Humanities desk
< September 28	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 30 >

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 29

Gender ratio in 1967 Miami ?

The 1967 film Tony Rome contained the statement that "Women outnumber men 10 to 1 here" (in Miami). I can't believe that was true. But, were there significantly more women than men then ? If so, what was the cause ? (I'm guessing Cuban women escaping to Miami while their men were killed or imprisoned in Cuba might be one reason.) StuRat (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo, spring break? When you're surrounded by scantily clad loud drunk beach bodies, it can seem like more women than in, say, Calgary, all hidden in coats. At least to men. Apparently, the sex economy in Miami exceeds $300 million, quadrupling this year’s payroll for the Miami Heat basketball team. 1967 may have been a bit less wild, but it's been a "hot" destination for a while. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think IH has the gist of it. (p.s. Did you watch that on broadcast this weekend too? I learned that Frank Sinatra runs like a little girl, and cannot deliver snappy one-liners, but that he wears a hat very well :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, broadcast TV. (I consider cable TV to be for those with more dollars than sense, although I do have Netflix for premium shows like House of Cards.) StuRat (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps due to the ratio of widows to widowers among retirees? μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reference desk, or just a forum for rampant speculation based on fiction? The 1970 census gives full statistical data for Miami, and shows no evidence whatsoever for anything remotely like a '10 to 1' ratio anywhere. From a quick look at the data, it appears that any surplus of females in the population (665,697 f to 602,095 m in the total for Dade county) is due to the higher female proportion in the elderly population - something you'd expect in an area with a high percentage of retirees. [1]) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that neither of the authors of the work of fiction in question were residents of Miami:[2],[3]. My rampant speculation suggests that there are virtually no males on the beach -at least none that I notice. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw Tony Rome, once, around the time it came out, so my memory is not exactly what you'd call fresh. But my take on the statement is that he was speaking hyperbolically, and he would have been understood in that light. That is, we needn't have recourse to statistics to get at the truth or lack thereof of what he said. But what someone should have said to him in response was "I've told you four hundred trillion times: Don't exaggerate!". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory is a bit foggy. It wasn't Frank Sinatra who said it, but rather a woman he was talking with, complaining about her odds of finding a good man. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Searches for Employment

I'm familiar with the likes of Monster, Indeed, and the other sites of that family, but are there any other available options for searching for employment? These websites seem very limited in their scope, and I'm curious as to what other options are out there. Both domestic (US) and international listings are a bonus. Cheers. Hubydane (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entire offline world out there, full of unlisted openings. Without knowing what you want to do and why you'd do it well, I can't say exactly who to meet and impress. Sometimes the boss, sometimes the boss' wife, sometimes a competitor (everyone's more attractive if someone else wants them). In any case, presenting yourself directly to upper crust types can form more stable relationships with companies than trying to sell a useful service to a disinterested hirer. They get paid the same whether you can increase profits or not. If you meet them first, they may create a file on you, which your potential boss can read and prejudge you by. Best to impress first, then formalize it. Of course, if you make a bad impression, it'll be more permanent, too.

Aside from that, newspapers still have job ads. Never know what'll pop up on classified sites like Kijiji or Craigslist, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craigslist often has job listings, but it is organized by geography. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried looking at LinkedIn? It definitely helps network with professionals from around the US and around the world. Some of the features that are available to members include: "obtaining introductions to connections and connections second-degree connections, the user can find jobs, people and business opportunities recommended by someone in your network, review the profile of a hiring manager and discover which of your contacts can introduce you," the list goes on and on but it is a great place to start making connections for future employment! Jkcoombs (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bedaux belts

In Inside the Whale, George Orwell lists many suboptimal aspects of 1930's society ("Hitler, Stalin, bombs, aeroplanes, tinned food"). One item is "Bedaux belts". "Bedaux" is presumably Charles Bedaux, but why does Orwell associate him with belts? Tevildo (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conveyor belt. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, but why does Orwell specifically refer to Bedaux? He made his money as a management consultant - what part did belts, conveyor or otherwise, play in his contemporary notoriety? Tevildo (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bedaux system (setting an average rate for production, with bonuses paid to workers who exceeded the average) was hugely unpopular with workers - the averages were seen as being set unreasonably high and the bonuses were small, also it was perceived as deskilling work - repetitively putting together the same pieces over an over again on a conveyor belt instead of making something from scratch. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of that kind of thing might be one reason for the popularity of the old TV skits involving conveyor belts, e.g. Lucy and Ethel with the chocolate candies, and Jackie Gleason with cakes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or for an example contemporary with Orwell, this production line from the comedy movie Modern Times (1936). --65.94.51.64 (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or further back, some of the scenes of mindless and stressful work depicted in Metropolis, though I don't recall if there was a conveyor belt specifically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or for a new system with outdated mechanics you can own and operate yourself today, The Incredible Machine. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaplin's Modern Times -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I've worked under such a system: the gaffer had a little black book with the times for each job written in it - woe betide any operative who worked faster than the time in the book, or disclosed its existence to management! I didn't know the system's official name, but I can see why Orwell put it on his list. And thanks for adding the appropriate links to the various articles concerned. Tevildo (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a realistic fictional account of such a quota system, see Alan Sillitoe's short novel Saturday Night and Sunday Morning: our article alludes to it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And nonfiction writ large: Stakhanovite movement. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moses:

Is Moses a Hebrew or a Jew? [...] (Russell.mo (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know why you pasted in all that text, but the best answer is that Moses was an Israelite... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] See Hebrews, Israelites, Kingdom of Judah, Moses, Tetragrammaton, Hebrew Bible and Biblical canon. It would be easier if you were to tie down your request to a small number of definite questions rather than a more discursive essay. Tevildo (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Moses: Moses, if he existed, is assumed to have been a Hebrew raised by Egyptians. "Jew" comes from "Judah," one of the twelve Israelite tribes, Israelites being another name for the Hebrews. Since Judah was the largest surviving group, Hebrews in general are often called Jews.

Moses was technically a Levite (a member of the Israelite tribe of Levi), but in modern parlance a Levite would be considered Jewish.

On the names of God: A number of competing religions in Moses's time would use the names of various gods in spells, with the belief that having the god's name would grant magic power over the god. In the Bible, one of the ten commandments is to not take the Lord's name in vain. This was meant to keep YHWH's name secret from other religions, to keep them from superstitiously abusing the name. El, related to the Arabic "Allah," means "God," and was used as a title for YHWH among the Hebrews. "El Shaddai" probably meant "God almighty," and was another title. "Adonai" means "Lord," and was again another title. As for which came first, that's a matter of religious perspective. Some Jews and Christians might hold the view that YHWH was God's true and eternal name with the other words being titles, some Christians might hold that all earthly words are just titles for the otherwise unnamable God, and some secular scholars (and perhaps members of Judaism and Christianity) might hold that El, YHWH, Shaddai, and Adonai were originally distinct gods among the Israelites neighbors, with the Yahwist cult absorbing the other gods into their religion through syncretism.

Many Jews and a few Christians interpret the commandment against using God's name in vain to mean that one should avoid even saying or writing divine names or titles, just to avoid any possibility of using it offensively. Many Christians (and a few Jews) instead interpret it to mean that one should not use any divine names or titles as an exclamation or as profanity.

On the Bible: What defines the Bible is dependant on what religion you ask. The Christian Bible includes the Old and New Testaments. The Jewish Bible consists of the texts that Christians call the Old Testament, but which Jews call the Tanakh. In other words, the Christian Bible includes the Jesus Bible and a lot of additional material.

Tradition says Moses wrote the Torah, the first five books of the Tanakh. Modern scholarship finds little reason to believe that. The rest of the Tanakh/Old Testament was written by various authors, and consists of a number of individual books.

The Christian Bible starts with the four Gospels, then goes into a few dozen "epistles" (or letters), then ends with the Book of Revelation. Tradition says each Gospel and some of the epistles were written by Jesus's disciples, though modern scholarship says that it would have to have been someone later writing down stuff the disciples might have said. Most of the epistles claim to be written by Paul the Apostle, and modern scholarship is divided as to which ones may or may not have been written by him. Paul did not know the historical Jesus, but converted to Christianity a couple of decades after Jesus's life and claimed to have met Jesus in mystic visions. Paul's writings are one of the main forces responsible for non-Jews converting to Christianity (some were converting before, but Paul made doctrinal claims that made it easier for non-Jews to convert).

The Quran is not included in the Bible, and is considered a separate work. Muslims do hold that the works in the Bible were previous divinely-inspired scriptures, though many Muslims also hold that Christians and Jews have corrupted the Bible (either in its actual text or through misinterpretation) and that only the Quran is correct.

On Jesus: Mainstream and traditional Christianity holds that Jesus was more than a prophet, but was none other than God (see Incarnation (Christianity) for more information). This is not like the Hindu belief of avatars, where the avatar is an illusionary person created as a facet of a deity. Mainstream and traditional Christianity holds that Jesus was born when God decided to become human, and that Jesus's personality was God's personality.

Judaism rejects this idea completely, and does to even believe that Jesus was a prophet. Some Jews may think that Jesus was a wise teacher (but not a prophet) whose ideas were misinterpreted, others may think that Jesus was a false prophet. It tends to vary from Jew to Jew.

Islam does believe that Jesus was a prophet, but not God.

On Muhammad: Judaism and Christianity do not accept Muhammad as a prophet. Belief in the prophethood of Muhammad is a defining trait of Islam.

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, to answer the question on important texts and founders. Under Judaism, they do not recognize a single "founder" or "prophet" that created their religion. Moses holds high regard because of his role in The Exodus, but others such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (collectively the Patriarchs) hold prominent roles in the "founding" of Judaism (all before Moses), and after Moses, comes important figures such as Joshua (first to take possession of the Holy Land), David and Solomon (as the kings of the Unified Kingdom), etc. Christianity, of course, is founded by Jesus Christ, but Christians do not view Christ as a mere prophet (though the perspective on Jesus is different in other faiths. See Judaism's view of Jesus and Jesus in Islam) but rather as the Son of God, and one of the aspects of God in the Holy Trinity. Of course, the importance of early disciples of Jesus in forming Christianity as a faith (rather than as an offshoot of Judaism), especially Paul the Apostle, should not be underestimated. It may be as useful to call Paul the Apostle the founder of Christianity as Jesus. Islam, of course, recognizes Moses, the Patriarchs, and Jesus as all prophets leading up to Muhammad, who they recognize as the ultimate prophet (in both senses of the word "ultimate"... that is, the last, and the most important). But that view is not shared by either Judaism or Christianity. --Jayron32 19:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You all are amazing! Thank you all very much; feedbacks are funny, interesting, helpful and appreciative! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved

Quibble with User:Ian.thomson on God and Jesus being of the same "personality" (whether that means personhood or character); the Nicene creed says that they are of the same substance, and Christian trinitarianism holds that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons in one substance. Were this not the case (different persons), it would by absurd for Jesus to have said on the Cross, Father, Father, why hast Thou forsaken Me? μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in a simpler sense that Jesus is not regarded as someone other than God. My post did not identify Jesus with the Father, because it didn't identify God with only the Father (which would be Modalism or Arianism depending on how one handles the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit). The persons of the Trinity are distinct from each other, but are not distinct from God. (Otherwise, the Incarnation would be closer to an avatar, a illusionary person that is not truly God).

Also, a number of theologians (such as Meister Eckhart) tend to explain the persons of the Trinity as in terms of an otherwise unknowable God revealing Himself as three persons, the Father being God unknowably transcendent, Jesus being God personal, and the Holy spirit God immanent. That is also where I was deriving the use of "personality." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said God as shorthand for God the Father. No one says God the Jesus, or God the Holy spirit. I think my intent was pretty clear, as I did say Father later on to bolster my point. Your statement that Jesus's personality was the same as God's can only be right if what you meant was substance. Otherwise you are saying Jesus and the Father who are both God both have the same personhood/personality/character, which they emphatically do not in any mainstream creed. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have heard people say God the Holy Spirit, and God Jesus (minus the 'the', granted). It's a matter of region, denomination, and even preaching style, but it's possible to hear it. God as only shorthand for the Father borders on Modalism and your intent was not clear.

And please actually read what I write if you're going to respond to it, my last post clearly separated the hypostases of the Trinity from each other, just not from God (after all, if the hypostases of the Trinity are God, then Christianity ceases to be monotheistic and worships four gods: God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit); and I elaborated context by which "personality" in my original was in no way a reference to the hypostases of the Trinity (except perhaps as a reference to Eckhart). To go further, personality is not personhood in itself, it is the expression of that personhood. Going back to Eckhart, the Son is the hypostasis that presents a personality (or "face") for God, where the other hypostases are less comprehensible or at least less tangible.

To be clear, in my posts, where I say "God" without specifying a member of the Trinity, I mean the Godhead, and where I mean the Father, I actually use the word "Father" somewhere. I'm using the word "hypostasis" instead of "person" with reference to the Trinity to avoid further confusion with "personality." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of additional points on the writing of the Bible and the name of God. One widely accepted interpretation is the Documentary hypothesis, which identifies four older hypothetical documents, known as J, E, P and D, as having been edited together to form the Torah or Pentateuch. In J, God's personal name (YHWH) is known from the beginning of the world, but in E it is not, and he is known by the generic term Elohim ("god") until he reveals his name to Moses. As to the pronunciation, it's my understanding that "Yahweh" is a modern reconstruction and is scholars' best estimate as to how it was pronounced. Personal names that incorporate the divine name end in -yahu (the prophet Elijah is "Eliyahu" in Hebrew, or for a more modern example Benjamin Netanyahu). --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To help answer your question, Moses was an Israelite. Although this can be a bit confusing due to the way he was described in different parts of the bible. Lswhitten517 (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anabaptist, Baptist, Puritan, and Congregationalists . . .

Please explain the differences. As far as I know, Puritans are congregationalists and identify themselves as such. Baptists emphasize adult baptism. Anabaptists also emphasize adult baptism, while rejecting infant baptism. So, infant-baptized converts to the Anabaptist tradition would be Anabaptists, because they are literally baptized again. However, what does this say about completely non-Christian converts or converts who have never been baptized because they may have come from a different faith (non-Christian) background? Specifically, what is the difference between the Baptists and Anabaptists? Is there any point with the ana prefix, even though the baptist pretty much covers one core part of their beliefs? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Anabaptists predate the Baptists by quite a lot. The Anabaptists arose in Continental Europe, as part of the Radical Reformation. The Baptists, on the other hand, descend at least historically from the English Reformation, though spiritually they claim (or some of them claim) to have existed ever since the time of Christ (see Baptist perpetuity, if that comes up blue). I believe that some who hold to the perpetuity theory do claim that the Anabaptists were part of that line. --Trovatore (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side note — I created the Baptist perpetuity redirect, intending to point it at Baptist successionism, but I goofed and made it a self-redirect. It might have looked like a joke, but no, it was just a mistake. Fixed now. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Baptist perpetuity is actually (no longer) a mainstream belief among Baptists, and was never denomination wide doctrine (the only denomination wide doctrine is really "you should probably get baptized if you're going to join the Baptist church"). It is an extremely outspoken belief of its adherents, though. Also, Baptist descent from Anabaptists is common outside of a belief in Baptist perpetuity, see Baptists#Anabaptist_influence_view. That the first five Baptist churches condemned the Anabaptists is only evidence to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Anabaptists got their name because they protested infant baptism by getting baptized again, not because they believed one had to be baptized as an infant and then again as an adult. Anabaptists are not a single denomination, but a grouping of denominations and sects that practice believer's baptism or "adult baptism" (though the age can be closer to that of confirmation in Catholicism). Baptists could be thought of as a miscellaneous group of Anabaptists who are pretty much only defined by their Anabaptism, while other Anabaptist churches have other defining traits (like the Amish and plain living). Most Anabapists, to my knowledge, historically leaned toward Arminianism instead of Calvinism, with Baptists being somewhat split until the 20th century (the Southern Baptist Convention indirectly and covertly supporting Calvinism over Arminianism).

Congregationalism can refer to a method of church governance (basically limiting the scale to the congregation, and any interaction between congregations being no more than voluntary cooperation), and it can refer to groups of churches that define themselves through such governance. Anabaptist churches, especially Baptist churches, were usually of the congregationalist style of church governance, but did not define themselves as Congregationalists as a denomination.

The Puritans were a number of Protestant movements in early modern England and colonial America that evolved into a number of Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches. They were not especially known for any sort of Anabaptist belief, but were usually Calvinist.

Most Baptist churches I've seen either require baptism to join, or at least some indication of a prior baptism. The church I grew up in actually had a bit of a controversy because a sweet old man who everyone loved couldn't become a deacon because he hadn't been baptised. That didn't stop him from being a better unofficial deacon than some of the folks who were nominated, mind you. The sort of Baptists who claim you have to be baptized to be saved are a rare fringe (sola fidae, not sola aqua), and view baptism as a requirement to be Baptist, but not to be a Christian. More liberal churches (probably my current one) would allow one to skip it entirely (though certainly be happy to baptize a new member or convert). Most other Anabaptist churches would vary from denomination to denomination, but I remember reading that the Amish and Mennonites are very much into baptism in order to join (though again, not to be a Christian).

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]