Humanities desk
< November 13	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 15 >

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.

November 14

What is the daily value of money exchanged around the planet?

A few years ago I saw a statistic that the equivalent of $5.2 Trillion was exchanged around the planet each day; and .01% went unaccounted for. Is there a relatively accurate number for today; maybe $5.5 Trillion?71.114.65.139 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this authoritative source average daily turnover was $3.2 trillion as of April 2007. This was much higher than previously recorded volumes, so it doesn't seem possible that the volume was over $5 trillion several years ago. Marco polo 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tahiti

From Paul Gauguin's paintings of Tahitian women, are they the same as today or not? you know naked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.38 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know-no! Clio the Muse 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'course not, they are older now...--88.110.96.144 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism

According to New Testament and anti-Semitism it is clear that many Jews, except those who followed Jesus, regarded Jesus and His followers as anti-Semitic. Do Jews today in general consider Jesus and His followers to be anti-Semitic and if so to what end? Also is it possible that Jews who consider Jesus and His followers to be anti-semitic have by so believing revealed the fact that they themselves are unsanctified Jews based on pretense and hypocrisy akin to those Jews who chose to worship gold instead of God following the event of the Golden Calf? 71.100.15.238 00:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your particular question (without reference to the WP page you cite, whose validity I don't wish to examine): all streams of Judaism hold that the Messiah has not yet come, so Jesus Christ cannot be considered the Messiah. If the followers of Jesus believe him Divine, this is out of accord with Jewish belief. I don't see where this has anything to do with antisemitism, a modern term for the xenophobic hatred of Jews. Also please note that the adjective "Jewish" refers equally to adherents of Judaism (the Jewish religion) and to the Jewish people, perhaps most appropriately considered an "ethnicity"or "ethnic identity" (vs. the problematic and contentious term race). -- Hope that helps, Deborahjay 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deborahjay, from your statement: "...all streams of Judaism hold that the Messiah has not yet come, so Jesus Christ cannot be considered the Messiah. If the followers of Jesus believe him Divine, this is out of accord with Jewish belief."

what are the things that all streams of Judaism hold as proof that the Messiah has come when He comes, (i.e. what does Jesus Christ lack in regard to all streams of Judaism being able to consider Him the Messiah), and
do all streams of Judaism believe that the messiah will be Devine?

(Obviously I am not Jewish or I would already know this.) Adaptron 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Jewish messianism -- it gives a good overview. To answer your second question, no Jews believe the messiah will be "divine," as in a god, part of God or a literal "son of God." -- Mwalcoff 03:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading most of it I could not find where the Messiah is expected to be without sin although I did find where He is not expected to work miracles. Is the Messiah expected to be sinless and to remain sinless (I would think, yes.)? If the answer is yes then I think this is the basis (lack of sin) that Christan's use to declare Jesus was/is Divine. Can anyone clarify? Thanks. Adaptron 03:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See tzadik. Being free from sin would not make a Jew divine, but "only" a tzadik, or saintly person. It bears remembering that the concept of a god-like divine person is completely foreign to Judaism. Even if someone were to come along who would work all kinds of wonders, it would still be sacrilegious to consider that person to be divine. Now if that were to happen, and some Jews were to stray from their faith and begin worshiping that person along with God, it wouldn't make those people "antisemitic." A person is only antisemitic if he is against Jews. Following a different faith doesn't mean you're against Jews. -- Mwalcoff 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to dispute what you are saying but my understanding is that the Jews put Jesus to death because He claimed to be God rather than considering such a claim as simply the basis for a different faith while it was Jesus' condemnation of the Jews for killing God that made Him anti-Semitic. Adaptron 06:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't saying "the Jews put Jesus to death" a bit like saying "the Protestants put Thomas More to death"? If God condemns all Jews forever for the actions of certain individual Jews over 2,000 years ago, then could not Catholics similarly condemn all Protestants forever for the actions of a small number of them 500 years ago? If my understanding of Christian theology is correct, (a) Jesus hates sin but loves sinners and (b) his crucifixion was necessary for the salvation of mankind, hence the agent of that crucifixion is hardly to be condemned for it, rather they should be honoured. -- JackofOz 11:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True but ironically only for those Jews who acknowledged in word as well as in deed the validity of Jesus' claim to be Divine. Neither Thomas More or the Protestants claimed to be Divine so there is not tit for tat there. 71.100.12.42 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr... it woz the Romans wot done it, not the Jews. And his crime was political, not religious. Tellingly, the Romans placed a "King of the Jews" tag on the cross. --Dweller 14:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The universal problem of logic with which the Jews are faced is that when you acknowledge a claim as significant by acting on it then the logical value you attribute to the claim is revealed by the action you take in response to it. The Roman soldiers, for instance, by putting Jesus on the cross acknowledged their belief that Jesus' claim to be King of the Jews was valid. Otherwise they would have no justifiable reason to put Him to death. Claims are either valid or invalid. The irony and risk for the Jewish people is that by disregarding the question of the validity of Jesus’ claim to be Divine the Jewish people are either proclaiming their superiority to God or condemning a fellow human to death merely for expressing a different belief than their own. In either case this makes the claim of the Jewish people of being God’s chosen people not necessarily to be trusted. 71.100.12.42 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say calling anyone from the first century AD/CE "antisemitic" is an ananchronism. Most first-century Jews regarded Jesus as a blasphemer and his followers as heretics, no more and no less. Jesus's followers in turn blamed the Jewish leaders (basically the Sanhedrin) for allowing the Romans to execute him, but there's no reason to think they blamed the entire Jewish ethnicity (to which most of them belonged themselves) for it. 62.145.19.66 09:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some figures mentioned in the Contra Apionem might be considered Antisemitic (in fact the Greeks of Alexandria pretty much invented ideological Antisemitism), but Jesus was a Jew appealing to other Jews, so that it's hard to see how Jesus could be called Antisemitic... 11:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)

Some strands (notably the teachings of Lubavitch, through the Tania) that being devoid of sin makes one merely a "baynooni", literally an average person. Personally, I find that intensely depressing.

Going back to the original question, I don't believe any of the issues you raise are connected to "antisemitism". Don't forget, religious differences between groups of Jews (even fundamental ones) predate and postdate those that surround Jesus and his teachings. You might enjoy reading the parallel story of Shabbetai Zvi. --Dweller 14:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Do Jews today in general consider Jesus and His followers to be anti-Semitic and if so to what end?" - Antisemitism might mean racism or xenophobia against jews. Using that kind of definition, the answer to your question is an outright no. Rfwoolf (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what are the differences between a controversial group and a mainstream religion?

Question posted by 90.199.254.198 Bielle 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this question is answerable in its current form. Groups are not always united by ritual practice and belief, so not all groups are religious groups (most are not, I'd opine). Additionally, a group of religious practitioners is not the same as a religion, either -- religions are concepts, groups are made of people. As for the difference between whether a particular religious group is considered mainstream or controversial? I'd say "mainstream" would be a measure of cultural/community acceptance, which can be partially measured by number of followers and freedom to practice...but would also suggest that controversy can disrupt that acceptance if the group is marginalizable (small enough), even if it had been mainstream before a controversy. 71.123.80.6 03:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't mutually exclusive terms, really. The Catholic Church is a controversial group, but it is also the seat of a mainstream religion, Catholicism. --24.147.86.187 05:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact any religion is controversial, because by definition it makes unverifiable claims. In other words there is no difference--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by "controversial group" you mean "sect", you may be interested in reading Church-sect typology. 62.145.19.66 10:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

race in south africa

please I would like some information on historical origins of racial stereotypes in south africa in days of apartheid.Cetawayo 06:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this? If not then start there. Zain Ebrahim 10:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the origins of racial stereotypes in SA would lie well before Apartheid. Zain Ebrahim 10:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should ahve a look at the following for a more detailed understanding of a complex subject;

R. Elphick and H. Gilomee, The Shaping of South African Society 1652-1820 , Longman (Southern Africa, 1979)
R Elphick:Kraal and Castle,Khoikhoi and the Founding of White South Africa , Yale University Press (New Haven and London, 1977)
Shula Marks 'Khosian resistance to the Dutch in the 17th and 18th centuries' Journal of African History , XIII, 1 CUP (Cambridge, 1972)
M. Legassick 'The frontier tradition in South African historiography' in S.Marks and A. Atmore (eds), Economy and Society in Pre-Industrial South Africa , Longman (London, 1980)
R. Raven-Hart, Before van Riebeeck: Callers at the Cape from 1488 to 1652 , C. Striuk (Cape Town, 1967). Clio the Muse 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Afrikaans White English Cloloured Mixed race Black Native Cape malay Indian

this is how it was seperated. racist and sad as it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopal archbishops

Two questions:

Are there archbishops in the ECUSA?
In what book does the narrator (a Brit) describe meeting an American clergyman who "described himself, rather redundantly I thought, as an Episcopal bishop"?

62.145.19.66 09:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are not. The head of the Episcopal Church is a Presiding Bishop. FiggyBee 11:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Episcopal" derives from Greek episkopos, "bishop." That said, "Bishop in the Church characterized by, and named for, the superintendency of bishops" hardly seems redundant. "I am an Episcopal" does not mean the same as "I am an Episcopal bishop." But it's presumably meant humorously and plays on the unfamiliarity of the term "Episcopal" for "Anglican." Within the British branches of the same church, "episcopal" really does only mean "of or pertaining to a bishop" ("episcopal vestments," etc.), and "episcopal bishop" would be redundant. Wareh 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the question wasn't "Why is this redundant?", the question was, "What book does this line come from?" (And the Anglican church in Scotland also calls itself the Episcopal Church, so there too "Episcopal bishop" is not redundant.) —An gr 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I'm afraid this is only a guess, 62.145.19.66, but it sounds to me very much like something from The Towers of Trebizond (1956) by Rose Macaulay. If not, then Dorothy L. Sayers is another possibility. Xn4 20:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've never read The Towers of Trebizond, so it can't be that. Dorothy Sayers is quite possible, though. 62.145.19.66 06:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnatural Death by Dorothy Sayers was the first thing that came to my mind. At the very least, in it a West Indian clergyman is gently mocked because he refers to himself as Reverend So-and-so, instead of the Reverend So-and-so. Delmlsfan 01:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

items on person

In general, what items should a person have on his or her person? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.56 (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A strange question. Assuming no context, a person should have:

- some usable currency, in case of need - some form of identification (a legal requirement in some countries, good sense in others). - clothing, appropriate to the current climate.

Other things that might be useful: - basic first aid equipment - hygienic products (for example, tampons, condoms)

and so on. Steewi 10:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These days, a mobile phone is usual. I also don't go anywhere without my sunglasses and my hanky. FiggyBee 11:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pocket knife and a pen. --Milkbreath 11:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

String and a safety pin,,hotclaws 11:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The knife can get you arrested, especially if you try and carry it onto a plane. Exxolon 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing? C mon 12:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steewi mentioned that. Zain Ebrahim 12:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone has to mention it: a towel, and equally useful: a hat. Also, duct tape when camping or travelling or somesuch. I also usually carry some paper, writing utensils and a marker with me, which come in handy rather often. Random Nonsense 14:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, always have your towel handy. --S.dedalus 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do often carry a towel, I take a backpack with me most of the time with towel, heavy coat, a book and a some deoderant. Pockets contain keys, money, debit card, phone, chewing gum and cancer sticks. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you sass that hoopy Lanfear's Bane? There's a frood who really knows where his towel is. (some readers may not know the source of the towel recommendation). --LarryMac | Talk 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the source of the towel recommendation was Towelie's constant advice, "Don't forget to bring a towel!" —An gr 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One is not fully dressed without a loose joint and a can of Day-Glo spray paint. --Wetman 16:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally?

One forty-five calibre automatic
Two boxes of ammunition
Four days' concentrated emergency rations
One drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquillizer pills
One miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible
One hundred dollars in roubles
One hundred dollars in gold
Nine packs of chewing gum
One issue of prophylactics
Three lipsticks
Three pair of nylon stockings.

--Kurt Shaped Box 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dang Kurt, a guy could have quite a night on the town with all that ;) 161.222.160.8 01:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And she was only going shopping! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.87.85 (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T PANIC!! I wanted to say towel but was beat to the punch on that ;P. On or about my person it's: Glock 23 + 1 mag, Bianchi or Comp-Tac holster, Ken Onion Chive, Surefire E2E Executive, epipen, motorola i730 and LG enV, cuffs, badge, wallet and appropriate ID's/papers, spiffy little Cross gel pen from staples, Blue Ipod nano with skullcandy earbuds, zippo(don't smoke, but nice to be able to make fire on demand), Luminox, work set of keys with 4gb U3 flash drive, car and motorcycle sets depending on what I am taking. Always have a expandable baton in the door pocket, a spare glock 27 and several spare mags in the car, and my OQO mobile PC in the car, at work it's Sig 229r, 2 extra mags, silent key keeper, streamlight stinger, 2 cuff cases, flashlight and pr-24 rings, gloves, oc spray, radio, type IIIA vest, taser +1 extra cartridge, and an expandable winchester baton, plus some of the assorted stuff thats important up there, like the watch, wallet, epipen and such, I have a 40 inch waist so I manage to make it all fit. The most important thing to remember is to take what you need for the situation; going to a rough area of town, take a dummy wallet; out in the woods, take MRE's/other rations, magnesium fire starter, bigger knife; Dodgers game, take extra moola for those $8 beers(but leave the weapons at home ;P). Dureo 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised no-one has yet mentioned keys. If you don't have them on you when out, you won't be able to get back in your house. And I second the suggestion of a pen being essential. It's amazing how often people don't have a pen on them when they need one. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So true, I tried to find a link to that cross pen, it's amazingly easy to have all the time, only about 2 inches, but when you uncap it and put the cap on the rear of it it's a full size pen, nice fat jobber too, easy to write with. Dureo 15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDR and the Third Reich

Hans Moller, the director of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, has attempted to make direct comparisons between the former German Democratic Republic and the Third Reich. Is there a valid basis, beyond the obvious, for such a view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.14.88 (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should be explicit about what you consider "the obvious" before people start listing it. It also depends a lot on what comparisons Möller made. 62.145.19.66 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, as the phrase "a valid basis, beyond the obvious" is quite interesting. If an obvious valid basis exists, then what other basis is being searched for? If the existence of a valid basis is in doubt, then what's obvious? So yes, it's a very good idea to be explicit about the assumptions you've got regarding the question. — Lomn 14:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your meaning, 217.43, and will proceed to answer on the basis of my understanding. In essence Möller would seem to be presenting the same tired old argument, that which views Communism an Fascism as twins, emerging from a womb of dictatorship and totalitarianism Yes, there were similarities between the Third Reich and the German Democratic Republic inasmuch as they were both based on a rejection of the liberal tradition; both based on a single ideology and a monolithic ruling party; both on the same coercive forms of social control. But the differences were far greater than the similarities. National Socialism was regressive and backwards, defined as a repressive cult of power, and no more than a cult of power. The GDR, even at its most oppressive, drew its logic and inspiration from transcendent notions of human liberation, which made its internal contradictions all the greater. It was forced constantly to dissimulate, prevaricate and explain; to justify itself by forms of ideology in every sense alien to the National Socialism. The Nazi state, moreover, was based on an unstable combination of charisma and mass engagement. The GDR was based on boredom and bureaucratic torpor. One died of excess; the other died of senility. Clio the Muse 01:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Managerial Accounting

Í'm wondering if worker's wage and direct labor cost are same or different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunthea dd (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally they are different. Next to direct workers' wages, the category "direct labor cost" may include such things as payroll taxes, health insurance, profit sharing, contribution to retirement funds or saving plans, vacation money, bonuses, overtime pay. Depending on the purpose and the rules in force it may also include such things as representation allowances and sabbatical leaves or paid vocational training. --Lambiam 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Arnold's nationality

Would it be appropriate to call Benedict Arnold an American, since he was born in Connecticut, or would it be better to call him British, on account of his eventual political allegiance? Lantzy ^talk 15:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the context. When he was leading the rebels/patriots, he was an American military leader. Later, he was British. I think that in general "British" or "British North American" works. After all, at the time of his birth and for most of his time in Connecticut, Connecticut was a British colony. Marco polo 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think the War in Iraq would have ever happened if Gore was elected Pres in 2000?

Is there any pundit who has made the claim that the Iraq war would have been started if Gore had been named president in 2000?" 64.236.121.129 18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines above state:

Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox.

This is a question that demands an opinion and is likely to spark a debate. We can't know the answer for certain. Marco polo 16:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions aren't allowed here? That's interesting. Not asking for a debate or going on a diatribe, asking for opinions. 64.236.121.129 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you're not explicitly asking for a debate, you have asked a politically charged question that can't possibly have an objective answer. Such things are a bad idea on the reference desk (or on Wikipedia at large, for that matter). — Lomn 17:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that this question cannot be answered; there is no reference currently available which shows alternate histories with any proven accuracy. If such a reference becomes available, though, I would empty my savings account to buy a copy. Especially if it were prescient. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my opinion is that it couldn't have possibly occured if Gore was President. 64.236.121.129 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is nice and all, but Wikipedia is not a message board, it is not Facebook or MySpace, it is not a soapbox, and it is not a realm for political debate. See fact and opinion. This is a Reference Desk for asking factual questions. If you have a factual question, please feel free to ask. -- kainaw ™ 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, opinions are allowed! ^_^ My opinion is that the Iraq War wouldn't have happend if Gore became president, and I'm curious to know what others think. Thank you for pointing out the soapbox, and other rules. ^^ Btw, myspace and facebook are for meeting friends, not asking questions on politics. DUH!!! 64.236.121.129 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the reference desk is to get factual answers. You could have phrased the question as, "Is there any pundit who has made the claim that the Iraq war would have been started if Gore had been named president in 2000?" and not hit the issue (as an aside, as far as I'm aware, the answer is "no" although I imagine there is at least one warblogger who may have made the argument that under a President Gore we would be facing a mushroom cloud over New York because of inaction). For discussions on topics, probably the best place to go would be the appropriate group at http://groups.google.com/ There's also a newish social networking site whose name I forget (something about soda) which is geared around asking questions and getting people's responses.

That said, the reference desk doesn't always live up to its platonic ideal (certainly many regulars, myself included, have violated the guidelines visible at the top of this page), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least aspire to that. Donald Hosek 18:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I changed my question so it says exactly that. :) Thanks for the help Donald Duck! 64.236.121.129 18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem really has nothing to do with the distinction between facts and opinions (people ask speculative history questions all the time), but the fact that your question didn't bring much to the table and it seemed like an attempt to just get people arguing with each other made it look a little trollish. If you want my two cents, you'd get better results if you 1. deleted this question altogether, 2. created a new one that stated some factual reasons you hold the opinion you hold and asks for other things you should take into consideration when thinking about it. It's not a bad question, and it's not at all any more inappropriate for the reference desk than half of the questions we get on here. It is a controversial subject matter, though, so people are going to want you to look like you are actually seriously interested in the answer and not just trying to waste people's time. Back up your opinions with some factual reasons and people will attack them, praise them, elaborate on them, whatever. You have to give a little to get more, in this case. --24.147.86.187 23:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wana delete the question dude. :) 64.236.121.129 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything wrong with asking a question on the RD that does not have a definitive "correct" answer. The problem is if someone asks a question that is likely to spark a debate, as in, "Is X a good thing or a bad thing?" -- Mwalcoff 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many questions that don't have one single answer. But hypothetical questions are something else again. Asking "What was the single primary cause of World War II?" would doubtless elicit various responses and opinions, and facts can be provided to either support them or refute them. But asking "What would have happened if ...." gets us into the realm of pure speculation, and nobody will ever know. Such discussions may be interesting or even fascinating, but I wonder if this is the place for them. -- JackofOz 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mosley and the New Party

I'm carrying out some research on the early career of Sir Oswald Mosley, focusing, in particular, on his career in the Labour Party up to the formation of the New Party, using your articles as a starting point. I now need some of the gaps to be filled. What I need to know exactly is how the Mosley Memorandum was received in the parliamentary Labour Party and at the subesquent party conference? Why, moreover, did so few of his former supporters follow him into the New Party? Thanks for any help you can offer. Some references would also be useful. Joseph Mann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.249.97 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with its worth stressing that Oswald Mosley, always something of a political maverick, had no real roots in the British Labour movement; and in traditional Labour politics roots was everything. His obvious ambition, his personal vanity, and his tendency to strain at the constraints of party discipline, were also factors working against him. His intellectual brilliance and his personal charisma clearly impressed some, though in the end this was not enough.

The Mosley Memorandum itself was a bold scheme, with Keynesian overtones, for dealing with the problem of mass unemployment, but was in advance of orthodox thinking; in advance of what the senior figures in the government of Ramsay MacDonald were prepared to contemplate. When the cabinet failed to accept his arguments he resigned from ministerial office, comforting himself, one suspects, with the same false hopes of Lord Randolph Churchill-that his stature, the force of his argument would carry his parliamentary colleagues along the road of support. It did not. In forcing a vote critical of government policy on unemployment he lost by 29 to 210. His last hope was to persuade the annual Party conference, held at Llandudno in October 1930. Although the constituency parties voted heavily in his favour the executive had the support of the trade union block vote. He was now an isloated figure in the movement, a prophet without honour.

It might be said that from this point onwards Mosley was carried forward by a mixture of conceit and frustrated ambition. He was already noted in the Party for a belief that 'dictatorial methods' were needed to deal with the depth of the economic crisis, causing some to nickname him the 'English Hitler.' Mosley was hopeful that Aneurin Bevan, a prominent Labour left-winger, would join his proposed New Party, but he shied away, saying that it would 'end as a Fascist party.' Mosely's whole base of support soon evaporated. The New Party formed on a ripple, not a tide.

There are a great many sources that might be of use to you on this subject, 86.141, but to begin with I would recommend Black Shirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism by Stephen Dorril, as well as Rules of the Game and Beyond the Pale by Nicholas Mosley. Clio the Muse 01:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a correlation between Intelligence and how powerful a country is?

Like for example, if a country is filled with stupid people it would be weaker, and if a country was filled with mostly smart people, it would be stronger. Does this correlation exist? 64.236.121.129 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in such a case correlation and causation are certainly problematic. For example, a "strong" country might be defined by its infrastructure, educational system, public participation, etc., all of which have strong effects as to how intelligence is expressed and measured. A country without any security, with no compulsory education, without adequate public health services, etc., is going to have a large percentage of its people being kept in a state much "stupider" than they would be otherwise. A country whose citizens cannot get adequate nutrition, for example, cannot hope to compete in the realm of average intelligence when compared to a country which does.

If you are asking for some sort of simple rationalization for some nations being more powerful than others, it's a lot more complicated than intelligence or even education level of the populace. --24.147.86.187 18:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, there is no standard measure of intelligence or country strength. If you have a specific measure you would like to use, a correlation could be measured. For example, "Is there a correlation between the percentage of citizens with a college degree and the national GDP?" It is not a strong correlation. I believe India has the highest percentage of citizens with college degrees and they are listed as 12th in nominal GDP. -- kainaw ™ 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By my reckoning, about 3% of the Indian population has a degree, compared to a quarter of the US population. FiggyBee 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reasoning threatens to rear its ugly head. Could an increased GDP make it possible for more citizens to acquire college degrees (grants, rich parents, etc.) and wouldn't this mean that cause and effect are reversed? At the same time, one wonders whether degree density has much to do with collective intelligence (except that they make for curious terminology). Is there any correlation between intelligence and college degrees? Bessel Dekker 19:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the gunpowder age, why didn't they just go around the firing lines?

Example would be, if you saw a bunch of redcoats with single shot muskets line up, why would you charge them? Why not just go around and shoot them from the sides or the back? 64.236.121.129 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This did happen. For example, Francis Marion used this kind of surprise-attack, ambush tactic during the American Revolutionary War. When this happened, it was an example of asymmetric warfare, analogous to the scattered insurgent resistance to the organized American occupying forces in Iraq today. This kind of tactic was not often used in wars involving European armies during this period, because it would have been impossible to maintain discipline and control over forces broken apart to attack in scattered groups. (Rates of desertion were fairly high during this period, and allowing soldiers to act under cover independently or out of the control of professional officers would have been an invitation to desert.) The main reason for the use of formations such as lines and columns was that these formations were easy to command and control. Also, in the open fields upon which most European battles took place, there would not have been much advantage to "going around" a line of infantry, as the line could easily turn and charge you. Ultimately, the combattants had to face each other and fire. In this context, formations such as lines gave commanders greater control. Marco polo 18:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on the precise level of technology involved. As noted in our musket article, accuracy during the period when massed formations were effective was terrible. The massed formation, then, was the solution -- fire en masse made the musket more effective. Running around singly in, say, 1700 would allow for defeat in detail -- your force cannot effectively engage the enemy, who can alternately pummel you with mass fire or run you down with cavalry. Similarly, your force is too small to effect a change in battlefield possession. It's not until the 19th century and the advent of rifling that individual marksmanship emerges as a battlefield commodity, and that's when you see open massed formations fall out of use. — Lomn 18:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They still had firing lines with rifled muskets dude. 64.236.121.129 19:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They did, and it very quickly became apparent that they were far less effective. Military strategy does not shift overnight, and generals are reluctant to abandon "proven" outdated strategies in lieu of similarly-proven new ones. However, I think the point stands that for the bulk of the musket age, armies used mass formations because they were effective, and avoided small dispersed units because they were ineffective. — Lomn 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry. A large-group formation is able to hold off a cavalry charge, but is not maneuverable enough to go around another large-group formation. A small-group formation will get overrun and destroyed by a cavalry charge. --Carnildo 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The line facing you is not the whole enemy force. If you try to go around, several bad things can happen, and the same sorts of bad things can happen even nowadays. Their cavalry can chop you to bits while you're on the move and vulnerable. The guys you are trying to go around will capture your artillery and/or supply train and then cut you off from retreat. There is a maxim that if you're in the enemy's rear, he's in yours. They are in a line in the open probably because their flanks are on difficult terrain where you'll get disorganized and can be trapped. The route behind where you were is now open and whatever you were protecting from the enemy, like a town or crossroads or bridge, is now unprotected. They can blast you to Hell with their artillery because you're not near their guys anymore, and you can't use yours because you're moving. Yes, it seems absolutely nuts to just stand there and duke it out, but the alternatives are worse. You can harrass an army with woodsman's tactics, but you can't stop one that way. --Milkbreath 00:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Flanking maneuver. Pfly 04:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, armies would not fight a general action unless either both thought they would win, or one side had no choice. One side would usually adopt a defensive posture, on ground where they thought they had the tactical advantage. The "going round" each other would usually occur in the lead up to the battle - Napoleon's manoeuvre sur les derrières - to put one side at a strategic disadvantage, and, in extreme cases, like the Ulm Campaign, force the enemy to surrender without a fight. Once you are on the battlefield - either picked by you and accepted by your enemy, or picked by your enemy and accepted by you - it is generally not very easy to "go around" your enemy, because the terrain will be too difficult (forest, marsh, river) and also because the enemy will try to stop you!
Muskets are (usually) not single-shot weapons: well-trained infantrymen could fire 3 or more shots per minute.
In the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars, the French often did, for a variety of reasons, form their infantry in more manoeuvrable (and controlable) blocks (columns) rather than deploying into lines. -- !! ?? 12:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, muskets are single-shot weapons. Yes, a well trained infantrymen can fire a couple rounds a minute, but that doesn't change the fact that muskets are single shot. The phrase "single shot" means the weapon can only fire one shot before it needs to be reloaded again. It has nothing to do with how fast the musketeer is at reloading and shooting. 64.236.121.129 15:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These ideas apply equally to other pre-gunpowder military technologies. Outflanking the enemy has always been desirable, but difficult to achieve while maintaining control. The Romans in their heyday were excellent at it. However, well-drilled and well-led ranks of phalanx, riflemen, pikemen, or whatever, could adapt to being outflanked, or even an attack from behind. Caesar's scarcely-believable victory at Alesia is a prime example that comes to mind. He found himself squeezed between two armies, each of which was larger than his own (one massively larger), yet defeated both. Note that on bad ground, there was a distinct advantage to the wily attacker prepared to let his troops fight without centralised control - see what the Scottish "schiltrons" did at the marshy Battle of Bannockburn. --Dweller 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick and America

What was Frederick the Great's attitude towards the rebellion of the American colonies against the British? Qurious Cat 19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of sympathy, I suppose, born out of frustration, because he still felt aggrieved with the British government over the way in which he had been let down at the conclusion of the Seven Years War. He certainly did not countenance a breach with a formally friendly power over the matter of rebellion; but Frederick being Frederick, took the pragmatic view of an old soldier. He was sure that the Colonies would win their independence and keep it; that British policy in fighting a war with no allies, and without whole-hearted support from the public, was self-defeating. He followed the military operations with great interest, and was singularly unimpressed with the conduct of Lord Howe, Lord Cornwallis and John Burgoyne. George III, he wrote, had got what he deserved. Clio the Muse 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hipaa privacy rules

how willemployees in the medical office have to be trained regarding privacy ? what is required if an employee doesn't follow the privacy policy? when must employees be trained? In what manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosebud0t (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very much like something requiring a professional legal opinion, which we cannot provide. That said, our article on HIPAA may provide a useful starting point for understanding its implications. — Lomn 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NIH published this article to help answer basic questions about understanding HIPAA privacy. -- kainaw ™ 16:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why july

why did the july monarchy fal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.218.241 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our articles July Monarchy and Revolutions of 1848 in France? Algebraist 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion comparison

What is the comparison of religious teaching of Hinuism, Buddhism, and Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.115.99.153 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of what,exactly? "Religious teaching" is a very broad area. The best place to start would be the three articles about each of these religions, and then if you have specific questions about them you'll certainly get some more meaningful responses. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a comparison of Hinduism and Buddhism, see our article Buddhism and Hinduism. Islam is so different that it cannot really be meaningfully compared to these two; it is an Abrahamic religion, and we have articles on Christianity and Islam and Islam and Judaism. --Lambiam 22:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any study of the religious history of India will include a comparison between Islam, Hinudism, and Buddhism. And to answer the original question, you're going to need to constrain yourself to a certain time period. Hinduism and Buddhism today aren't seen as religions that emphasize conversion, but large-scale conversions have happened in the past (Buddhism particularly is spread all around South/Southeast Asia but yet originated in a particular part of India, so people had to convert in the past for the religion to have adherents across the region. The same goes for Hinduism, particularly in the very distant past, when it was first formulated. Many non-Aryan peoples converted to the religion. Additionally, you are going to really need to have a more precise meaning of each of the religions. Like with Christianity, conversion isn't something you can easily define given the variety of sects and movements (think Catholic conversion vs. Fundamentalist Christian conversion) since each emphasizes different things.--152.2.62.27 12:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism converts?

I am intrigued by the fact that, of the 3 major Abrahamic religions, Judaism alone is non-missionary: it doesn't seek out, or indeed encourage, converts (although conversion to Judaism is possible, of course.)

Why is this? My understanding (as a non-Jew):

1. God makes no distinction between the Righteous Gentile (non-Jew) and the pious Jew.

A spectacular example of the Righteous in the Hebrew Bible is King Cyrus of Persia, the Deliverer, who ended the Babylonian captivity:

"Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; . . . to open before him the two-leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel." Isaiah 45:1-3.

"Cyrus, he is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."

"I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build My city, and he shall let go My captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts." Isaiah 44:28; 45:13.

2) Israel is to be 'a light unto the Nations'; it has a unique Covenant with the LORD; this Covenant needn't apply to the Gentiles. (If you aren't Jewish, go ahead and eat all the owls you want.)

3) Judaism is a family-centred religion. It has no need of outsider converts.

4) It is a religion that prises, indeed demands, the rigour of study, with no easy answers available; it is skeptical of wild Enthusiasm or of instant conversions; a Gentile who wishes to become a Jew must effect the equivalent of a college course, complete with "exams".

How far off-base am I?

Rhinoracer 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of these matters, and have not read the relevant article, but conversion to Judaism and its references may contain useful information. Algebraist 22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The explanations you suggest are reasonable ones, certainly the factors you list are true, although how much it's contributed to the historical non-evangelism of the system as a whole is tricky to assess. From a doctrinal standpoint, Christianity and Islam are both explicitly commanded to go out and spread the religion, whereas Judaism has, from the earliest recorded history, been seen as trying to establish rather than expand the borders of their theological society. Thus, we find a focus on the region (e.g., Jerusalem) and the stability of the homeland, rather than a more global view that is somewhat tied in to the escatology of the two younger disciplines. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhinoracer -- I think you're correct, more or less. You have to remember that when Judaism arose, it was merely the formalization of the history and customs of the Israelite people. The difference between nationality and culture on the one hand and religion on the other has not always existed. To this day, the religious practices of many "tribes" (as in parts of Africa or Oceania) cannot be distinguished from the culture of the tribe itself. Judaism did not begin as a "let's convert the world" movement. It was a "this is what we as Israelites do" thing. That's why the Hebrew Bible is so Israel-centric. Christianity and Islam, of course, are very different in that regard. -- Mwalcoff 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Judaism is even stronger than not encouraging conversion. It actively discourages it. A lot of reasons for this have been touched on above, but the strongest falls somewhere between potential answers 1 and 2 in the question. From a traditional Jewish perspective, a non-Jew has an easy ride to get into Heaven - all s/he needs do is keep the 7 Noachide laws. If you take a non-Jew and make them Jewish, that 7 instantly becomes 613 - and the myriads of derivative laws that come from those 613. The 7 laws pretty much are the kind of things most decent human beings would want to do anyway. The 613 (even allowing for those in abeyance because there's no Temple today) include some pretty weird things that seem to have little relevance or, worse, are seemingly exceedingly illogical/annoying/difficult, "interfering" in just about every sphere of life from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to sleep, from cradle to grave. So, converting people is logically something that makes no sense... it's a bad gamble for the converting Bet Din. So, they'll look for absolutely compelling evidence that the prospective convert has pure motives and is determined to study and then keep all of the laws to the very best of human ability. If they can't find such evidence, they'll turn the person down because spiritually, converting is a very bad deal for that person's soul. Hope that helps. --Dweller 15:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, although the concept of "getting into Heaven" as Christians may think of it is not really something that's part of Judaism. -- Mwalcoff 00:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the practical detail that through much of the last couple of thousand years, trying to convert someone to Judaism likely as not gets you killed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey doll

I was just visiting Google Patents today and one of the random patents they had on the front page was for a Monkey Doll. What struck me as odd is that this patent is purely aesthetic—it is specifically trying to patent the appearance of a doll (in this case, a monkey in a space suit, which is not even an entirely novel idea)), and that's it. Isn't this highly in opposition to the general philosophy of granting patents? I mean, how is "an ornamental design for a monkey doll" an invention in the classical sense? Wouldn't this be the sort of thing more usually handled by copyright law? I know that the US patent system is fubar, but for some reason this struck me as even more absurd than software patents or the sealed crustless sandwich, because at least those at least purport to at least be inventions of things and not just ornamental designs). --24.147.86.187 23:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, all you need for a patent is a design that can be shown as originally yours in some measurable aspect. This aspect may simply be the realistic shape of the monkey, which assumes that no one has previously been making dolls in this particular shape. You have to show how your monkey shape is different from others (by proportion, measurements, manufacturing technique or something else). Appearance is not the only thing that can be patented - there are trademarks (a very similar concept) on the particular colour of purple used by Cadbury chocolate wrappers, the sound of a Harley Davidson engine and the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle. Many perfumes patent a particular smell, based on the chemical composition of the odours in the perfume. Steewi 00:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patenting a smell sounds find to me—you're patenting a chemical composition. Trademarks are entirely different than patents and I have no beef with them being used for colors, logos, bottles, etc. Trademarks are a totally unrelated issue to patents as far as I am concerned. --24.147.86.187 00:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Design patents are a long-time aspect of patent law. If it makes you feel better, the term of protection is shorter for a design patent than a utility patent. Donald Hosek 01:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's just the sort of thing I was interested in. I knew these things must have had a history but I didn't know about design patents. They seem totally unnecessary and counter-productive to me—surely copyright and trademark law would be enough—but alas, such is the legacy of our system. --24.147.86.187 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you agree with the viewpoint that designs should be protectable, but if you do, then copyright and trademark law is not enough; see Design patent#Comparison to copyrights and Design patent#Comparison to trademark and trade dress. --Lambiam 09:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington

I heard that thanksgiving began when George Washington (I think) stated that he wanted a national day of thanks in one of his speeches, do you know which? Or have any info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.254.230 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Thanksgiving answers your questions, I believe. Bessel Dekker 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]