Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 22

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 22

Diaries

What diaries are freely downloadable to read? Written in English or translated. I'm already aware of Samuel Peyps. The more unusual the better. Thanks 92.29.124.188 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bolshevik Myth (1920-1922). Available at the Anarchy Archives. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

92.29.124.188, you (or another answerer) might be prepared to spend time searching in Category:Diaries.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Journal of a Disappointed Man and London Journal are two. 92.29.126.195 (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you discounting fictional diaries? I was thinking of Charles Pooter. Marnanel (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The diary of Samuel Pepys is available at Project Gutenberg. Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Third sentence. 92.29.125.87 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

One might find some in Category:Blogs.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you liked Peyps, you might be interested in his contemporary fellow diarist John Evelyn. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea I like Pepys? I find the great bulk too much to read and its not as if he was having any sort of adventure. 92.29.122.99 (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bible in modern prose

Is there any translation of the Bible in modern english and in prose, available online anywhere? I'd like to read Ecclesiastes in particular. Thanks 92.29.124.188 (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

www.biblegateway.com has just about any translation you want. The two I would recommend are the New International Version (NIV) which is a translation into modern English, and "The Message", which is an idiomatic paraphrase version. Biblegateway has both of those, and several other. --Jayron32 01:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to soapbox, but The New World Translation is easy to read. It can be read here. schyler (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but then you only get what Jehovah's Witnesses think it means. How about the New Revised Standard Version? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's arguable, but not inviting. schyler (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Message (Bible) is a looser, more idiomatic paraphrase or the Bible. It's not as literal of a translation as the NRSV or NIV, but attempts to retain the basic meaning while using more natural language. Buddy431 (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Is The Message available online, though? (We have an article on dynamic and formal equivalence, which explains the issues.) Marnanel (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The New World Translation is the Jehovah's Witness Bible. I remember when it was translated to conform to Witness teachings. The doctrines came first, the New World Translation after. No one on the translation committee was qualified or educated, other than being a Jehovah's Witness. Schyler probably logged witnessing time just now. Of course, if you want to read the Jehovah's Witness Bible, there is none finer. 75Janice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Every thesis generates its own antithesis. schyler (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that Jehovah's Witnesses were Marxists... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They aren't, but the nice thing about being a Jehovah's Witness is that you talk people from all different walks of life. And can thus make an informed decision about which is best. schyler (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You can compare different translations at http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-14.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And let's not forget the modernest of them all: the Conservapedia translation - perfect for those times when you are annoyed because capitalism or free gun ownership is not explicitly lauded in the Bible :) TomorrowTime (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The New American Bible, first published in 1970, is available online (site is that of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops). --- OtherDave (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The other page which I was trying find is http://biblelexicon.org/luke/2-14.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The article Gloria in Excelsis Deo shows Greek and Latin texts for Luke 2:14.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so far. What I find irritating is the numbered verses, which makes it slow to read. Is there a modern translation without them? 92.15.26.185 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The numbered verses are necessary for those who want to compare translations. Without them, there's no way to tell if the author of the new translation is just making stuff up by blending together verses that should be separately identified. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's the LOLCAT Bible .... Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I take it as a big sign of hope for mankind that the English->LOLCAT translation is a lot further down the line than the English->Stupid "translation" on Conservapedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of The New World Translation indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm. Today the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses is http://www.jw.org, and The New World Translation is indexed at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/binav/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013. The book of Ecclesiastes is indexed at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/binav/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/21.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)]

Israel demographics

If Israel kept settling in Palestinian territory until they had all of it In a one-state solution, would Jewish people be a majority of the electorate of the single state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.230.233 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Define "Palestinian territory". Do you mean the areas currently administered by the Palestinian authority, or do you mean the entire British Mandate? Bear in mind that a significant portion of the British Mandate is uninhabited or nearly-uninhabited Arabian desert in the western part of the modern Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well they're not settling in the desert, so obviously the question is about the West Bank - but it is still unclear, because if they "had all of it", what does that mean? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nearly two hundred thousand Israeli Jews live in one desert city alone; why do you say "they're not settling in the desert"? Nyttend (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They're not settling in the "nearly-uninhabited Arabian desert in the western part of modern Jordan"... Adam Bishop (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And Beersheba is not a new settlement, nor even in Palestinian territory, unless you think all of Israel should be given to them, which I suppose some people do...Adam Bishop (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Though of course Beersheba was a a wholly Arab city before 1948. Nowadays, the few Arabs still living there aren't even allowed to worship in their own mosque. DuncanHill (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But the point still stands that tons of Jews settled there after the First Aliyah. Before the First Aliyah, there were very very few Jews living in the lands later included in the British Mandate; wouldn't all of the other inhabitants (even as far south as Beersheba) be considered Palestinians? There's nothing in the original question that would require us to say "Turkish territory" or "Ottoman territory" if the question were referring to the entire Mandate-to-be. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish settlement in Beersheba started after the removal of the Arab population in 1948, not in the first wave of settlement you referred to. DuncanHill (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the Jewish and Arab populations of Israel and the West Bank are about equal: a bit under 6 million each: [1], [2]. In Israel Proper, there are about 7.6 million people, including about 5.8 million Jews and about 1.6 million Arabs. There are about 300,000 Israeli (overwhelmingly Jewish) settlers in the West Bank. See Demographics of Israel for the population breakdown within Israel proper, though it appears to lack data about the occupied territories. The article Demographics of the Palestinian Territories is less comprehensive, but still informative. Arabs have a higher birth rate than Jews in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, so it's likely that the Arab population will surpass the Jewish population in the near future, if it hasn't already. Within the state of Israel, Jews still have a very large majority, and will probably maintain that majority for a good deal of time. Buddy431 (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet it seems to raise the concern of some quarters. Read Demographic_threat#Israel. Flamarande (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is that a self-strike, or did someone else strike 75.159.230.233's text? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You can check the edit history just as easily, or with just as much difficulty, as the case may be, as anyone else here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dollars Spent

how much in dollars has the us spent in fighting terrorism in total, including both wars and the tsa, dept of homeland security, and other such expendiatures, per person who has actually been killed by terrorism in the last ten years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.235.154 (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent question. I bet it's much more than the $7 million per-person actuarial value of life that the FAA uses. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To get any sort of meaningful result, you need to also consider the number of people killed in those two wars (on both sides of the conflict). Also, the fight against terrorism is presumably not to protect the already dead, but to protect people who would otherwise be killed, so you need to consider how many lives were saved. I imagine both numbers are hard to estimate. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues with this question. The first is taking the government at its word that what it is doing is fighting terrorism. For example, the Bush administration painted Iraq as a fight against terrorism even though it never demonstrated a link between the government of Saddam Hussein and any terrorist attacks on U.S. civilians. Also, U.S. government actions do not seem to have been effective in reducing terrorism. In fact, the "war on terror" seems to have produced an increase in terrorism. (See, for example, this source.) Obviously, the "war on terror" also led to the deaths of many thousands of troops and civilians. If you were to reword your question, how many dollars were spent for every life that was saved, the answer would be that the money did not save any lives. Rather, the money caused many deaths. Marco polo (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But the "war on terror" has been rather successful in moving the fight with terrorists outside the US. The article you linked to is also rather biased, by doing things like excluding the 9-11 deaths and those in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's also a bit outdated, being almost 4 years old. Violence in Iraq has gone down since then. Of course, there probably has been in increase in terrorist attacks, outside the US, but this is expected when you start to fight bad people. By comparison, there was an increase in attacks by Nazi Germany on US forces after D-Day, but does that mean it was a bad idea ? StuRat (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Was the fight with terrorists ever really inside the US? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Read Domestic terrorism in the United States. Flamarande (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Adam, sure. Remember the second largest terror attack ever in USA was Oklahoma City. To stop people like him you've got to work inside the US because that's where they're from. APL (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that both New York City and Washington DC are inside the US, so yes. Is it your position that the 9-11 attacks weren't terrorism ? Or are you complaining about the word "fight", since that day was so once sided ? StuRat (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you meant that there had previously been a lot of terrorism inside the US (of the Islamic variety, since the "war on terror" isn't focused on domestic terrorism). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What I meant is that the US didn't want 9-11 type attacks to become a regular thing. So, in addition to increasing airline security, they also went on the offensive in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where al-Qaeda had it's bases, at the time (they've since moved out of Afghanistan). This helps protect the US in two ways, by reducing al-Qaeda's ability to launch major operations, and providing a "lightning rod", meaning that Islamic extremists have the enemy right at their doorstep to fight, so don't need to travel halfway around the world to find a target. By definition, this puts US and allied troops in harm's way, but it is to protect US and allied civilians, so seems like a reasonable practice.

Iraq is more complex. There weren't any Islamic terrorists there (except for anti-Israeli ones) before the invasion, but some may have moved there, as a result, to fight US and allied troops. That's good, but, on the other hand, the invasion may have radicalized many Iraqis into becoming Islamic terrorists, which, of course, is very bad. I don't think this is as much of an issue in Afghanistan and Pakistan, though, since in those nations anyone leaning in that direction was likely already radicalized prior to the US invasion (and air attacks, in the case of Pakistan). StuRat (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

True Cross

Q1 Do the Muslim sources relating to the Battle of Hattin mention the fate of the True Cross captured on the battlefield?

Q2 Would medieval Islam have viewed the True Cross as a relic of Jesus, a Muslim prophet, or as idolatrous?

I appreciate the second of these questions is somewhat calling for speculation - I'm hoping there's a parallel or something in the sources that'd help make it more factual. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In the Qur'an, Muhammad revived the old Gnostic/Docetic Christian heresy that Jesus was not crucified, but rather a Helen-of-Troy type eidolon appeared to be crucified, so it's hard for me to imagine positive Muslim reaction to a claimed true cross relic... AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that Muslims would see the veneration of relics as idolatrous. Marco polo (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're mistaken. The Muslims seem to venerate the Black Stone and at least some streams of Islam have a tradition of venerating the relics attributed to the prophet Muhammad. Read relics of Muhammad. Flamarande (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I stand somewhat corrected. However, according to this source, veneration of the relics of Muhammad is controversial in Islam and has been condemned by some Muslim clerics as idolatrous. Surely, relics of lesser prophets such as Jesus would be more likely seen as objects of idolatry. As for the Kaaba, Muslims see it as an image or symbol of God. Idolatry is the veneration of objects representing people, animals, or false gods. Veneration of images or symbols of God is not idolatry. Therefore, for Muslims, veneration of the Kaaba is not idolatry. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a problem of Iconoclasm. Notice that most Muslims don't believe that Jesus was crucified at all (the cross was therefore not regraded as a true relic anyway - valuable for political purposes for negotiations with Christians but little else). Flamarande (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No one really knows what happened to it after Hattin; according to Baha ad-Din and the Old French continuation of William of Tyre's chronicle, Saladin still had it four years later during the Siege of Acre, and when Saladin and Richard were negotiation the surrender of Acre, one of the terms was the return of the cross. (Another one of the terms was supposedly the marriage of Richard's sister to Saladin's brother, although that's really unlikely to be true.) This negotiation didn't work out, because they also agreed to a prisoner exchange, and Saladin didn't have the right number of prisoners, or something...basically Richard did not find the relic particularly important. The Old French chronicle also says that it was among the terms of a treaty offered by al-Kamil to the crusaders at the Siege of Damietta during the Fifth Crusade. Saladin was pretty smart and I'm sure he would have realized its symbolic value, but his successors were not so thoughtful, and I'm not sure if al-Kamil ever had it, or if the crusaders really got it back. That relic was relatively small though, and was encased in a large golden cross, so it wasn't like they were carrying around a big chunk of wood. There were also other pieces, because according to the same Old French chronicle, there was another relic of the True Cross being carried around at other times during the Fifth Crusade. There were also much larger bits of a True Cross relic in Constantinople, which were dispersed throughout Europe after the Fourth Crusade. So the one lost at Hattin was not the entire True Cross, nor was it the only relic of it, and it was important enough to be used as a negotiating tool, but not important enough that they wanted it back above all else. (I'll have to check on these primary sources a bit further, maybe Baha ad-Din or the OFC are more specific...this answer is summarized from the University of Wisconsin History of the Crusades.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Allegedly, there is enough wood from the True Cross to launch a full Helen worth of ships. Also, many saints have unusual numbers of bony body parts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The French writer Charles Rohault de Fleury published a study of the True Cross, Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, in which he showed that all the surviving relics of it added up to less than a third of the wood that would have been needed to construct a three or four metre cross. We have something on this at True Cross#Dispersal of relics of the True Cross, where however the figures don't seem to agree with each other very well. The one-third figure is the one normally quoted. None of this implies that I have any confidence in the authenticity of the fragments, but the problem isn't with the amount of surviving timber. It's not only saints that had an unusual number of body parts, by the way; our Holy Prepuce page is an eye-opener. --Antiquary (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is Baha the source for the story about the iced rosewater Saladin served to Guy of Lusignan (and specifically not to Reynald of Chatillon)? Are there other Muslim accounts of Hattin? --Dweller (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a few Muslim accounts. I forget if Baha ad-Din mentions that water story, but it is definitely in one of them, I think Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani; it's remarkable how much the Old French chronicle and Imad ad-Din agree on the details (Imad witnessed it, and presumably the Old French author heard it from Guy himself, or Guy through Balian of Ibelin maybe). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is Baha ad-Din's account of the negotiations during the Siege of Acre (there is a newer translation, but it's not freely available online!) Baha does mention Hattin, and the water story too, here. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• A1) The fate of the True Cross captured in the Battle of Hattin is AFAIK unknown. It seems to been have kept by Saladin for future advantages and asked for by Richard Lion-heart but never returned to the Christians.
• A2) Most Muslims don't believe that Jesus was crucified at all. Read: Islamic view of Jesus' death. Therefore the True Cross was probably regarded as as a false relic, "venerated by these foolish ignorant Christians".

These things are mentioned passingly by Amin Maalouf in his book The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. Flamarande (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and Maalouf has the advantage of being popular and widely available in bookstores, but I would suggest not reading him too closely...he's not an historian, and although the basic details are usually fine, he embellishes them with his imagination far too often. A similar, but better, book is "Arab Historians of the Crusades" by Francesco Gabrieli, which has long translations of relevant passages, with no imaginative filler by Gabrieli. For Hattin specifically, a good summary of the Muslim sources is in "The Age of the Crusades" by P.M. Holt. Ibn al-Athir also mentions the battle, but he was writing about fifty years later. Abu Shama probably mentions it too, but he was probably copying from Imad ad-Din. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute your opinion (I only have Maalouf's book). However I must point out that Maalouf's book is a good summary for the lay person and that he also gives quotes from the old sources (granted, in a rather short fashion). Flamarande (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Dweller, here is the account of Hattin, the loss of the Cross, and the water story, from the Old French chronicle. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What happens if pieces of the True Cross are placed within the Holy Grail? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You get the message "The True Cross cannot be contained within such trappings." But don't forget to #name the True Cross to "true". Marnanel (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would someone need wikileaks?

Why does it matter if Wikileaks exist or not? The actual leaker (possibly Bradley Manning) could simply have saved the information into several pen-drives and send it to several newspapers. So, why you need the middleman? The effect would be almost the same? Quest09 (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream newspapers would not release huge amounts of data like wikileaks does. They might not release anything at all for fear of reprisals from the US government. Wikileaks seems not to care about how upset people get, and does not need to maintain standards of objectivity and respectability the way that a conventional newspaper does. Staecker (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Several newspapers, notably the Guardian, are in fact doing so, but are editing for what they apparently believe are reasons of national security and so on. Marnanel (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a difference in philosophy. Both Wikileaks and mainstream newspapers feel that some secrets should be exposed, but Wikileaks goes further in thinking that governments shouldn't have any secrets at all. I'd go with highly limited secrecy, myself. In the case of the US, without secrecy the Vietnam and current Iraq wars likely wouldn't have taken place, as they couldn't be justified without deception. On the other hand, WW2 would likely have been lost if there was no ability to keep secrets, and perhaps the Afghan war would be lost, too. What I really think is needed are some draconian punishments for those who declare something a state secret not to protect the nation, but to cover up wrongdoing on their part. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

. Can you point to reference that says that the Wikileaks philospohy is that no secrets should be permitted? I haven't seen anything that indicates they feel that "legitimate" military secrets (like troop movements) or "legitimate" trade secrets (like not-yet-patented inventions) should not exist. In fact there's some (weak) evidence to the contrary, like WL asking the pentagon for assistance removing sensitive specifics from some of the documents they intended to leak. APL (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks does support secrets. Assange suspended Domscheit-Berg because Assange suspected he was leaking secret information about Wikileaks. -- kainaw™ 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A large part of it is about governments much more oppressive than western ones. (Even if their US documents make a bigger media splash around here.) If you lived in China and had some dirt on the Chinese government, the newspapers most likely to care could not be trusted. A third party you could trust to anonymously leak your documents would be useful. APL (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

@OP, consider this. You have got hold of information that you think should be made public but you also know that releasing it will make powerful and ruthless people very very cross. What are your options and which might be the safest one? Hint: a determined investigation could trace where and when a pen-drive was bought, and eventually who bought it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not if he was careful. If he didn't leave fingerprints or DNA on the pen drive, and bought it with cash, far from home, well in advance, then there may be no record of who bought it. The store might have had his image on a security tape, but that was likely reused/erased within a week. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley and there are plenty of ways that scheme can go wrong. You named a few big "if's". Add these: the unusual travel and purchase can have witnesses; the illicit data must be stored (risky) somewhere for downloading to the pen, or the pen brought (risky) covertly to the database; an ordinary person has no network of servers arranged for immunity to authorities and will probably need to distribute multiple pens before seeing the information take effect; he may be unaware that pens often carry manufacturer's data and traces of supposedly deleted files; not only the pen but also its packaging, envelope and stamp can be sources of evidence such as DNA, and posting it can be witnessed. The whistleblower may not realize that something in the data is incriminatory, such as a fact that only one person could have known. It is in Wikileaks' interest to take care that their contacts do not incriminate themselves. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see http://www.webstock.org.nz/blog/2010/the-blast-shack/ Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Although an interesting read, the above is really just commentaries about Assange, his motive, the leaks' possible implications to world diplomacy, etc. It does not answer the question "Why does it matter if wikileak exist or not?" Royor (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest watching TED's Julian Assange interview and judge for yourself. Royor (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I read this news item "Wikileaks defectors to launch Openleaks alternative". Their plan (not well described in the OpenLeaks article) is to automatically send the information you want to leak to a newspaper, and then if they don't publish it within a time window, keep sending it to all the other newspapers, offering each one a chance at an exclusive. Seems like it would at least save the leaker a lot of work, and perhaps provide some security too (since they only have to send the information off once). 213.122.23.52 (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

compare sensory overload of aspies with epileptic seizures?

--59.189.217.245 (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's at a completely different processing level. DS (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not without analogous affects, however sadly. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

surely there are similarities? and differences? like how does it feel like for the aspie/epileptic? how does it look like to someone standing next to them? causes are similar, like flashing lights and certain sounds, right? --59.189.217.235 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There are some people with the misfortune to have both a spectrum disorder and epilepsy. For those who don't, the same sorts of things may cause seizures, but it's due to entirely different processes. Our article on epilepsy describes what causes epileptic seizures, and there's no real need to post it all here. As to spectrum disorders (I say that because many autistics have the same sorts of issues with this), what exactly causes the sensory incorporation issues isn't fully known; however, it's not the same thing of epilepsy. When they have overloads, it may look similar to an epileptic seizure, but it's not caused by the same things. Also remember, not everyone on the spectrum has sensory overload issues; using myself as an example (I'm PDD-NOS), I have the exact opposite problem in that I'm extremely unresponsive to noises and sensations. It's good for concentration, but not so much when someone is calling my name because I often don't respond. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

incidence among different cultures of regularly utilizing the other insertion during heterosexual amorous activities

I am looking for detailed data regarding the incidence of regularly utilizing the other insertion (i.e. as in homosexual coitus) during heterosexual amorous activities among different peoples/cultures throughout the world. In other words, what is the incidence in the United States, in Portugal, in Poland, in Japan, etc etc, for all the countries of the world, of regularly the other insertion during heterosexual amorous activities?

For example, in the United States, our article says "According to Columbia University's health website, Go Ask Alice!: "Studies indicate that about 25 percent of heterosexual couples have had [the other insertion] at least once, and 10 percent regularly have [the other insertion]" so, that article indicates that for the United States the regular incidence of the other insertion is 10%, and I would like to know this for every country. Thank you for any data like this you may be able to find! 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'the other insertion?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean as in male homosexual coitus, except I am interested in the incidence of regular practice of this in heterosexual amorous activities as practiced in different countries, i.e. this incidence percentage per country. My quote makes the data quite clear for the United States, that is the exact data I am looking for, but for every country: incidence of regular utilization of the other insertion in heterosexual amorous activities, by country. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Anal sex. Note to questioner... Wikipedia is not censored. -- kainaw™ 20:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right, except I want to be clear that I am not interested in percentage of heterosexual couples who have ever utilized this form of amorous insertion, instead I am interested in the incidence of regular utilization of the other insertion during heterosexual amorous activities. By country. I think we all understand the question now. Now we just need someone who can find this data to post it, and I can mark the question as resolved. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is anal sex being referred to as "the other insertion"? Is there special significance to that particular wording in contradistinction to the locution "anal sex"? Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I will instead answer the question you implied: 'Is there something inherently homosexual about anal sex?' The answer is no: everyone has an anus (with the exception of a very small number of people with very serious health problems), and anuses can be stimulated to provide sexual gratification in anyone, gay or straight, male or female. Anal sex is not a homosexual sex act. In fact, homosexual sex is pretty much the same as heterosexual sex, consisting of a variety of different ways to stimulate the genitals- despite the rather comical obsession with anal sex of some anti-gay activists, which I suspect has less to do with gay people's real sex lives and more to do with the sexual fantasies of the bigots. Frankly, I'm a gay person, but I'm pretty sure that James Dobson spends way more time thinking about anal sex than I do on an average day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I never referred to homosexual sex until I saw that a respondent was confused by my terminology. I only referred to homosexual sex to make it clearer what the other insertion could possibly be. As to why I refer to it this way, it is to remain detached and scientific. I don't care who thinks what about the other insertion, in homosexual or heterosexual couples. The only thing that interests me is the incidence of regular practice of this among heterosexual couples of different countries. I think the qustion is quite clear, it has no religious nor moral or ethical implications, and it has nothing to do with homosexuals, since my question explicitly only concerns heterosexual couples. Thank you for any hard data you might have in relation to this matter. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) regular utilization of the other insertion - sounds repulsive when it's described in such a hyper-clinical manner. Reminds me of a case a while back of a woman who was brutalised and murdered. Some amateur commentator in my earshot was saying "How shocking! They not only raped her, they also committed homosexuality on her, and then killed her". I wondered what on earth they were talking about with "committed homosexuality on her", until I read news reports which revealed that the litany of abuses included her being sodomised. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And how were people so sure the OP was asking about anal sex, as opposed to oral? Marnanel (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"amorous activities" is another ambiguous phrase: 'amorous' indicates love, not specificially sex. An insertion during amorous activities might mean inserting toast into the toaster for one's sick spouse, for example, or the presentation of flowers inserted into a vase. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I specified it further by saying that it is the normal means of coitus between homosexual men, further you can search for my quote of a Wikipedia article in the original question I posted, and you will see that that is what I'm referring to. Anyway, as the OP I can confirm that I am referring specifically to, regularly, putting it in the pooper. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to blank the whole thread, especially if you still cannot bring yourself to ask the question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

88.182, how are you so certain that anal sex is the "normal means of coitus between homosexual men", and why does your source on the matter not also tell you of its incidence among opposite-sex couplings? Marnanel (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I just assume that it's the normal means of coitus among homosexual men, I guess I could be wrong. My source on the matter does tell me the incidence among opposite-sex couplings: 10%. However, my source only gives this number for the United States, and I would like the same number for the rest of the world's countries. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

[3] suggests 1/3 of gay men do not have anal sex (and later confirms what you may guess that 2/3 do). However it says nothing about frequency and simple maths will tell you if only 2/3 ever have it, you need 3/4 of those who practice anal sex to do so regularly for the majority of gay men to regularly have anal sex. Our article anal sex unsurprisingly has a bunch of figures for both and does mention 10% as the number of heterosexual couples who regularly have anal sex from one source. It also suggests the practice is increasing among gay men. It doesn't however say it's the 'normal means of coitus between homosexual men' Nil Einne (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

what percent of women in different cultures regularly practice anal sex?

This is a different question compared with the above one. Now I would like to know what percentage of women in different cultures regularly practice anal sex? I would prefer to know about as many countries/cultures as possible. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is the same question, essentially, as the one above. In what way is it a "different question"? Also, can you please tell me what your "source" is for your "10%" figure, given above? Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The source appears to be our utilizing the other insertion during heterosexual amorous activities anal sex article, under the "prevalence" section. And this question is different only in that it now states clearly what the OP wants to know, without all the needless beating around the bush. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Uncited studies calculate that a woman has anal sex every 2.4 seconds. That's 36 000 times a day and she is getting sore. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a source in our article. (Missed TT's anwser above...) And a bunch of other figures (well none of them specifically on regularly) besides which highlights the point that such figures are likely to be rather unreliable. The source in question doesn't seem particularly great given it's not clear where the figure came from. BTW our article does have a figure for South Korea and France, these aren't regularly but one presumes if the South Korea figure is accurate (big if) it must be significantly under 10% regularly unless there's a way for 10% of women to regularly have anal sex but a smaller number to ever have it. Nil Einne (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is no one addressing digital insertion of a woman's finger into a man's rectum during intercourse? That's a form of "the other insertion" as well. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"digital insertion of a woman's finger" as opposed to analog insertion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As is anal-oral sex, or at least it usually is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Myths, superstitions and reality

I am wondering if there are some myths or superstitions some people had in the past that were actually backed up by science (not discovered at that time)

That's a bit broad and difficult to answer. However, many superstitions originated in trial-and-error and were later confirmed as sound habits by scientific research, if that answers your question. TomorrowTime (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

One classic example is probably the idea of rocks falling from the sky (meteorites), which was completely rejected by scientists in France, at least, during some periods... AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you possibly expand on the last one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.167.133 (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw it in several books I read in past decades. but I don't remember details now. Here's a quick Google search: france meteorite denial -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

that was very helpful, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.167.133 (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another example might be some of the things people thought caused disease, before microbes were discovered. "Bad air" and "bad water" were among them, and these were essentially correct, in that they carried airborne and waterborne microbes. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - the bad air in marshy districts was not the cause of malaria, and I don't think anyone made the connection with bad water until it was discovered to be the cause of cholera by Doctor John Snow at a contaminated public water pump. 92.24.186.101 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In the malaria example, the warm, moist air around a swamp allows mosquitos to live and transmit the disease, and also brings the stench of rotting vegetation with it ("swamp gas"), so there's still a grain of truth in "bad air" causing malaria. In a wider sense, air that smells bad may mean there are feces, decomposing bodies, or rotting trash nearby, all of which represent potential sources of disease. In the modern world, "bad air" may also be a sign of industrial pollutants, which can also harm our health. This might have also been true back then, say in a coal mine, where coal dust was harmful (as well as causing the occasional explosion). StuRat (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Some folk remedies or herbs could come within that scope, such as digitalis (poisonous), or the bark used by some before aspirin. 92.24.186.101 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw a documentary about some doctor who suggested that if surgeons washed their hands they'd kill fewer patients, who was roundly condemmned by his peers and, I think, ended up going mad. I forget all the details though. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We remember: Ignaz Semmelweis. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, many superstitions, myths and urban legends have an element of truth. Whenever these things happen, they notice things that could be explanations to what happen. For examples sometimes water will make you sick. Sometimes it's true, but it's not the water itself that made you sick, but the bacteria in them. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Humid Continental Climate North America

Which major cities and minor cities of North America has humid continental climate? My friend and i are deciding to go to these places for summer vacation and winter vacation for the sake of baseball, basketball, hockey and football? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.85 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Humid? Florida, although right now it's been cool, but it is warming up, in particular Tampa/St. Petersburg and Miami. Houston and New Orleans, though it gets chilly in NO in the winter. But why humid? San Diego and Los Angeles are, in general, though not right now, pleasant year round, and you can't call them humid. Corvus cornix_talk 00:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Corvus has mentioned places with Mediterranean or humid subtropical climates. The questioner is asking about humid continental climates. The linked article lists a number of places in North America that have this climate. Marco polo (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but you guys mixed it up. I want a proper list like for example the canadian cities that has the humid continental climate are Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa and Montreal and etc. The american cities are Cleveland, New York, Chicago and Indianapolis and etc. like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.85 (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So in other words you're demanding that somebody here write an article for you. Corvus cornix_talk 18:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gift wrapping

Hello. Where does the tradition of gift wrapping come from? You article is not much help. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please accept our apologies for the sad state of gift wrapping. It is shameful for an article to have an empty External links section. I extend my humble apologies on behalf of myself and my fellow wikipedians. Please see http://mymerrychristmas.com/2006/historyofwrap.shtml -- Thank you. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article linked by Ginger Conspiracy is almost right. However, the first recorded instance of gift wrapping was considerably earlier than the 19th century. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)