Humanities desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 29

Good modern Muslim role models ?

By "good", I mean nonviolent, not controversial, and cooperative with those of other religions. The more famous the better. Thanks. StuRat (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean people of any walk of life who are Muslims, but are mostly known for other things, or do you mean people who are mainly known for being Muslim (religious leaders and such)? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders of some type, either religious or political. Somebody comparable to Gandhi or Martin Luther King. StuRat (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama? (Sorry. It's a joke.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tip: rejection of violence and cooperation with those of other religions are characteristics of almost all Sufis. You may read our article on Sufism. (And remember that Gandhi and King both were political figures and in politics nothing can be "not controversial". Were not both of them killed?) --Omidinist (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What world do you live in where Obama is non controversial? Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke. (I thought I said that) HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I knew it was a joke directed at the fact some people claim Obama is a muslim, my point is it isn't funny because he doesn't fulfill the criteria anyway even if he were muslim. (I think some would also question whether Obama can also be said to be nonviolent but that's a more complicated issue.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall Aga Khan IV being particularly disliked; indeed his charitable work is well known and well respected, and he's been a campaigner for peace and for international harmony. Several other members of his family work for the UN in high positions, and his grandfather and predecessor as Imam, Aga Khan III, was president of the League of Nations. --Jayron32 05:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first and last criteria are not hard to fulfill, but the second one (not controversial) is. I assume that you mean not controversial to Muslims, since you're asking about Muslim role models. In that case, the Muslim world is very sharply divided along national, ethnic, and particularly sectarian (Shia/Sunni) lines. Arab Spring has improved this situation somewhat, especially amongst the youth, but the fact remains that the culture and values of Christian countries are much more alike than those of Muslim countries.

Also note that a significant percentage of Muslims would disagree with your third criteria. Religious tolerance, to the extent of secularism, is not a universal value in most Muslim countries. This is indicated by the victories and likely victories of Islamist parties in recent Middle Eastern elections--Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, and Libya, for example--and by the less-than-tolerant policies of Arabic dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I mean a Muslim who could be a role model for the entire world, not just to Muslims or those of his particular sect. Think Gandhi. So, religious tolerance is a must. As for being non-controversial, I suppose it's OK if they were controversial once, as long as they are widely accepted now. Presumably not too many Brits think of Gandhi as an agitator and trouble-maker anymore. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Azad: supported Hindu-Muslim unity and anti-partitionist during India's independence. IT billioinaire philanthropist Azim Premji of Wipro. For other Indian-Muslims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India#Prominent_Muslims_in_India ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 07:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Yunus, Shirin Ebadi and Tawakel Karman are recent Muslim Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Sari Nusseibeh had apparently been mentioned as a potential Nobel Peace Prize candidate. --Soman (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was sometimes referred to as a Pashtun Gandhi. --Soman (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are Nawal El Saadawi and Ahdaf Soueif, both controversial in the way that Gandhi and King were. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Imran Khan, Pakistani cricketer and politician? HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and his family? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Abdus Salam is a good candidate. He's such a huge name in physics, the first Muslim to win a Nobel prize in the sciences. You can see his specific collaborations with non-Muslims like Steven Weinberg, Jogesh Pati and John Clive Ward. The only downside is there is some controversy over his role in the Pakistani nuclear program and also, through no fault of his own, his problems with the government there which decided that Ahmadi Mulsims like him were not Muslims at all. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so far. I'm a bit disappointed that none of them seem to be household names, though, while bad Muslim role models are. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aly Khan, the son of Aga Khan was a very famous celebrity in the mid-20th century, and married Rita Hayworth. However, many more "orthodox" Muslims would consider him to be a religious deviant and heir to the Hashisheen. Muhammad Yunus is actually rather well-known among many throughout most of the world (though not a personal celebrity). AnonMoos (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Abdul Sattar Edhi although I seem to recall that he like to stress that his religion is humanitarianism. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classical music: what is an intervention?

Resolved

– – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In our article on Piano Concerto No. 9 (Mozart), it says, "The first movement opens, unusually for the time, with interventions by the soloist". What is an intervention? I listened to the first movement and I can't figure it out. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"intervention" in this case is just loose music-criticism speak, there's no musical form called an intervention. All that's being said is that the (piano) soloist is heard in the first movement earlier than would have been expected at that time. In general, the first movement of a concerto was expected to have a "double exposition", with the first exposition for orchestra alone, and the second for the solo instrument accompanied by the orchestra. So "The first movement opens, unusually for the time, with interventions by the soloist" just means that the soloist enters during the first exposition rather than waiting for a second exposition following the completion of the first. - Nunh-huh 04:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's compared with Beethoven's 4th and 5th piano concertos. The 4th opens with the piano playing solo. The 5th opens with an orchestral tutti chord, but then the piano plays solo for a little while before the orchestra returns. This is what I think is meant by an "intervention". A concerto is defined as a work for solo instrument and orchestra, so when the piano is playing without the orchestra, it's "interverning". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both so much, that clarified it immensely. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would Basil Hallward be considered a gay man by modern-day standards?

I remember reading Oscar Wilde's only novel The Picture of Dorian Gray and became intrigued by the three main characters' personalities. Yet, I have one question: would Basil Hallward be considered a gay man by modern-day standards? His homoerotic affections for Dorian Gray is apparent in his artwork and his behavior and his conversations with his friends, but does one homoerotic experience would hint at that person's sexual orientation? If a person only has one homoerotic experience and has never fallen in love (as opposed to is not and never will be sexually attracted to) with a member of the opposite sex, then does that make that person "gay"? Despite that I am a native speaker from the United States, a democratic and developed nation, I admit that this is one subject of which I am woefully and shamefully ignorant. Since I have admitted my ignorance, I hope this will refrain from receiving accusatory personal attacks against my ignorance. Hopefully, someone can provide the answer. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses sourced to reliable references would likely be more useful in response to this question than anecdotes, original research, or personal opinions. Edison (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I would like to add that it is important to keep in mind that this is the 19th century. The book is published in 1891. According to Merriam-Webster, the term "homosexual" originated in 1892. Because of this, Oscar Wilde never mentioned "gay" or "homosexual". In Jane Eyre, another Victorian-era novel, I recall that the words queer and gay are mentioned (using queer to describe the behavior of Grace Poole, but those words do not have a sexual connotation). It is widely cited that Oscar Wilde is homosexual himself. Whether or not he uses the term to refer to himself is unclear. Whether or not a character like Basil Hallward would be seen as "homosexual" in the eye of a modern-day viewer is also unclear. There is much speculation; however, I hope that the speculations can be resolved by known facts about homosexuality. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no known facts about a literary character except the words that appear in the novel. Having had one love-free homoerotic experience does not make someone gay. But being gay might cause a person to have homoerotic experiences, the first of which may or may not be associated with feelings of love. And the second, etc. Bottom line: a person is gay because they decide or realise they are; it is not necessarily connected to any behaviours they may exhibit. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the Mollies and Havelock Ellis interesting as they were both English Speaking and pre 1890. I have strong political opinions connected to a belief that working class queer politics is a method for the proletariat to achieve sexual liberation (there's nothing queerer than fucking people you love and are attracted to)—see the post 1970 HOMOCULT microscopic workerist political group/publisher in the UK. In the contemporary era, the concept of a gay identity, or homosexual identity is tied up with the complex of social repression in the advanced west and english speaking advanced west experienced as a straight jacket in the 1970s; the legalisation movement in the same; and the disproportionate impact of GRIDS/HIV/AIDS on promiscuous sexual communities comprised largely of gay men. I'm not going to say that the two bourgeois shits with their matching dogs, and matching porches, and matching management positions aren't gay; but they're certainly not my comrades; and their version of "gay" has very little in connection with the historical experience of men-who-had-sex-with-men. Given the level of contest over this terrain, it will be difficult for any editor not to make a contribution coloured by her own politics, or sexuality, or morality, or religion; but, I suggest that the OP may wish to read stories prior to the 1890s of men who loved men, and of men who fucked men. Their self conception doesn't match the current "gay" identity; any more than the historical men-who-loved-women match contemporary "straight" culture. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Men who have sex with men is a useful phrase for discussing these things. I find Fifelfoo's perspective interesting, because I have actually heard that many working-class 'men who have sex with men' and 'women who have sex with women' do not identify as gay specifically because they view it as a middle-class identity, associated with a culture that is very middle-class. Some of these seemed happier to call themselves 'queer'. If it's not too derailing, I'd be interested in how true this is in your experience? (not OP) 86.163.1.168 (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll firstly note that the HOMOCULT organisation I mentioned above is a useful datapoint, it was a Queer organisation in the 1980s, with Andy Anderson as a leading intellectual (and proletarian) figure. They were somewhat influential in class anarchism and some of their material on queer sexuality is available online. I'm going to speak personally for the rest of this: I'm primarily a boring real world straight guy. I grew up on the Internet before Eternal September when post-modernist gender theorists roamed the internet, policing heteronormativity. My first political awakening was in my mother's trade union struggles in the 1980s against neo-liberalism; but, the first positive politics I owned was in the mid 1990s in student politics where queer theory was already embedded as an "official dialogue" for the GLBTI…[under expansion] politics. So I'm not neutral here, "queer" is political for me, and the variety of online sexual experiences I've had I'd personally identify as "queer" rather than "men-who-have-net-sex-with-men-pretending-to-be-women" etc. etc. etc. For me, there are some people who obviously only want to date men, and you meet them at the pub, and you don't ask them if they're dating a nice guy because it'll seem rude because they haven't mentioned it yet. For me, promiscuity threatens me, but I feel obliged and correct when I recognise people happy in their promiscuity. For me "Queer" explains how sex always feels a bit "weird", and "transgressive" and possibly even "dirty" if you're doing it right, even if it is married missionary heterosexual sex with consent within marriage for the purposes of procreation. In my experience (which is nationally and ethnically limited) workers tend to get to the heart of the matter, which is who do you love and who do you fuck. I will note, however, that I tend to hang out with workers who don't accept the status quo as fundamental—they don't believe in the "dominant ideology" or the hegemonic institutions, even if they're not revolutionaries; so I suspect that my personal experience is liable to bias. I think that workers whose primary "political" social association was a conservative religious organisation would have a very different experience of what it means to be a man who likes to, exclusively, occasionally or has never fucked men means. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question this. What's described sounds more like what's known as being on the DL ("down-low") within the gay community, and it occurs almost solely with men. Most of them hypermasculine. It has nothing to do with economic classes and everything to do with distancing themselves from the stigma of the effeminate and hedonistic stereotype (most of which just happen to be white collar). The working class just happened to have the largest population of men whose work have traditionally been classified "masculine". Even if they are homosexual, a few refuse to identify as such because in their mind it puts them in the same group as all other LGBT which mainstream culture usually equates with femininity. I've come across some attempts of such distancing, often for completely ridiculous reasons (including one which reasoned that as long as no one does anal sex, they aren't committing sin and are still straight). None of them are based on economics or social classes, a fair amount of them are higher class but with socially conservative views.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect in the case of my local culture it is likely connected to residual revolutionary/"mobilised" class cultures; but, at the same time, I'm highly willing to admit that my personal experience is localised geographically and culturally. The working class is so fucking huge that it is hard to generalise; and, while I'm politically willing to claim my local experience should be the norm, I'm aware that it isn't. Your explanation sounds far more generalisable as it connects masculinity, queerness, gayness and straight culture far more effectively for the entirety of society. (I am so not an expert in queer / GLBTI… studies) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this earlier but didn't post because of the request for sources. But since most of the other comments are in the same vein.... I don't pretend to know much about the subject but in terms of the 'only has one homoerotic experience' I think most would agree you can't draw much of a conclusion from a single experience. Sure it might be a sign, but only a tiny one. Also presuming you take 'gay' to be different from 'bisexual' even being regularly sexually attracted to someone of the same sex doesn't seem to preclude the person also regularly being sexually attacted to someone of the opposite sex. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to try to get back to the original question. I do not think it is possible to classify people who lived before the 20th century as "gay" or "not gay". The identity and category "gay" really exists only in a late modern context. It just wasn't an option before about the turn of the 20th century, and during the first half of the 20th century only for a small milieu of urban sophisticates. We can say that a person who lived before that time or outside of that milieu had homoerotic inclinations (such as Basil Hallward's) or was primarily homosexual, but it is anachronistic to say that any of these people were "gay", with all of the historical and cultural baggage that that term has accumulated since the early 20th century. Marco polo (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Marco Polo that terms such as these need to be read with historical specificity. Nil Eine brings up bisexuality: Oscar Wilde married (a woman), and loved her in his way, and adored being a father. You might find the Klein scale useful, and, by contrast, the one-drop rule. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the novel is actually written in third person omniscient persona, Basil Hallward's sex life is not really explicitly written. It may be that Oscar Wilde's novel has been censored prior to publication, or he self-censored it before he submitted it, or it may be that it's not really that important on a literary scale. The only thing the reader can do is to imagine what it is like to be a man or woman with homosexual inclinations, which I hope would not be so difficult to do. You may never know where imagination can take you. ;)

I recall reading a New York Times article about Wikipedia's gender gap. I suspect that the supposed gender gap is affecting the answers, since little is discussed or mentioned about lesbians or female homosexuals. There has been one personal anecdote, but that personal anecdote is taken from a man's perspective. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question "Would Basil Hallward be considered a gay man by modern-day standards?" does not really lend itself towards ~~expiating~~ expatiating on lesbianism in Victorian times. If you are interested in that, please ask a more specific question. The novel that began this has no significant women in it. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I apologize for proposing that. I think my ignorance and naivete in the subject have led me to believe that male and female homosexuality are the same but with two different names; therefore, this erroneous assumption leads me to think that the same homosexual behaviors apply to women as well. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the cause, but the difference in societal pressure for homosexual women and homosexual men. Female homosexuality is a very common heterosexual male fetish and society (even western society) is mostly masculine-dominated. Men are expected to conform far more than women who are supposed to be the "weaker" sex and thus more prone to errors (cf. Biblical Eve). Even Leviticus explicitly mentions male homosexuality only. If we are to take scriptures literally, that means being lesbian is not a sin. But then again, it relegates women to inconsequential roles anyway (an extreme example would be Lot letting the people of Sodom rape and kill his virgin daughters to protect the visiting angels). Much more during the Victorian period, when feminism was still in its infancy.

That said, I know a few men who claim to be gay but are happily married to women who know it too (basically a bestfriends with sexual benefits kind of marriage). I only know them online, so it's hard to verify that. But I think it illustrates how with strong enough feelings, people can bridge the orientation gap (I'm talking about monosexuals only, excluding bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, etc.) It doesn't really change their orientations though. Straight people can form crushes with people of the same gender as do gay people with people of the opposite sex. Kind of a step up from bromance (or "heterosexual life partners"). There are even tropes for this - the "gay for you" trope (included within the more general "If it's you, it's okay" trope - a straight guy who falls in love with another guy but is only attracted to that guy and is otherwise still attracted to women (basically an "I'm not gay, I just like you" kind of thing). I'm personally very skeptical of this actually occuring in real life, but who knows, human sexuality is a very very complex thing. So the possibilities are either Basil was straight and completely obsessed with Dorian (in a scary way), Basil was straight but had an easily manipulated submissive personality, or Basil was gay and it was a classic example of unrequited love.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, if the claims above are all true, then they would send an implication that (1) religion, especially the Abrahamic religions, have a profound influence over early modern and late modern views of homosexuality and (2) being against homosexuality means putting women and those like women (homosexuals) inferior to men, especially heterosexual men. On the Internet, especially on Christian sites, it is noted that "homosexuality is a sin". This widely used quote may be referring to strictly male homosexuality, not female homosexuality, with an implication that women are inferior to men so that they cannot be punished for this "sin". Ah, now I seem to understand what the big fuss is all about. I am going to synthesize my own original research, which may or may not be supported elsewhere: homosexuality is all about the dominance of femininity. That is, anything that society perceives to be "feminine" (gay people and women and girly things) are condemned or are inferior to men under God. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They obviously aren't exactly the same. My original answer didn't refer to the sexes seperately other then the usage of 'gay' which is sometimes reserved for men (but part of the reason I chose it is because it's the word you used and as BB has said, the question seemed to be referring to men). During my research, I came across a few sources stating what OS has noted and what is fairly obvious. (I don't recall the source but it's easy to find similar ones e.g. [1].) It's general more acceptable and therefore probably more common for a woman to admit having sex with a woman or to admit to having had a 'homoerotic experience', without being lifelong labelled as being gay or lesbian or bisexual. In fact we even have articles on Bisexual chic and Lesbian until graduation, while these are or can be pejorative, I think it also highlights the fact the behaviour itself is more accepted. As these source generally note, it can actually be seen as an attractant to opposite sex partners for a woman to admit to such a past, rarely the case for men. I didn't mention any of this at the time because it didn't seem relevant, IMO it remains true it doesn't make any sense to draw conclusions from one single experience even for men.

BTW, I haven't really commented on the novel aspect but I agree with others it's rather difficult to be sure what the writer was thinking if they haven't commented on it, even more so if the writer was from a different time of culture. One thing thought is that if there is a scene in a book there must be a reason for it, even if that reason was simply because the editors demanded it, or the author thought the readers would enjoy it, rather then having a wider meaning. Of course people's preconceptions may have an effect on what they read in to a book. For example in the Dumbledore case, I see no reason to think JKR hadn't been thinking that for a long time (it's been revealed she mentioned it to a scriptwriter once before the 'public outing'). And I sometimes wonder how quick those who say 'there's nothing in the book' would have been to dismiss the idea Dumbledore loved Grindelwald if Grindelwald was female instead of male. (Of course whether readers want to believe Dumbledore is gay is up to them.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent>SSS, I commend your open-minded curiosity and willingness to learn. There are lots of good pointers on here, but to avoid being swayed too much by any one response, I would suggest you read some of the linked articles and follow the references within. You started with one specific question, which the refdesk is well positioned to handle, but now seem to be broadening your query to the nature of human sexuality in general, which, as correctly pointed out, is a complex subject. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GK Question

Which brand gets its name from Ebenezer Scrooge’s dismissive remark about the entire Christmas celebration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humbug (sweet), Humbug (video game), Humbug (comics)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of item

I want to make/add images to the article for those two baskets hanging on each end of a stick. Looks like big scales. Used to carry stuff in China. I don't know the name of it. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found: Shoulder pole, thanks to the kind folks at IRC. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]

In Europe, milkmaids sometimes traditionally used a milkmaid's yoke, which was functionally equivalent (see here), but there doesn't seem to be anything about it on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It gets a brief mention on the "Shoulder pole" page. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was added since "13:55, 29 November 2011"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political Science - Beliefs versus Opinions

It's sad that I'm quoting mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik, but the remark he quoted on Twitter from John Stuart Mill is something I have long puzzled:

"One person with a belief is worth 1,000 who merely have an opinion".

Basically, in practice, imagine an issue like Gay Marriage as a classical example. To make it as (unrealistically) simplistic as possible: Assume 80% of the population supports Gay Marriage, but is not passionate about it. It will have little or no effect on whom they vote for. They will choose a candidate based on other issues. The other 20% are staunch and fierce opponents. They will *always* vote for an anti-gay-marriage candidate over a pro-gay-marriage one. Other political issues are relegated to secondary status in the face of this "loftly" objective.

The obvious logic for a politician will be to indulge the passionate "anti" 20% (whose votes will be impacted) rather than the mild "pro" 80% (whose votes won't be). My question is, how do political scientists attempt to measure the "voting impact" of an issue before the electorate?

(Of course, my example is far, far more simplistic than reality. And I don't care specifically about gay marriage much. I'm just trying to describe the concept as I see it. And gay marriage is probably a good example of a "many may have opinions, relatively few have beliefs" issue, as it has little or no practical effect for the majority of the (heterosexual, secular, ideologically apathetic) population). Please don't get sidetracked by debate on the rights and wrongs of gay marriage - that's not what I'm interested in. The same conundrum no doubt applies to other issues with heavy ideological weight but little practical effect. (Another example that springs to mind may be policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by those countries such as the UK or Australia which have limited practical involvement or influence. Muslims, Lefties, and Jews may care. Most of the rest of the population are either ignorant or apathetic. It has no impact on their lives, and government policies on these matters are largely academic and of limited relevance).

I know that many opinion polls include "strongly agree / agree / neutral / oppose / strongly oppose" options. But is there any standardized measure for this (impact on votes) beyond offering those polled these five choices?

And one more small "side" question: Which of the desks do Political Science questions belong on? Humanities, or Science? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The five choices from Strongly + to Strong - are a Likert scale. Using a Likert scale allows the researcher to ask questions about the average opinion (when the responses are coded as numbers), or about the extremes. Politicians are often particularly interested in the middle range, and the so-called floating voters, but then there also has to be research into more strongly held or extreme views. Political science questions are best asked here, because they fall into social science, which this desk handles. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think passion shows up most strongly in terms of likelihood to vote. For example, an opponent of gay marriage is likely to be against Obama for various reasons even if the gay marriage issue is disregarded, so the actual votes are not that greatly affected. What does happen is that a passionate opponent of gay marriage has a high likelihood of actually showing up to vote for a candidate who shares that view, but may be too demoralized to bother voting for a candidate who does not. Thus, the most useful measure of commitment is the answer to, "how likely are you to vote for a candidate who has this view?" Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(From the OP) Would this dynamic be significantly affected by Compulsory Voting? Also, many people are not one-issue voters, I would think. Also, knowing the experience in my country Australia there's much less "moral emotion" amongst the general population, or at least that's the perception. Voters are (on the whole) more pragmatic than ideological, thus I would assume that "moral issues" have the ability to influence fringe, passionate populations, whilst mattering little to the pragmatic "what's in it for me?" majority. 58.111.163.17 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the Norwegian justice system has determined that Breivik is insane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly irrelevant, but is that quote really from JS Mill? Something similar is said in the last Harry Potter movie (which, not coincidentally, I thought, had recently been released when Breivik went on his shooting spree). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actual quote (from "On Representative Government) is this:

To think that because those who wield the power in society wield in the end that of government, therefore it is of no use to attempt to influence the constitution of the government by acting on opinion, is to forget that opinion is itself one of the greatest active social forces. One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests. They who can succeed in creating a general persuasion that a certain form of government, or social fact of any kind, deserves to be preferred, have made nearly the most important step which can possibly be taken towards ranging the powers of society on its side.

Of course, Mill is talking about persuasion, the ability to convince people of the rightness of one's position, not dissuasion, the ability to intimidate others away from challenging a perspective. Breivik was misusing the quote (though doubtless he wouldn't understand that). --Ludwigs2 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did Loreta Janeta Velazquez die?

She was born in Havanna in 1842, but I can`t find her death date. Please post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deerslayer0532 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on everything. In our Loreta Janeta Velazquez article, we write, "Loreta Janeta Velazquez is said to have died in 1897, but historian Richard Hall asserts that the place and date of her death are unknown." Such a thing was actually fairly common in the Wild West, where records were spotty and verification difficult, especially for a master of disguise like her. --M @r ē ino 19:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

place for posting reader's opinion on content within an artcle

If i find anything not appropriate in an article, for example, "meaning of a term", then how to suggest own opinion. For example, meaning of the term Ayana in Ramayana is given as 'going or Advancing' in english whereas its hindi equivalent is 'darpan or darshan or charitra parichay' which is 'mirror or vision or personal values in english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek4dionly (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you see an error in an article, then if you feel up to it, you can correct it by editing the article (ideally with a supporting source). If you want to discuss an issue, edit the corresponding article talk page (Talk:Ramayana or whatever) instead, adding a new section with your comments... AnonMoos (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page User talk:Jubault has been changed by XLinkBot

Hi there, I am a total fan of wikipedia, long time user, and even financial contributor. However, I disagree with the linbk removal you have just made automatically it seems. Please at least visit the link suggested as "external link" on;ly and tell me if does not add value to your French Cusine webpage? I am not even sure this message will reach anyone. best regards, Bertrand Jubault — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubault (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss this is at Wikipedia_talk:External_links or the Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) board, not here... AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, in general blogs are almost never considered appropriate sources for Wikipedia, or even as external links. Check out WP:LINKSTOAVOID #11

APL (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

What and when was the first use of the word "Christian" - perhaps a scriptural reference.98.166.145.77 (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acts 11:26 -- Antioch. AnonMoos (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closely related, it was in the Pauline epistles that "Christ" or "X" (shorthand for Christ) was used extensively as opposed "The Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ". Instead of being a descriptive word, Christ became a name synonymous with Jesus. So, instead of Jesusians, the followers of Pauline's teachings were Christians - which is what is described in Acts 11:26 if I remember correctly (the followers of Saul/Paul were called Christians). -- kainaw ™ 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kainaw -- Greek manuscripts would use Chi-sigma with an overbar as an abbreviation for "Christ" more often than just Chi; however, the use of abbreviations is variable between manuscripts, and not part of the "official" text of the New Testament. AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to my grandfather's seminary books, the Greek was Χριστιανός or Χ for short. I would not be surprised to find that different books make different claims when it comes to religion. -- kainaw ™ 00:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. It states that Chi (X) was used often because it was quick to write, but in more formal texts, it was written as Chi with Rho overlayed over it - an X with a P over it. -- kainaw ™ 00:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chi Rho was usually more of a symbol than a textual scribal abbreviation as such, as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has scripture been a reliable source? We don't even know who wrote the Acts, and even if we did, there's no reason why Luke (or whoever the author is) would know the first time anybody in the world used a certain word. The Acts is based on oral traditions anyhow, whose source and validity is unknown and probably unknowable. All we can say for sure is that by the time Acts 11:26 was written some time in the Apostolic Age, "Christian" was a word. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take that standpoint, you have to include that when someone translated Acts to English, Christian was a word. Previously, it was Χριστιανός. -- kainaw ™ 17:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP appears to be AntiAntioch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

140.180.15.97 -- It's very widely accepted among scholars that Luke and Acts had the same author, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say when you claim that the author of Acts is unknown. In any case, 11:26 is somewhat plausible, since Antioch was the center of Greek civilization in the Roman Levant, and a crossroads where peoples of very diverse origins met. It's also hard to imagine what motive somebody would have for fabricating something like that. It's always possible to be radically skeptical about anything and everything, but I don't see much point in discarding the only available known piece of information which is relevant to the question being asked... AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th ed, the adjective Christian dates back to "Late Middle English" (1350-1469), but it does not cite a first usage. The noun form (derived from the adjective) only dates back to early 16th century. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]