Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 July 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.

July 30

Is it still called religious conversion?

I read a synopsis of the novel on Sparknotes, just so that could give be some background information before I started reading the actual novel. The Sparknotes synopsis says that Crusoe has a religious conversion. But when I read the novel, I felt that there was no way that could happen. The narrator Crusoe automatically reads like a Christian narrator. He worries about his disobedience against his parents in times of trouble and when times are good, he forgets his troubles. He assumes that the world was created, presumably by God. He knows that Providence is with him and can work against him. I don't get it. It's pretty obvious that he is raised Christian and is probably a practicing Christian since the beginning of the novel. Maybe loss of faith and then regain of faith count as a conversion from Defoe's perspective, while assuming a Christian worldview since birth does not make one a Christian? Similarly, I have read and seen contemporary narratives, such as the movie In the name of God (2014), and it always seem that even though the protagonist is portrayed as an atheist in the beginning, it feels like the protagonist has been Christian all his life during his confession of faith. It seems as if being reared as a Christian doesn't count as a religious conversion-at-birth, even though I'd assume that religious conversions can be accurately applied to individuals without any Christian background who later adopt Christian belief, not cradle Christians who lose faith and regain them. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps changing denominations counts as a conversion?Void burn (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

On top of that, C.S. Lewis has been described as a "convert" to Christianity, even though if you read his biography, he just lost his faith and regained it - the same branch too. Apparently, that is treated as a religious conversion. I am very suspicious about the use of word "atheism" to describe someone's life, especially if that someone is raised as a Christian and has never completely lost his childhood worldview or sensibilities. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it (and it's been a while since I read it, and I probably read a badly translated bowdlerised edition - it's usually treated as a YA adventure story in Germany), Crusoe converts from the normal default ("yes, sure, I'm Christian, I go to Church every other Christmas, and I try not to steal my neighbours car") to a deep inner Christianity. Of course, his original position is 18th century, i.e. culturally more Christian than the default today, but what matters is his inner journey in which his faith becomes meaningful and he gains real trust in his religion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds more like spiritual growth and formation to me than a religious conversion. I think Sparknotes is biased. Sparknotes has written on the Bible too, and its character analyses, though interesting, are highly suspicious. I always wonder what theological tradition the author follows. I wonder if there is a "secular" interpretative tradition. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Stephan is correct. This isn't spiritual growth and formation; it's a radical transformation of the character. There's a huge difference between "statistical" Christianity, i.e. the normal default that Stephan summarises, and what Defoe would consider true Christianity, i.e. one's life based on the Christian faith, following an event that theologians call regeneration. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Did OP read the freely accessible academic paper on conversion in Defoe's life and works, "The Conversion of Robinson Crusoe", linked to here just one week ago, WP:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2015_July_23#Conversion_to_Christianity_in_the_1700s_-_Robinson_Crusoe? Far better than SparkNotes. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking for the title of a science fiction novel published in the last 10-15 years

Hello, I used to work at a book store from 2006-2011, in that time I read in publishers Weekly of a science fiction novel, (near future, semi-dystopian/cyberpunk). The story was about a corporate driver in the UK, where on the motorways, executives would engage in road combat to defend their position in a company, or alternatively attempt to take the job of another executive.

I do not have the title or author, but strongly feel that it was published in the mid-late 00s.

Any assistance would be appreciated, I've been trying to relocate it for over five years now.

210.255.29.191 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Market Forces by Richard Morgan. – iridescent 06:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks. You beat about 14 RL librarians in Pittsburgh in less than 15 minutes. Much thanks.

210.255.29.191 (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I imagine this is one of those "either you've read it or you haven't" situations, since it's not particularly well known. FWIW the only bits that are decently written are the action scenes and the rest is a dull and plodding attempt to be "satirical" which works about as well as Mission Earth. – iridescent 07:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Who said "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth"?

--IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

According to "q:Joseph Goebbels#Misattributed" it has been misattributed to Joseph Goebbels. Gabbe (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It was Mark Twain. It was Mark Twain. It was Mark Twain. Seriously though, it wasn't Mark Twain. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove a negative. Contact Basemetal here 14:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin gets credit often enough, for a lie that's told often enough. I say he didn't speak English. Boris Zhukov certainly does. It was probably him. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Try not to confuse it with the big lie. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Lenin actually did speak English and several other languages, although I don't know how often he went about giving pithy quotations in a non-native language. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Figured he might have, so went with "I say...". That's one way to spread misinformation without lying. Not condoning it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Then that comes down to an expression of his opinion. Everyone has the right to express their opinion. If you think that that just masks or enables the spread of misinformation ... well, that would be your opinion, to which you have a perfect right. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You've lost me. Was Lenin expressing an opinion, or Bishop? I meant what I said was a half-lie. Even if I have the right, it was still the wrong thing to do. Half-wrong, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to what Lenin said when he prefixed it with "I say ...". Or, that's what I meant when I wrote what I wrote. See, I thought you were saying that he, Lenin, said "I say a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth", because that would convert an assertion into an opinion. But I now see that was my misreading of your subjectless "... so went with ...". I assumed you meant Lenin went with "I say ...", but I now see that you were the one who went. Or said. Or wrote. No wonder I lost you. I feel quite lost myself sometimes. But that can be a good thing. You lost me for a while there, with your reference to "Bishop". I've had Bishops and Abbotts on the brain a lot lately. If this is all still as clear as mud, then my quest has been successful and my work here is done now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Measuring the Effectiveness of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

I am working on a project on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and I want to be able to compare the effectiveness of it in combating workplace discrimination with how well it did after it was amended in 1972, but I am having a hard time finding any good publicly available numbers to quantify it. Is there anywhere I can find records of something like that? Maybe the total number of Civil Rights lawsuits per year or something? Rabuve (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You could dig into Bureau of Justice Statistics and Bureau of Labor Statistics. You might compare unemployment rates for various groups protected under the law such as women or ethnic groups, or rates of workplace harassment? 184.147.131.217 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Scams

If banks block suspicious transactions especially abroad, why are many scams while on holiday where large sums of money are taken often not blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.146.3 (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Who says so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Who were the Northallerton glasshouse mutineers?

This story talks about a "glasshouse riot" at Northallerton Prison in 1946. It says that (at least some of) the rioters were from "a unit which had mutinied in Italy". I'm interested to know details of that initial mutiny (what happened in Italy, not Yorkshire). The best I've found is this Glasgow Herald story, which lists 11 soldiers on trial at Catterick Garrison for their part in the riot. But that lists their regiments, and they were drawn from a motley assortment of various British Army regiments, not a single unit. Can anyone find a source which would explain what happened in Italy? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 18:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of the riot, but the Salerno Mutiny of September 1943 might be pertinent. Alansplodge (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that "a unit which had mutinied in Italy" does not necessarily mean that any of the soldiers in the riot were also part of the mutiny. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Picpus Fathers

If priests are called "Picpus Fathers," what are non-priest members of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary called?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The French article states that the name of the order as a whole is the "pères et religieuses des Sacrés-Cœurs de Picpus", which would imply in this case "père" is not restricted to the ordained priests. I would ask whoever stated in the English article that only priests in the order are known as "fathers" to explain that. In any case that claim is not sourced. Contact Basemetal here 19:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-priest members of this order are known as "brothers" (and "sisters"), as is typical of religious orders.

References

Yes but you can call a brother, nun and priest alike of the Jesuit order a Jesuit (same for Franciscan) but for the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, there isn't a descriptor that group all members brother, nun and priest alike.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)