Humanities desk
< May 23	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 25 >

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.

May 24

London to Toronto and Toronto to London trips and Toronto to Birmingham

Which airlines often does flights between Toronto to London, U.K. and which airlines often does flights between London, U.K. to Toronto? Thanks. Also, which airlines does flights between Toronto to Birmingham, U.K.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.151.115 (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you try a travel site like Travelocity or Orbitz. They will give you this info and far more. StuRat (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not responsive to your question, but I'll be "that guy": In English, we say "between x and y" or "from x to y". "Between x to y" is not a pattern used by native English speakers. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This type of error is becoming surprisingly common amongst native speakers who confuse the two constructions. Dbfirs 08:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help that transport companies - eg railways - refer to their trains (sorry, 'services') as arriving to or into, rather than at, a place, and 'terminating at X via Y', neither of which makes much sense in conventional terms, although it's sufficiently clear not to be obscure. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, airlines which fly from A to B will also fly from B to A, otherwise all their planes will end up in one airport! British Airways and Air Canada appear to be the only airlines that fly direct between London Heathrow and Toronto Pearson daily (you may get quotes for Lufthansa also, but they code-share with Air Canada); there are of course many other airlines which you can use by changing planes once en route, e.g. travelling via JFK, Chicago O'Hare, Amsterdam Schiphol, Geneva, Frankfurt, or Paris CDG. Air Transat flies between Toronto and London Gatwick, and they also appear to have one flight a week between Toronto and Birmingham. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can end up with a situation where an airline flies directly from C to A, but for whatever reason doesn't fly directly from A to C, so does A to B to C, instead (perhaps the jet streams are in the right direction to do C to A directly, but they would run out of fuel going the other way). You therefore end up with flights from A to B and none from B to A, without airplanes accumulating anywhere. StuRat (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

identity of a portrait

Does anybody know who the true identity of this person in this portrait? I've contacted Bishop Museum but I still wanted other opinions. Smithsonian Institute says Timoteo Haalilio while this postcard says it is Kamehameha III. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese phrase

What is the history of this phrase: 粉身碎骨都無怨留得清白在人間?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this reference [1], the quote is from an allegorical poem written by a Ming dynasty minister Yu Qian in his youth. --108.16.202.209 (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

America, Capitalism and Christianity

America is a very capitalist and anti-communist country. What do Christians think about that? Xylocode (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably looking for Protestant work ethic and in particular The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. EllenCT (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity is a very large and varied religion. If there is an opinion to be had of any type, there is likely a Christian that holds it. Mingmingla (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Baptist minister who was also a socialist. Dorothy Day was a communist, and Martin Luther King, Jr. was a democratic socialist. There's actually a Christian left in America, but they're unfortunately not as large or as loud as the religious right. As a member of the Christian left, I can at least state that I'm continually disappointed by our nation's Mammon-worship, and have seen opinions ranging from "US capitalism has a few problems but can be fixed" to "the United States economic system is the Beast of Revelation, those who defend it are antichrists, and we should topple this corrupt system as soon as can be done without harming anyone." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any prominent practicing Christian who also advocated Communism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend researching Dorothy Day, then. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Christian communism. Not a particularly good article, but a place to start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. They're using "communism" in their own way. I remember long ago hearing this "Jesus was a communist" stuff. And the counter to that was that the right term would be "communalist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Followers of a huge range of political theories have arguments as to why Jesus would have supported them, but Jesus was resolutely nonpolitical. His attitude towards the state seemed to be, just stay out of its way, you have bigger fish to fry. I can't recall a single saying that makes me think he countenanced the idea of his followers working with government, much less in it. Government was just there, a fact of life, but not a very important one. Pay your taxes because the money is Caesar's anyway, who really cares? Your job is to love God and your neighbor, do what you can personally for your neighbor, and get ready for the end times, which are just around the corner. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses are politically neutral.

Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Maintain Political Neutrality? | FAQ

—Wavelength (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Environment, Capitalism and the Christian Right

The big issue about the environment is mainly capitalism. Capitalism has to produce a lot of goods and services and has a big impact on the environment. We have to chose between a good economy and a good environment. What does the Christian Right think about that?

Xylocode (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum for opinion, and I can't find an article on "Christian Right" opinion except for the article that you have edited yourself (it's an American concept, so I don't know much about it anyway -- British Christians often have a "Left" leaning). I don't see a dichotomy between the two choices. Why can't we have a bit of both? Dbfirs 08:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian right" always seemed like an oxymoron, to me. They have perverted the teachings of Jesus to support everything he opposed, such as greed, hostility/violence towards outsiders and the lower classes, etc. It therefore wouldn't surprise me if they find some way to argue that Jesus wants us to pollute the Earth, too. StuRat (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} for everything in your 2nd sentence.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On support for the death penalty: [2]. On opposition to immigration: [3]. On economics :Christian_right#Economics. StuRat (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare and contrast Liberation theology with Prosperity theology. EllenCT (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to remember your previous usernames, Xylocode. But you do seem awfully familiar. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability is also worth a look. The thing is, everything that happens on earth impacts the environment. It's natural. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's premise is simply nonsense. Laissez-faire capitalism means allowing consenting adults to trade freely without government interference except in the case of theft or fraud. It has nothing to do with raping the environment, if that's not what people want, or the owners of the resources will consent to. Marxism, with its industrial goals and five-year plans and central planning and planned cities and Chernobyls and plowing of privately owned homes to build stare (i.e., oligarch) owned factories with its resultant smog and displacement is all about raping the people and the environment. The Greens will do better.μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am always amazed by the fact that people are willing to go through crazy mental gymnastics just to write paragraphs that say little more than "I haven't read a word of Marx".

If I understand OP correctly, I would reckon that they're not saying that the goal of capitalism is to "rape the environment". The goal of capitalism is to enrich the owners of capital, and structuring the economy in such a way causes capitalists to act in a way that tends to "rape the people and the environment". Artificial scarcity, for example, definitely tends to "rape the people and the environment". If the means of production were controlled democratically by workers for use rather than exchange, we may be in a better position to make rational choices about the way we treat the planet. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 00:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who hasn't read the Communist Manifesto? Short and simple enough to finish in a week if you leave it in the loo. Again, you speak of laissez-faire capitalism trending to degrade the environment, and the OP assumes it. In a real laiisez-faire system acts that damage the property of others (or the commons, as managed in trust by the local jurisdiction would be torts or crimes. and prosecutable as such. You seem to be thinking of capitalism as some sort of anarchy, or crony system like they have in China where the state and it's employees, immune for the most part from prosecution unless they fall out of favor, control state businesses and state owned or seized lands.

Rather than continue the sill commentary on whether John Locke should have been a conservationist due to his Christianity, can the OP change from this longstanding habit of asking why God's not a moderate Labourite and ask what various sects of Islam preach over the Sudanese bride who is set to be hanged, once she has given birth? Or should we not be debating? μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to reread the Manifesto, then. Nowhere in any of his writings does Marx make any mention of central planning by a bureaucracy disconnected from the working class.

Capitalism is a mode of production, a method of producing things, not some idealistic moral code revolving around property rights and voluntary exchange. But that said, it still stands that capitalists produce things if it helps increase their capital. And as they battered down all Chinese walls and introduced what they called "civilisation" into their midst, as they treated barbarians as another resource to exploit for their own ends, why would the environment be any different? →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 01:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE: Christian environmentalist. For some WP:OR, my church, which happens to be firmly in the category of "the Christian right" (which Stu so cavalierly dismisses and grossly mis-characterizes above), teaches that mankind are stewards of, and therefore responsible for the maintenance of, the earth which belongs ultimately to God. And, as Medeis point out, the OP's question is posed in the form a false dichotomy. A "good economy" and a "good environment" are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard a lot of good things about environmentalism on the Christian right lately. Although firmly of the left myself, I've a lot of time for people who are prepared to take the idea of stewardship seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this answer your question?

Why Ecocide Is 'Good News' for the GOP—Alternet (May 4, 2003)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to get archives of French newspapers?

How do I request archives of newspaper articles from French newspapers? There are some subjects I want to look up for Wikipedia reasons:

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The French national library has an online newspaper archive called Gallica. [4]. Most of the major 19c and early 20c dailies are there. OttawaAC (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Mountain in Georgia

Who owned Stone Mountain after the state of Georgia took it from the Native Americans? I believe the property was part of the Georgia Land Lottery. 2606:A000:B943:6A00:7123:BCC:E980:DF95 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Mountain has a fairly detailed history of the place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]