Humanities desk
< September 18	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 20 >

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.

September 19

10 different qira'ats in this audio

This is for Muslims only. Sorry. Does anybody or can anybody list the qira'ats that this qari used to recite Ch.2 verse 255 known as Ayatul Kursi? Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkKO_NEfBXY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.175 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it for Muslims only? Can't people of other faiths, or of no faith, answer it as well? --Viennese Waltz 07:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The truths of Islam are so self-evident, if you know enough Islam to answer this, you'd be a believer as well (ie. there's no way your interest is academic.) Entertaining ideas without accepting them is Western relativism and moral confusion. Or something. Asmrulz (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear why understanding beliefs different than mine is morally confusing. I can comprehend the beliefs of others, and I can understand why they believe them, but doing so doesn't mean I have to agree with them. That is, having some bit of knowledge (understanding the beliefs of others) doesn't make me a relativist (agreeing that conflicting beliefs must all be correct). The notion that one must refuse to try to understand other people in order to be morally pure seems odd... --Jayron32 11:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

link Asmrulz (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

link back atcha --Jayron32 19:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was first. Also, this :) Asmrulz (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why people may want to ask questions about beliefs only to believers (I think that this is rational, because human ability to understand the minds of outsiders is low), but that's right that this one is not a question about a belief, it is merely a technical question, so such request would not make sense. Since I cannot answer this question, I shut up. - 89.110.0.146 (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this question should be removed or hidden. Wikipedia reference desk is for everyone, if they want to address only particular people they should go off to an appropriate other forum instead. Dmcq (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why, if someone knows Arabic by ear and knows Quran well, why can't he or she answer the question? It is a request for facts, not for beliefs or opinions, so it is okay. It has been formulated lamely, but this shouldn't be a problem in this case, the asker apparently merely attempted to be polite to everyone (with little luck). - 89.110.0.146 (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner said the question was for Muslims only. The questioner should go to such a forum and not waste other people's time. I'm perfectly aware of what you said, I used to know a Dutchman who the local Chinese used to go to when they wanted to know what some obscure Chinese character meant. Dmcq (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was a request. I think it was an excuse. The person apparently felt badly about asking an obscure question, so he just acknowledged this (in wrong terms) and said "sorry". We can simply treat it this way. - 89.110.0.146 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The questioner, trying to be polite, excused himself or herself for asking a question that he or she (probably correctly) assumed that only a Muslim might be able to answer. I'm sure that the questioner would be pleasantly surprised if a non-Muslim were able to answer, but I doubt that that will happen. Can the person who asked the question comment on whether you would be open to a response by a non-Muslim who happened to be knowledgeable about qira'at? Unless the questioner responds that he or she would not accept an answer from a non-Muslim, I urge that we assume good faith and let the question and any responses stand. Marco polo (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner made the mistake of assuming that RefDeskers were capable of assuming good faith. Some can, some rather voluble ones can't. I made the same mistake not that long ago. DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well they're most probably in the standard order as in our article about them Qira'at, otherwise someone would have listed out the order specially. Dmcq (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, to say of any human being that he is incapable of assuming good faith doesn't sit well with me. We can all do it, but it's a challenge to do it all the time, and I daresay we all sometimes fall by the wayside. Some perhaps more than others, but who's keeping tally? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German stereotypes

What stereotypes exist of people from different states of Germany? Note, I'm not interested in stereotypes of German people in general, only in the supposed differences between people from different parts of the country. And I'm not interested in whether the stereotypes have any basis in reality, either. Thank you, --Viennese Waltz 12:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zeit posted a map of negative stereotypes a couple of years ago. The article was "Negative Vorurteile". Many of the attributes were collected from travel guides, and the author comments on their questionable accuracy and the nasty way that stereotypes have of spreading anyway (but you're not interested in that ;-). I will take the trouble of translating the adjectives later on, if no one beats me to it (but I understand you understand German, Vienna Waltz). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here goes:

Sylter are decadent.

North Frisians are proud.

East Frisians are dumb.

Holsteiner are taciturn.

Mecklenburger are sluggish.

Hamburger are reserved/aloof.

Low Saxons are sober-minded.

Hannoveraner are boring.

Altmärker are stubborn.

Brandenburger are lower class/vulgar/chav.

Berliner are gruff.

Potsdamer are nouveau-riche.

Münsteraner are conservative.

Ruhrgebietler are simple.

Düsseldorfer are (also) nouveau-riche.

Kölner are corrupt.

Rheinländer are superficial.

Sauerländer are pig-headed.

Westphalians are brittle.

Harzer are lethargic.

Thuringians are hillbillies.

Saxons are cunning.

Erzgebirgler are quarrelsome.

Dresdner are slow.

Eifler are sober-minded.

Frankfurter are snobby.

Hessen are talkative.

Pfälzer are hoggy

Saarländer are petit-bourgeois.

Upper Franconians are silent.

Nürnberger are stuffy.

Middle Franconians are stolid and sedate.

Lower Bavarians are narcissistic.

Münchner are snotty.

Upper Bavarians are conservative.

Baden-Baden is of old money.

Schwarzwälder are uncommunicative.

Freiburger are environmentally smug and petty (don't know how to translate "ökologisch verspießt").

Badenser are withdrawn.

Bodenseer are slow.

Swabians are stingy.

Allgäuer are superstitious.

---Sluzzelin talk 13:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a great response. Thanks so much Sluzzelin, my German would never have been up to translating all those adjectives. I need to save this somewhere and if there was a RD Response of the Month Award, this would get it. --Viennese Waltz 13:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How amusing! I happen to know a Sylterin. I had never heard of that stereotype before, but she is indeed decadent. On the other hand, I recall making a visit to Hamburg when I was living in Berlin and having the impression, contrary to the stereotype, that Hamburgers were friendly and open (by comparison with Berliners, anyway). But of course all stereotypes are unreliable and basically wrong. Marco polo (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

both Hamburgers and Berliners are delicious, though --Golbez (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have against Frankfurters? --Jayron32 14:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here is that a hot dog could be considered snobby --Golbez (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I think of German stereotypes, this is what comes to mind. Which of the above list does this go with? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an Upper Bavarian or possibly an Allgäuer, Bugs, but of course that is an outsider's stereotype of a German. Marco polo (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wasn't familiar with each and every of the stereotypes listed there, and I think they are of varying reach and traction within Germany too. Three stereotypes that resonate with what even most German-speaking Swiss have heard of are the thick East Frisians (we have an article on East Frisian jokes too, and one of the reasons I've known about them since I can remember is probably Otto, an East Frisian with an extremely high IQ, I am certain of that :-), the stingy Swabians (they're our neighbours, after all, and we're very similar: there's a bit under Swabian culture and stereotypes) and the gruff (in a good way :-) Berliners (didn't find anything in our Berlin article, but wiktionary does have an entry on Berliner Schnauze). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of progressive income tax

Recently Progressive tax was edited in a way that I find difficult to integrate because I lack access to dusty historical stuff that if someone has summarized online already, I apparently lack the time to find. Can anyone verify, "The first peace time graduated income tax was actually in Prussia in 1891."? EllenCT (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, on page 108, Prussia introduced its first graduated income tax in 1851, not 1891. Marco polo (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have found online an article titled The Prussian Income Tax from an 1892 issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics. I am no expert on the history of taxation so there is a lot there that goes over my head. However, it does seem to provide a detailed examination of the evolution of income tax in Prussia to the 1891 tax - see page 223. This states that the 1851 income tax was not progressive, an 1873 reform brought in something "practically" (but not exactly) a progressive income tax, and finally in 1891 a progressive income tax. Whether it was the first ever, anywhere, may be harder to prove. But the reference should at least be helpful in updating the article to include Prussia. - Eron^Talk 18:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]