Humanities desk
< March 2	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 3

Seemed to be another widespread hoax in Chinese magazines, newspapers, blogs and even textbooks...

I just recalled this story, which seems to be hoax after I tried to google the English source and failed. The story/hoax looks like:

In 1968, a 3 year old girl in Nevada, Edith told her mom she could read the letter "O" of word "OPEN". Her mom, after praising her daughter's effort, sued the Laura III Kindergarten(Which I can't find in google) for "destroying Edith's creativity", and asked for 10 million dollar of indemnity. She believed Edith used to be able to think O as things like apple, sun, ball, egg and so on, but the kindergarten's education had made her unable to think so.

Surprisingly, the mother won the case because the jury was moved her story:

"Once I had been to an Eastern country, I saw two swan in a park, one had its wing pruned and the other did not. The one with pruned wing was put in a large pond and the one with wing intact in a smaller pond. I asked the manager of the park and they say this is to prevent the swan from escaping. The ones with their wings pruned cannot balance so they can't fly away, and the ones with wings intact can't fly away because there is too short distance for them to glide.

This, the Eastern people's wisdom was appalling to me, while I felt mournful for the two swans. Today I come here for my daughter because I believe Laura III Kindergarten is making my daughter a swan- a swan without the wing of creativity, a swan in the small pond of only ABC's."

It is also said many changes to educational laws are influenced by this case.

A page of Chinese version of this story: http://www.guokr.com/question/464199/

Though this is very likely a hoax, I would like to ask:

Had there been anything similar to this where education institutions are sued for damaging student's creativity?

Is it ever possible for a jury to be moved by an "arousing story", or is this kind of metaphoric story not necessary in the court and will likely to be halted, as it does not relate to the topic of the case?--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe this story. Juries are not so stupid, even in America. Maproom (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's more plausible than you may think. India abolished juries entirely after one acquitted a serious criminal with the most overwhelming evidence, an Italian jury was dismissed for playing Sudoku for three weeks (yes, in the jury box, for three weeks) and there is the infamous case of the four English jurors who went back to a hotel room, contacted the murder victim with a ouija board (can't ask for a better witness in a murder trial than the victim himself), and used that to convict the defendant. Nobody knows what happens in a jury room, so had they done it there the judge probably wouldn't have heard about it at all. But he did and ordered a retrial. And then Indiana tried to change pi with a law (fortunately there was a mathematics professor in town who talked enough Senators round to sense overnight).

There are all sorts of problems with juries. There was the American case where the prosecutor deselected all African-American jurors from a mixed jury without reasons (which were not required). On appeal, the US Supreme Court ruled that they should have provided reasons (although a black defendant is not automatically entitled to a mixed/black jury). The British realised the problem resulting from a jury's acquittal being unappealable: if the acquittal is due to a point of law on which the prosecutor thinks the judge is completely wrong, there would be no opportunity to set that right. For that reason there is the Attorney General's Reference appeals - a appeals and asks the appeal judges to set right the point of law on which the defendant was found not guilty. The defendant however walks, even if the prosecutor wins the appeal. In some countries prosecutors can appeal, win, change an acquittal to conviction and send the defendant back to prison.

I quote one lecturer, an experienced defender and prosecutor: 'juries will believe anything that adds up. They are the biggest load of idiots there ever was. The judge might not, but he doesn't decide. You cannot predict a jury, there have been clients I have had, I have not seen a more ridiculous story, but I've had no choice but to put it to the court anyway. And the jury took it.'--92.25.228.93 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boroughs and councils in NI

What's the relationship between Ballymoney Borough Council and Ballymoney (borough)? Is the Borough Council identical to the body described in the "Borough council" section of (borough), or are they different? To my American ears, a council is always just the group of councillors, but I know that local government in Australia and territorial authorities of New Zealand both include jurisdictions themselves known as "councils", so I can't interpret the Mother Country's terminology by the terminology of her daughters. Local government in Northern Ireland places a lot of emphasis on the councils themselves, more emphasis than I'd expect if the council is simply the group of councillors. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the group of councillors, it's the organisation they preside over which will provide various services to the inhabitants of the borough e.g. refuse collection - I'm not sure exactly which services are provided by local authorities in NI these days, but certainly in the past it would have included social housing. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Councils in Northern Ireland haven't provided social housing since 1971, when the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was set up after protests against discrimination in allocation. There are currently proposals for the NIHE to be broken up, but into private housing associations - the function is not being returned to councils. See Local government in Northern Ireland. Anyway, I agree it's odd to have separate articles for councils and boroughs, since boroughs only exist as the areas administered by borough councils. The existing boundaries - 26 boroughs, districts and cities - were set in 1973 and will be superseded later this year by eleven "super-districts" - see Reform of local government in Northern Ireland - so both the boroughs and the borough councils will become historical. I would merge the borough articles into the borough council articles, as the area administered by the borough council between 1973 and 2014. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arwel is right. The council is the municipal government; the borough is the area governed by that council. The names vary - Lisburn, Derry and Belfast are cities with city councils. Armagh and Newry are cities with councils which govern a slightly larger area. Many people live in one town/village/city but are subject to municipal governance from a council which is named after a larger nearby town/city. Municipal taxes are called 'rates' and are paid to the council. They collected by the provincial Rates Collection Agency, which is part of the provincial Finance Department. Councils in England run schools and social housing (as Nicknack explains) which in Northern Ireland are run by the provincial government. Councils here do museums, leisure centres, refuse collection and playgrounds. They make some by-laws on dog fouling and whether you can drink alcohol in the street and so on.

They choose street names, but not town names; they have been the source of controversy with which flag should be flown on council property, and one even gritted footpaths but not streets on the excuse that the street was the provincial Roads Service's responsibility. For that reason, the nationalist Derry was able to change the council's name from the Londonderry Corporation to Derry City Council. It cannot change the city from Londonderry to Derry (only the UK government can do that). It can, however, change street names to Irish or indeed make them bilingual; for example 'Belfast Road, Derry' would I think become (imprecisely) 'Bothar na Béal Feirste, Doire'. --92.25.228.93 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robespierre

Was Maximilien de Robespierre left-wing or was he a classical liberal who got a little too enthusiastic about Enlightenment ideas? I've wondered this for a while. — Melab±1 ☎ 05:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was a follower of Rousseau. It doesn't appear you have even read the Robespierre article--at least not well--since this is explicitly addressed. He was a leftist absolutist, not a classical liberal. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of projecting post 1848 conceptions of "classical liberal" and "leftist" onto an early 19th century politician is a bit silly. Robespierre liquidiated the Enrages and Hebertists as our article on the Sans-culottes discusses. I think a better idea than forcing Robespierre to fit into your modern understanding of ideology is to follow Ranke's advice and let the past speak for itself here. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to impress racist people if you are the ethnicity they don't like?

Isn't it possible to psychologically make them okay with you by doing certain things and acting certain ways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It happens with kids all the time. As a teacher in Australia I often hear "I hate Asians". I say "What about xxxxx over there?" (It's obvious that xxxxx's parents are Chinese, but xxxxx was born in this country.) The response? "She's OK, she's not Asian." HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Not all racists wear white bedsheets and dream about lynching people. Huge numbers of racists (most?) are just quietly prejudicial, even to the point of being unaware of it. These people are definitely prone to the phenomenon you cite, but even those at the far more evil end of the racist spectrum can be swayed. A friend's grandfather escaped a Nazi roundup of Jews in Budapest because his next door neighbour liked him. His next door neighbour happened to be the SS commander in the city and generally an unabashed antisemite. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a science article about school programs intended to counter racism [1]. It concludes with

“

For example, optimally effective interventions might include exposure to counterstereotypic models (e.g., books about African American scientists), training in attending to the multiple features of these symbolic models (e.g., individuals’ race and occupation), and practice in detecting within-group differences (e.g., differences between African American scientists and artists) and between-group similarities (e.g., similarities between African American and European American scientists).

”

-- So, I think this author supports the notion that exposing a racist A to individuals B,C... who don't fit the stereotypes might have an effect of decreasing racist attitudes in A. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should think it would depend on the individual, i.e. on the fundamental basis for their prejudice. It could be genuine hatred pounded into them by relentless propaganda. Or it could simply be wariness from not having enough information and thus not feeling comfortable. It's reasonable to suppose that the latter group would be more likely to benefit from that educational effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a racist. Some of my best friends are <name your favourite ethnicity>. But I don't want them coming here in their thousands and stealing our jobs from us (spoken by your favourite racist). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one reason that racism is so persistent is that people often compartmentalize their experiences with people who contradict their stereotypes. So "all x's are lazy/drunks/criminals, except for the y's that I know who aren't." OldTimeNESter (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A question about laws relating to digital evidence

I knew that under key disclosure laws one would sometimes be forced to decrypt encrypted files. But besides, what laws will apply if one set some self-destructive mechanisms to a storage device, for example, a hard disk that erases all its data once it has been moved away for some distance?--Spwnt (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would depend highly on jurisdiction, and we don't give legal advice here. Our article on Key_disclosure_law discusses laws in some countries, but doesn't seem to mention self-destruct mechanisms. The references therein might be useful. You might also be interested in things like rubberhose_(file system) (developed in part by in the (in)famous Julian Assange), and deniable encryption in general. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1914 - ambassador(s)

Good morning. I wonder who was the U.S. ambassador to Belgium between August 4 and September 11, 1914. If there were none, who was the ambassador for these dates in France (Myron Timothy Herrick or William Graves Sharp)?
It would seem, from a manuscript of the time, that an ambassador of the United States had threatened the Germans a special war if the city of Brussels was complaining about German military. Could you confirm? Do you have any sources? Thank you already, Égoïté (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC) French speaking - sorry for my bad English...[reply]

Our article, United States Ambassador to Belgium, says it was Brand Whitlock. Alansplodge (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much ! Égoïté (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also found Whitlock's report on German Military Rule in Belgium, written in 1916 (which doesn't describe the incident that you are asking about) and also The Journal of Brand Whitlock which starts on 1 August, 1914 and runs to 14 chapters. Good reading! Please don't worry about your English; it is perfectly intelligible and a lot better than my French. Alansplodge (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this informations Alansplodge ! I'll read this and try to improve my English... ^_^ Égoïté (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Je vous en prie. Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this architectural style?

I'm talking about the type that you see in really old but very stately university buildings built in the 19th century. They may have a gabled roof for the main building and an attached castle-like tower with a crenelated top. 140.254.227.87 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, this is Gothic architecture, if built between 12th and 16th centuries. If it's more recent, 18th–20th centuries, then it's neo-Gothic or Gothic Revival. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking particularly at English architecture, you might also find it worthwhile to look at English Gothic architecture. You'll see that English Gothic falls into three distinct phases: Early English, Decorated and Perpendicular. These terms are widely used in English guidebooks. The Victorian interpretation of this style is widely found in university buildings dating from the 19th century. See, for example, Victoria Building, University of Liverpool, the Great Hall of the University of Leeds, the Old Quad of Melbourne University, the Main Quadrangle of the University of Sydney, the Old Court of Selwyn College, Cambridge, and (par excellence) Keble College, Oxford. Notice how the Victorians often deliberately exploited brick instead of stone. Further, in some cases what appears to be stone in a Victorian Gothic building is actually brick with cladding: the Victorians were a thrifty bunch! One final point: it would be unusual in England to describe buildings from the 19th century as "really old". RomanSpa (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP address comes from Ohio State University, which was founded in 1870; its oldest buildings are very late 19th century. To answer the original question, see Collegiate Gothic. I wanted to give you a good local example of Gothic Revival applied to a secular building, but to my surprise, I'm not seeing any comparable buildings at National Register of Historic Places listings in Columbus, Ohio. Can you get out to Westerville or up to Delaware? Towers Hall at Otterbein (image) is somewhat of an example of the style, and University Hall at OWU (image), although officially Romanesque Revival, is similar to Collegiate Gothic and also common for the period. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re the history of the "crenelated top", see Battlement, and Licence to crenellate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd thought of looking up the IP address! The pictures in the article on these halls suggest a fairly eclectic choice of architectural styles. Orton Hall does have obviously Romanesque features - the semi-circular arches are a common Romanesque/Norman form - but University Hall is much more of a mish-mash, with both Romanesque and Gothic features, as well as features from other eras. RomanSpa (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are taking about Ohio State buildings, Orton hall is in the style Nicholas Pevsner usually referred to as "arts and crafts" Gothic (popular from c1890-1910), though these buildings typically imitate Romanesque styles, with the semi-circular rather than pointed arches. In Australia they call it "Federation style". The picture (St Nicholas's Church, Fisherton Delamere) is a combination of medieval Gothic and heavy neo-Gothic rebuilding in the 19th century. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did Yahweh evolve from a war god in a Semitic tribe to a god of love?

Yahweh was believed to be a war god. How did this conception of Yahweh evolve into the modern conception of Yahweh, in which Yahweh becomes a single, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, highly competitive (to the extent of denying the existence of other gods), eternal deity? 140.254.227.87 (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles here have you looked at already? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary hypothesis would be a good place to start, followed by Hellenistic Judaism. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've told you before BB, the idea is that we give them the references to articles here so that they don't have to do it themselves. As Ian.thomson has just done, in fact. --Viennese Waltz 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've told you before VW, your snippy comments toward me are typically garbage, and this one is no exception. I was going to suggest that the OP start with God and see where it takes him, because this is a complex subject. But it occurred to me the OP might have done so already. So I'd like to know what he has already found, to narrow the search a bit. That, of course, would involve helping and interacting with the OP, which is apparently an alien concept to you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question starts out with the unsubstantiated and false premise that YHWH was originally merely considered a god of war. The earliest mention of the divine name in archaeology is in the Mesha stele (c. 840 BC), but it gives no context other than that it is the name of the Israelite deity. The oldest literature mentioning YHWH is the Hebrew Bible, specifically the five books attributed to Moses. There is currently no widely accepted theory about how and when these books were written or compiled, but if you take the Documentary Hypothesis mentioned above, the earliest portion is considered to come from the Jahwist, writing c. 900 BC. The material attributed to this (supposedly) earliest source includes the Genesis creation story, and the promise to Israel that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed". So even going with the DH, the oldest sources describe YHWH as the creator of heaven and earth and the source of all living things on the planet, and as a god who would one day bless all the nations on earth. It's too simplistic to assume that a god of war cannot also be a god of love and in fact be omnipotent, omniscient etc. In fact God is still considered to be a God of war in Judaism and Christianity. - Lindert (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 140.254.227.87. The question "How did Yahweh evolve" has a very long and interesting story with many versions. I am going to give you the shortest version I can think of, just to let you off the hook of a lot of fun reading. The old testament God is described as telling his people how to wage wars, and this is one of several reasons some think of him as a "war god". In the new testament, Jesus is usually attributed to being the bringer of a new commandment "Love thy neighbor", which earned him the title "God of love". Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common misconception that "love your neighbor as yourself" is a new commandment from Jesus. In fact, it's a direct quote from the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18,34). - Lindert (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lindert. I did not know that. In my defence, the last time I read the bible was over half a century ago, and Leviticus was the one I recall as being one I skimmed most heavily. I am glad I put this text up, so I could learn this from you. Since you so correctly put it, it is commonly misconceived as being so, it seems to me to be one version in folklore at least. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding whether this god ever was a war god, any god associated with victory in war will naturally gain popularity as his worshippers gain territory and fearsome/inspiring reputations. And, mythically, a god of war has an edge in any pantheon infighting. So if he'd want to become omni-everything, he probably could and would. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My religious experts have consistently said that God has never changed - it is our understanding of God that has changed. Which I think is what the OP was getting at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course a very valid point. And this is indeed perhaps what OP meant. I was not able to deduce that from what the OP wrote. I thought he might just be after an easy answer. You were right to ask how much he had read. I wish the OP had answered you, since he has left us guessing :) Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. "Love thy neighbour", by my understanding, is an easier stance to take when your neighbour deposed your old neighbour for lack of love (or tribute). I am no expert, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think traditional Judaism sees God as either "of war" or "of love". He's a complex amalgam of values, including those (offhand, I can't think of him described anywhere in Jewish Scripture or liturgy as the "God of love" - perhaps in Hosea, which deals with love? The war aspect is usually translated as "of hosts", tzva'ot), but also "the king of kings", "of justice", "our father", "of mercy", "of healing", "the provider", "the rock" (whatever that means) and countless other things. Even his multiplicity of names in Judaism refers to this, with different names reflecting different attributes. See our (not very good) article: names of God in Judaism. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my culture, "the rock" typically layeth the smackdown. While I'm already small, I should also mention War Gods had some great music. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not sure (I haven't actually read it) but I think you're somewhere in the vicinity of Moses and Monotheism. I don't know how well any of that book's ideas have stood up over time, but they at least seem more plausible than Freud's psychological writings. :) Wnt (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freud's attempts to aggressively extend his psychological insights into other fields (Moses and Monotheism, Totem and Taboo. etc.) have really not stood up well in those fields. AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this has a lot to do with the evolution of society. Suppose we start with a society ruled by a Taliban like radical religious authority, then over time the authority will evolve into something less radical. This is due to feedback processes that operate even in the absence of democratic rule. Then what happens in a theocratic society is that the religion will be modified, it will be adjusted to justify the current laws (e.g. when Moses needed the Ten Commandments, he claimed that these were God's commandments, otherwise the people would not accept them). Count Iblis (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that presupposing that society itself is separate and distinct from religion, and there is a distinction between a secular culture and religion? 140.254.227.136 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really want to get into the details of this, but Progressive revelation is relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(This post is addressed to the original poster.) Your questions mentioned various attributes of Yahweh (Jehovah). You can read about four attributes of Jehovah in the book Draw Close to Jehovah, published by Jehovah's Witnesses and available online at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/20000. The abbreviation is "cl". Versions in other languages are available via http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/li/r1/lp-e. Also, you can join a discussion of the book at a Kingdom Hall near you (http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/meetings/), where a thorough study of the book is a part of the 2014 meeting schedule.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could also learn about many more than four attributes of Yahweh by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and attending Mass in your local Catholic church. You could learn very similar attributes of Yahweh to the Jehovah's Witness view by asking an imam at your local mosque, and studying the centuries of Islamic thought on the Koran with others at the mosque. You could learn many attributes of Yahweh, and why Jews typically do not use that name to describe Him, by reading some Midrash and visiting your local synagogue to ask a rabbi. Or you could learn about how we are all thetans trapped in material bodies, and how it is very important to dedicate all your time and money to freeing thetans, by visiting your local Scientology centre. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Jewish or Muslim equivalent to a guide of [insert-holy-text-here]?

This book seems to carry a Christian bias. Like the part where they include The Fall of Adam and Eve or the interpretation of the serpent as Satan or Jesus as the Second Adam or Mary, mother of Jesus, as the Second Eve without really stating whichever denomination believes [insert-uncited-info-here]. Where can I find a Muslim equivalent to the Qur'an? 140.254.227.181 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term you are looking for in Christianity is called exegesis or hermeneutics, which is the critical interpretation of religious text. In Islam, the exegetical tradition is known as Tafsir, while you can find information on Jewish exegesis at Jewish commentaries on the Bible; the most important of which is the Talmud. --Jayron32 01:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're looking for something that can serve as either light reading or something deep to meditate on, Midrashim can be pretty great regardless of religion. Hadiths would be somewhat comparable for Islam, as they are not sacred texts, but stories that elaborate on themes from the religion's sacred text. Christianity has comparable stories, but they're too often (at least in my experience in the pews) confused with "what the Bible really says" instead of a later elaboration on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Talmud is pretty impenetrable, especially for a beginner, even in English. Modern compilations of midrashim are much better for your needs. There's a particularly well-known one, published in English as The Midrash Says, in five volumes, one for each book of the Pentateuch. The volume I've linked to is the one for Genesis. But you won't find anything in there about Jesus or Mary. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. (By the way, could someone explain the "pun of Pathera" in that article. It was added in a single edit that otherwise, to my ignorant eyes, seems sincere [2] so I don't know if it has some other meaning. wikt:pun doesn't list one either, so if it does, please consider an entry there also.) Wnt (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus may be mentioned in the Talmud (pretty common name), but Jesus would be completely out of place in Midrashim commenting on the Jewish Bible (particularly the first five books), except in some of the most fringe eschatological parts (like Sefer Zerubbabel, which fits in the Jewish Bible about as well as the predictions of Nostradamus fit into the Christian Bible).

(Also, Pathera/Pantera sounds like Parthena, "maiden" or "virgin girl," a term Christians referred to Mary as). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera for an old anti-Christian story, which was picked up by one medieval Jewish source (not the Talmud)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pantera/Pandera is in the Talmud, though Jesus is usually referred to as "ben Stada": "Jesus son of Stada is Jesus son of Pandira?" Rav Hisda said, "The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandera." "But was not the husband Pappos son of Yehuda and the mother Stada?" No, his mother was Miriam, who let her hair grow long and was called Stada. Pumbedita says about her: "She was unfaithful to her husband." (b. Shabbat 104b) Paul B (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B: This particular translation is somewhat odd.

Miriam, who let her hair grow long
More correctly: "Miriam the hairdresser" or, more speculatively, "Miriam the Magdalene".
...and was called Stada. Pumbedita says about her: "She was unfaithful to her husband."
More correctly: ...and was called Stada; as they say in Pumbedita, "she strayed ("Setath Da")" from her husband.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)#[reply]

I confess I took the easy way out and copy-pasted from the version in the article Jesus in the Talmud, rather than type out the translation used in my source, van Voorst's Jesus outside the New Testament (p.109). The translation given by van Voorst is "It is taught that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Wise, “Did not Ben Stada bring spells from Egypt in a cut in his flesh?” They said to him, “He was a fool, and they do not bring evidence from a fool.” Ben Stada is Ben Pantera. Rabbi Hisda “d. 309” said, “The husband was Stada, the lover was Pantera.” The husband was “actually” Pappos ben Judah, the mother was Stada. The mother was Miriam “Mary” the dresser of women's hair. As we say in Pumbeditha, “She has been false to “satath da” her husband.” (b. Shabbat 104b)" I've no idea where the version used in the wikipedia article comes from. Paul B (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "ELIF": how does the mention of "ben Stada" indicate this Jesus is the Jesus, or have anything to do with Messiah? The article doesn't explain that. Could Joseph also be a "ben Stada", sort of like how modern Arabs hand down honorifics like bin Laden? Or does it mean something else? Wnt (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B: As you can see, my translation is identical to, if less formal than van Voorst's. (Note that that van Voorst's translation of the parts not directly relevant to Jesus is too literal. "Rabbi Eliezer said to the Wise" actually means in Mishnaic jargon "Rabbi Eliezer said to [his colleagues] the [other] Sages [with whom he disagreed on the issue discussed there]". Also Shota, translated as "fool", actually means "the insane one", though perhaps van Voorst was using the older and more formal sense of "fool".

Wnt: Though the "ben Stada" passage does not actually name its subject—as with "bin Laden", "ben Stada" is only a patronymic (or matronymic)—medieval tradition certainly identified ben Stada with Jesus: 12th century Rabbi Tam, who disagreed (for problematic chronological reasons), saying "whoever believes that ben Stada is the Nazarene is mistaken", was obviously refuting a popular belief; the 16th century Christian censors (some of them former Jews) also thought so, as they felt it necessary to erase both occurrences of this passage from the Talmud. (There are other Talmud passages, also erased by said censors, that may refer to Jesus, but where he is not called ben Stada.)

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I search genealogy of Jesus for "Stada", I get nothing, nor did I see anything like it in either version. Of course, that doesn't prove anything much, except that this is not an easy thing to figure out. Wnt (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clarify the Pantera/Parthena passage in Jesus in the Talmud. Peter Schäfer explains "ben Stada" as follows: "His mother's true name was Miriam, and “Stada” is an epithet which derives from the Hebrew/Aramaic root sat.ah/sete' (“to deviate from the right path, to go astray, to be unfaithful”). In other words, his mother Miriam was also called “Stada” because she was a sotah, a woman suspected, or rather convicted, of adultery.". Paul B (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another version of this which we discussed a few months ago was that Mary might have been raped by a Roman soldier named Pandera. Would that also have merited the "Stada" epithet? (I'm comparing by one of the few random facts I know about Judaism, namely that Levites are supposed to do a ritual divorce after a rape) Wnt (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt: Certainly not—Setath da implies willfulness. (Also, not Levites, but Kohanim (who are technically a subset of Levites, but ritually entirely distinct); Levites are ruled by the same ritual laws as ordinary Israelites.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, for 100% certain, as I said, you won't find a mention of Jesus or Mary in any of the five volumes of The Midrash Says. --Dweller (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a useful answer. Wnt (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking out the Europeans out of their nations

Were Muammar Gadhafi and Gamal Abdel Nasser the only leaders of former colonies to kick out Europeans out of their countries? Were they the only leaders in Africa to kick out these people out of their countries and only Muslims to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.199 (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's from a time when some of those words had different connotations, but Saladin did pretty well. The question depends on which countries you consider naturally "theirs" or "ours". The way I see it, if you live there, it's yours. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As our indigestible green friend notes above, it depends a lot on how you define things. However, many countries have had revolts which overthrew colonial powers; an important distinction may be that they did not have a singular charismatic leader that became the dictator of the newly created country, but to claim that Egypt and Libya were the only nations (even only African nations) to overthrow colonial leaders is inaccurate. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Algeria fought for, and won, its independence from France in the Algerian War; the war had wide-reaching effects even in Metropolitan France; in the midst of the war the French state fell and was forced to reconstitute itself as an entirely new state, one could argue that the Algerians brought about not only their own independence, but the fall of a European colonial power as well. The Algerian Independence movement, however, lacked the single Charismatic Leader which characterized other such movements, such as in Egypt and Libya. But in Algeria, the leadership was entirely Muslim in nature, so that meets your other criteria as well. Arguable, the various wars in Southeast Asia also were wars of independence against colonial powers fought by native forces; the French (again) were sent packing following the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, and three independent nations arose from that conflict; the U.S. took up the cause in the ensuing Vietnam War, but were eventually thrown out as well. If you want a charismatic leader from that conflict, Ho Chi Minh is a good fit. Sukarno led the struggle to drive the Dutch out of Indonesia, and became the country's first President. Not African and not Muslim, however, but still examples of native populations overthrowing colonial powers by force. Back to Africa, there are MANY African Wars of Independence which were ultimately successful (many African nations earned their independence peacefully, but others had to fight hard). The Angolan War of Independence was not Muslim led, but was African in nature, and has an identifiable leader in Agostinho Neto. Mohammed V of Morocco could be argued to have led his country to Independence from France and Spain, he's both Muslim and African. Habib Bourguiba led the war for Tunisian independence, and he's both Muslim and African. I could probably find more examples, but then again, so can you. --Jayron32 01:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misunderstood what you were saying but Sukarno while obviously not African, was AFAIK (and per our article categorisation) Muslim. It's true his brand of Javanese Islam would probably seem odd or wrong to a number of Muslims. And for that matter I suspect it would seem a bit odd even in modern day Indonesia. Also I don't think religion was much of a factor in his politics, he did push towards a secular state and wasn't that engaged with any sort of pan-Islam movement [3]. Although these sources [4], [5], [6] suggest you shouldn't completely ignore the relationship between his religious beliefs and his politics. And he definitely had problems with Islamists at times, particularly in his later years. (Although he did also cooperate with them at times and I don't think problems with Islamists is unique to Sukarno compared to the other examples.) But of course none of this means he wasn't Muslim. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

70.31.16.199 -- Qadhdhafi closed down U.S. military bases, but he certainly did not free Libya from foreign colonialism... AnonMoos (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can say any of these countries really kicked out the colonizers, rather than that the colonizers, being weakened from WWI-WWII and the cost to the US and the USSR of fighting the Cold War allowed actually colonies to oust their colonizers without much protest (Ireland, India) and places like Saudi Arabia to nationalize an infrastructure they'd never have built on their own. The colonial powers were for the most part economically and demographically indisposed and ideologically undisposed. For example, Nixon had achieved a peace treaty with the North Vietnamese that would not have required an American troop presence, but the Democratic Congress after Vietnam simply abrogated the US promise of military aid, which allowed the north to march in practically unopposed.

This is even the same model with US independence. Britain had a week king, liberal support for American independence at home, united support from a France not under revolution. Then, by the time the war was refought in 1812, Napoleon was a factor. Britain was weakened, distracted, and ideologically undisposed to fight. BY the time of the civil war the Liberals in Britain could prevent the natural Tory desire to support the slave-holding south on a moral versus a Realpolitik basis. The US didn't kick out the British. The British decided not to fight. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't forget the most successful of all, Makonnen Wolde Mikael who resisted Italian colonization, with a decisive victory at the Battle of Adwa in 1896. So impressive was this long-overdue African victory, and so high the hopes for his son as the last emperor of Africa, that the religion of Rastafarianism emerged from it. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly less impressive when you consider that the Italians had 17000 troops and the Ethiopians had 120000. Paul B (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar numerical discrepancies didn't hinder a number of British victories in India during the 18th and 19th centuries. AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really buy Medeis' argument. The losers' relative weakness is always a factor in their defeat, and unless the losers are literally annihilated, defeat is always a decision not to fight. I do agree that the Americans did not kick out the British—on their own, that is. It's unlikely the American Patriots could have won without outside help. The Americans and the French, however, did jointly kick out the British. The British decided not to fight because they judged that continuing to fight would not deliver a result (a restive and resentful population needing repression at best) that was worth the cost of facing the combined French and Patriot forces. That they made this decision does not mean that the outcome was not a defeat for them. It was a defeat because effective military action compelled them to abandon the fight. Likewise, after Hitler's suicide, the Nazis decided not to fight. They could have fought until every last German soldier and/or every last Nazi had been killed, but they decided not to do that. That does not mean that they avoided defeat. Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterize my argument as an argument, more as just a comment. I would mention Edmund Burke and Tom Paine, who had strong support in Britain. There's also John Locke's work.) Arguments don't work well in history anyway, since you can't do controlled experiments or argue from axioms. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the argument that the Ethiopians had more troops doesn't detract from the impressiveness. Winning with a smaller number of troops indicates good tactics, but winning with a huge number of troops indicates good logistics and coalition building. Both are good things in a war, but any clever barbarian can have good tactics - it takes a civilization to bring 200,000 people together. Wnt (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to follow your reasoning. I don't think anyone is doubting that the kingdom of Abyssinia was a "civilisation". The disparity in numbers simply detracts from the impressiveness of the military victory. It may reflect the impressiveness of the social bonds. But bringing a fairly large number of people together in one place is surely not the greatest of logistical achievements. Paul B (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]