Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 18

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.

August 18

Jung Sceptic?

Is it a fact that Carl Gustav Jung witnessed an irrefutable sight of haunting while staying at a friend's country house in England ?  Jon Ascton  (talk)

It is a fact that Jung believed it was irrefutable, it is not a fact that the event was in fact an irrefutable haunting. Recall (very roughly, so don't hold me to it) a story I heard about Jung and Freud discussing the supernatural. Freud asked for proof of the supernatural and at that very moment a loud and unexplainable knock was heard in the room. Jung felt this was proof enough, Freud was unconvinced. --Daniel 02:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is irrefutable in the sense that there is nothing one could do to refute it. Whether it is convincing is another question. Looie496 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a book that mentions Jung's experience [1]. I don't think it mentions if he thought it was irrefutable or not, but he certainly believed he was in contact with the supernatural. --Daniel 02:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, may be Jung was still dreaming but was unaware of the fact that he was dreaming. This seems to be the most appropriate explanation.

Austria-Hungary ethnic groups

Resolved

The map shown above is very interesting, and although I have seen it before, I have always had a question to which I was never able to get a proper answer (I remember asking to my history teacher in high school, he didn't know), nor do I know how to find the answer.

Here it is: how did the distribution of the German speaking people happen across the Hungarian and Romanian lands? and when did it happen? I mean the areas around Budapest, Timisoara, Sibiu, Brasov etc. which were settled by Germanic speaking people. I can think of 2 ways it could have happened:

1. The Germanic people settled these areas around the time of the Roman empire, and managed to remain there, even as the Romans were settling and converting the locals in Romania into a latin speaking people, and later in the ninth century they managaed to remain in Hungary as the Hungarians invaded from the East and took most of the Land from them, but not all of it?

But then things are more complicated if you look at the Szekler land, which was Hungarian speaking. It can't have been like the German speaking people who may have been there during Roman times, as the Hungarians didn't arrive until the 9th century. So did they settle in 2 different areas in the 9th century when they arrived to Central Europe, they settled in Hungary and in Szekler land?

Or is it, instead:

2. The Austro-Hungarian Empire allowed or even promoted, in the centuries during which it controlled these areas, its 2 main ethnic groups to settle in areas away from the home lands, like colonies, and therefore allowed them to take lands from the locals? Or were those land areas poorly setlled and therefore there was room and farmable land for newly arrived settlers without changing the local ownership of most of the already farmed land? But then why would it allow the Germans to settle in Hungarian lands, and not promote the Hungarians to settle their own land instead, did they believe in mixing up cultures as a mean of bring them closer together?

Could there be a 3rd explanation, which is that most of the people in these aeras simply decided to switch culture and language, in order to be able to communicate and trade with the majority populations of their empire?

Thanks--Lgriot (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the second - the Habsburgs encouraged German settlement, or colonization of a sort, of non-German areas of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Often this was just for commercial reasons, not to displace the Hungarians or Slavs or whomover. See Germans in Hungary for example, and Germans in Russia too for settlement even further east. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there seems to be a lot of different articles about this phenomenon - also History of German settlement in Eastern Europe and Ostsiedlung. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this article History_of_German_settlement_in_Eastern_Europe explains the German settlements very well, so it is mostly medieval and renaissance settlements, mostly peaceful following the damage of the wars with the Ottman empire or the plagues, except for the baltic settlements which were mostly due to the northern crusades. Also for the Szekler_Land, I figured from the article that it was settled by Hungarians even before Hungary itself, so that is quite different, it was much earlier than the Germanic settlements in that same area. Thanks for your help. --Lgriot (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Crimean Goths are an example of the first type, tribal Germanic settlers on the Black Sea coast from late Roman times. μηδείς (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted of the first type, many Germanic peoples became "Latinized" when they settled into various parts of Europe; i.e. the Franks became the French when they settled in Gaul, the Lombards became Italian when the settled in Italy, the Anglo-Saxons became the English when the adopted lots of Norman French into their language. --Jayron32 03:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We were English a long time before the Normans turned up; Bede's History of the English Church and People was finished in 731. Harold II was the King of England, not Anglo-Saxony. Alansplodge (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Reading the Bible

Is it true that the Catholic Church didn't want people to read the bible themselves before the invention of the printing press? If so, when was this officially reversed? --CGPGrey (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not true. It is commonly said that the church didn't want people to read the Bible in any language other than Latin, which is also not exactly true; the Latin Vulgate was (and actually still is) the only one officially used by the church, but there were vernacular Bibles (or at least partial translations), which were often officially sanctioned. The church did not want people to read unsanctioned translations, especially since they were often made by heretical groups (particularly the Waldensians and Cathars) who did not have the proper training to make an accurate translation, or skewed the translations to fit their own heretical beliefs. See Bible translations in the Middle Ages for more about that. They certainly didn't want to prevent people from reading the Bible at all, but most people wouldn't have been literate enough to read it in any language anyway. (This is, by the way, one reason that medieval churches are so visually-oriented, with statues and other carved images, and stained glass - people could see the Bible stories, along with hearing them told, even if they couldn't read the Bible themselves.) Anyone who was literate enough to read their own vernacular language, if there was even a vernacular literature to read, would have also known Latin, so having a Latin Bible wasn't a big problem. With the advent of the printing press it just became more difficult to stop people from translating and publishing themselves. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

But look at the case of Joan Waste a blind weaver from Derby; "She was sentenced for buying a New Testament which she asked friends to read to her for a penny a time." and was hanged and burned. Thomas Moore had six people burned to death for possession of Bibles translated into English. If other translations were available, why would people put themselves at such risk? Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps those were heretical translations? --CGPGrey (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The point of reading a particular translation was not to read "the Bible", but the read the one true translation. Unfortunately, people disagreed (and still disagree - see King James Only movement and "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me") about the validity of different translations. Moreover, during the reformation/counter-reformation time, particular translations were not only aligned with different religious groups, but these religious groups were strongly aligned with different political factions. Thus, reading an unauthorized version could be interpreted not only as heresy, but also as treason. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As for Joan Waste and Thomas More, well, sixteenth-century England was a dangerous time to be either Catholic or Protestant, depending on who was in power at the time, and that was certainly after the introduction of the printing press, which made it possible for someone like Joan Waste to obtain a Bible in the first place. I'm not familiar with the people Thomas More had executed, but if they had copies of the Tyndale Bible, then that was an unauthorized translation. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic church was interested in protecting their interpretation of the Bible and their doctrines (all translation involves interpretation). Bible translations in the Middle Ages indicates that what the Roman Catholic church objected to wasn't the translation, it was people reading, studying, or preaching from the Bible - any Bible - outside the power structures of the church. Rome controlled the interpretation of the Bible, and anyone who interpreted it in different ways would be punished, even executed, or excommunicated (see e.g. Jan Hus, Martin Luther). This was not about correct or incorrect translation as a linguistic exercise, it was about maintaining power over a large realm. In practice, restrictions on the Bible varied from place to place and time to time, and where there were a lot of nonconformists, translation and publication was restricted.

As an aside, William Tyndale and John Wycliffe both included denunciations of the church in their Bibles, which was probably part of the reason why they were treated so harshly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not just with the Church worrying that some heretic might have put heresy into his Bible translation. Liturgical churches, such as Roman Catholics, Episcopals and Lutherans continue the age-old Roman Catholic practice of having Bible readings as part of every service, often an Old Testament lesson, an Epistle, and a Gospel. These fit into the church calendar by what theme or church doctrine they illustrate. This small subset of the Bible is called the "Lectionary." The Roman Catholic church has a similar lectionary. The Lectionary principle has been in place since the fourth century. Many denominations use this same 3 year cycle of excerpts which get read. These frequently read passages are not the whole Bible; I expect they are a very small fraction, maybe 10% or less. The other unread 90% might lead laypersons to come up with their own notions of salvation, for instance, or resistance to authority, or that every man is a priest, based on unofficial interpretations that occur to the reader. Keeping the Bible in a language the common people are unlikely to learn to read was a method of reserving to the Priest the ability to read selected scripture to the people. The "correct" interpretation of the tiny subset of Bible verses would be given to churchgoers by the Priest. Edison (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A Catholic website says the weekly Lectionary readings today cover 3.7% of the Old Testament and Psalms, and 40.8% of the New Testament. I've long wondered what "good stuff" they left out. Another Catholic website says that before Vatican II, the lectionary was much smaller, omitting 37 books of the 46 OT books in the Catholic canon completely. The RC church back then only had an Epistle and a Gospel reading, and avoided the OT completely most of the year except for special holy days. The RC church pre-Vatican II omitted completely 9 books of the New Testament. The weekly churchgoer would only hear 16.5% of the New Testament (compared with 40.8% of the NT today). Edison (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So is there some website which has the "non-Lectionary" portion of the Bible extracted for convenient reading, or which has the entire Bible with the complete Lectionary highlighted (so one could selectively read the verses the church doesn't like?). Edison (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Googling 'lectionary omissions turned up several refs noting that the lectionary omissions remove many passages telling of women's stories. These are snipped out of extended passages, so that churchgoers never hear of "the Hebrew prophet" Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), a temple prophet who "validated" a scroll found in the temple remodeling, thereby validating a core portion of scripture. Romans 16:1 is omitted, which tells of Phoebe, Paul's co-worker. Deborah, OT "judge and military leader," is hidden from churchgoers. Sunday reading omit Esther, who saved her people. The "brave midwives" Shiphrah and Puah who refused to conduct genocide, in Exodus are omitted from the lectionary. One hears little of Ruth. All sounds like part of "keeping women in their place." Edison (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well sure, if you look at only the Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, which are the absolute minimum requirements for a Catholic to attend, you find that a Catholic doing no outside reading and only the minimum required would only hear the most important 40% of the New Testament, and only the most important 3.7% of the Old Testament. If they attend daily Mass, they'll hear the rest: there is a separate 2-year cycle for daily Mass readings, designed to cover as much of the Bible as possible. The weekly and Holy Day readings are designed to get everyone familiar with the big stuff. Separately, there's the Liturgy of the Hours which the laity are supposed to be encouraged to follow (much easier these days, with Internet) which has the Office of Readings every day.

As to the rest, just clarifying that when you say, "The RC church pre-Vatican II omitted completely 9 books of the New Testament.", you are of course talking about the weekly Mass readings, not the actual content of Bibles. There's enough weird rumour about what is in Catholic Bibles that I feel I have to quash any potential rumour in the making! The Book of Ruth (a small but lovely book) isn't read during the weekly cycle, but line "The Lord be with you!" from Ruth 2:4 is said several times in every Mass. Not something that the typical Catholic will necessarily know where it comes from, but then the Church takes the position that not everyone is called to study this stuff in detail: many people find other devotions or practices better use of their time. The weekly readings may omit many women, but there aren't that many women in the Bible in the first place, and those who are aren't usually given important roles. If you're choosing a selection of readings to introduce someone to the whole Bible and what can be found there, you're simply not going to include a lot of women. Sad but true. And if you have decided to prioritise the Gospels and passages which relate to the Gospels, it will only exacerbate this.

And the percent of the Old Testament read would probably look bigger if compared to the smaller Protestant version of the Old Testament, which omits entire books and chapters of books even from the Bibles you can buy to read at home ;) 86.163.214.39 (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also also, the 3.7% of the Old Testament read over the Sundays and Holy Days (13.5% if you include daily Mass) actually excludes the Psalms, if you look at your source, because the Psalms are treated differently to the rest of the Old Testament and used so heavily. You might also find this site interesting, if you can get it to work properly. The only book of the Bible not represented in any Mass is the book of Obadiah. But all of this is really by the by: the Catholic Church does encourage the reading of the Bible, although (like most Christian groups) it considers translations made by other groups to support their view as less useful and reliable than their own approved translation. But, unlike the more evangelical wings of Christianity, it does not consider reading the Bible as the most important way to learn about God and be a Christian, and doesn't consider every bit of the Bible to be equally important. And it has ways for people to become familiar with the important bits without reading it by themselves. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not excuse the omission for the Sunday readings to say "Oh yes, there is more text in the daily readings." In the Catholic and common protestant lectionaries, these women of the Bible are consistently omitted from the Sunday reading, or verses mentioning what they did are "optional" and skipped over. And I reiterate my earlier statement about the Catholic church historically opposing Bible translations into the vernacular (burnings at the stake) because they wanted the people to learn the official views and a few Bible verses behind them, rather than reading for themselves the "treasure of the Bible" as they gave lip service to post Vatican 2. Many firebreathing evangelical churches are worse, with a few short "proof texts" drilled into peoples' heads to support their doctrinal views. "The Bible means what I want it to mean, and the 10 % of it you hear in church proves I am right about my doctrines." They will sometimes quote one verse which says adultery or homosexuality is a horrible sin, and ignore the next one which says it is a horrible sin to wear clothing made of different materials. They will quote a verse which says a woman should be quiet in church, or should obey her husband, and ignore verses telling of women prophets or national leaders. I don't recall hearing from the lectionary readings (maybe I was dozing) sections telling of the Israelites killing captive boys when they conquer a town, but dividing up the virgin girls between the victors, with the priests getting their share. I don't recall hearing from the lectionary a reading of Leviticus 27:28-29, which requires the Israelites to carry out human sacrifice if they have said they are going to do it. Human sacrifice (of enemies or slaves) were not unknown. Kill'em, burn 'em on a pile of stones. How about Judges 11:29-40 where Jephthah celebrates a victory over the Ammonites and then carries out a rash pledge and sacrifices his virgin daughter Mizpah. The "almost sacrifice" of his son by Abraham would be more compelling if we heard of the other children who were not so fortunate. Edison (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That is just one person's interpretation of what is important. And if you start having anybody's version you might as well start reading the Conservapedia version of the bible where they try to play down liberal ideas as in the Good Samaritan or like some Korean church start reading the bits to try and make yourself wealthy. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that (at least for the Gospel readings) there are four versions of each event in the life of Christ. Therefore you only need to read out 25% to avoid repeating yourself. The exception is the Christmas narrative which only appears twice. Also, tho Old Testament (in the Anglican Lectionary at any rate) is only quoted where it supports or sheds light on the New Testament writings. There wouldn't be much point in reading out the bit in Dueteronomy that says you're not allowed to eat owls, because it doesn't have much bearing on the Christian message. I suppose the exact nature of that message is at the nub of the issue. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So, Edison, do you have any criticisms of the Catholic Church? μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Medeis, I actually laughed out loud. Alan, if that were true about the Gospels, we'd all use the Diatessaron rather than keeping 4 of them. The three-year cycle of the Sunday lectionary means that one year reads through Matthew continuously, one year reads through Mark continuously, and one year reads through Luke continuously. John is used on various feastdays, but I've never really checked to see how thoroughly it's covered: maybe I should. Anyway, the point is that the lectionary considers the Gospels the most important bit, so (as you say) the Old Testament readings are chosen to fit them. While it wouldn't be possible to cover the entire Biblical canon in Sunday readings that were short enough to avoid putting off the very people unlikely to read the Bible outside them, without using such a long cycle that people wouldn't become familiar with the important bits, it is possible to cover the Gospels completely. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Name of a tort

What is the name of the tort when you sue somebody for abusing their authority? For example, someone in a position of power is arbitrary and capricious in their decisions, so you sue that person for damages. I first thought it would be Abuse of Process, but that turned out not to be it. Is there even a name for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabuve (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Misfeasance in public office for England and Wales. Not sure what jurisdiction you want, but that'll get you started. The criminal equivalent would be Malfeasance in office. --Jayron32 16:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, "deprivation of rights under color of law" federal civil rights claims (Section 242, Title 18) - see here. More generally, the common law torts of malicious prosecution and abuse of process might be of interest to you. Neutrality^talk 16:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a rare cause of action but you can sue under the doctrine of Ultra Vires. The threadbare article implies it is only related to corporations but that is not the case.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way. Typically the nature of a suit, when some person in authority is abusing their power, is to sue the corporation/government branch/municipal agency etc. itself since whoever the person is, they are acting in their capacity for the entity. Note also the doctrine of Respondeat superior. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary and capricious, in U.S law, is the standard of review in challenges to administrative/agency rulings, in both federal and most if not all states. You don't hold the agency or official liable for damages in this case; you instead try to get the decision reversed or the enacted rule struck down, and it's usually in the context of a process tailored to agency review (Article 78 proceedings in New York, for example). As Neutrality noted above, you're really not going to get the government liable for damages just because they acted arbitrarily and capriciously, or abused their discretion (the std for many decisions of judges), etc., unless your constitutional rights were violated, and then you still have qualified immunity to overcome. Just because a government official did something contrary to the law doesn't mean it will be treated as more than just a mistake to be undone. postdlf (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply and hope you are still checking here. The answer is that it may depend on how, specifically, the public official abused his or her authority. If it was arresting someone for no reason, it might be false arrest or false imprisonment; if it was entering someone's property without permission, it might be trespass; if it was attacking someone physically without good cause, it might be assault or battery, and so forth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Soldiers waiting for a victory that never came

Who was the last known soldier of the Japanese Imperial Army to surrender to the Allies (soldiers or civilians) and when did he do it? I know someone surrendered 29 years after the close of the War. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hiroo Onoda and Teruo Nakamura in 1974. See Japanese holdout. Acroterion (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so 29 years was the latest. :P I was looking for the right article as well. Thanks! Poor fellow wasted their lives. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Could have been worse. At least they kept their lives. Many did not. Googlemeister (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a subjective view. To the Japanese, to lose one's life while fighting for the country was a far more glorious end than to be taken prisoner. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; Onoda "killed some thirty Filipino inhabitants of the island" before he saw the error of his ways. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether they got 29 years worth of accumulated back pay. PhGustaf (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Nakamura says that he received USD 227.59 because as an enlisted private, he wasn't entitled to a pension (presumably his salary ceased at the official end of hostilities). Alansplodge (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone ever collapsed or died on the trading floor of the NYSE?

Traders seem like the kind of folk who would have big consequences for even stepping off to go to the bathroom if nature struck during a very volatile moment and they needed to unload some stock or get in on something while the getting's good. I'm actually basing this opinion on real footage I've seen from the news and not Hollywood depictions. So given the strong forces telling them to keep going no matter what, has it ever happened? Have paramedics ever had to come to the trading floor? Would they even stop or slow down, or would they just keep screaming their orders over the men trying to revive the ill one? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes; see this Baltimore Sun article from 1997. Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No sources, but you do read about this occasionally in the NY papers. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mecca and gambling

Why is the use of the name “Mecca” for gambling very offensive? --84.61.188.59 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be offensive to Muslims because Mecca is the holiest city of Islam, and gambling is forbidden and considered sinful by Muslims. Imagine naming a whorehouse "The House of the Virgin Mary" in a place with devout Catholics. Marco polo (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How many gambling casinos use the name “Mecca”? --84.61.188.59 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mecca_bingo#Mecca, for instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is “Mecca” one of the most offensive names ever be used for gambling? --84.61.188.59 (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is not so much with using Mecca as the name of a casino (never heard of that), as in referring to a place like Las Vegas figuratively as "a Mecca for gamblers" -- meaning that gamblers make pilgrimages to it just as Muslims make pilgrimages to Mecca. Looie496 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... The English language has adopted the word "mecca" as a metaphorical adjective for any destination that people associate with a particular activity and travel great distances to visit in order to perform that activity (a "place of pilgrimage" - in a non-religious sense). Atlantic City is routinely described as a "gambling mecca"... St. Andrews is a "golfing mecca"... The Maul of America is a "shopping mecca".... etc. I strongly suspect that name "Mecca bingo" was chosen as a reference to this common meaning, and not as a direct reference to the Muslim holy city located in Arabia.

Muslims may take offense at this usage... but it is not intended to be offensive. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See Mecca bingo hall drops name after Muslim protests. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Percent of Population Working in Agriculture in 1300s / Early 1400s

Are there any estimates for what portion of the population in Europe in the 1300s / early 1400s were working in agriculture? --CGPGrey (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any figures for this outside of England, but it would have to be significant since London only had a population of 20-25,000 in 1377 and no other towns in England were more then 10,000. In fact, of the 5-10 million people that lived in England in 1377, only 100,000 lived in the largest 30 towns, so the rural population, and the % of people who worked in agriculture would have been quite high. Googlemeister (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There were almost certainly no more than 3 million people in England in 1377, after the Black Death. Still, you are probably right that no more than 100,000 lived in towns. Still, some of the population living in the countryside were not engaged in agriculture. There were full-time blacksmiths and millers even in rural places, and of course the clergy, nobility, and knights did not engage in agricultural labor. I have seen estimates that 80% to 90% of the population in Europe in the late middle ages were engaged in agricultural labor. The percentage would vary somewhat by region. In regions that were more urbanized and that had larger manufacturing sectors, such as Flanders and northern and central Italy, the percentage was lower than in more agrarian regions such as Poland or Ireland. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been estimated that only 5.6% of the population of Europe in 1500 lived in towns, so 94.4% lived in more or less rural areas, but as Marco points out the percentage working in agriculture must have been rather smaller, since we have to allow for gentry, clergy and craftsmen. According to an article in International Currency Review before 1500 80% of the population of Europe lived on the land. Another article in the Journal of the History of Ideas claims that 'In the Middle Ages proper – le Haut Moyen Age – a very large proportion of the population of Europe – probably more than half – were unfree men, serfs.' This figure would be smaller than the proportion of people working in agriculture since it excludes free peasants, in England called franklins. --Antiquary (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it legal to.....

Hello, i was wondering if it is legal in Canada to make a video testament and last will... Using a webcam and recording my Testament and Last Will, can it be done if so what are the procedures to rendeer it legal and uncontestable for all involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheldoyn (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice. Please check with a lawyer licensed to practice in your province. Marco polo (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Marco polo is correct that we cannot offer legal advice (like your last sentence), but as far as looking up what the law says on its face — This page full of articles about wills has an "Introduction" article that's silent about videotaped wills. You may be interested in the holographic will, though. The intro of that article discusses one extremely brief example from Saskatchewan. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't help noticing the Canada-re(i)ndeer connection. Micheldoyn must have a hunting trip coming up,  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Ball

(referring to the man who immolated himself in protest in New Hampshire two months ago, see this article) I am mildly surprised that there is no Wikipedia article on Mr. Ball, if only from the aspect that self-immolation as a form of protest in the United States is exceedingly rare. Is anyone aware if there have been Wikipedia discussions on the desirability of such an article? Thanks, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In the US alone, about 35,000 people a year kill themselves, and more than a third of a million try (ref). The suicide note article suggests that at least 12% of suicides leave a note, many of them detailing the reasons for their suicide, some including details of what they feel is wrong with their lives or with the world in general. An unusual method of suicide doesn't, of itself, bring a sufficient degree of notability or verifiability. We have an article about Mohamed Bouazizi because we have a plethora of independent reliable sources that describe him and the events around, and consequent of, his death. We don't have one for Thomas Ball because there does not seem to be such coverage of his. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Finlay, thank you for your comments. What strikes me as odd is that (one's own views notwithstanding) Ball's death and his "manifesto" ring a political note, and, as I mentioned, self-immolation is not particularly common. Not many suicides (at least as far as I know) take place in front of courthouses. I agree that many sources don't appear to cover this and find it strange that the mainstream media did not cover this more thoroughly given their coverage of other deaths that they have apparently selected to make more well-known. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, found this, referring to the Wikipedia discussion about the article on Ball that was ultimately deleted. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

head of state salary

What head of state / head of government receives the highest official salary? Googlemeister (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Lee Hsien Loong is the highest paid head of state based on official salary only. -- kainaw™ 19:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This chart is not comprehensive but is useful. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't the U.S. release employment data day by day, not once a month?

I just saw another one of those stories about the stock market abruptly sinking after unexpectedly bad jobs data.^[2] "Uncertainty" is supposed to be a big part of what drives down stock prices and other economic indicators. So why doesn't the U.S. release the unemployment data on a daily basis? I would think that nowadays everyone who goes to an unemployment office is getting something typed into the system the same day, so releasing this data (at least on a provisional basis) would be just a matter of some simple computer scripts.

Admittedly, it occurs to me that advance knowledge of a whole month's jobs numbers must be worth billions, and so there must be a small and secretive but very powerful group of people who would oppose any such change. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't have very accurate numbers even for the previous month, much less the present day. That's why their monthly estimates undergo repeated revision, months after the fact. In fact, employment data are not collected in some central database. Tax data are collected by employers but reported to the IRS only once per year, for example. Marco polo (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the unemployment system in the US is primarily designed to help the unemployed, rather than statisticians and statistiquonks. Given that benefits are issued on a weekly basis, it is less surprising that they be reported on a monthly than a daily basis. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I found the answer, which is surprising to me: According to this FAQ answer on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, US unemployment data comes from a monthly survey of 60,000 homes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The government does release weekly data on unemployment claims every Thursday. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Long lasting subArfican leaders

Why by some leaders like Denis Sassou Nguesso Jose dos Santos of Angola, and Blaise Compaore last that long. They been around since 1970s to 1980s. What does opposition leader in politics basically means. Paul Biya's article said 20 worst tyranny leaders, how many politician guys are there in Sub-Saharan Africa total. 40 something. They have enough money to run a election, they suppose to step down after 12-14 years. is it because there are not too many effective candidates experience enough to run for new leaders or lost lasting leaders is more to do with dictators and tyranny.--69.229.6.251 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it is much more to do with the ability of incumbents to dominate their political environments, than it is an absence of effective candidates. And it's Africa's loss. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Talking about African's worst dictator I answer my question. Information I got that link from here. with 10 worst guys nationalwide Robert Gabriel Mugabe and Omar al-Bashir is the top two. Hu Jintao is one if them. The other 11-20 halfs is Teodoro Obiang, Meles Zenawi, Idriss Deby, King Swaziland, and Paul Biya. I need that note to avoid seeing a picture of Robert Mugabe's face. Thistells me why Idriss Deby is bad--69.229.6.251 (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Did the Zulu use bows?

If not, why not? ScienceApe (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems they did. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The native Zulu word for bow and arrow, umcibisholo is definitely not a borrowing from Arabic, English, Dutch or some other colonial non-Nguni language. Proto-Bantu has words constructed for bow, arrow, and bowstring. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The primary ranged weapon used by the Zulu was the assegai. I don't believe that there are documented instances of serious Zulu bow usage in the Anglo-Zulu war, for example, and Shaka's military reform did not introduce bows. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of click consonants in the Nguni languages is a result of intermixture with the Khoikhoi (Hottentots) or Bushmen. The Khoikhoi used the bow and arrow.

From our article Impi: "The bow and arrow were known but seldom used." (unreferenced)

From Metaphor in Zulu (p129} "The bow and arrow is not a Zulu weapon, although they know of it from contact with the Khoi and San people, and there is often debate among Nguni translators about whether to use umnsalo (bow) or umcibisholo (bow and arrow) to translate ..."

μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)