Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 8

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.

September 8

Statistics on sleeping rough in England

I'd like to know some up-to-date figures, and an idea of trends, on the numbers of people sleeping rough in England. Homelessness in England#Statistics gives a figure of 498 in September 2007, but the reference to this information is a dead link. Is any more recent information available, and how are the numbers changing over, say, the past ten years? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I'd take any you find with a truckload of salt, as people in certain categories are excluded, for example, people who live in tents. My source for this is a community worker who works with homeless people in an English town. She is employed by a charity, because the council says it doesn't have any homeless people so it won't employ anyone to work with them. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember some years ago seeing two sleeping bags in central London with begging 'bowls' next to them. I wondered if they were really people or if someone had put dummies there to collect some money. No luggage as far as I recall. 78.149.142.179 (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is where CLG keeps its homelessness stats, fwiw. The Rough Sleeping Estimate : June 2008 says 483 people. However I take TammyMoet's point. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Other estimates for rough sleeping are much higher. Thames Reach Bondway, a housing charity, gave a figure of 3,472 in London in July. Certain inner-London authorities have been accused of deliberately lowering their figures by moving people out the day before they know the DCLG does its headcount. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The TRB figure is "the number of individuals contacted by outreach teams across London in the past year". --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize that we're talking apples and oranges here, but that seems like an amazingly low number. Recent reports have the number of homeless in the city of Sacramento, California, a rather small city as far as US cities go, at 1200. In one small city. I realize there are a lot more people in the US than in "England" (or is the number being reports for the whole UK?), but is the disparity that great? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The situation is proportionately worse in the United States than in the United Kingdom, so you'd expect higher numbers of homeless in a US city than in a British city of the same size. The main reasons for this are 1) subsidized public housing, or council flats, make up a larger proportion of the housing stock in the UK than in the US, so there is a greater relative supply of affordable units; and 2) British welfare benefits (jobseeker's allowance, income support, and housing benefit) are more generous and widely available than comparable benefits in the US, particularly in that they don't have time limits. These programs create a tighter safety net in the UK such that a smaller share of the population ends up on the street. Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, London and Sacramento are about as close in size as London and Bristol, so those would be a better baseline comparison I should think. Googlemeister (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But, the original questioner said there were only 498 homeless in the whole of "England", not in London. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There's another important factor: the difference between being homeless and sleeping rough. The main UK charity for this issue, Shelter, offers this definition:

Who is legally classed as homeless?

In deciding whether you are homeless, the council has to look at any accommodation you have access to. You should be considered homeless if:

   * you have no home in the UK or anywhere else in the world
   * you have no home where you can live together with your immediate family
   * you can only stay where you are on a very temporary basis
   * you don't have permission to live where you are
   * you have been locked out of home and you aren't allowed back
   * you can't live at home because of violence or abuse or threats of violence or abuse, which are likely to be carried out against you or someone else in your household
   * it isn't reasonable for you to stay in your home for any reason (for example, if your home is in very poor condition)
   * you can't afford to stay where you are
   * you live in a vehicle or boat and you have nowhere to put it.

The council has to look at your situation as a whole before deciding whether you are homeless. For example, even if you have accommodation that you have a legal right to live in and no one is trying to get you out, it may not be reasonable for you to stay there. This would be the case if you are experiencing violence or abuse or harassment, or if the condition of your home is damaging your health.

Sleeping rough (on the street, on a park bench, in some circumstances in a car, etc.) is a different matter. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Making love rather than making war to win

First of all, I don't mean to offend.

Okay, I just thought that current population trends see that developed countries have declining fertility rates while developing ones are not. Searching the internet show "plans" of outbreeding the enemy by slowly replacing the native people with their own, causing them to run the place sooner or later (outbreed then outvote). Question is what do you call this "tactic" and are there any historical evidence to prove that it actually worked.

I think that this concept is either a product of a paranoid supremacist or a very idealist radical group.--121.54.2.183 (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There's some evidence that's what's happening in Northern Ireland. Not necessarily through any deliberate policy, but the Catholic and Protestant denominations in NI have differing Religious views on birth control and the proportion of Catholics (strongly correlated with Irish nationalism) is gradually increasing. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've heard people say overtly, "we need to produce more [name the ethnic group]". It's not exactly a plan, since you can't really compel people to reproduce. However, I wouldn't question for a second, the premise that the Catholic stance against contraception is fueled in part by the notion of maximizing the number of Catholics in the world. And since half the world's Christians are Catholics, it seems to have worked - combined with long-standing aggressive recruitment, of course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't worked that well. It used to be that 100% of the world's Christians were Catholics. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically, yes. Between the Great Schism and the Reformation, the Catholic monopoly has been eroded. Yet hundreds of years after those events, they still have half the world's Christians. That's a pretty good retention record. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an unintended ironic consquence to Opie's title for this section though: Those groups that breed in larger numbers, which are often ethnic minorities and lower economic classes, also often seem to find themselves joining the Army in order to find work - and thus also making themselves more vulnerable to being shot. So it's not necessarily a choice of make love or make war - it's often both. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They have similar views about birth control. The major reason in the last 30 years or so for the decline in the protestant proportion is that they are more likely to go to Britain. It was especially noticeable with university students, hopefully the peace process will slow or stop the process by allowing growth at home. Dmcq (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Conventional wisdom is that warfare and pandemics will tend to thin out those burgeoning populations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the OP was referring to a situation where one part of a whole would try to gain control via numerical superiority. A related historical example, if one allows for the consideration of entire countries as the "parts" and the world as the system, would be Red China from approximately 1954~1980. People were actively encouraged to pump out babies to "strengthen" the country. Of course, look where that plan has gotten them - world's largest population, the adoption of the extreme one-child policy to counteract the decades of stupidity, and soaring social welfare costs with no end in sight and a rapidly inverting population pyramid that will be unable to support itself via taxation.

61.189.63.208 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Closer to home is the growing hispanic population in America, which is becoming a major "swing" in the Presidential and other elections. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The deal is, its a bullshit idea. More people are a greater strain on resources, and larger populations tend to consume more than they produce after a certain limit. The idea of deliberately breeding to force out another group of people is not an entirely new one, but in the modern world there is little correlation between raw numbers of people and hegemonic power. Indeed, China's deliberate anti-birthrate policies have not exactly hurt their economic growth, now has it? There may be differing birthrates among different population groups living in an area, and that may slowly effect demographic changes, but to say that these cultural difference cause differing birthrates is MUCH different than to say that there is some conspiratorial goal of these population groups to somehow force themselves into power by having more kids than other groups. --Jayron32 15:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps worth asking - is there a correlation between Birthrate and Infant mortality? If there is we could (yes, Correlation does not imply causation) hypothesize that high-birth rates exist where the likelihood of any given individual surviving to adulthood is low. This appears to be true of many animals and whilst we have the conscious mind, culture, society etc. it may be that this is a factor in the group-decisions of high-birthrate populations. (I appreciate there will doubtlessly be lots of impacting factors). 15:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

follow-up - a very brief scan of the lists List of countries by birth rate and List of countries by infant mortality rate suggests that there is a correlation (most of the top 10 infant mortality appear in the top 15 birth rate). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence would suggest that used to be true in America also. My great-grandparents' generation had lots of kids, several of which did not survive into adulthood. However, don't rule out the ignorance factor of the population, about contraception methods. Prior to Margaret Sanger's efforts, publishing information about contraception was illegal in America. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea is called "natalism". --Sean 16:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Other articles you may wish to peruse are Revenge of the cradle and Demographic warfare. They are not great but they provide a start. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In their state as of right now, both those articles are rather lame. They should probably be merged and cleaned up considerably... AnonMoos (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for input and the articles guys. This is really one weird tactic.--121.54.2.188 (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitler tried this scheme to increase Aryan numbers; he awarded the Cross of Honor of the German Mother to prolific producers. But population growth can cause more problems than it solves, due to a dilution of resources, including food. See this, for example. Gwinva (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I was right about the paranoid supremacist part of my question then :) --121.54.2.188 (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union also awarded motherhood medals. BrainyBabe (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Premiere performances

If someone advertised a concert as containing the first performance in, say, Canada of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, there'd be thousands of emails and phone calls before the concert objecting to such a claim. A rather more obscure work that had in fact had a previous outing there would attract less attention, but still some. But back in the good old days, pre-web, how did they know that an upcoming performance of some piece in, say, Budapest could be accurately advertised as the premiere performance in that city, or in that country? Was there some great book where all premiere performances were meticulously recorded, or was it down to the memories of the cognoscenti? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Back in the Dark Ages pre-Web (in which 2/3 of my life to date was spent), most specialist professions and areas of interest had at least one and usually several-to-many regular journals (periodically compiled devices made from assembled sheets of thinly-pressed wood-pulp on which dark liquid had been impressed to form permanent images and writing) devoted to its doings. These were regularly circulated both to interested private individuals and to public libraries, and frequently bound into more permanent volumes to which regularly updated indices were added. As such they formed a de facto though not necessarily de jure consultable record of such events against which individuals' memories - indeed an important (and in aggregate impressively powerful) factor as you suggest - could be corroborated.

In addition, similar one-off factual compilations (called "books") devoted to relevant subjects (such as Tchaikovsky and his Works) would frequently, though not necessarily with complete comprehensiveness, record such landmark events.

It would, of course, have been in the interests of any impresario to avoid making such refutable errors, since after only a few his/her professional reputation would become relatively worthless. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, 87! I may quote you on this pre-Web system of knowledge transfer. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In order to perform a work you have to ask permission of the author. Usually an author of a work will know if a request is the first in a country. If the author has died then the copyright holder fulfils the same function. It's pretty rare that a work that has gone out of copyright is anywhere close to having a premiere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

One candidate I'd like to see produced is Bram Stoker's own original play version of Dracula: or The Undead. It was written and given a single performance (a matinee at the Lyceum Theatre, London on 18 May 1897, a week before the novel's release) purely to secure a performance copyright so that others could not legally stage their own versions without permission from or payment to Stoker. The performance was unadvertised (bar playbills displayed only half-an-hour in advance of the 10:15am commencement) and only 2 tickets were sold, so I don't think this counts as a premiere in the modern sense. (Stoker was of course the Lyceum's Manager, so all this was easy for him to arrange). The sole MS was then lodged with the Lord Chamberlain's Office as required, and the work was first published in book form only in October 1997.

Although various stage (and of course film) adaptations of Dracula have been written by others and performed over the years, I'm not aware that this original has yet seen a second (and more conventionally accessible) performance. The first edition's indicia seem to confirm that the play itself (though not the accompanying modern introduction, notes etc.) is out of copyright. (I suppose I should add something about all this to the relevant article pages.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Not quite in the same league: The signature theme for the now-defunct Australian radio serial Blue Hills was taken from a work written by a British-born composer, Ronald Hanmer. It ran for 27 years (1949-76) and the theme became famous, indeed, dare I say it, iconic, to most Australians. Hanmer moved to Australia in 1975, and only then discovered his little tune had achieved fame here. Apparently nobody had ever bothered to tell him. I have no idea of the copyright status of the music. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

People who were unknown in life but became famous after death

Van Gogh and also Nietzsche apparently - who else? 78.149.142.179 (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this topic has been deemed non-notable. The Wikipedia punishment squad will be around later to deal with you in the usual manner. --88.109.165.189 (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously though, if you can think of a notable topic in this line or thought, consider going over to Wikipedia:Requested_articles. If you're just trying to find more information and need help, try the Wikipedia:Reference Desk. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet another example of petty deletionism run riot. Gerard Manley Hopkins. Emily Dickinson. Nick Drake. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's so much deletionism, but an unrefined topic. It probably could work if the list's criteria was a little more objective. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the list's main editors laid down a perfectly workable set of criteria. Didn't amount to a hill of beans in the deleting admin's decision. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about this list in particular, but in general you can't just make up a set of criteria. That's data synthesis. This is why things like "List of Megafauna" was deleted. APL (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the creators in the List of works published posthumously, e.g. Emily Dickinson and Wilfred Owen. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Anne Frank. AnonMoos (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick was known only among science fiction fans. Then the movie Blade Runner which came out at about the time of his death made him hot in Hollywood. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Martin.

Not sure whether that qualifies, since he was somewhat well-known among a reasonably broad public... He was not a big seller, but he was much appreciated among some cognoscenti in the field, and he had dozens of books published commercially under his own name. AnonMoos (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick was alive when someone gave me a book and remarked that it was "typical Dick" as if I ought to know what that meant. ;) —Tamfang (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that if there is put enough thought in it, the list will be virtually endless. Notable examples include Franz Kafka and William Shakespeare. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Kafka, but Shakespeare was hardly "unknown" in his lifetime - he was a professionally performing actor, prolific playwright and occasional poet who would have been quite familiar to all those in the theatrical profession, many of its aristocratic patrons and most of the London play-going public. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but he did go from being only a locally known playwright to becoming recognised as the greatest poet and playwright in the English language (and this recognition only occurred long after his death). --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but he was about as well-known during his lifetime as any other London-based playwrights contemporary with him. I think that definitively rules him out of the "unknown in life" category. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

John Kennedy Toole, the author of A Confederacy of Dunces, often cited as one of the more influential works of Southern-U.S. literature of the twentieth century would certainly qualify. He committed suicide before publishing a single work; it was only through the efforts of his mother that the book was published. --Jayron32 15:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach's work as a composer was disregarded until a century after his death, when Mendelssohn avidly promoted him. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus? --Sean 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really -- the available evidence indicates that he was reasonably well-known as an itinerant preacher, wandering miracle-monger and (in the eyes of some) general troublemaker in Judea and Galilee during the last three years of his life... AnonMoos (talk)

No doubt that his fame increased hugely after his death. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My tongue was in-cheek, but on a percentage basis (# who've heard the name before subject's death / # who've heard it after), he is probably hard to beat. --Sean 20:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have though Adam would beat Jesus. Admittedly he's less historical. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed Atta and basically anyone else who became famous after they died, specifically BECAUSE they died. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gregor Mendel. 213.122.20.81 (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What I really meant was people who had no idea they would be famous after they died. 78.147.7.217 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mendel fits the bill very well. He wrote down the results of his experiments, just as a hobby, and died with no idea his work would eventually be the kickoff to the 20th century revolution in genetics. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, Bugs. To quote his article, "Mendel read his paper, Experiments on Plant Hybridization, at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia in 1865 . . . [and it] was published in 1866 in Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn . . ." so he obviously intended that his work should come to the attention of the wider scientific world. Unfortunately, the comparative obscurity of that journal meant that this took until after his death. There's an amusing anecdote that after Charles Darwin died, a copy of the Proceedings was found on his bookshelves - with the pages uncut! However, I don't think this has ever been confirmed as true. (By the way, Bugs, please don't think I'm stalking you! It just seems that we have a number of areas of interest in common.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, people whose works were published posthumously. Various of them requested that their papers be destroyed, and it was only because their relatives disregarded the instructions that we know about them today. This applies to Kafka and Emily Dickinson, for example. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

On a morbid note, a lot of murder victims only become famous after their murder. Exxolon (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would add to the list any of the many successful candidates for the Darwin Award. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If the question is what "people who had no idea they would be famous after they died", then Johann Sebastian Bach probably fits the bill even better. During his life he was not really famous for his music compositions, and by his later years his style was rapidly falling out of fashion, regarded as stuffy old-fashioned stuff. A large amount of it was never even published and languished here and there in manuscript form. What fame he did have was mostly for being a great at improvising at the keyboard. Although even there his style had fallen out of fashion, and in those days long long before audio recording one's fame for improvisation was not likely to increase after death! If nothing else, it I think Bach would be amazed to somehow learn how famous he has become. Just one musician among multitudes during his life, whose approach was increasingly irrelevant and dismissed at he got older, to today where his music is ubiquitous and a significant number of pieces familiar to hundreds of millions of people, and widely considered among the top ten greatest composers ever--perhaps in the top three, or, for a large number of people simply the greatest composer period. And ironically the fame he did have in his life, being great at keyboard improv, is basically lost to us today. Pfly (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

While not entirely unknown, Bradley Nowell never saw the fame that he would achieve. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

US motivations behind stopping Zahir Shah becoming the Afghan head of state.

What were the US motivations behind stopping former king Zahir Shah becoming the Afghan head of state during the Emergency Loya Jirga in June 2002? ExitRight (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow Afghan politics closely, so I have to ask: What's the basis of that question? What article discusses it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not hard to discern. The article linked by ExitRight, in the section headed Return, states "However he was obliged to publicly step aside at the behest of the United States as many of delegates to the Loya Jirga were prepared to vote for Zahir Shah and block the US-backed Hamid Karzai." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Most delegates to the Loya Jirga wanted to install the former afghan king as head of state. I was just wondering why the US was apparently opposed such a plan. ExitRight (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the statement is referenced to a book (in the article it is reference #15), which is:

• Dorronsoro, Gilles. "The Return to Political Fragmentation". Afghanistan: Revolution Unending, 1979-2002. C. Hurst & Co. pp. 330. ISBN 1850656835.

If you want more info on that statement, you should probably find the book in question. --Jayron32 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My impression on general motivations in the USA administration at the time is that they could have been very much a matter of having simply not been thought out all that carefully. The simple fact that the man you mention was a former monarch may have played a role along with the fact that Karzai was a well-known entity to the USA ("Our guy"). I don't think you are likely to find an expert on motivations willing to speak so easily on this particular topic, but perhaps you will (It's been a number of years).Julzes (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've looked up the Dorronsoro reference in google books which says: "The crucial decisions, in particular the choice of Harmid Karzai, had already been taken by the Americans". So it seems that it was simply a case of Karzai being "our guy". Having said that, I think I should perhaps rephrase the main question and ask why the Americans saw Karzai as being more able (at the time) to lead Afghanistan rather than Zahir Shah. ExitRight (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Karzai was tight with Zalmay Khalilzad, who was running the show at the time of the LJ. Also, America's slogans about "freedom being on the march" would be awkward while reinstating a monarchy. --Sean 16:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway Cover Art

Who was the artist that made these two covers for Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises and A Farewell To Arms (http://www.sc.edu/library/spcoll/amlit/hemingway/images/sun1.jpg and http://www.sc.edu/library/spcoll/amlit/hemingway/images/armsusa1.jpg , respectively)?--24.58.152.19 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The title vignette for The Sun Also Rises seems to be by Cleo Damianakes ---Sluzzelin talk 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Both dustcovers seem to carry the work of Cleo Damianakes (sometimes referred to as Cleonike Damianakes, sometimes as Cleo Wilkins) [1]. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is the author of the bible?

For cataloging purposes it might sometimes be meaningful to have one. Which is the most common choice? God? Saint X? Multiple authors? Unknown? Mr.K. (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Multiple authors." See Authors of the Bible. There are many books in the Bible. Even under "traditional"/mythical understandings of the authors (e.g. Moses writing all of the Old Testament, which seems wrong), there are multiple authors. The best you can do on the "God" argument is that they were "inspired" by God, but that's somewhat different from saying "God wrote it". --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody argues that Moses wrote the entire Old Testament; it's only the Torah that you're thinking of. My MLA Handbook says to treat it as an anonymous work and alphabetise by the name of the translation. For example, if you're citing the New Jerusalem Bible in MLA format, you'd give the following:

The New Jerusalem Bible. Henry Wansbrough, gen. ed. New York: Doubleday, 1985.

Remember that "The" doesn't get alphabetised; to continue the example from the MLA Handbook, you'd alphabetise it between something written by Edith Nesbit and the book Octovian. Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you're Cataloging a work, you really only need a title for the MARC record. And then, if there's no author in a 1xx field, you make what's called a "Uniform title main entry" in the 130 field. See [2] for more info on MARC fields. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, [3] talks more about uniform titles. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Torah wasn't entirely written by Moses, given that it describes his own death. In fact, the Old Testament is a patchwork quilt of various stories written down, including two different (and contradictory) creation stories. Some of the stories refer to God as "YHWH" and some as "Elohim", hence the expression "Yahwists" and "Eloists" to describe different anonymous authors (including those two contradictory creation stories). The New Testament is much shorter and rather easier to attribute, since most of the entries have an author's name attached to them (even if the author is a pseudonym, as with the Revelation to John). The Bible is typically regarded as being "inspired" by God, not being the literal "word of God" except where it says so. If you start talking about the Quran, though, you get into a touchy area, as Muslims believe that the Quran is actually the word of God being spoken to Muhammad, who simply wrote it down. That's another story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservative Christians basically see it as the writers being supernaturally inspired to write what God felt important to relate, while maintaining their own individual styles and character - the way they used words, their experience, etc.. That's roughly what I remember as the description from seminary. So, just "multiple authors" should work. The total is about 40 for the whole Bible, counting all the prophets, etc..Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never read of or met anyone who claimed that God "wrote" the entire Bible. Conservatives would say it had many authors, each divinely inspired. Others might say that it had many authors, who are not the people credited with the various books, not divinely inspired, and who wrote or revised the books for various secular purposes. Edison (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always heard it as "divinely inspired", which is kind of a disclaimer for when obvious contradictions arise, because obviously God wouldn't make such mistakes unless He's a little careless at proofreading. But those so inspired, might have mis-heard something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the theological view on that is that God, being omnipotent, can cause his normally fallible listeners to have perfect hearing and perfect memory, for the things He's directly imparting to them. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Which doesn't explain how the gospels manage to disagree on nitpicky little details like the names of the disciples and when Jesus was crucified relative to Pesach. Oh, and how there are two different, and contradictory, creation stories. Well, it's the thought that counts, ya know? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "divinely inspired" is that the human authors of the text were guided by God so that they wrote what God wanted them to write and without error: for example, we who believe in actual divine inspiration believe that the four evangelists each wrote in their own styles, but with God's guidance. This means that we believe there to be an explanation for seeming contradictions, such as the question of Nathanael vs. Bartholomew for the disciple's name, which I believe to be a matter of being his given name vs. the original for son-of-Tholomew. "Divine inspiration" teaches that the entire Bible is the word of God and thus equally without error: it's not a matter of "not God's word, just divinely inspired". Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Which still doesn't explain the two contradictory creation stories, for example; or the confusion over whether Jonah was swallowed by a whale or a fish, for another example. This is in contrast with the Ten Commandments, which are presented as God talking directly to Moses, in the first person. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Gay and lesbian studies

My first thought was, do you have to study to be gay or lesbian? However, I want to know what kind of people study it? What is the purpose of it? And specially, I would like to know if universities should teach really any topic?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article on Queer studies and followed its links yet? ---Sluzzelin talk 16:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Read our article on Queer studies if you really don't know what it is. All sorts of people study it (people of all sexualities, if you are wondering). It has nothing to do with studying to be gay or lesbian, obviously.

Universities don't teach "really any topic"—there are a limited number of things that are taught in universities, and the determination of what becomes a valid university discipline is complicated and based on quite a lot of factors. The simple version is that if enough academics decide something is a separate field, and can get university administrators to back them, then it suddenly is one. If university administrators decide something is no longer something they want to support, they can eliminate it. Determination of whether something is "valid" is based on a lot of things, including but not limited to its reputation in the wider academy, whether it can generate revenue (in terms of donations in many cases), whether students want to study it, etc. It is, generally speaking, harder to create new disciplines than those outside of the academy perceive it to be, mostly because those outside of the academy aren't used to seeing any of them and it looks like they are being created all the time. In practice, it's a very long process—it can take decades for a new academic discipline to emerge and be given independent space at a university, especially in the humanities (in the sciences, the money comes a bit easier, and with money comes clout). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose is the same as any of the cultural studies, ethnic studies, and gender studies, such as women's studies, men's studies, African American studies, Asian American studies, Native American studies, Chicano studies/Latino studies, Jewish studies, Slavic studies, American studies, Celtic studies, etc. Gay and lesbians form a recognizable and distinct group within the general population, which has distinct cultural traits. Anthropologists, sociologists, and historians want to study these cultural traits (as they wish to study the traits of all cultural groups), and use the term "gay and lesbian studies" (or similar) to label the study of this group and their culture. The purpose, as with all anthropological/sociological/historical inquiry, is to figure out what makes us tick as human beings. In their idealized form, universities are devoted to the pursuit of knowledge in all forms, and so should offer the class (as a pursuit of knowledge) as long as there are people willing to teach it, and students willing to be taught it. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As a post-script, your initial impression embodies a rather common misconception of universities. Universities aren't trade schools - they don't exist to teach "how-to"; they exist more to teach "what-is" - the scholarly/academic pursuits of inquiry, rather than practical "how-to" aspects. (They do teach a lot of "how-to"s, but primarily in the context of techniques which are useful for furthering your academic inquiry, rather than a practical end unto themselves.) -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of Woody Allen's joke in Bananas: he regrets dropping out of college, since his major was Black Studies, and if hadn't dropped out, he would have been black by now. —Kevin Myers 01:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a list of courses from the LGBT studies program at the University of Maryland, to give you a general idea: [4] -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Enrolling in "Gay and lesbian studies" to learn how to be gay or lesbian makes as much sense as the bathroom grafitti exchange I one saw "A:My mother made me a homosexual." "B:If I buy her the yarn, will she make me one?" Edison (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not the function of the Reference Desk to determine what universities should teach; and you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension about what LGBT Studies courses do teach. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, it is not the task of the RD to know what universities should teach. But, are there any rules to exclude certain kinds of studies? Could you make a degree about tree leaves and call it "Tree leaves studies"? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This aspect of university life is often mis-reported for dramatic effect. Generally speaking, universities only directly offer degrees in a limited range of subjects. (A large number of combinations may be possible in some cases, such as joint or combined honours degrees in British universities, where the degree is in 'Subject 1 with/and Subject 2' - e.g. 'Biology and Sports Science'.) The distorting factors are: 1) it's often reported that a degree is available 'in' a particular topic that is in fact only the subject of a single course unit - about one quarter of the curriculum for one semester, potentially. So a university may decide to teach one unit about some comparatively trivial or pop-cultural topic, in the context of a wider and more serious degree, and see it reported wrongly that the whole degree is in the pop-culture topic. 2) If you take a PhD/DPhil, your degree is 'in' the specific, detailed subject of your studies and thesis. So if you're a physicist, and you do a PhD about the effect of infra-red lasers on beryllium salt crystals, your PhD will be in 'The effect of IR lasers on beryllium salts' rather than just in physics. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is lying ever mandatory?

Is there ever a legal duty to lie? Not asking for legal advice, just interested in your creative answers.--92.230.69.67 (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

People who work as intelligence agency operatives are often given "cover jobs" (Valerie Plame's article mentions she had one), and in some cases admitting or disclosing intelligence agencies' mere existence is a crime (as was formerly the case for the UK's Secret Intelligence Service, whose employees all simply said they worked in some dull capacity to do with the export of paperclips at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office). Whether that's formally just a legal requirement not to tell the truth, or a requirement to actively lie, you decide. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clandestine HUMINT operational techniques may be of interest; it's very hard to find a decent ref for you with Google, as all I can find are ads for people to do maternity cover. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It likely depends on if you believe "lying by omission" is lying. There is frequently a duty for people to keep things secret - even to the point where they can't even acknowledge that they know the secret. When asked direct questions on the subject, they would be required to avoid answering. In a sense, that is lying because it isn't telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" (those three phrases aren't redundant - each is addressing slightly different aspects). -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever seen the film Apocalypse Now?

Colonel Lucas: Your report specifies intelligence, counter-intelligence, with ComSec I-Corps.

Willard: I'm not presently disposed to discuss these operations, sir.

Colonel Lucas: Did you not work for the CIA in I-Corps?

Willard: No, sir.

Colonel Lucas: Did you not assassinate a government tax collector in Quang Tri province, June 19th, 1968?... Captain?

Willard: Sir, I am unaware of any such activity or operation - nor would I be disposed to discuss such an operation if it did in fact exist, sir.

--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

UK Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, used a useful phrase during the Australian 'Spycatcher' trial in 1986.

Lawyer: What is the difference between a misleading impression and a lie?

Armstrong: A lie is a straight untruth.

Lawyer: What is a misleading impression - a sort of bent untruth?

Armstrong: As one person said, it is perhaps being "economical with the truth".

--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucracy and "Bureaucratise"

I work for an agency that is very (and I mean very!) bureaucratic. Can anyone recommend books or articles on "how to speak like a bureaucrat" or even understand "bureaucratise?" I checked the archives but didn't find anything (maybe there is a form to fill out - in triplicate)!

Do you mean bureaucratese? I can think of a few places to learn about this, but most of them are about mocking it or getting people to stop. 169.231.32.17 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Terms like "bureaucratese" or "legalese" or "corporate speak" generally are always used derisively to describe the sort of vacuous, meaningless language used by certain groups of people (like bureaucrats and lawyers and managers) who want to sound like they are saying something important, but really have little meaningful content in their speech. The Wikipedia article Buzzword actually describes the phenomenon well. All of these modes of speech, and especially political speech, are about using lots of words while actually saying as little as possible. --Jayron32 20:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, jargon is often very specific to a particular group. Wikipedia has plenty of unique jargon - for example, "POV" to mean (roughly) "biased". I think the best way to learn it is by being immersed in it and learning as you go along. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Start with Business speak and Legal writing, and remember that Plain English is usually preferable. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the idea you're after is covered by Doublespeak? Also this site and looking at transcripts of Alan Greenspan, who was quite a master at saying a lot of nothing. 131.191.87.100 (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Countries in Africa without two term limits

Which eight countries is ones without two term limits for national leaders rule. Will they eventually have two-term limits for natioal leaders?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that you apparently know there are eight, but do not know which ones. I suggest you consult whatever source told you there were eight. You can also choose some likely countries and consult their articles in Wikipedia.

As for what they will eventually do, Wikipedia is nota crystal ball. --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"National leader" is an imprecise term. Do you mean the Head of state or the Head of government? --Pykk (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ex. of Paul Kagame and Joseph Kabila. Do Rwanda and DR Congo have two term limit for prsidency?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This said 8 country in Africa with out two term limit. Senegal just had it. Abdoulaye Wade will be affect after 2012 election. Armando Guebuza's last term expirs after 2014.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

John Agyekum Kufuor unfortunately have expir his two terms, 2000, 2004, 2008 and have to terminate his power to 2008 giving it to John Atta Mills. yoweri Museveni is lucky, voters can contest the two-term limits to eliminate it. I wish Ghana have eliminate the two term limit, so John Kufuor could've ran for 2009 elections.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Rwanda and Ziare

Do Rwanda and DR Congo have two term limit rule for leaders yet? If not will they eventually have them? how often is the elections at those countries?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

British/German Meetings in Finland in WW2

I'm engaged in a debate over whether British and German troops (governmentally assisted, though probably volunteers) could reasonably have or actually manifestly did fight alongside of each other in Finland during either the Finnish Winter War of 1939-40 or early in its Continuation War. One person with a mixed-quality memory claims he read it in something by Simon Sebag Montefiore. His original claim of 1941 has been laughed away, but I'm thinking that it's more likely if it is laughable that Montefiore did some careless work here (perhaps repeating Soviet propaganda). Please, if anybody has collected Montefiore's work, could he or she find the closest thing to this statement?Julzes (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction: If it was Montefiore, it was in a journal article not a book, and it may not have been Montefiore. Therefore the question is a straightforward historical one: Did German and British troops (not a rare few and not a large contingent either) fight alongside each other in Finland? The answer seems to be No, but it isn't totally settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julzes (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Foreign volunteers in the Winter War, the Finns did not accept Germans, and the German government forbade it as well, being allied to the Soviet Union at the time. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

British volunteers apparently joined Detachment Sisu, which did not see any combat. However, the same article also states "There were still some British volunteers in Finland in 1941 when Finland was again in war with the Soviet Union. This time there were German troops stationed in the northern part of Finland and some of the former British volunteers were employed by their embassy to monitor German troop movements." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So far none of this is actually new to the debate. Well, if anybody is in a good position to dig into this and interested, the source of the claim *sounds pretty good to me*, so sourcing the initial propaganda and knowing where it turns up in Western reports would be interesting. I'm inclined to give up on it as possible historical fact and look on it as Soviet propaganda.Julzes (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It makes as much sense as an episode I saw of a 1960's US TV WW2 series about the desert war in which US and German soldiers combined forces to fight Muslim forces, somewhere in the desert. Having stood off the insurgents, they nodded and went their separate ways. Edison (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the general plausibility is not in question with me, but so far I've seen nothing but evidence to the contrary aside from the gentleman-in-question's memory of having been taught it and then having read about it later. I'm led to conclude that some Soviet propaganda is all there is to it ultimately, and that could lead back to individual Soviet fighters who fought both Germans and Brits at different times. It's an interesting question: What's the ultimate provenance?Julzes (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)