Humanities desk
< November 25	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 27 >

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

November 26

Are there any trademarks based on electronic symbols?

Are there any trademarks based on electronic symbols out there? WinterWall (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google images for TRADEMARK ELECTRIC SYMBOL yields a lot of results. I'm not sure if any would serve your purpose. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Quinn

In article about hockey player Pat quinn, in header there is info that he died on 24th of November but in text it's written that he died on 23rd. So, when he died? 178.42.18.151 (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the article body rather than simply the WP:LEDE, you will see there's a short section on his death which includes a reference. The reference dated 24th November says he died on Sunday night (i.e. 23 of November). Therefore I've changed the header accordingly. This kind of thing happens quite a lot with old age deaths in particular, as often the death may not be made public until the a day or more so it's not always immediately clear when the person died. Public statements announcing the death don't always make it clear which day the person died either. A death in the early hours of the morning (e.g. 1 am) can add to the confusion as sometimes a death may be said to have happened last night or similar even if it actually happened in the early hours of the morning of the next day. Alternatively an early morning annoucement of death not long after it happened may misleading people in to thinking the person died that day even if technically it was the night before. Of course in some cases it may not be known when a person died such as if they died in their sleep at home and given the age, medical condition and local norms, no autopsy was conducted. If the timezone where the person died is quite different from that of the reference, this can sometimes also add to the confusion as the reference may sometimes use their local time without making it clear they are doing so. Of course even if they do mention they're referring to their time, unless they gave a precise time it may not always may clear what day it was where the person died depending on the rough time of death and the time zone differences. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thx178.42.18.151 (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Song with "comma comma comma" and "teeka teeka teeka"

(moved question to Entertainment Desk) Edison (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tico-Tico no Fubá? --Hans Haase (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been answered, Hans, see Deor's reply at the Entertainment Desk. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it was the 80s stuff. --Hans Haase (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Martin Luther's view of orthodoxy have to be just correct or correct and complete?

I was reading this PDF article. It mentioned that Martin Luther understood "orthodoxy as the correct worship of the triune God. Correct theology is the true praise of God." This makes me wonder whether or not correct, but incomplete, theology would suffice and acceptance of new understandings of God is incorporated into worship (especially in regards to more modern understandings of how the universe works), or whether this "correct theology" refers to a strict and complete view of God in order to worship God properly in the theocentric sanctuary. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking,^{[citation needed]} Protestants view the Bible as the only authoritative source for Christian doctrine. A fairly conservative interpretation of sola scriptura would probably respond to a question like yours with the sentiment that, while the Bible may or may not be an exhaustive metaphysical textbook, it represents the sum total of everything eternally spiritually significant God has communicated to mankind—"It" is on a need to know basis, and if "It" isn't in the Bible, we (meaning Christians) don't need to know.

As a specific example of this general idea, the Thirty-nine Articles state, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." And that is more or less a restatement of Luther's initial sola scriptura idea. In the general Protestant understanding, the Bible is synonymous with orthodoxy, and the Bible's correctness is inextricably tied up in its completeness, and vice versa.

This doesn't preclude the possibility of added liturgical elements, of course—a high-church Anglican service, for example, follows a set of clearly extrabiblical ordinances—but the general idea of the liturgy's significance in Anglicanism isn't anywhere near the level of the Real Presence and communicated grace via the Mass in Catholicism. With the obvious exception of (one-time-only) Baptism, these are extra frills designed to help the worshiper in his or her relationship with God, not an indispensable prerequisite for that relationship, as in Catholicism. The idea of adding to "orthodoxy" something from outside the Bible is not an idea most Protestants are likely to take kindly to. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories and northern/central Asia

How come Siberia, Kazakhstan and other Soviet colonies in Asia were never put on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 22:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because at the time the United Nations was created, in 1945, the Soviet Union considered these areas as integral parts of its territory, rather than as dependencies or non-self-governing territories, and no other State in the international community challenged that view. By way of background (as described in the article), the United Nations Charter called upon the Member States to advise whether they administered any non-self-governing territories, and the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories has been compiled over the years primarily (though not exclusively) from the information provided by the administering Powers themselves—and it has always included territories administered by Western States as dependencies, rather than other forms by which one nation has dominated or administered another. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at it: The formation of the United Nations was subject to the same realpolitik as happens in any large-scale human endeavor where there are competing interests among the negotiating parties. The UN would only work if every major power was "on board", and that required the participation of the Soviet Union. A major failure of the League of Nations (the precursor to the UN) was the fact that a major power (The United States in this case) refused to sign on, severely limiting its effectiveness. To avoid having that happen again, the other world powers were willing to grant huge concessions to the Soviet Union to get them into the UN. The concessions noted were actually less drastic than some of the other concessions, the biggest was that the Soviet Union was overtly given 3 votes in the UN General Assembly, where as no other nation got more than 1. (Officially, the UN treated Ukraine and Belarus as independent nations, though they were unambiguously constituent parts of the Soviet Union). --Jayron32 02:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is hardly any parallel between Siberia and Kazakhstan. Siberia was regarded as part of Russia long before the Soviet era, but has only ever been a geographical region, not an administrative one at any level. Kazakhstan was incorporated into the Russian empire, but never regarded as part of Russia, and was one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union. --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]