Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 30

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.

December 30

Statute of limitations and extradition

When Spain requested the extradition of Josias Kumpf from Austria for Nazi war crimes in September 2009, Austria stated that there was no legal basis to extradite him because Austria has a statute of limitations for Kumpf's alleged crimes [1] [2]. Based on this, is it generally the case that one cannot be extradited from country A to country B to stand trial for alleged crimes which fall under statutes of limitations in country A? TML (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on the terms of the extradition treaty between the two nations. The extradition article discusses the general topic at some length, but unfortunately it does not appear to specifically discuss the statute-of-limitations scenario. It does, however, suggest that international tensions can arise if the parties to a treaty disagree about the terms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Kumpf: generally, war crimes and crimes against humanity may be prosecuted forever; that is, there exists no statute of limitations (see 1968 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity). This is decided on a state-by-state basis. Thus, it's likely that Austria has simply not acceded to the above convention. Regarding extradition: it is a much more complicated subject that you suggest. I advise reading some introductory international law sources. (Though I'll note that yes, states sometimes have extradition treaties with one another, and states are sometimes bound by international law to extradite or prosecute certain crimes--e.g., genocide and torture.) Yukongiraffe (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

World citizenship

I've just read much of the Statelessness article and was wondering... I've heard of dual citizenship but have not found a limit to the number of States in which one might claim citizenship or if is possible in fact yet to become a World Citizen by taking up residence in every country in the world within one's lifetime? 71.100.6.153 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nearly all states place certain restrictions on obtaining citizenship. If you are not a natural born citizen of the U.S., for example, the process of becoming a citizen (called Naturalization, see also United_States_nationality_law#Naturalization) requires being a continuous permanent resident of the U.S. for at least 5 years (3 years in some cases). Many other states have similar requirements. The Naturalization notes similar requirements for other countries, such as 3 years in Canada and 5 years in the Netherlands). Likewise, many countries disallow "dual citizenship" entirely, and others only grant it in limited circumstances. So it would be impossible on several counts. First, you could not possibly live in all 193-ish sovereign states long enough to establish the residency requirements for citizenship in each of them. Secondly, many of these states do not allow multiple citizenships; you must renounce other citizenships before become a citizen of your new country. Third, some of these countries do not allow naturalization at all, or only in very limited circumstances.

Even living in every country of the world would be difficult. Lets just say you wanted to do so; you couldn't spend longer than 6 months or so in each country, and even in that case, consider that doing so would take about 95 years of your life. 95 years ago, something like half of the current list of sovereign states didn't exist, so 95 years from now I wouldn't even begin to guess what countries will or will not exist, further complicating your plan. --Jayron32 06:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well you don't become a citizen just for being a resident in every country, so even if you could become a resident in every nation state (which would be difficult in some, such as North Korea, and ill-advised in others, such as Somalia) you wouldn't really be a citizen of everywhere. There are ethnic Koreans in Japan, for instance, that do not have Japanese citizenship despite having lived there for generations. There are also countries that require you to give up citizenship if you become a citizen of another nation (multiple citizenship gives China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and India as examples of these). So in short, there is no limit in some countries, but it would depend which countries you have in mind, and becoming a citizen of every country in the world does not seem possible. TastyCakes (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if residency requirements were achievable, many countries require you to renounce citizenships of other countries (or at least of some other countries) before you become a citizen of them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I more or less expected as much but what about becoming a "citizen" of a world body like the UN under the same concept as one is a citizen of the US, they may only reside within the State of New York. 71.100.6.153 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations doesn't give citizenship -- it issues diplomatic passports which confer limited diplomatic immunity (United Nations Laissez-Passer), it also assists refugees, and that's about it. However you could look at Nansen passport and Travel document, World Passport, World citizen, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Person with most citizenships

Who is the person with the most citizenships? --84.62.197.235 (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(Title changed - there is no point in having a title that is not specific to the question). I doubt whether there is anywhere that holds this information. --ColinFine (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir Sean Connery was born Scottish, but has since been Irish American, Spanish, English, Russian, Greek, Saudi, Berber and a whole load of other nationalities - even "Brutal". Surely that takes the biscuit. --Dweller (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to start an argument here, but is Scottish a type of citizenship? Irish-American? Berber? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he was born Scottish, his passport will have said "British". In any case, Dweller was making a joke, rather than attempting to help the person asking the question. Dweller is listing characteristics of characters Sean Connery has played, rather than any citizenships he may have held. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Well, I'll lock me in the cupboard and kick myself stupid! There's me thinking it was a real answer! Gosh! :) --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, Russian is wrong. The character was from the Lithuanian SSR. --Anonymous, 20:29 UTC, December 30, 2009.

Gnash! My mistake. I had a feeling he wasn't Russian, but couldn't pin it down. Thanks for the correction. My gag wouldn't have worked so well if I'd used British, as it would have covered two of the nationalities I used. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you are quite right, because while not mentioned in the film, he had a Russian passport in the book because of his father. Googlemeister (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but in the book he was not played by Sean Connery! --Anon, 20:16 UTC, January 1, 2010.

I think there are two different ways to interpret the question; 1) highest number of different citizenship held during a lifetime and 2) highest number of different citizenships held simultaneously. In any case, I think it would be impossible to judge. In the case of 1), perhaps finding a person that lived through tumulteous years of wars in Central/Eastern Europe of WWI and WWII, later obtaining a Western European citizenship, later US and/or Canadian, then Israeli. In the case of 2), such people generally hold low profile regarding 'reserve citizenships'. --Soman (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible for a person born in Lvov in the early 20th century, before 1918, to have been born an Austro-Hungarian citizen and then become successively Polish, Soviet, German, Soviet again, and finally Ukrainian - all without ever leaving their home town. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth the Second. 122.107.207.98 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's about as wrong as you can get. The monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis is not a citizen of any of those places -- the monarch is above such things as "citizenship". --Carnildo (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

French Guiana and the freedom of panorama

Has French Guiana the freedom of panorama? --84.62.197.235 (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that the laws in French Guyana are more or less the same as in France, and apparently France doesn't have freedom of panorama, so my guess would be no. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

French Guiana is an intergral part of France, analogous to the relationship between Hawaii and the rest of the U.S. It is fully part of France, and subject to the same laws and regulations as Paris or Lyon would be. See Overseas department for more info. --Jayron32 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Inverted price elasticity of demand

Can anyone supply some actual examples of this and indicate where I can read more about it? Minor point - could such a product have different price elasticities at different price ranges? Thanks 78.149.161.55 (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that both Veblen goods and Giffen goods exhibit this property; those articles can get you started. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes,assuming you want +ve PEDs, Veblen and Giffen. I would be very surprised if these goods didn't exhibit varying PEDs, since virtually all goods in the world do. Anything with a normal demand curve in fact. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact by definition Price elasticity is different at EVERY price. Consider A straight line demand curve (like this one) [[3]] At the points in the top left elasticity is high and at points in the borrom right elasticity is low. This is because elasticity is a ratio of percentage changes not absolute changes. Before you delve into the confusing (and probably non-existant) Giffen Good, try and understand what elasticity is actually measuring. normal good and inferior good are also good reads. Jabberwalkee (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

EUROPEAN HISTORY: THE IMPELLER

There was an ancient European Monarch who was said to have executed a lot of people by impelling them. Please could you help me with the name, country and period of his reign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.222.209.90 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler?--Jac16888^Talk 16:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think you're looking for an impaler, not an impeller. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Death by impeller would also be painful, but at least swifter. Edison (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ivan the Terrible had something of a reputation for it, as well, and he was a monarch rather than a mere archduke (or whatever Vlad's aristocratic rank was). Tevildo (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vlad's article gives his title as Prince--Jac16888^Talk 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regnant princes (and dukes) are monarchs too. Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HISTORY

There is said to be an ancient Egyptian monarch who abandoned polytheism in favour of monotheism. He is said have established or move the capital city of Egypt to a new location. Please help me with the name of the monarch, the period of his reign and possibly his activities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.222.209.90 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Akhenaten, aka Amenhotep IV. Marnanel (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wire and the Life and Death of the American Stevedore...

I'm currently rewatching The Wire from start to finish (I had 60 or so hours to kill, and thought, hey, why not?) and I have a question about season two. One of the major themes of this season is the decline of the blue collar American working man, exemplified here by the stevedores of the port of Baltimore. All throughout the season, the leader of the local stevedore union is working like hell to keep his guys employed, but each year fewer and fewer of them can get enough "days" to get by.

Here's the thing: I don't buy it. I mean, certainly the American blue collar worker is having a very tough time, it can't be very fun to be a steel-mill or auto worker today. But those guys are involved in manufacturing, a sector which is rapidly moving overseas. The longshoremen that The Wire portrays are not in manufacturing, they make their money from ships coming in and delivering crap to Americans. And it seems to me like that sector is doing just fine (not counting the annoying economy we have right now, as the season is set in 2003). I mean, the more manufacturing moves overseas, the more stuff has to be shipped to the US, right? I suppose that you could argue that more automated ports is losing jobs for the stevedores, but the specific reason that the shows give is that fewer and fewer ships come in each year.

Is this just a convenient fiction on the part of the writers of The Wire? It seems out of character for the show that's this realistic to portray a societal shift that isn't really happening, at least not in the way they portray it. Or is it just that the port of Baltimore, specifically, is hurting? Belisarius (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a significant lockout of longshoremen on the West Coast in 2002. My understanding was that, in labor's view, automation was a threat to their jobs despite the amount of cargo coming in. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed that you sort of addressed the automation issue in your question... but this page suggests that imports are declining in Baltimore. This may reflect a shift in the origin of goods, from Europe to Asia (which you would expect to make land on the west coast). Compare Long Beach. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the message is at all that stevedores per se were declining, but that the port of Baltimore was. I seem to recall they talk at a number of points about the fact that the boat traffic is being siphoned off to cheaper ports. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly true that, if the trade volume at a given port is constant over time, increasing automation will mean fewer jobs for stevedores. So, automation is one dimension of the decline in blue-collar jobs in America (but also elsewhere). However, the trade volume in Baltimore has been declining, as Coneslayer has shown. This partly due to the shift in trade to the West Coast. However, this itself is a symptom of the deindustrialization of the United States. Trade has shifted to the West Coast because more and more of the goods that are consumed in the United States are produced in Asia rather than the United States. At one time, the port of Baltimore was busy exporting steel and manufactured goods from Pittsburgh and Ohio. Those goods are no longer made in Pittsburgh and Ohio. Instead, they are made in Asia and shipped to the United States via the West Coast. So, I would argue, the plight of Baltimore stevedores is emblematic of the decline of blue-collar labor in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Automation does not affect all ports equally: it requires considerable investment to set up, and large volumes to pay off. Thus the busiest ports are also the ones that use the most efficient automation. Along with containerization and the use of larger container ships, this effect has contributed to the centralization of traffic to fewer, larger ports. Of course it isn't wrong per se to say that the reason there is less work at Baltimore is that there are fewer visiting ships. 85.156.190.227 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember one subplot being that the port is not deep enough for certain ships and there were some machinations to get the city to pay for dredging it deeper. --Sean 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus translation

1. I understand Jerome's De Viris Illustribus was written around 393 AD. It was translated in 1893 to English. Obviously the translator did not have the original, so about how many copies down would the ultimate copy translated have been?
2. The original was written in ancient Latin. Of the copy translated, would it have been all that much different a kind of Latin than the original Latin (i.e. "ancient" Latin vs "modern" Latin)?
3. How much would you imagine would have been "lost" in this 1500 years of copying by the monks and "lost in translation" into English from what Jerome originally intended.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost no works from ancient times are attested in original autograph form (with some very limited exceptions such as graffiti, etc.). How much a particular work would have suffered in the copying process depends very much on the specific circumstances of transmission and preservation connected with that work. However, there was generally no attempt made to intentionally "update" classical Latin to medieval Latin (with the exception of a few spelling conventions, such as "e" for "ae", etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If I am following you correctly there probably would be degradation, however it would be indeterminable because each monk would have their own style of writing. Would you guess that perhaps it got recopied somewhere between 15 and 150 times downline in the 1500 years. Then you are saying the English translation came probably from a medieval Latin copy, but that copy was of the classical Latin?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The copy would have been in what the copyist(s) thought was classical Latin, i.e. they would not intentionally have altered it. But it's entirely possible that some of the errors introduced by copyists might have cause it to drift towards mediaeval Latin. --ColinFine (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I have no knowledge of this particular work, as a general rule modern (i.e. post-mediaeval) translators try to compare as many different copies of such a work as are available, as part of the process of Textual criticism, in order to detect any inadvertant differences that have crept into different 'lineages' of manuscript copies, and deduce the most likely correct original version. Some such differences are doubtless due to the evolution of Latin, but more problematic are are mistakes such as misread and/or incorrectly copied characters, omissions due to skipping a number of words (which were if detected at the time sometimes added back in the margin or between the lines), and inadvertant inclusions of marginal/interlinear notes (themselves sometimes factually incorrect) mistaken for such corrections; deliberate insertions of spurious material (for religious motives, for example) may also sometimes have occurred. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a scholarly translation, it should give details about the Latin edition from which it is translated; even better, the Latin edition will almost certainly have detailed information about the textual transmission (of course, if it's from the 19th century, the intro might be in Latin too...). I can't seem to find it after a quick Google search, but there are some references to this being a particularly troublesome text. The more popular the text, the more it is copied in the Middle Ages, and the more chance that there are major errors and differences. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

From De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) at the bottom is the Wikisource translation. Wikisource says it is From the Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers series, published 1893. It was translated by one Ernest Cushing Richardson. Apparently he had a Phd in library science from Princeton UYniversity. So what you are saying is that he translated it from Classical Latin that probably had some medieval Latin "overtones" accidently or intentially entered in.
Taking a wild guess would you say it got recopied somewhere between 15 and 150 times downline in the 1500 years. If it was copied every 100 years, then it only got recopied by different individual copyist(s) some 15 times. If it got recopied somewhere around 150 times (every 10 years) downline by different individual copyist(s), then it is a copy of a copy to the 150th recopy. Maybe it got copied every 5 years to make sure this important document got to posterity centuries into the future. That would make it the 300th recopy downline. I would think that would enter in a lot degradation from what Jerome originally intended in 393 AD. Take a wild guess as to how many recopies there might have been going through these 1500 years. Not holding you to anything. Certainly it has got to be over 15.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how many copies were made, it's really impossible to guess. You'll have to check the introduction to the book, if you can find it (it's apparently not online in any useful way). It wouldn't have been recopied for 1500 years though, at least not by hand. Google says Günther Zainer printed it in 1470, which is very early, and makes sense for such a popular work. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Will agree with you that it was not written by hand for 1500 years - my mistake on that! Using Jerome's date of writing of 393 AD to Günther Zainer printing it in 1470 would make it a little over 1000 years. Guessing it was recopied every 10 years then from the beginning, then that would produce some 100 or so downline handwritten recopies before it was printed. Could you agree with me on that? There would be no record how many times it was copied and recopied. It looks like in 1893 it was then translated into English. So far, so good?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you agree with me that from the time Jerome wrote it in 393 AD that it must have been recopied by copyist(s) at least a few times by hand by various different people (none knowing the other) in a type of classical Latin with medieval Latin "overtones" accidently or intentially entered in; until it finally got printed and from there printed copies were make?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Or would you say Ernest Cushing Richardson "translated" it from Jerome's original? From what language?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there would be no record, but we could tell from the number of surviving copies, as well as the textual variants which may point to a number of lost versions; a good textual critic could tell roughly how many different manuscript traditions there are, and perhaps even a rough number of actual copies, surviving or lost. All this should be in the introduction to a standard Latin edition, if there is one. As for classical Latin, Jerome didn't really write classical Latin himself, since the 4th century is not exactly "classical" anymore, but it was at least still a natural spoken language at that point. Medieval copyists could have introduced medievalisms, but aside from spellings and abbreviations I don't think that would be a major issue. We'd have to find more info about a) what Zainer printed (a particular manuscript, most likely), b) if anyone else printed it, c) if there is a Latin critical edition, d) what Richardson translated, whether a particular manuscript or a (or the) Latin critical edition. Tracking down Richardson's translation in book form would be the most helpful step (since Wikisource doesn't include any of the introduction). From more brief Googling it seems that there were continuators of Jerome, and it is possible that in the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, someone had already compiled a rudimentary critical edition, which may then have a manuscript tradition of its own. It can get very complicated! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see it could get very complicated! Thanks for all the detailed response above. Let me work on all that for awhile and if I need more I'll put up another question later or contact you at your Talk. Thanks again.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want someone to take a "wild guess", I would assume that the chains of transmission which led from Jerome himself to the attested manuscripts which have survived into modern times are much more likely to involve 5 to 10 sequential recopyings rather than 15 to 150 recopyings... AnonMoos (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the "wild guess". Now I have a better idea. That would mean about one recopy from a different person sequentially downline from various copyist(s) every 100 to 200 years, assuming it began from the 5th century to when it probably was started in printing in the 15th century.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it means that those are the ones that survive. The number of manuscripts of this text that ever existed is much different than the number of ones we know about, and this is true for probably every ancient and medieval work. There could have been 150 recopyings, but some of them could be lost or were destroyed somehow, through fire, bugs, rot, someone else scratched the text off and reused the parchment, etc. A poor copy is less likely to survive than a luxury copy. But as AnonMoos says, the chain of tranmission of the surviving ones should be relatively small and relatively simple. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks again for the detailed explanation. The copy that Ernest Cushing Richardson translated into English in 1893 from in all likelihood was probably Latin, wouldn't you guess? Verses say German, French, or Italian.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, any translation into a modern language will be made from the original. And we're in luck! Saint Wiki (an actual Wiki as opposed to the patron saint of wikis) has a full edition of Richardson, which is actually Jerome plus Gennadius of Marseilles' later continuation. Here is Richardson's introduction, which, just as I had hoped, answers all these questions, and is not too lengthy. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha, Richardson says he was using the edition of Wilhelm Herding, which is on Google Books, here. Of course, as I suspected earlier, the introduction itself is also in Latin. Curse those 19th century Germans! Adam Bishop (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You are definitely the first man and an authority on matters like this.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well here are the basics of what Herding and Richardson said: According to Herding, the three oldest manuscripts are from the Vatican (7th century), Verona (8th century), and Vercelli (7th-8th century), but Herding only had access to the Vatican one (transcribed for him by the Bishop of Bamberg). He also used a manuscript from Bamberg (11th century), Bern (11th century), and Nuremberg (14th century, and damaged). He used the Vatican one as his base, since it was the best and oldest.

Richardson said he saw 84 manuscripts of Jerome, 57 of Gennadius, and knew of at least 25 and possibly 45 more. "It is certainly within bounds to say that there are more than 150 mss. of Jerome extant and not less than 100 of Gennadius." The earliest printing that he knew of was actually 1468. Erasmus printed a popular edition, but Vallarsi in 1734-42 was a better critical text, based on a manuscript from Corbie, which Migne also used for the Patrologia Latina.

Richardson did not translate Herding directly, since he didn't think Herding made the best critical text. He compiled a new edition, but it was unpublished at the time of the publication of the English translation, and I don't know if it was ever published. In addition to the manuscripts used by Herding, Richardson also used ones found in Paris (7th century, the "Corbie" one mentioned above), Montpellier (8th-9th century), Monaco (8th century), Vienna (8th-9th century), another one in Paris (9th or 10th century), Cassino (9th century), Florence (11th century), Toledo (13th century), and "Guelferbyrtinus", wherever that is (10th century).

He didn't make a "family tree" of the manuscripts, since that would have been too complicated, and apparently outside the scope of this kind of translation (honestly, I've seen discussions of manuscript transmission that take up many more pages than Richardson's entire introduction...)

I hope that is more helpful. Basically, the point is the oldest manuscripts are still from 400-500 years after Jerome, and while there may be 150 of them in total, only a dozen or so of the earliest ones are actually helpful to find Jerome's original text (all others being obvious copies of another manuscript). A Latin edition would try to recreate what Jerome actually wrote, by comparing the manuscripts and trying to find everything in common (which would, we assume, mean that is what Jerome actually wrote), and trying to reconcile the differences (to find what, we assume, Jerome probably wrote). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-empiricism in medieval thought?

I have the idea that philosophers were generally against the scientific method and the power of observation in medieval Europe. Am I right in thinking that position is called 'scholasticism'? - the scholasticism article doesn't quite say so explicitly. In any case, I'm hoping for some direct quotes from the time that put forward the anti-empirical position. I'm especially hoping for some quotes from St. Augustine.

Thanks in advance Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Scholasticism does not mean what you think it means. What you're describing is what Richard E. Rubenstein has called the "origin myth of modern science" and the "fable of medieval ignorance" (Aristotle's Children, 272). —Kevin Myers 22:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

See particularly Roger Bacon, Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme for counter-examples. Tevildo (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Augustine lived in the fifth century, a very long time before the mediaeval period. True, his writings were influential, but so were those of Aristotle. Tevildo (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The senses were generally held to be limited by most philosophers of the time. Here's a quote about Augustine from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[4] that might shed some light on the matter:

"Augustine, especially in his earlier works, focuses upon the contrast between the intelligible and the sensible, enjoining his reader to realize that the former alone holds out what we seek in the latter: the world of the senses is intractably private and isolated, whereas the intelligible realm is truly public and simultaneously open to all [De Libero Arbitrio II.7] ; the sensible world is one of transitory objects, whereas the intelligible realm contains abiding realities [De Libero Arbitrio II.6]; the sensible world is subject to the consumptive effects of temporality, whereas the intelligible realm is characterized by an atemporal eternity wherein we are safely removed from the eviscerating prospect of losing what and whom we love [Confessions XI.xxxix.39; see also Confessions IV.xii.18]. Indeed, in the vision at Ostia at Confessions IX.x.23-25, Augustine even seems to suggest that the intelligible realm holds out the prospect of fulfilling our desire for the unity that we seek in friendship and love, a unity that can never really be achieved as long as we are immersed in the sensible world and separated by physical bodies subject to inevitable dissolution [see Mendelson 2000]. The intelligible realm, with God as its source, promises the only lasting relief from the anxiety prompted by the transitory nature of the sensible realm."

-Pollinosisss (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much everyone - all extremely enlightening and helpful. Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why can't America make homosexuality legal in Afghanistan

After the war, homosexuality was made legal in Iraq, because in the dark times of the Hanged Tyrant homosexuals (along with shias and Kurds) were brutally murdered. Why can't America make homosexuality legal in Afghanistan if the Taliban Government is gone since 2001? --SouthAmerican (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why can't America make it all better?--Wetman (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The United States does not (officially...) govern Afghanistan or Iraq. Any laws made either country are (de jure) passed by the legislature of that country. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As J. delanoy correctly points out, the United States does not have the legal power to change the law in either country. It can only exert pressure on the governments of those countries. You seem to assume that the United States government would want to pressure the Afghan government to legalize homosexuality. I doubt that this is one of the objectives of the US government in Afghanistan. (I also doubt that the US government applied much pressure on this issue in Iraq.) Its top priority in Afghanistan is to establish a stable and friendly government and to defeat the Taliban. Because Afghanistan is a much more culturally conservative country than Iraq and most of its people are probably not ready for toleration of open homosexuality, US advocacy for homosexuals there would be likely to either alienate or undermine the government. It would also probably increase support for the Taliban among Afghans offended by that US policy. Marco polo (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Basically we've got a war going on there, and that kind of issue is way down the totem pole of priorities, if it's even on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, is homosexuality even technically "legal" in the USA? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to make a workable law against being someone. Laws against certain practices commonly associated with homosexuality have fallen in the last few decades, partly because legislators gulped and noticed that heterosexuals did that stuff too. PhGustaf (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Those laws are typically now only used in the context of a crime, e.g. when forced. It's not so much that it's legal, though, but only that it's not enforced. Kind of like those laws still on the books in some places, that you have to have someone out front of you holding a lantern when you drive a car. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill James did a riff on blocking the plate some years ago, and concluded that, in the modest context of baseball, that Johnny Bench and Sammy White spent most of their lives cheating. He went on to suggest that rarely-enforced laws are evil, and mostly serve to give cops excuses to bust people they don't like anyway. PhGustaf (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The (ironically-named, for this section) Gaylord Perry even admitted to cheating, and he's in the Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything to suggest that Perry knew anything about candlepin bowling? And the HOF selection process is not unflawed.PhGustaf (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Gaylord was into bowling. Probably more into activities like squirrel hunting. Murder at a bowling alley? That's crossing the line of decency. And in another odd connection to this section, the perp was living at the Y. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(@BB) Lawrence v Texas. True, that just established that one can't be prosecuted for sodomy; does that constitute "legalization", especially when it's done by the courts rather than the legislature? Tevildo (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a case I was trying to recall specifically, because I wasn't sure how it turned out. Seems like it was decriminalized, which is almost the same thing, i.e. they won't bother to enforce it because it would be tossed out anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't even make homosexuality fully legal in the US. Contrary to popular belief, don't ask, don't tell has not prevented service members from being discharged. The US also allows private organizations to exclude homosexuals and others under the freedom of association. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason Afghanistan can't make eating pork illegal in the US. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that argument doesn't totally work, since Afghanistan has not (to my knowledge) recently (within the last five years or so) overthrown the existing U.S. government and replaced it with a system more similar to its own government. Presumably if Afghanistan had done such a thing, it would be able to influence whether Sharia law was used in the U.S., which might have something to bear on the pork issue. But of course the general point—that the U.S. does not have and does not claim dictatorial powers over Afghanistan, especially on domestic issues—is true. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My point was intended to be many-faceted. The main one is Soman's point below - the US can't actually dictate the writing of laws, despite the huge amount of pressure they can apply to Afghan leaders. If they force Afghanistan to pass laws they don't want to, they pretty much violate their own standards of democracy. The other main point is that laws have to be generally accepted by the populus to have any chance of being effective. Even if Afghanistan were to overthrow the US government and ban pork, the population would probably resist the ban by, I don't know, throwing beef into Boston Harbor or something. If the US forced the Afghan administration to pass laws the huge majority of Afghanis didn't agree with then it would give ammunition to those that oppose them. The US tends to frown on overtly and directly imposing their rules on other countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Formally, US can't write the laws of Afghanistan. In practice, they have a wide range of options to pressure the puppet politicians in states they occupy. See for example the Iraqi Oil Law, which no-one in Iraq really wanted but was passed anyway on orders from Washington. Now, the objective of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq isn't to promote LGBT rights, but rather to secure control over natural resources and geopolitical influence. Regarding the question here, there was a bit of a similar question regarding Iraq and Israel. A group of U.S. congressmen sought to pressure Iraq to recognize the state of Israel through passing a bill in the U.S. congress. Needless to say, this initiative went in completly opposite direction of the official 'win hears and minds' strategy in Iraq. On the contrary it was a symbolic gesture that iraq, as a subordinate entitity to the U.S., must adhere to the foreign policy of the U.S.. I'm not sure whatever happened to that bill in the end, my guess is that the State Department plugged some plugs and explained to the gentlemen responsible that they can't treat Iraq like Puerto Rico. --Soman (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

man shaking hands with woman

i am a man. when i meet a woman ive never met before, is it etiquette for me to put my hand out for her to shake, or is it etiquette to allow the woman to do this, and if she doesnt carry on conversation? ive been told you wait for the woman to shake your hand, and you only offer handshakes to men, giving respect to women.--Good5567 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You can always say with a smile what can be said by offering your hand in a handshake. And offering your hand in a handshake to a woman who may not be receptive might introduce a moment of slight discomfort. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The traditional form is that one should wait until the person one is being introduced to offers their hand. If you're introducing yourself, then you should (therefore) always wait, irrespective of the gender of the other person. If the introduction is being done by a third party, then males should be introduced to females (not vice-versa), so the male should be the one that waits in that situation. See Debrett's on the subject. Tevildo (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking a business setting or an informal occasion? Handshaking is pretty common in a business circumstance, in the USA at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Silly Air kisses are sometimes used as a man/woman greeting. Edison (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in my office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mwah! Edison (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)