Humanities desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

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.

January 31

Pedophile Movements

I would like to find all possible articles having to do with movements having to do with pedophile rights. I am having a hard time finding this. Thanks. MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Park mentioned a NAMBLA. Other than that, you're (hopefully) on your own. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was PIE in the UK in the 70's and 80's. Rojomoke (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the Dutch pedophilia supporting group MARTIJN which, like NAMBLA, was a member of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association in the 80's and 90's. Associated with MARTIJN was also the Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity, a short-lived political party in favor of abolishing age of consent laws, but which did not gain enough signatures to participate in elections, despite the media attention it got. - Lindert (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting BBC documentary from 2002 called "The Hunt For Britain's Paedophiles", which can be seen on YouTube. It refers to various groups that existed at the time in the UK, including societies that were nominally "fan clubs" for child stars (particularly the "Hazel Ascot Appreciation Society"). Paul B (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted diddlers are usually granted protective custody when they go to prison (in Canada and the US, anyway). More of a privilege than a right, but somewhat relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

secondary sources

I have a published address in a journal of a very prominent theologian giving opinons about Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science. Is that a secondary source or a 3rd source It is about the theologian making comments, assessing what Christian Science is about Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primary source for the writer's views on Christian Science. Assuming the writer is really a "very prominent theologian", it would be a valid secondary source on Christian Science. As far as WP:RS is concerned, it might be suitable as a source for an expansion of the Christian Science#Classification as cult, sect or denomination section of the article. Tevildo (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primary source because it was a political speech about the author's involvement in discussions with Christian Science about whether they wanted to join the National Council of Churches (NCC) when he was NCC general secretary (they didn't and he is no longer general secretary). It represents a tiny-minority view.

There's already a mention of his discussions in the Classification as cult, sect or denomination section (final paragraph), based on primary sources because there are no secondary sources for this; that is, no one other than the participants in the discussions have written about it. So it is (arguably) already over-represented in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Roman province

What was the largest Roman province ever? By population and land area? What about in Christian Rome, when the provinces were probably smaller (I remember Gaul as a province, but Wikipedia shows it as a diocese or something split into many provinces). Hey, why is a diocese composed of provinces anyway? This is the reverse of church usage.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagittarian Milky Way (talk • contribs) 15:29, 31 January 2014‎

During the late republic, the largest province in area was Hispania Ulterior. Hispania Tarraconensis was the largest in area during the early empire, though it was smaller than Hispania Ulterior had been. The largest in population was Aegyptus. Note that Italia (Italy) had a larger population than Aegyptus, but it was not considered a province. Because provinces decreased in size after the reforms of Diocletian, these were the largest provinces ever in size and population. After Diocletian's reform, the reduced province of Hispania Tarraconensis was still the empire's largest in area, since other pre-reform provinces were divided into smaller pieces. Because Egypt was now divided into four provinces, Tarraconensis was probably also the largest in population after the reform. (My sources for areas are the maps and articles in Wikipedia and area figures for corresponding territories today. My source for populations is the Atlas of World Population History, © 1978, edited by Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones.) Marco polo (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the question on "Gaul", Gaul was never an official "unit" of the empire per se. It was a region that roughly corresponded to the area between the Pyrenees and the Rhine-Alps-Rhone line (i.e. France, roughly, plus bits of of other countries). Gaul had, AFAIK, always been multiple provinces, which of course varied over time. Roman Gaul covers the various divisions of the area. Regard to the word "diocese". From the original Greek, it just means "district", and really like any other similar word such as "region", "province", "area", "zone", etc. it doesn't have a predetermined size or hierarchy. In the Roman Empire, a "Roman diocese" was a large collection of provinces, while a Roman Catholic diocese is much smaller in size. It just is what it is. --Jayron32 03:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generations of schoolchildren learned that Gaul is divided into three parts in practically the first full sentence of Latin that they were exposed to... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, according to a classic schoolboy howler, "All Gaul is quartered into three halves". :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

According to 1066 and All That, the three parts were: the Weeny, the Weedy and the Weaky Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]