the Saddar? 99% of the time, it's because the Bible was the one in your parents' house. In the end, it all comes down to personal preferences anyway. Gay Christians and anti-Gay Christians can both quote scripture in support of their cause. I doubt there is anyone who approaches a text with absolutely no prejudices whatsoever. The vast majority of homophobes who cite Leviticus didn't become homophobes because of Leviticus. They became homophobes because of the environment they grew up in, and only later latched onto the Bible as a means of validating and justifying their personal anxieties. It lends a false sense of timelessness to prejudices that are constantly changing. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with every sentence of the above paragraph. You can't assume that people are a product of their environment - I became a Christian when I was 17; no-one else in my family was a Christian at that time, nor are they now, 7 years later. I disagree with homosexual behaviour because the Bible makes it explicitly clear (how could it be more clear, I honsetly wonder), and not because of some preconceived notion of what I want to read.

I appeal to the Bible rather than the Quran etc. because it has the power to change people's lives. It has changed my life, and I know many whose lives it has changed. Also, the Bible has more fulfilled prophecy and historical proofs associated with it than those you have mentioned. BenC7 10:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Representations of left as back and right as forward

Why is it so ubiquitous to have left represented as 'towards the back/backwards' and right as 'towards the front/forwards' in human (well, Western, at any rate) culture? I'm guessing it has some connection to the fact that most of us are right-handed, but I don't know if this is actually the case. CameoAppearance orate 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly something to do with the fact that most Western languages are read from left to right, too — left is the start/origin, and right is the finish/destination. -- Vardion 06:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of that. Can you give any examples? All I can think of is the backhand in tennis, which for trighthanded players indeed refers to the left side. But for left handed players it refers to the right side, so even there it doesn't hold true. And in writing one starts at the left, so that is actually the front. DirkvdM 08:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The first example that comes to mind is browser buttons: 'back' is a left-facing arrow, and 'forward' is a right-facing arrow. CameoAppearance orate 09:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the browser buttons, where is it represented in that way? Thinking of politics, other words are 'progressive' (forward) for left, and 'conservative' (holding back) for right. --Mnemeson 10:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There are lots of things, VCRs, tape recorders ; the layout of "before" and "after" pictures; breadcrumb trails in web-site navigation and even the layout of days in the week in calendars. It is also used in graphs (so a rising stock-market has a line that slants from bottom-left to top-right) and the layout of controls on dialogue boxes and physical control panels (where you have to perform operations in order the first ones are normally on the left or above later ones). -- Chris Q 10:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say in regards to tape direction that, relative to the listener or viewer (should the viewer or listener be looking at the tape deck), see that as the direction that the tape was moving. I think that's the case anyway -- maybe it really is the opposite way (tape moves left as it plays). E Liquere 03:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh - I'd never really thought of them that way. It's probably writing-related - 'cause we go from left to right, we consider that as time progresses you move towards the right side of the page. Also in calendars, it could just be a simple writing thing - anything written in for the days will go left->right, so if the days went right->left, you'd be constantly changing the direction you were moving your eyes in. --Mnemeson 10:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it has to do with the direction of writing/reading. My understanding is that the metaphor is reversed in languages which read from right to left — i.e. left and right have different associations in Israel where Hebrew is predominant. (I think I recall reading this in something by George Lakoff but I don't remember offhand) Up and down have pretty concrete reasons for being the metaphors than they are (you can actually stack things to have more of them; it is one of the most basic spacio-temporal metaphors for this reason) but there is no reason that left/right have to mean forward/back and I'm pretty sure they don't mean that for all people. --Fastfission 15:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Class and Voting Behaviour

How significant a factor is social class when addressing long-term voting behaviour?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.86.166 (talk • contribs)

Quite significant, I would say.--Shantavira 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In which country? --Dweller 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Solihull, presumably.--Shantavira 11:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, in the United Kingdom, how important is social class when addressing the issue of long-term voting behaviour? I guess I should've made that clearer
I'm not British, but generally it's very significant. People tend (not always, but generally) to vote for whomever they believe represent their own interests the most, i.e. poor people will vote for candidates stressing welfare, etc, and rich people will vote for candidates who support lower texas for...rich people. If you're hoping someone will write your essay for you, you're out of luck (see the top of the page), but feel free to ask more specific questions. -Elmer Clark 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely significant, but not utterly predictive. A simple reading of, say, 1980s politics would have poorer classes voting Labour, wealthier voting Conservative and the middle split between the two big players and the mess that was the Liberal Party and the SDP. Today, it's more confusing because Labour has headed rightwards, the Liberal Democrats are stronger and in some respects very left wing and smaller parties are attracting more support. Your question is especially hard to answer because the United Kingdom includes devolved political processes in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. And anyway, the picture I paint is too simplistic. People seem to vote for people as much as policies, so a right winger like Margaret Thatcher attracted much support from natural Labour voters, because she was perceived as a strong leader etc. So, like I say, it's important, but it's not a crystal ball. By the way, you might like to add a section to your essay on John Major's classless society(!) --Dweller 07:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on how long-term the behaviour you want to identify is, as well. Do you mean intergenerational? Hornplease 10:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Dweller, can I ask how or why its a significant factor? It befuddles me

Typically, in the UK, social class and wealth used to be strongly connected. Therefore, lower class families were naturally attracted to socialist policies that they considered would redistribute wealth and be good for them. The opposite was true of wealthier families. Simple (and simplistic) as that. --Dweller 10:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sahara Desert turned to glass

I read something a while ago in a novel or comic book with some kind of post-apocalyptic setting, that mentioned the Sahara Desert having turned into a vast sheet of glass as a result of (perhaps) nuclear war. I think that the characters in the book referred to Africa only occasionally, and with a sort of shudder, like "let's not think about what happened to Africa". This image is all that sticks in my mind, and I'd like to know where I got it from. Does it sound familiar to anyone? --Grace 09:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

although I don't know it i must comment on it! GREAT ! africa, in glass? t may actually be a possibility but not from a nuclear war though (sand would vaporise when hit by nukes and besides, who wants to hit sand?, and if they would aim for the major cities then the climate changes would actually make Africa most likely one of the most fertile places on earth(or what remains of earth after the first anti-matter weapons are used :) )(btw. the anti-matterweapons have reached usable stage. one short anti-matters blast and it's goodbye California and hello moon, im moving in with you.

  • Nuclear weapons can turn sand into glass (see trinitite) but I don't know if any way to turn the entire Sahara desert into glass without having an immense arsenal (larger than than all nations ever have ever had) and being very wasteful about it. --Fastfission 15:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Possible suggestions, though none of them mention Africa: Washington State University has a Nuclear Holocausts Bibliography mentioning a novel by Adrian Blair, titled Cosmic Conquest, in which "a third of America has been fused into a desert of glass by chain reactions which resulted from a nuclear war of unknown origins". Another title featured on the same site is Triumph by Philip Wylie, where "Park Avenue is a river of molten glass". ---Sluzzelin 12:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
On further reflection, I think maybe it was Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle. Anyone confirm this? --Grace 13:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The site of the first American atomic test (the trinity test) was at Alomogordo, New Mexico. The sand was fused into glass which was first called atomsite and later this was changed to trinitite. Most of this glass has already been scavanged by tourists to the site. You can read more about this here. ---Filll 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, but I was more curious about the book, or I would have asked at the Science help desk. Is it Philip K. Dick? --Grace 20:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michealangelo

I can't seem to find where Michealangelo painted himself in the Sistine Chapel do you have any idea?? Thank you - Sunni

See Sistine_Chapel#Christ_Giving_the_Keys_to_St._Peter. Fifth from the right edge (wearing a black cap), according to the article on WP.---Sluzzelin 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a self-portrait of Perugino. The self-portrait of Michelangelo is in "The Last Judgement"; his is said to be the face on the flayed skin shown in this detail. A second self-portrait in the same fresco is said to be the figure in the lower left hand corner, looking encouragingly at those rising from their graves. - Nunh-huh 16:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your best reference for Michelangelo studies would be Howard Hibbard's text Michelangelo (New York: Westview Press, 1974). It is highly acessible. On page 249, the late Professor Hibbard disucsses the Last Judgement Fresco of the Sistene Chapel. Just below Christ on the right, Saint Bartholomew holds some flayed skin that bears the distroted face of Michelangelo. Bartholomen's feast day is associated with the chapel's construction.

Dr. Hibbard's book does not discuss a second self-potrait in the Last Judgement Fresco.

I heard a recent paper last April at the International Undergraduate Symposium in Art History in Portland, Oregon, where a gentleman argued that the depiction of Noah in the earlier Drunkedness of Noah scene on the Sistene Ceiling was also a veiled self-potrait. You may e-mail me at [email removed to prevent spam] if you would like to obtain the paper. ">midnight_coffee</

[edit] On citizenship and guilt

If a person spies against his own country, it is called treason. If against another country, it is called espionage. Both are severely punished. But may it mean that a person without citizenship can be a spy without fear of being accused? I need information on as many countries' laws as it is possible, but especially about the native land of mine, Russia. --194.85.123.55 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I don't know about specific countries, but your logic is a it off. Look at it this way: If a person spies against a country, it is either treason (perhaps) if it is his own country, or espionage if it some other country. There's really only two choices: the country you are a citizen of, or not. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In other words, a person without citizenship can still be punished for espionage. They would probably be punished by the country they spied on. I'm not a lawyer, though. --Grace 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps he means a stateless person. The logic still applies, though. Hornplease 10:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Russian laws don't make a distinction between foreigners and stateless persons. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be my guess that a stateless person could be punished even more severely, because with no legal ties to any given country they could be seen as able to give information on any country to any country without the guilt of treachery. Russia Moore 04:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relieving A Superior Of Their Command

Under what circumstances is a subordinate allowed to relieve a superior of their command in the army/navy/air force of which you have sufficient knowledge to answer this question? --Username132 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If requesting medical or legal advice, please consider asking a doctor or lawyer instead. In this case, consult a specialist in military law. I claim no specialized knowledge of this field, but The UCMJ offers the death penalty for refusal to obey lawful orders. http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/solis.html discusses the legal background of UCMJ in this regard. One who decides a superior's orders are unlawful and relieves him of command is likely to face a real shitstorm, and may not find many friends in the command structure, since officers order soldiers to face certain death sometimes, and unquestioning obedience makes their work easier. No military likes free spirits, barracks lawyers, or rebels. See Caine Mutiny. Getting a superior relieved because he is cowardly or batshit crazy probably requires the behavior being witnessed by his fellow officers of equal or higher rank and/or by a qualified psychiatrist. As to unlafwul orders, there is supposed to be at least one case of a German soldier refusing to shoot civilians on the grounds that it would violate the rules of war during WWII, and the Nazis doing nothing more to him than transferring him, because they did not want an open airing of their genocide and a conflict between the SS and the Wehrmacht. Refusal to carry out illegal orders is a lesser step than arresting a commanding officer, i.e. mutiny. Requesting orders in writing is the next step below refusal to carry out the orders, because it takes away deniability: the higher ups can't blame "a few bad apples". It will not win any friends either. Edison 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have knowledge enough of only one service to answer that question: Starfleet. The chief medical officer of a ship can relieve anyone on the ship (including superiors) of duty if the CMO believes they are medically unfit. For more, see the Chief medical officer article at Memory Alpha. Chuck 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun Control in the US

Even with a toll of nine dead in three violent school shootings in one week, the United States is unwilling to consider restrictions on guns openly bought and sold across the country. Only a few lonely voices have called for controls to be placed on easily available personal weapons – which can include very powerful semi-automatic pistols and rifles.Instead, a Wisconsin lawmaker has proposed arming teachers and school staff in response to the violence. What’s depressing is how little people are pushing for gun control today. What is the cost of freedom? Impatience for desires and sheer lack of education? What is the heights of creativity? Is freedom being overdone??

At what age is it legal to possess guns in the US? [kj_venus]

You can "own" a gun at birth. However, owning a gun and being able to walk around with one is a completely different issue. As for the main questioner, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You don't really want someone picking through your rather weak argument. That will do nothing more than start a flame war in which nobody will change anyone else's opinion. --Kainaw (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
So you decided to kick this flame war off by insulting his point did you? Philc TECI 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop beating around the bush & accept facts. Its just like a Karate instructor is teaching his pupils to use the skills he has acquired only for self-defense purposes. Its like Spiderman being instructed by his father to learn to use the power only when required. Owning & possessing are two different issues even in legal terms. No child is taught how to use a gun at young age unless he has some pshychic parents. [kj_venus].

There are plenty of such pshychic parents in the USA then, judjing from the news. And I don't why, but I am more afraid of someone with a gun than of someone with knowledge and skill in Karate. Try to defend yourself, or running away, from one and then from the other. There is a BIG diffrence between the two (I am not going to use Spiderman as an argument). Flamarande 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you guys talking about psychotic parents? or psychic parents? or something else? JackofOz 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I've seen numerous cases where a well armed populace actually has lower crime rates than those where guns are not as prevalent. All the stats that I've seen though have been U.S.-centric. They use the idea that if a criminal knows that most everyone they see is not defenseless, then they'll be less likely to carry out a crime.
Secondly, Spider-man was brought up by his Uncle Ben and Aunt May, not his father. Dismas|(talk) 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Peter Parker's parents Richard and Mary Parker were agents for CIA, so Ben and May had to raise him after they died on a mission (if you're interested =S) 惑乱 分からん 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that you examine the crime rates and figures of Japan. Way lower than the US, and the average Japanese doesn't have a gun. It would be interresting to compare the figures of violent crimes commited with guns in the European Union and in the USA (same population number and more or less same culture). Flamarande 12:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
You can do the comparisons in the U.S. - which will avoid much of the cultural bias. I focus on violent crime by city here. Then, you need to find a somewhat reliable table of gun ownership. That is where I hit a snag. Does anyone have reliable rates of gun ownership city-by-city? --Kainaw (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the Reference Desk is not the place for a philosophical discussion of this nature - the original poster never asked a question. Our article on gun politics nicely sums up the arguments used by both sides. — QuantumEleven 13:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the shooter in the Amish case seemed to be completely normal until the day he flipped out, so nothing short of a total gun ban would have kept a gun out of his hands. StuRat 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn Troll! I don't care if you call yourself venus, please SIGN UP so we can know who you are! I can't believe I'm agreeing with this troll, but, I'll say it again: Amendment II of the US constitution should be repealed. Guns should be banned outright. Loomis 06:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Now, if there was some system of government in the U.S. in which the people could elect people to some sort of, say, a Congress that has the capability of amending the Constitution to do such a thing as repeal the second amendment... No, that would be silly. Never mind. --Kainaw (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Kainaw, your remark was obviously sarcasm, but I still don't get it. Are you referring to the democratic deficit argument about the US system? Or, perhaps, are you implying that I don't understand how constitutional amendments are enacted in the US? I'm confused. Loomis 23:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I use every chance I get to make comments about Congress. The U.S. press puts as much effort as possible into telling us that the President makes all the laws, makes the budget, sets taxes, everything. I figure that if a few people mentioned Congress now and then, it is possible (but not probable) that a few people would realize that if you want laws to change, you need to focus on who you are voting into Congress at least as much as you worry about who's goofing off in the Oval Office. --Kainaw (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
In the US guns have obtained a similar status to cigarettes, the majority know they're bloody stupid things to have, and the source of a lot of suffering of people, but it would be political suicide to try and ban them, because so many people have them, even a lot of those that know their stupid. One of the many failings of democracy, if you aggrevate enough minorities, soon you have aggrevated enough majorities, even if you are doing the right thing, you are forced to do the wrong thing. Philc TECI 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Not even a total gun ban would have kept a gun out of his hands if he really wanted one (just look at the UK), and even if he didn't have access to a gun, he would just have used a knife instead (again, just look at the UK). People who have no intention of coming out alive (as with the nutball in the Amish case) have nothing to lose and thus have no problem breaking any law in order to get themselves into that situation in the first place. --Aaron 18:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Knives are much less effective weapons. You might be able to kill one or two people with a knife at a time, but you can't kill dozens, as they will run away or subdue the attacker. Someone with an assault rifle can kill dozens easily. StuRat 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That is not entirely true. You can shoot dozens of people, but not kill them easily. There are many places in your body that I can make a tiny bullet hole go through without killing you. There are very few places that I put a 2-3 inch blade in and not cause a critical injury. That is why it is very unwise to pull a gun on a person holding a knife unless you are sure you can shoot him multiple times before he reaches you. If you really want to, you can look into use of automatic weapons. I was given a 3-day suspension in high school for laughing when I heard about an idiot that unloaded an AK-47 on a playground. He injured 3 children and a teacher. Not killed - injured. 30-40 rounds (depending on the magazine) and he hit 4 people. He would have done much better with a knife. --Kainaw (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I should have pointed out that I've been shot twice with .22 rounds. It hurts and it can be deadly, but a gun is far from a guaranteed kill. --Kainaw (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that any single shot may very well not kill, but an assault rifle gives you the ability to put hundreds of bullets into dozens of people. If the shooter takes the time to shoot up the fallen (in vital areas), they can kill almost all of them. StuRat 16:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Kainaw, I'm assuming you were shot while in the service, and so you were likely armed yourself. I've got nothing against the military or the police being armed with guns. But we're talking about civilians having guns. If you were, say, an unarmed civilian, or even worse, a young schoolboy having been shot but not killed by a .22, had the shooter decided to finish the job, would you have any chance in hell of stopping him? Loomis 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The "guns dont kill people, people kill people" argument is so critically flawed it angers me when anyone uses it. If a guy walked into a bank with a knife and tried to hold it up, theyd just sit behind their window and laugh at him. Theres no way you could command people with any other weapon the way you can with a gun. Eg, columbine, if they had tried stabbing kids, as soon as they got one kid they would have been overpowered, its not hard to overpower people armed with knives if you have a numerical advatage, however, you can charge as many people as you like at a guy with an uzi, but you'll have to wait till he runs out of bullets to get a chance. So yeh guns dont kill people, people kill people mostly with guns. Philc TECI 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yea, "nukes don't kill people, people kill people"...so let's pass a "right to bear nukes" Amendment and give everyone an unlimited supply of nuclear weapons. :-) StuRat 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Philc, so, what you are saying is that if a few guys got on an airplane with box cutters and tried to hijack the aircraft, the people would just laugh at them because they aren't carrying guns. Right? --Kainaw (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No but if two guys went for it with stanely knives (I think thats what you mean by box cutters) it wouldnt take long for the other 200 hundred people on the plane to kick the shit into them. Sure they might take a few lives, and thats why they're not allowed on planes, but theyd wouldnt manage to convince all of the passengers that it is so hopeless that is not worth fighting back, leaving them free to hijack the plane, which is quite easy with a gun. 172.201.152.4 13:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right Kainaw. The terrorists on 9/11 managed to hijack four planes. Wait a sec...make that three planes...apparently in one of them they indeed were rushed by a few brave souls, and were stopped from taking control of the plane. Unfortunately it was too late to save the plane and its passengers, but not too late to save the White House. Too bad for the terrorists though. All they had were box cutters, but not even one handgun...even a .22. Loomis 00:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats just a poor effort. Im sorry, but in a die/die situation, how pathetic do you have to be to sit there and do nothing. This will seem desperately inflammatory to some, so I apologize in advance. But seriously, they should have done something. 172.201.152.4 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't find it inflammatory, just rather ignorant of the facts. You're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. The passengers on the three highjacked planes had no idea that it was a "die/die" situation. Nobody knew what was going on. Up to that point all they knew was that teh planes were hijacked, but as of that date, nobody had ever heard of highjacked planes going on suicide missions. They must have just felt it was a "regular" hijack, and that the plane would just land somewhere with the hijackers making a list of demands, just as every other hijacking had gone previously in theit memory. It was only with the benefit of knowledge (through cellphones) that the passengers were aware of what the "real" mission was all about, and that it was indeed a die/die situation, and so they acted with that knowledge. Loomis 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is cultural diversity?

I understand that the term cultural diversity is tricky to quantify. And I am not seeking a definition of it in terms of quantification(e.g.no of language spoken on earth). Rather, if we focus on a more micro scale, say, a type of media(film, broadcasting, magazine etc.) in a certain place, how can we decide whether this medium is characterized by diversity or not? In this regard of cultural diversity, what should its definition include other than the "coexistence of different views" ? I would be greatful. Thank you. Paul 02:12 10th oct, 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking of media (which is an odd way of measuring cultural diversity IMO), there are several ways IMO. First, I don't think cultural diversity is just the coexistence of different views; I think at the very least it's the coexistence of different views, values and beliefs. Using that definition, a medium (let's say magazines) that either a) caters to a variety of views, values and beliefs; b) acknowledges the existence of different views, values and beliefs; or maybe even c) is consumed by demographics representing different views, values and beliefs. This is just a partial answer, BTW. Hopefully others have more insight. Anchoress 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Representation is one possibility. There's quite a bit of research on representation of different groups in various media (someone will count the gay and lesbian characters on sitcoms, for example, or the number of photographs of black people in a particular newspaper). Or you could ask, what is the "dominant culture" in your medium, and how is it portrayed relative to other cultures? How often do, say, Australian people appear as major characters in Hollywood movies, and when they appear, what stereotypes are used? This sounds like a Media Studies essay question - if you're not clear about the definition of "cultural diversity", why don't you ask your teacher what they are looking for? --Grace 21:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you guys. You are right. Its something like an essay question. Actually its a presentation topic, and that's why the lecturer wouldn't say anything because he thinks that he should leave everything to us. What you are suggesting seems to be a textual analysis approach to me. But I am just not sure whether having many people from different culture represented in a medium equate a culturally diversed medium. If that's the case, can I argue that the hollywood film industry is diversed since different movies from different cultures but not only those from hollywood are played, and in those movies people from different culture are represented. Paul 12:36, 11 october 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming movie

Went to the theater and saw a trailer, Some Sin City looking movie about Spartans. The trailer mention it was inspired by some book by Frank Miller. I can't find any information on this movie, and I dont remember its name. I've been looking through upcoming movie lists but still nothing. Can anyone help? - Tutmosis 18:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Its called "300" and the comic of Frank Miller is loosly based upon the story of Leonidas I, king of Sparta and the battle of Thermopylae. Heres is the official site [1]. Flamarande 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
We have an article about it at 300 (film). Adam Bishop 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you guys! - Tutmosis 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The teaser trailer is available; and it is bloody amazing. Flamarande 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The origins of Frere Jacques

In trying to flesh out the Wikipedia article on the nursery rhyme "Frere Jacques", I have run into a few stumbling blocks.

1. What is the real reference (such as authorship) of "La Cle du Caveau a l'usage de tous les Chansonniers francais, Paris, 1811" ?

2. I ran across the following potential discussion that might have relevance to the origin of "Frere Jacques":

The Theory of Hungarian Music, Edward Kilenyi, Musical Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1919), pp. 20-39

available from JSTOR:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4631(191901)5%3A1%3C20%3ATTOHM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

Supposedly at least part of the tune Fra Jacopino is similar to Chanson de Lambert (1650) and another tune (a Hungarian folk tune?). Anyone have access to JSTOR to check this lead out? I will caution you that I am not sure about the rules for use of JSTOR; hopefully this usage is allowed.

Alternatively, anyone know much about Hungarian folk tunes?

  • If you leave your e-mail address on my talk page I'll just send you the article from JSTOR. I doubt JSTOR cares much about one-time sharing of their articles (in any case the article in question is in the public domain so they wouldn't have any real legal case — it'd just be a terms of use issue). --Fastfission 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why a particular order in google?

I was just looking for news items on the Amish school shooting. I googled "Charles Carl Roberts" and searched News, and the two top items (at present) are both blog entries. How would that happen? Anchoress 21:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the Google search algorithm thinks those are the two most relevant news results for your search terms. How Google determines relevance is a mystery, and a highly-guarded trade secret. --Serie 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Check out our article on PageRank to get a general idea of how Google works. The specifics are trade secrets but the basics are known. (Actually, coming back to that question a few hours later, I realize I misread it — I have no idea if PageRank is used for news stories at all.) --Fastfission 00:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies guys. It's just surprising to me because the news section of google has always seemed very rarified; what passes for a 'news' site seemed to be judged by a very high standard. It's the first time I've ever seen a blog in the list at all, much less so high up in the ranking. Anchoress 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've always wondered where they get some of the news sources for Google News. One of the top sources (at least when I click on Google News) is a weekly newspaper in east-central Alberta that serves a town of 300 people. I live in Alberta and I've never heard of the town, let alone the newspaper.
I just googled for "school killing", and the Westfield Weekly News right now brings up more stories for me than the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Province, the Calgary Herald, the Montreal Gazette, and the Ottawa Citizen combined. Charlene.fic 01:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female mystics and musicians, AD 600 to 1600?

Were there any types of female mystics or musicians in any world culture in the middle ages or renaissance? I can think of many examples that were male, but were there any female traditions or co-ed traditions? Also I'm curious what kinds of costumes these personas would have worn, if we have any illustrations or recreations.--Sonjaaa 23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • And, of course, Joan of Arc claimed to talk with God, although he apparently turned down her urgent request for asbestos bloomers. :-) StuRat 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)