Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 3

Humanities desk
< June 2	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 4 >

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.

June 3

Number of Buddhists in the world?

I would like help determining the number of Buddhists in the world based on the best sources available. Some sources (like Religioustolerance.org) claim there are as many as 1.5 billion, but these numbers don't seem to be based on any hard data except for press releases from Christian missionary groups. More sources estimate the number from between 350-500 million, and calculate folk religion that may include elements of Buddhist beliefs and practices as a separate figure. Ideally, there should be a way to do a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation and compare it to the best data. The problem is trying to find that data. Who has the best, most reliable numbers here? Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism#Demographics has some data, but its really fuzzy (some source have a spread of "500 million to 1 billion" which seems to me to be REALLY approximate). The problems are with doing the census and trusting the numbers. Plus, you run into the "No true Scotsman" problem when you attempt to define religious adherants other than how they define themselves. These things are very hard to determine, and there really are not good numbers. --Jayron32 04:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources that claim 1 billion or more tend to count Chinese folk religion as Buddhists. Shouldn't we be able to get a rough figure by looking at the major Buddhist congregations and comparing them to the population figures? Buddhism is a difficult religion to practice, and I think the 1 billion figure is not just absurd, but impossible. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The same difficulties exist for counting the adherents of all religions. National censuses dramatically overstate the numbers because of the nature of the questions they ask. Counting heads at sessions of worship will miss some who choose to not attend, and include those who do it for social compliance purposes rather than genuine belief. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the difficulty involved, it has been done, and the number is always below 500 million. (Encyclopædia Britannica: Worldwide Adherents of Buddhism by Six Continental Areas, Mid–2009) This ~1.3 billion figure appears to come from less than scholarly sources who combine Buddhists with folk religions, and these sources seem to be coming from Christian evangelical groups who don't differentiate between Buddhism and syncretic religions. This is because they classify all non-Christians in certain areas as Buddhists, which is not accurate. We can estimate the number of Buddhist sects, groups, temples and adherents with good data. This is not an insurmountable problem. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am unlikely to alter my opinion that it actually cannot be done. Every method used involves far too many assumptions which introduce inevitable biases. But I know my position will be seen by some as just troublesome. HiLo48 (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I haven't been clear. The figure of 1 billion and up has been added to this encyclopedia by editors citing less than reliable sources, sources that don't differentiate between Chinese folk religionists (CFR) and Buddhists. Encyclopædia Britannica (EB) estimates the number of CFR as 454,404,000 for 2010, which combined with the current estimate of Buddhists (462,625,000) gives us a 917,029,000. Unlike the missionary sources that lump all these non-Christians together, EB categorizes them separately and defines Chinese folk-religionists as

Followers of a unique complex of beliefs and practices that may include universism (yin/yang cosmology with dualities earth/heaven, evil/good, darkness/light), ancestor cult, Confucian ethics, divination, festivals, folk religion, goddess worship, household gods, local deities, mediums, metaphysics, monasteries, neo-Confucianism, popular religion, sacrifices, shamans, spirit-writing, and Daoist (Taoist) and Buddhist elements.

Here are the 2010 estimates for Buddhist adherents from EB:

Encyclopædia Britannica: Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2010

Africa	Asia	Europe	Latin America	North America	Oceania	Total	%	Change Rate (%)	Countries	Branches
258,000	455,412,000	1,777,000	760,000	3,845,000	573,000	462,625,000	6.7	0.86	150	56% Mahayana, 38% Theravada (Hinayana), 6% Tantrayana (Lamaism).

These estimates are also reflected by scholars of religion, such as Stephen Prothero (2010) at Boston University:

Today roughly 445 million people, or 7 percent of the world's population are Buddhists, making Buddhism the world's fourth largest religion after Christianity, Islam, and Hindusim. The world's Buddhists are concentrated in South and East Asia and are only minimally represented in Africa and Latin America. There are, at a minimum, 175 million Buddhists in China, and Buddhists form majorities in Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Japan, and Laos.[1]

I'm uncertain, but it appears that Prothero and EB both cite the World Religion Database and/or the World Christian Encyclopedia/World Christian Database. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

One issue that always arises in discussions of how many adherents a religion has is "What is a Buddhist/Christian/Jew, etc.?" Do those "reliable sources" provide definitions? An example that demonstrates the problem is that of trying to define how many Christians there are in my country, Australia. At the last national census 64% declared themselves to be Christian, but only around 10% regularly attend church. So my question to anyone claiming certainty on this issue is "What is a Christian, and what percentage of Australians are Christian?" HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Many Christians, or at least many who say they are or aspire to be Christians, would say that only God knows who is actually a Christian. Could even include some who have no idea that they are. So could be anywhere from 0% to 100%. --Trovatore (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that Buddhists don't have an equivalent omnipotent being, who can decide for them? Encyclopædia Britannica? HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I already pointed out that the EB stats are based on database estimates accepted by scholars. This has nothing to do with EB. EB was only offered as an example showing that the 1 billion figure continually being added by missionaries is not supported. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So what precise, unarguable definition of a Buddhist do these scholars use? HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a precise, unarguable definition when we are discussing adherents. Most definitions are arbitrary. I believe EB and others rely on the methodology used by the World Christian Encyclopedia, the World Christian Database, and the World Religion Database. This continued appeal to uncertainty is a red herring. There is uncertainty in every definition we use. Just because biologists have a difficult time defining life, doesn't mean we can't define it. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me make my example about Christians in Australia a little clearer. The two "estimates" of the number of Christians in Australia are around 2 million and around 15 million. That is too much uncertainty. Is there really any more certainty about the number of Buddhists? HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not on the same page. In 2006, there were 26% Catholic; 19% Anglican; 19% other Christian denominations; and 6% non-Christian religions, with 31% saying they had no religion, or did not provide a reasonable answer to the question.[2] What the heck does attending church have to do with this? Is there any doubt those numbers are close to accurate? I think not. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

They're a perfectly accurate report of what the census recorded. But without knowing the question that was asked, and wondering why the number who go to church is so much smaller, you are learning only one narrow thing about religion, what people said on the census. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We can guess at what the question was by looking at the current census. Question number 19 of the 2011 Australian census says, "What is the person's religion?" It then offers 10 choices in the following order: Catholic, Anglican (Church of England), Uniting Church, Presbyterian, Buddhism, Greek Orthodox, Islam, Baptist, Lutheran, and Other - please specify.[3] Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Book of logical fallacies?

I seem to remember reading about a recently published book illustrating logical fallacies, paradoxes etc. by means of simple stories. Can anyone refresh my memory? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 12:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Honorary doctorate

What is the criteria for an honorary doctorate? --999Zot (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any. An honorary doctorate isn't a real degree. It is a fake degree given as an award - kind of like giving out tiny plastic Oscar statues to everyone who works at the Academy Awards. Some people use an honorary doctorate as justification to be called "doctor." That isn't truly justified. When it comes up, they will usually concede that they don't have a real doctorate. -- kainaw™ 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

See Honorary degree. If I were in a position to award honorary degrees, one criterion I would impose would be that the recipient knew that "criteria" is plural. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that some 'academic' institutions will award one to anyone capable of writing a large cheque. 'Honour' is a flexible concept... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we are going off-topic. Many influential people like Bill Gates (7 honorary doctorates), Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Salman Rushdie have received honorary doctorates. Kainaw is saying it is fake degree. If it is fake degree, why do prestigious institutes like University of Oxford, Notre Dame etc award honorary doctorates. I just want to know on what basis these famous people received the honor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 999Zot (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like most of them are awarded to famous people who are famous for making social contributions. I don't see people like Lady Gaga getting honorary degrees (though I could be wrong on that). Mostly, the university seems to want to associate themselves to that person to gain prestige. I wonder if they can be withdrawn if thier honoree goes bad? Googlemeister (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

An honorary doctorate does two things. First, it allows the University to say "Bill Gates has a degree from here" - which everyone knows is a dubious claim because Bill Gates dropped out of college. Second, it allows the recipient to say "I have a degree from XXXX university." A large number of honorary degrees are given when the celebrity gives a commencement speech or donates money to the university. -- kainaw™ 13:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have often seen graduation speakers at colleges get honorary degrees. Sometimes the degrees are awarded for contributions to scientific and technical progress, like the ones given to Thomas Edison [4], although one such degree was actually said by the college to be an "earned" one: [5]. Nikola Tesla also got numerous honorary degrees, though he did not complete his college courses to earn a degree. Edison (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A slightly less cynic interpretation is that they took classes at the University of Life, and then were able to obtain the honorary degree from the granting university via transfer credit. (Typically, the core requirement for a Ph.D. is taken to be "substantial contribution to the field", and the classes, exams and dissertations are simply a mechanism for ensuring that's the case. For honorary degrees, one can argue that their meritorious achievements count as a "substantial contribution to the field" deserving recognition, and thus grants them a degree in recognition of that fact.) -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling these "fake degrees" is quite wrong. Nobody is suggesting the recipients have earned them by dint of academic achievement in the normal manner, but that still doesn't make them "fake". They are formally conferred by the university. If anything, they have a higher status than a degree one has struggled over for years. Typically, our biographical articles will show whatever honorary degrees the subjects have been awarded, but will not mention the details of any degrees they may have earned academically. A fake degree is some certificate you pay $50 for that appears to support your totally false claim to have gained some academic distinction - which is a form of fraud. Honorary degrees are at the opposite end of the moral spectrum from fraud. It's only if a recipient fails to mention the honorary part of their degree when applying for a paid position, for example, that fraud and fakery would enter into it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In the UK at least, honorary degrees are usually awarded to people who have achieved a degree of excellence in something. For example, at the last Convocation (degree ceremony) I attended at the University of Warwick, Andrew Davies (writer) was awarded an honorary doctorate to recognise his excellence in writing screenplays. For the university, it gets them publicity and a valuable patron - Mr Davies's input is welcomed into their English department and they treat him as a visiting lecturer, although I note he had previously been an employed lecturer there. For the recipient, it gives them recognition in an academic way (having gained recognition in other fields first). --TammyMoet (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Harvard awarded 9 honorary degrees a week ago. Who'd they give them to? 1. The inventor of the WWW, 2. a famous opera singer, 3. the president of Liberia, 4. a Supreme Court justice, 5. a Nobelist in Chemistry, 6. a guy who served on the Harvard Corporation, 7. a famous postmodern academic who apparently never smiles, 8. a reknown political theorist, and 9. a former US Surgeon General. I'd put those into three categories: 1. people who have done really impressive (by any standard) things outside of academia, 2. people who are known mostly within academia but are highly respected or highly decorated, and 3. the guy who used to be a member of the Harvard Corporation. I don't know about other universities, but the general criteria for Harvard seems on the whole legit. Only one of their honorary degrees this year seems at all fishy to an outsider (perhaps the Corporation guy was really great? I have no clue), all of the others are pretty legit. Almost all of them already have advanced degrees; it seems unlikely that any of them are going to try and claim to be Harvard doctorates because of this honorary degree. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that honorary-degree holders are not usually referred to as "Dr." (there are exceptions - Benjamin Franklin and Billy Graham are two). When honorary doctorates holders refer to the degree in writing, it is good and usual practice to to note that the degree is honorary inside parenthesis - for example, Ph.D. (honoris causa). Neutrality^talk 03:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes honorary degrees can bite you a little. For example Bill Cosby could paper his house with honorary doctorates. He also has one earned one. How many people wondered if the degree he claimed in the credits of The Cosby Show was honorary or earned? It was earned, but I had to look it up myself. --Trovatore (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How to refer to a woman married to a British earl

I just made this change, because the previous wording, "In 1973, John Spencer began a relationship with Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer", seemed odd: she wasn't Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer, yet when their relationship began in 1973. So I changed it to "In 1973, John Spencer began a relationship with the Countess of Dartmouth" because Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer#Titles and styles indicates that was her proper title/style in 1973. And my change also brings the sentence into line with the next sentence, which refers to her as Lady Dartmouth, and the reader can't be expected to know that the woman called "Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer" in one sentence and the woman called "Lady Dartmouth" in the next sentence are the same person. But the sentence after that refers to her by her first name Raine, which hasn't been introduced yet. If I want to introduce the first name Raine into the sentence beginning "In 1973", what can I correctly write? "JS began a relationship with Raine, Countess of Dartmouth"? "JS began a relationship with Raine Legge, the Countess of Dartmouth"? "JS began a relationship with the Countess of Dartmouth, the former Raine McCorquodale"? Which sounds most natural, while still not being incorrect to people who are sticklers for correctness in the titles of British peers and their family members? Pais (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest ..began a relationship with Raine McCorquodale (later Spencer).... Hopefully the redirect exists; if not, create it, unless it conflicts with an existing article. --Trovatore (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, she wasn't McCorquodale in '73. In that case, ... Raine Legge (later Spencer) .... --Trovatore (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But just calling her Raine Legge doesn't make it clear that she's also Lady Dartmouth, as she is referred to in the following sentence. The idea is to introduce both the name Raine and the title Dartmouth in this sentence. That she was later called Spencer isn't really relevant yet at this point in the narration. Pais (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who cares about that stupid nonsense, I suppose the wikilink will tell them. --Trovatore (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So what about "began a relationship with Raine Legge, the Lady Dartmouth..."--TammyMoet (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if that's correct. I just don't know much about British peerage titles, so I don't want to make an embarrassing mistake like calling her stepdaughter "Princess Diana". Pais (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say your last option is best ("the Countess of Dartmouth, the former Raine McCorquodale"). "Raine, Countess of Dartmouth" is the style of a divorced (or widowed) countess (which of course she was later on, but not in 1973), and I think it's best avoided in this instance as part of the point of the statement is that she was still married to the Earl of Dartmouth. Proteus (Talk) 11:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Spelling bee

I was curious as to why an apparently large number of people consider having children 10-14 years old spelling exotic words from the English language, most of which are almost never actually used in ordinary conversation or literature, as having educational value. Does such esoteric knowlege serve them well for a career or with their later educational pursuits when you consider that anyone who has a dictionary, (or even better an iPad with spell check), can equal their performance? What kind of career fields have past winners gone into? Googlemeister (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the spelling bee holds interest mainly because of its educational value. It holds interest, like shows such as American Idol or Pop Idol, because of the human interest in ordinary people demonstrating extraordinary discipline to compete against each other. In this case, the competitors are adorable children. However, there is no doubt some educational value in expanding one's vocabulary. Marco polo (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"In this case, the competitors are adorable children." What, do they weed out all the ugly ones before the competition begins? Pais (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not all of the children who take part are beautiful, of course. I'm guilty of the POV that (nearly) all children are adorable, even if they aren't exactly pretty. I was also attempting to represent the POV of people who take an interest in the spelling bee. I suspect that most of them find even the less beautiful children adorable in their own way. Marco polo (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. And I'm guilt of the POV that children are like Thomas Hobbes' view of life in the natural state: nasty, brutish, and short. Pais (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was a spelling bee participant as a teenager. It isn't really so much an educational pursuit as a game, or academic sport. Once you get to the national finals the words have to be quite esoteric, but at the local and regional levels it's far more words that an educated person might use in writing, but I don't think that anyone thinks it's any more educational than, say, trivia competitions, or organized Scrabble. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was runner-up spelling bee champion on Long Island a generation ago. I might have been the Long Island champion if I had known there is an e at the end of crinoline. Marco polo (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 There's also value in teaching study habits, persistence at a task that seems overwhelming, overcoming fears of speaking in front of audiences, etc. Basic character building sorts of stuff. Dismas|^(talk) 14:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I should have realized there are more applicable words at the lower levels of the contest. Have any previous competitors in the finals have been notable for another area? Googlemeister (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to involve rote memorization of thousands of words which are transliterated into English from non-Latin alphabets by arbitrary spelling conversion rules, along with technical or scientific words so specialized that one is unlikely to see them in print, or to need to spell them. Do they have highly publicized spelling bees in countries where the alphabets are more phonetically spelled? Does China have competitions to accurately draw some of the rarely used of the 47,000 somewhat arbitrarily drawn Chinese characters? (The article says "full literacy" requires 3 or 4 thousand). Memorizing Bible or Koran verses, or memorizing famous dates from history, or the years reigned by Kings worldwide, or all the ships in a Navy by number and year of commission seem like equally low-value uses of a student's time. Memorizing all the data in the periodic table, or all the integrals in a math handbook, might be slightly higher value rote learning for those in a tech field. Edison (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A while ago, I seemed to read a lot of articles claiming that the US national spelling bee relied too heavily (or exclusively) on rare technical words, or words transliterated from another language, which the general educated adult, even if well-read, could not expect to encounter, let alone recognise. The only article I read which supported its claims with facts, did so by listing the winning national spelling bee words from ~the last 20 years, which was supposed to clearly illustrated that nobody would really know the winning words from the last few years. I knew all of them, and some I was using in conversation as a child. This isn't because I ever read a dictionary, or studied for a spelling bee, or am some sort of savant: these were just relevant words that came up in my life. Perhaps the problem is not that the words are esoteric, but just that the critics are part of a culture that doesn't use the words. I mean, the article even singled out acciaccatura as a word that nobody other than some sort of ancient music scholar would know: it's on the syllabus fairly low down in Associated Board theory grades: I didn't have to be able to spell it, but I did need to know what it was. 86.164.164.27 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's worth remembering spelling bees are fairly insignificant in English speaking countries outside the US (and Canada?) Our article doesn't perhaps sufficiently emphasise this point, but in terms of your question it does say "They are rare to nonexistent in countries whose national language follows more phonemic spelling rules, as compared to the largely historical spelling of the English and French languages." Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Memorizing the Qur'an is definitely a thing, and there are recitation competitions, shown on the islam Channel for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes there are plenty e.g. International Quran Reading Competition [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. My impression is that even when these involve recitation from memory, things like style, correct intonation etc are often an important part of the competition since I believe you often only have to memorise a fixed and not extremely long part. Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "notable for another area?": Looking at those four champions on our List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions who also have their own article on Wikipedia, we get the impression that they all appear notable mainly for winning that contest. The spelling bee is mentioned in the first sentence of all four of them. (Notability also being the first champion, or the first non-US-American winner). One became a patent lawyer, another a journalist, but I don't think either of them would have an article here, had they not won the championship. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Though Anurag Kashyap also was teen tournament champion in Jeopardy! (as anticipated by FisherQueen :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

They don't have national spelling bees in my country, but let me tell you of my experience anyway. In my primary school, our 4th grade teacher Mr M instituted a weekly spelling competition, on Fridays. The current champion and anyone who wanted to challenge him were tested viva voce in front of the class, with words Mr M had chosen. Spell one word wrong, and you were instantly out of the competition. It was a tough school but they were the rules we all played by (or so I thought). The winner would have the grand title of "Spelling Champion of 4th Grade" until such time as they were knocked off their perch. I was the champion for about 6 weeks running. Then one day - not a Friday - we were doing some written work at our desks in class, and Mr M was wandering around inspecting various students' work in progress. He looked over my shoulder, noticed I'd misspelt "government" as "goverment", and peremptorily decreed that I was no longer the Spelling Champion of 4th Grade. I was 8 years old, and ill-equipped to deal with such an outrageous injustice. Perhaps you can now understand the incredible bitterness and hatred of authority that have pervaded my very soul ever since. Needless to say, I have never maed eny speling errors sicne then. I shwoed him, the old batsard. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think spelling bees are remnants of the old days when rote memorization of things like the Gettysburg Address was the norm. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The broader question is whether, in a world where knowledge is quickly available with a Google search (or a Q posted on the Wikipedia Ref Desk), it still makes sense to memorize large volumes of info. I would argue that it does for "common use" items, like knowing which country is on which continent, knowing how to spell common words, etc. But, I have to agree that knowing obscure facts is only good for entertainment value and quiz shows. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Only"? You say that as if those things weren't more important than life itself, Stu. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish that more of my high school mathematics students had done enough rote learning such that they didn't need to reach for a calculator to work out what ten times eight is. Yes, it happened yesterday, sadly, with quite a smart kid. Rote learning has its place. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing a US Supreme Court case

The Bank of Xenia was involved in US Supreme Court case in 1885, so I added a mention of that when I was writing its article. Did I cite the case properly; and if not, what did I do wrongly? The relevant text is:

...a lawsuit known as Xenia Bank v. Stewart, 114 U.S. 224 (1885), which was...

Moreover, can someone summarise the case for me? I don't understand the court's opinion, and we have no article on the case. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The case is correctly cited, although usually the citation, except perhaps for the case name, would go into a footnote. Also, the sources oddly vary on the case's name; you cited correctly based on your source, but this source implies that the citation should be to First National Bank of Xenia v. Stewart (which would be abbreviated to First Nat'l Bank of Xenia v. Stewart in a footnote). The case includes several evidentiary and procedural rulings in connection with the bank's unsuccessful attempt to foreclose on some common stock (coincidentally, its own shares) that it held as security for a loan. None of the rulings are of particular importance, and the case has not been much cited, with no case citations at all since 1978. A lot of the old Supreme Court cases really are just not all that important. John M Baker (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm so glad the high Court doesn't write like this anymore. It's basically an evidence case that predates the Federal Rules of Evidence by almost a century. Our evidence article's a bit of a mess itself; I don't have any feel for how evidence law was handled pre-FRE. Incidentally it's also a pre-Erie case, and it does involve some discussion of general agency principles, so it's kind of interesting in that regard. But like Baker says, it's probably not particularly useful law today. Shadowjams (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

John, if you look at the article history, you'll see that I changed the article repeatedly according to several different forms of the name; one of them is First National Bank of Xenia Ohio v. Stewart. So basically the bank tried to seize some of its own shares because Stewart, owner of the shares, defaulted on a loan? If so, how does that work — how can a company own some of itself? I've only ever heard of this happening in Railroad Tycoon, but I always assumed that was a necessary part of what they had to do to simplify this now-more-than-twenty-year-old game. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to follow the opinion, but apparently what happened was this: McMillan borrowed $2600 from the bank, pledging as security certificates for 30 shares of the bank's stock. (Actually, there seems to be a dispute whether all 30 shares were pledged, or only 20, with the remaining 10 shares held at the bank for safekeeping.) McMillan died six months later, and the bank promptly sold the stock for $4200 and applied the proceeds to McMillan's account. Stewart, whom I would guess to be the administrator of McMillan's estate, then brought suit against the bank, claiming that McMillan had paid the note off prior to his death. The jury found for Stewart, and the bank appealed. The bank thus was the defendant in the trial court, but the plaintiff in error (i.e., the appellant) in the Supreme Court. John M Baker (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sharpe's Diet

I'm having a Sharpe party tomorrow and was thinking it would be fun to have a period appropriate menu of snacks/drinks. From memory, I can only recall them mentioning 'Best Brandy' in the show, so I'll be picking up some brandy of some description. Does anybody have any insight on the diet that someone in the 95th might have had? Potatoes and roast with some greens? Was there a particular type of beer that was in favour at that time? Thanks for any suggestions :)142.244.35.91 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to answering the question, would anyone mind explaining what the OP is referring to? Maybe a Sharpe party article is in order? Dismas|^(talk) 18:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably a party, based on the theme of Sharpe, either to watch episodes, or just socialise in period costumes etc --Saalstin (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The diets of British soldiers in the field during the Napoleonic period would have relied heavily on groats, flour, and dried legumes, which are relatively dense in calories for their weight, a key consideration in a time when transport was labor and livestock-intensive. Breads and pea and porridge soups would have been staples. Local vegetables might have been added to the mix when available and in season. Vegetables were normally boiled. Officers such as Sharpe might have had more preserved meats such as salt beef, bacon, and ham in their rations than the rank and file, as well as occasional locally procured fresh meats such as poultry, beef, or pork, or sausages. Because of its expense, meat was probably not the main source of calories at that time, even for officers. Officers probably would have had access to plenty of cheese and butter to go with their bread. Potatoes were a recent addition to the British diet at the time of the Napoleonic wars and still weren't entirely accepted as part of Continental cuisines, so probably didn't feature much. Also, where they were eaten, they were mainly a food for the poor. Probably the most common beverage would have been mild ale, though bitter was probably also available. Lager was not a part of the British diet until the 20th century. Of course, they also drank tea. Marco polo (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Would not tea have been expensive in those times, so would only be a luxury item for the well-off? 2.97.223.90 (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am under the impression that officers of the time usually were well off (especially above captain), so it might hold true. Googlemeister (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines

I feed my horse good corn and beans

Of course it's quite beyond my means

Though a captain in the army

--Trovatore (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Officers were well off, but tea was not so expensive. A pound of tea, which would supply at least 200 cups of tea, was worth something like 8 shillings at that time. (My data points are 10s in 1773 and 5s 4d in 1830.) Meanwhile, according to this source, low-wage government workers (a proxy for footsoldiers) earned £57.17 a year in 1810, or about £4 15s a month. Even footsoldiers are likely to have been able to afford a cup or two of tea a day. High-wage government workers (a proxy for officers) averaged £176.86 in 1810, or £14 15s a month. No doubt they could afford as much tea as they wanted. Marco polo (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

British soldiers were paid a shilling (5 new pence) a day = £52 and 5 shillings per annum. Unlike many European armies, they did receive rations (including tea I suspect) instead of being left to forage for themselves. Alansplodge (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

£52 5s is (52x20)+5 = 1045 shillings. There are not 1045 days in the year. Where is the mistake? 92.28.247.193 (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bloomin' good pay - Lucky to touch it, a shillin' a day! DuncanHill (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So from the information above, a pound of tea would cost eight days wages! Many hundreds of pounds in today's money. As I speculated, tea must have been only a luxury for the well off. You could equally well say that the average person today could afford to regularly buy magnums of Champagne. From my experience of drinking tea, I think 200 cups per pound may be an over-estimate. 92.24.137.163 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Operatic languages

Good afternoon. I've noticed that the majority of operas are written in Italian, even when their composers (eg Mozart, Wagner, Hayden) were not Italian themselves (though they may also have written operas in their languages). My friend is a professional musician and minored in music history, and he tells me this is because in Italian practically every word ends in a vowel (a, i, e, or o), which allows singers to sustain the note and sing smoothly. This explains why not as many well known operas are written in French (which often ends words with whiny nasals or the sickly e feminin) or Germanic languages (which often end words in consonants). However, there are also not a lot of well known operas written in Spanish (granted there are some, and many more in certain circles), which like Italian, also ends words with vowels most of the time. WHy is this? Grazie :) 72.128.95.0 (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty cool theory, but have you read our article Opera? It has a good history of the form and you'll probably be able to draw some conclusions from the history. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All of Wagner's operas, and some of Mozart's, are written in German. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Some German operas include the ending-with-vowels bit. For example, "Ho Jo To Ho!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If they caught you playing that at my alma mater — any time except 7 AM on finals week — they'd toss you in the shower with all your clothes on and turn it on. --Trovatore (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what the German translation is for "I love the smell of napalm in the morning; it smells like victory." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

According to q:Apocalypse Now, the entire quote is "Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like … victory." And according to [14], the German translation is "Napalm mein Junge, es gibt nichts auf der Welt, das so riecht wie Napalm. Ich liebe den Geruch von Napalm am Morgen. Weißt du, einmal haben wir einen Hügel bombardiert, zwölf Stunden lang. Als alles vorbei war, lief ich herauf. Nicht eine einzige stinkende Vietnamesen-Leiche haben wir dort gefunden. Das war ein Geruch - der ganze Hügel, ja, wie roch er? Wie nach Sieg roch er." The German omits "you know that gasoline smell" and replaces the derogatory "dink" with straightforward "Vietnamese". But what does any of this have to do with the question at hand? Pais (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The horror! The horror! It's because we are being led in an operatic ring by Baseball Bugs' familiarity with Die Walküre and Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As for Spain, they had their own home-grown zarzuelas, which were/are always sung in Spanish. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole hypothesis sounds like BS to me. Singers hold on to whatever vowels there are, and if there are one or more consonants at the end of the syllable, they drop them in quickly and move on to the next vowel. And even in Italian, final e and o are often deleted in opera, thus increasing the number of consonant-final words (Di Provenza il mar_, il suol_, chi dal cor_ ti cancellò?). Pais (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Bizet wrote all his operas (such as Carmen, L'Arlesienne) in French: Manuel de Falla wrote in Spanish. Britten wrote in English. The problem I guess is that many operas have been translated into Italian, and the Italians like to regard themselves as the nation who invented opera. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For operatists who wrote in English, you shouldn't neglect Carlisle Floyd.

However I have never actually heard of operas being translated into Italian. (Or, really, operas being translated, period; can you give me an example of that? Some operas are based on works in other languages, but those works are usually not operas — the obvious example is Otello.) I do think Italian is probably the language that has the single greatest number of (reasonably important) operas. --Trovatore (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Trovatore, we probably should have a whole article on operas that have been sung in languages other than the ones they were written in. I'll bet there've been productions of your namesake Il trovatore in German, French, certainly in English, and more. The arias "Your tiny hand is frozen" (instead of "Che gelida manina"), "Love and music" (instead of "Vissi d'arte"), "O my beloved father" (instead of "Il mio babbino caro"), "On with the motley" (instead of "Vesti la giubba") and so on, were all from English-language versions of Puccini operas originally written in Italian. Wagner's operas were presented in Italian when they premiered in Italy, and in some cases in French when they first appeared in France. There's been a long tradition of singing Wagner - and every other non-English opera, for that matter - in English in some UK opera houses. Sir Reginald Goodall was a champion of this approach. I've heard of some Tchaikovsky operas, originally written in Russian, being presented in Czech (!) in Prague. And there's still a hangover of the translation of Eugene Onegin into German, in that the name of the opera is still often referred to by its German title "Eugen Onegin". So much more. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really, that's terrible. Sorry, I don't like it. Operas should be sung in the original. --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ingmar Bergman's Magic Flute was sung entirely in Swedish. I don't know Swedish, but I remember how nice Mann und Weib und Weib und Mann sounded in the translation: Han och hon och hon och han (lit. "He and she and she and he"). Pais (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

followup question (not OP)

So, ranked by list of number important operatic works in that language, which are the biggest "Operatic languages" and in what order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.139.65 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Count them yourself at Wikipedia's List of important operas. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Will you do it, please? --86.8.139.65 (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

How to do the bump?

Apparently there was a dance going around a while ago called 'the bump'? Anyone know how to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately! The song "The Bump" by Kenny is the archetypical song for the dance and tells you exactly what to do! Two people stand side by side but facing in opposite directions. There is a count "1,2,3, bump!". For the "1,2,3" part you move your hips from side to side, on the "bump!" you touch your partner's hip with your hip. That's the bump bit, see? Then you jump and turn round 90 degrees and do the same. If you do a search on YouTube for the song no doubt you will find the song and the demonstration. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Flip Wilson used to end each of his shows (ca. 1970) by doing a ritual "hand slap" with the guest star, followed by a "bump" with that guest star. That stuff was all the rage at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For Flip's approach, go to about 7:50 of this clip.[15] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You can see it performed here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to perform a self lobotomy after watching it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oy. Suddenly, "Walk Like an Egyptian" seems like high-art by comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Let's do the Time Warp again... [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, with one of James Bond's villains describing the steps. Awesome.[17] I expect that even now, somewhere in the world, someone is watching that movie and "acting out". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Macarena doesn't come with instructions, but it doesn't take long to catch on. And nobody did it quite like Charo:Go to about the 3:00 mark ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)