Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 December 3

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

December 3

Reason behind American religiosity compared to other developed nations?

Has anybody written on the possible reason behind the American religiosity compared to other developed nations? I suspect that immigration and religious diversity play a role, but I can't be too sure. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In some European countries (France comes to mind), the attainment of democracy was accompanied by bitter struggles over the role and status of the church, and many pro-democratic thinkers and politicians were anti-clerical, while many devoutly religious persons were politically reactionary. As late as the 1920s, a significant percentage of the population of France was basically still unreconciled to the French revolution of 1789 and its consequences, in the aftermath of the Dreyfus affair and the 1905 secularization law. The United States avoided much of these tensions -- there was no nationwide established church, and the U.S. founding fathers (other than Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine) usually didn't go any further than quiet deism. To a certain degree, religion and democracy reinforced each other in the history of the United States in a way that they didn't usually do in Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

France is the only example. This has nothing to do with what happened in Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, Ireland (!), the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Iceland, Finland which are all more or less equally secular. In Eastern Europe many more people were declaring themselves religious in 1990 right after communism collapsed than do today so it's hardly a consequence of communism. Even in France the majority of people abandoned religion not because of the French Revolution or the 1905 law on the separation of church and state but much more recently as a byproduct of modernity. Secularization is generally a consequence of modernity almost everywhere. It is only the US that bucks the trend (to some extent) and the explanation is probably that in the US being secular and especially advertising one's lack of religion carries a price that it doesn't in other developed countries. For example in all other developed countries a political person's religion or lack thereof is a personal matter that has nothing to do with his or her fitness to hold office whereas in the US, except in very few places, it would be impossible to get elected if you're a declared atheist. That also reinforces hypocrisy, which means that one can question the accuracy of the surveys. The number of people who in the US do not belong to any church and do not attend any religious activity and who nevertheless claim to be religious is suspicious and probably to some extent a result of the stigma that is attached in the US to declaring yourself secular. Finally, note the fact that in the US religion is more big business that in any other developed country. The people in the religion business have more political reach than almost anywhere in the developed world. Contact Basemetal here 07:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure you understood what I was saying -- the secularism law didn't convert anyone to secularism. Rather, the law (passed by secularist politicians who saw restrictions on religion as essential to safeguarding the French republic) embittered devout Catholics, and contributed to many of them hating the republic (and retroactively the French revolution) and most of what it stood for. In the first quarter of the 20th century, there were a significant number of "royalists" in France who didn't care too much about Philippe of Orleans, but who loosely aligned themselves with royalism to express fundamental opposition to the republic as it then existed. One taunt was that secularist politicians passed such laws to spite their wives -- since a higher proportion of women than men were religiously pious (of course, France didn't give women the vote until after WW2)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought you meant that the French Revolution and the 1905 law were what caused the French to become less religious than Americans are. If that's not what you meant I have at least an excuse for having misunderstood you as the OP was asking "why is the US more religious than other developed nations?" and so it was not completely incongruous, I believe, to assume that your remarks were meant to answer that question. Contact Basemetal here 10:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Consider the brouhaha in 2008 when Mitt Romney failed in his first try for the presidential nomination, at least in part because he's a Mormon. Al Smith was defeated in 1928, in part because he was Catholic. And JFK had a lot of naysayers for the same reason. I took until the mid-2000s before the first Muslim was elected to the House of Representatives. Then and now, someone who says he's an atheist, literally doesn't have a prayer. Someone who denies religious belief is regarded with suspicion. I'm not saying that's right, but it's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have articles that tell us how many Christians there are in the US, and in the world. I am very sceptical of the figures. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Those kinds of numbers are likely to be based on counts of alleged adherents, be they "active" adherents or not. It's like if you were to conduct a poll and ask which denomination they belong to, they might well say such-and-such church, even if they never go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is not to suggest that all it takes to be a good Whateverian is to attend that church once a week (or as often as is specified). A lot of Whateverians fall into that trap of being seen to be participating in worship on Sunday and then balancing that out by practising lack of charity for the rest of the week. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That gives much insight on today's world. I've noticed that atheists from Western European countries (Richard Dawkins comes to mind) and maybe in the United States are very outspoken and anti-clerical, while atheists in Russia may identify themselves as Orthodox Christians culturally, and atheists in China may hold onto the same cultural value of filial piety. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Many Americans came here due to religious persecution in those European nations, so it's not surprising that America is (1) relatively diverse religiously; and (2) relatively tolerant of other religions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

But how tolerant is it of other irreligions? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Compared to who or what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, God, what a load of POV laden faith-based nonsense Sluzzelin has linked to. Why I haven't stoned anyone in months for not believing in the might of Thor. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't chaining them to a lightning rod at the top of a hill during an electrical storm be more apropo ? StuRat (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We had this Q recently, and I referred to the Puritan work ethic as one reason. StuRat (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Also see the Great Awakenings, which were periods of religious expansion and revival in American history. There's been three or so such Great Awakenings, and the articles on them all provide some historical context. --Jayron32 03:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We have this "question" from an IP every other month or so. The religious revivals Jayron mentioned did not involve the Catholics, by far the nation's largest sect, but mostly now very liberal sects with declining membership. A lack of a native Mao, Hitler, Stalin or Robespierre might help. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A factor that no one has mentioned is that the United States has the least effective social welfare system and one of the greatest income disparities (net taxes and benefits) in the developed Western world. Europeans without work or with marginal jobs can count on a host of social services from the state to safeguard their well-being. Americans without work or with marginal jobs face a much higher risk of malnutrition, homelessness, or untreated medical problems. Many American churches provide networks of material support for their needy congregants. So, churches in the United States are often important community and social support networks that are not needed in the same way in Europe. I don't want to suggest that Americans attend church merely for cynical, material reasons. There is also an emotional dimension. Since lower-income Americans face a great deal of adversity due to their lack of means and the social dysfunction that comes along with that, they are also attracted to religion as a source of emotional and spiritual support. In effect, I think that Americans may be religious for the same kinds of reasons that Africans or people in other developing countries are religious.

Another distinctive quality of U.S. society is its geographic mobility, and particularly the mobility of its working classes. While educated Europeans (like educated Americans) are increasingly mobile, even across borders, educated, professional people are better able to form social networks in new locations through university or professional connections. Working-class Europeans are much more likely to stay in or near their place of origin, where they remain connected to family and school-age social networks. Working-class Americans often move long distances in search of work or a lower cost of living. In their new home towns, churches are an easy place to look for connection. Marco polo (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your entirely unreferenced point seems to be that Big Brother has killed God, Marco polo. Would that be an accurate summary? μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Medeis: I'm surprised that you didn't know that the same sentiment was expressed by someone you absolutely despise; as the saying goes, "know your enemy". Unfortunately, ignorance is to be expected when you are taught to hate before you learn (if ever; in your case, not) exactly what you're hating. But besides that, you don't have much of an excuse; it's a very well-known quote: Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. -- Karl Marx. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your ping didn't--I can't figure out why, maybe you have to use the signature? But who in the world said I "absolutely despise" Marx? He was rather sharp to coin the word capitalism. I absolutely despise Wilson, Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Milosevic, and various Husseins among others. But while I don't really respect Marx in any sense, he is beneath contempt. Please don't put words in my mouth. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In a lot of cases historically, and to some extent still, the religion of a person in the US is influenced by where they were born, and to some degree reflects the social norms of that area. Also, as a country where voting and freedom of religion have been, to various degrees, more central in the history of this country than in many others, it has played a more important role in American public discourse than in many others. There have also been the historic trends of immigration, particularly the trends since the founding of the US of increased immigration from largely Catholic southern Europe, and more recently from Asian countries. Religion is in a lot of cases a way of expressing and maintaining ties to the homeland for many of these people, and so is important to them. And, yeah, any time people disagree on issues important to them, conflicts arise. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In many lands for many years, the people had the same "official religion" as their ruler. As a result, the practice of religion was rather pro forma. The United States was settled by several groups - but only Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia were "establishmentarians" - Most of the other colonies were dissidents of one sort or another. New England was a hotbed of Congregationalists and Unitarians, New York was heavily Dutch Reformed, Maryland had Roman Catholics and Pennsylvania had a huge number of Friends. When such groups exist, they tend to take religion as a set of personal beliefs, not just the beliefs of their ruler. It is the peculiar situation in the United States that religion is highly personal which makes that country so religious. What is interesting is that in Switzerland about one person in five has no religious affiliation - just about the same as the US. Compare with the UK where the figure is over 25%, and Canada at 24%. It is in the nations which had "religion was established by the ruler" and where that rule no longer extended to religion where the tendency is greatest to "no affiliation." It is moreover interesting that in Russia, where the "ruler's religion" was "Atheism" for many years, that after years of "0% religious" or nearly so, that now a majority of Russians are religious. Rather an interesting topic. Collect (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that that's utter BS as far as the USA is concerned, since the ratification of the U. S. Constitution, over 2.2 centuries hence. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Medeis -- Not 100% sure what you're saying, but originally the Constitution only prevented the federal government from setting up an established church; it didn't prevent individual states from doing so (see Incorporation of the Bill of Rights). AnonMoos (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Medeis, I would not use the loaded term "Big Brother" to refer to the welfare state, since I think social welfare as it is practiced in most of Europe does not entail the kind of intrusiveness that we associate with "Big Brother" or the NSA. (The United Kingdom has the equally intrusive GCHQ, but it is distinct from the state's welfare branches.) However, I am in fact arguing that an effective welfare state removes many of the incentives in favor of religious affiliation. Note, however, that this does not suggest that "God is dead" or that the welfare state necessarily affects people's spiritual beliefs. It is possible to believe in God without taking part in religious activities or accepting religious dogma. Marco polo (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel like there are very significant developments going on in Christianity presently, and that we are are seeing the beginning of what will come to be seen as a historically important flowering of the religion. To begin with, of course, there were the actions of the SCLC and Martin Luther King, Jr. and many others, also of course liberation theology that has inspired people in Latin America, which were of the highest importance. Yet such people seemed to be on the fringe back then, whereas with the direction that Pope Francis seems to be going, and other churches that put aside their obsession with sex and put aside anti-gay bias, it seems like such formerly intolerable reform has gone mainstream. Meanwhile impossibly optimistic groups like the Plowshares Movement, missionaries like the recently released Kenneth Bae, and people like Arnold Abbott who just don't give up... they seem to point a way toward some different future.

also I think that the role of a "welfare state" is perhaps different from some people's notions of it here. For example, consider Old Testament welfare -- [1] -- which was then taken advantage of by Jesus and disciples [2]. The Pharisees actually hauled Jesus into court as, essentially, a welfare cheat, because they said that picking and rubbing the kernels of wheat was work impermissible on the Sabbath (also healing the sick), but he answered them, "You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?" So the sense of "welfare state", the sense of "entitlement", is by no means new and by no means anti-Christian. It is a simple consequence of the understanding that the Earth was not made by man, and there is no virtue in locking up every kernel of wheat from "thieves" who just want to eat without having money. Wnt (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet. "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 as a response to the Soviet Union, who were "godless commies" in propagandaland. To quote the article, The introduction of "under God" in the 1950s was done during the Cold War, as a way to differentiate the U.S. from the concept of communist state atheism. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That's more "ceremonial Deism" than substantive religion. Anyway, "In God We Trust" was added to coins during the civil war, long before many people were worrying about Marxism in North America. Compared to an official national established church, ceremonial Deism is rather shadowy and unimpressive... AnonMoos (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

When did David Irving lose respect as a mainstream historian?

See the WP:BLP report about this thread here. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Was David Irving already known for his holocaust denial before the lawsuit against penguin books and lipstadt, or did he only lose respect as a mainstream historian after the lawsuit?Whereismylunch (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the basis for your assumptions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

According to our article, his revisionism and falsification of history was known from his childhood and student years - and he was never considered a historian, mainstream or otherwise. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So it's not really that he lost respect - he never had any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit to black and white. Irving was respected for his knowledge of the primary sources. What never enjoyed significant expert respect were his conclusions and theses. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your questions are a little tangled, but I'll try to answer what you seem to be after.

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that Irving's early work was (is?) fairly well respected but things began to change with his 1977 book on Hitler, when he was perceived to have gone too far in his revisionism (a totally respectable approach to historiography, in a sense, seeing whether a new perspective is appropriate on long-held perceptions). He was openly seeking to readress the way that historians perceived Hitler, but his peers believed he'd gone too far the other way and was actually trying to whitewash him.

What is much clearer to me is that our article includes well cited material about Irving being openly a Holocaust denier by 1988, some 8 years before the lawsuit.

Clearly, whether or not he lost respect as a mainstream historian for being a denier would depend on the individual assessing him. While clearly some would have felt the repugnance and disdain for Irving's approach, even among that group, individual historians may choose to take quite a sanguine approach here. A basic assumption of historiography is that every source has bias, so any reader of Irving's work would need to take into account his well publicised bias - which arguably makes the task easier. --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And the fact that he is a member of neo-Nazi organisations means that his claims can reasonably be assumed to be biased unless the contrary can be established. Well, the contrary has not been established. Despite the extraordinary detail and comprehensiveness of his sources, his conclusions do not enjoy the support of mainstream historians. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Obviously many of his claims relating to the Nazi Party and its members, the holocaust and Jewish people aren't supported (well frankly generally bunkum). But both our David Irving article and our The Mare's Nest suggest his conclusions there may be largely supported. His original conclusion that the Hitler Diaries were fake also seems to be supported, even if he later came to the conclusion they weren't before accepting again that they were. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you implying we can create forks about living persons and give otherwise defamatory claims about them at one location while in another they would require attribution and references? I do reaize this person is worse than Satan, but even Satan is protected by BLP as long as he is alive, is he not? μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't understand what you're getting at here. My posts was intended to emphasise that in fact contrary to Jack of Oz's claim, it appears that some of this stuff was supported. So clearly I'm not suggesting he's worse than Satan, I find such assessments of how bad people are just silly anyway. My claims about Mare's Nest and Hitler Diaries are supported by the respective article. If you feel these articles have problems, you're welcome to deal with them on the article talk pages. I've changed my response from any to many above. A perusal of the David Irving article which I linked to, will therefore now support my claim, that this many of his claims relating to the Nazi Party and its members, the holocaust and Jewish people aren't supported by mainstream historians. I don't see much point quibling over the bunkum part, I can remove it if you feel it's really that bad. If you have problems with what others have said, please reply to them, not to me, or at least make it clear who are you referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As posted this thread raises and discusses possibly defamatory matters without quoting supporting references. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• If any or all of the above apologies are true, the ref desk allusions should have references attached. Or does the Ref Desk amount to a special place, where WP policies simply don't apply, and all is permitted? I am especially surprised if JackofOz holds the latter position. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  Please stop needling Jack. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No one's needling anyone here except a living third party, and, assuming you are commenting in good faith, Sluzzelin, see the BLP complaint. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

... where my name is conspicuously absent. So what's the deal with singling me out for mention here? This may be another case where good faith "can reasonably be assumed to be [absent] unless the contrary can be established". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a certain degree of subjectivity here, since one has the obvious impression that too much sympathy for the Nazis is looked down upon. Irving's original estimate of 135,000 in The Destruction of Dresden was sixfold higher than our current figures of 22,700 to 25,000 in our article on the Bombing of Dresden in World War II. By comparison the Casualties of the Iraq War article cites scientific figures over a range from 100,000 to 1,000,000. It would appear that the truth continues to be among the casualties in any conflict. Wnt (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's corral the wandering observations. Irving lost respect over time, losing more supporters through to the conclusion of the libel trial he started then lost. After the libel trial, he was finished, with the last of his respectable supporters turning away from him, leaving only the hangers-on who hold supremacist or antisemitic beliefs. Medeis questions whether we should do something to prevent defamation of Irving, but I assert that there is nothing we need to do. Whatever damage that has been done to Irving's reputation was complete before his biography was started on Wikipedia. We simply report how it is that he has no respect among historians. Binksternet (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Military outfits & curves

When I saw Disney's Mulan make a guest appearance on an episode of Sofia the First, I noticed that although Mulan was dressed in her military outfit, her curves were prominently visible. I find this rather unusual, since it appears (based on searches from Google Image Search) that military outfits usually do not make such curves prominently visible. Is my perception correct? 98.116.83.143 (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Mulan is a fictional character, even in the original Chinese poem. The real person that she might be based on is Fu Hao, who died c. 1200 BC. This was during the Shang, the earliest Chinese dynasty that we know is not mythological. We almost certainly have no idea what she wore, but see this statue for one person's impression of what she might have looked like. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

One, two, three, four, speculate on what she wore! —Tamfang (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

For comparison, Joan of Arc is a similar figure from European history. Like Mulan, there are no surviving likenesses of her; the only portraits we have are from people who have never seen her, so we are left with the artist's imagination of what she might look like. Some of the depictions of her in military armor show the armor tailored with obvious feminine curves, while others do not. We simply do not know what she wore or how it conformed to our standard understanding of what "womans" clothes should or should not look like, when showing one's "feminine" curves. I should note that modern military uniforms vary. In general, "combat" uniforms show very little variation between men and women: for example this image shows no discernable difference. However, in many cases women's dress uniforms do show feminine distinctions, for example, here and here and here you can see obvious differences between male and female uniforms; some as obvious as the difference between skirts and pants, others as subtle as the style of necktie or the cut of the uniform jacket. --Jayron32 12:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Weren't the curves of Catherine Bell in uniform the main raison d'être for JAG? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't Mulan pretending to be male for most of the movie? Was this supposed to be from after that or were the people working on the Sofia the First episode really that silly? (May be Mulan II since IIRC no one realised she was female until about the end when she went home anyway in the first movie, which seems to concur with the poem.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

On a more general and (slightly) modern note, I came across this image recently, of an officer of the 16th Regiment of Foot c. 1845, which seems to me to emphasize distinctly feminine curves where there oughtn't to be any. GoldenRing (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Is that a fallacy?

Cutting losses at 10% and letting profits run on above 10% is the winning strategy. Could this work?--Senteni (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is best to aim for profit. Multiple years of 5% losses could lead to bankruptcy. Making a profit and avoiding losses are easier said than done. Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The premise assumes instantaneous knowledge of the full state of the market and the ability to trade before anyone else acts on such information. The answer is bankers falling past the windows of lower-floor offices. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert, if you cut expenses enough, you can break even without selling anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought he had spiky hair, but that may have been based on the prematurely and lamentedly cancelled TV series. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It is kind of spiky. The most common term I've heard for that guy is "pointy-haired". Maybe subtly implying "pointy-headed", figuratively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We have an article Pointy-haired Boss... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that the OP received no real encyclopaedic response here besides that from Marco polo. Sadly this is yet another example in a growing portfolio of RD questions which are answered with nothing substantive. I suggest you take your question to somewhere where it might receive the correct analysis and response. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

OP: You don't indicate whether your interest is investing in stocks, casino gambling, or what. In either case, the answer is the same: Lady luck has no memory, so your strategy will not improve your chances of net profits, although it will not necessarily worsen them either. John M Baker (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Consult a professional investment adviser. We're just a bunch of people you don't know on the internet.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

... who use the opportunity of someone blundering in here asking a question - whatever next! - to post 'funny' replies and coded abuse of each other.

Things were much better when Clio the Muse used to manage this page. 86.132.250.55 (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there any chance that you're referring to the quote "cut short your losses and let your profits run on," which seems to be attributed to David Ricardo? It comes up fairly frequently when I try searching for more information, as do terms like risk management, disposition effect, and trend following. Are any of these articles helpful? --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do so many anglicized biblical names end in -ah?

Jeremiah. Isaiah. Rebecca. Leah. Zechariah. Nehemiah. Obadiah. Jonah. Micah. Zephaniah. And how come names like Zephaniah, Micah, Obadiah, and Nehemiah are not that popular while virtually all the disciples' names in the New Testament become classics? There are a lot of Johns, Thomases, Phillips, Pauls, etc. And why can Spanish speakers name their kids "Jesus" with a diacritical mark on the u while English speakers hardly name their kids "Jesus"?140.254.136.160 (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

According to our article on Hebrew names, the male names ending in -iah express devotion to Yahweh. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca (Rivqa) and Leah just have the standard singular feminine Hebrew ending (an -a vowel in "absolute" form, but with an added final -t consonant in other contexts). Micah is probably short for Mikaya. Not sure about Jonah (which has a feminine-looking ending, though masculine). The others end in -yah, a shortened version of -yahu, which is in turn a shortened from of the Tetragrammaton YHWH... AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And just in case the OP is unaware of this, the reason for the -h at the end (excluding the -iah/-jah/yah suffix) is because the Hebrew alphabet consists of just consonants, it has no letter for "a". Hence the most common way to indicate that a words ends in an -a sound is to put an "h" at the end (ה in Hebrew). Noah is an exception, there the "h" represents the Hebrew letter heth which has no real equivalent in the Latin alphabet. - Lindert (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

When the letter "he" (ה) is used as Lindert's just described it is called a mater lectionis, that is a letter that is not used for its own value but to give some information regarding the presence and the nature of a preceding vowel. (The letters "alef" (א), "yud" (י) and "vav" (ו) are the other three letters used as matres lectionis in Hebrew). The phrase "mater lectionis" is Latin and it means "a mother of reading", in Heberw it is אם קריאה ("em qri'a"). The notion of a "mother of reading" may strike you as bizarre but Latin (and Hebrew for that matter) borrowed that phrase from Arabic أم قراءة ("umm qira'a") where it has an idiomatic meaning. Other analogous idiomatic uses of the word "mother" ("umm") in Arabic gave rise in English to phrases like "dura mater", "pia mater", "mother of pearl" (and remember "the mother of (all) battles"). Contact Basemetal here 11:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also important to note that many of the New Testament names come to us from Greek, as it was written in Greek by Hellenized Jews. So many of the names we find in the New Testament are either Greek or modifications of Hebrew names into more Greek-like forms; whereas Old Testament names are essentially straight from Hebrew. For the apostles, for example, Peter's name comes from Petros, the Greek word for Rock; Thomas from Didymos, Greek for "twin". Paul took his name from the Latin name "Paullus" meaning "humble", to replace his earlier Hebrew name Saul (after the first King of Israel). John is also based on a Hellenized version of a Hebrew name, the Greek Ἰωάννης from the earlier Yehohanan, which you can see the "Yeh" from "YHWH". Andrew is directly from the Greek meaning "Man". Matthew is a Hebrew name (the ending "you" sound is that YHWH bit noted above in names like Zechariah), but Mark is straight-up Latin (from Marcus and Mars), Luke is straight Greek (from Lucania, a greek name for the Italian peninsula), Philip is straight Greek (from Phil-hippos, or "lover of horses"), etc. So the names you note as being different linguistically from the Old Testament Hebrew names are actually linguistically different, in many cases entirely unrelated to Hebrew, or heavily modified by coming through Greek or Latin. --Jayron32 03:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Slight quibble: Thomas is from Aramaic תאומא "Te'omah", meaning "twin". Greek Didymos is a translation. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't know Aramaic but I think this would be "the twin" as I believe final -ah in Aramaic is the equivalent of the Hebrew initial article ha-. I could be wrong. I know just enough Armaic to get in trouble, mostly from Aramaic embedded in Hebrew (e.g. "Dinah dmalkhutah dinah", "had gadyah", "bar kokhvah", "bar giorah", etc.) Contact Basemetal here 18:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Jonah is a female noun ("dove") but a male name. Hebrew animal names are often of only one grammatical gender—there are no male hares or (grammatically) female camels in the Hebrew Bible. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

For the last question, we have some info at Jesus_(name). Basically it's just a cultural difference. Also consider that Christian_(name) is common in some places and rare in others. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, a lot of kids are named Joshua, which is etymologically the same name as Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It's complex, of course. In Spanish, Jesus is a different name than Joshua (Josue in Spanish); though they are cognate with each other (common etymological roots). The two names are similar in that regard to the English names Jacob and James. Also, in Spanish, Jesus Christ himself is often called "Jesucristo", which is rarely used as a first name. And of course, Jesus sometimes appears as a first name in English as well. Levon called his child Jesus (because he likes the name)... --Jayron32 03:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That must be why Spanish prayers mention 'Jesu'. 49.226.57.8 (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Jesu" is the Latin vocative case form... AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That form occurs in English too: Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, Come, Sweet Jesu, etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Baby Jesu, pah-rum-pah-pum-pum..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There goes Bugs again... marching to the beat of his own drum! Blueboar (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Go to about 1:50 of this:[3] They say it "JAY-soo". I've heard it as "YAY-soo". Some say "Jesus" the normal way, unmindful that the rhyme doesn't work then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The usual pronunciation over here is "JEEZ-yoo" (I cant do IPA either), except in Latin texts when we go with the second of Bugs's options. Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Harry Simeon Chorale version, 1958, at about 1:00 in:[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesu, Joy Of Man's Desiring (J S Bach), the Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields and the Choir of King's College, Cambridge (English text), and Pie Jesu (Lloyd-Webber), Sarah Brightman & Paul Miles-Kingston (Latin text). Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And, of course, Common Prayer, eg the confession in the order for morning prayer:

Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults, Restore thou them that are penitent, According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord...

But this is getting a longish way from the question... GoldenRing (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)