Humanities desk
< May 4	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 6 >

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 5

Prayer Your Cross

Where was this prayer published? In which book/letters?

"The everlasting God has in His wisdom foreseen from eternity the cross that He now presents to you as a gift from His inmost heart. This cross He now sends you He has considered with His all-knowing eyes, understood with His divine mind, tested with His wise justice, warmed with loving arms and weighed with His own hands to see that it be not one inch too large and not one ounce too heavy for you. He has blessed it with His holy Name, anointed it with His consolation, taken one last glance at you and your courage, and then sent it to you from heaven, a special greeting from God to you, an alms of the all-merciful love of God." St. Francis de Sales — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anja245 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a prayer?? —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the use of the word 'you', it would sound more like a blessing than a prayer. Still, I have never heard it before.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

12:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to find the source of this in the works of Francis de Sales, but that's because it is so widely published, most of the time attributed to him -- but I'm not finding it in actual collections of his letters and writings. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Your Cross" (is this known as "Votre Croix" in the original French?) is a commonly cited prayer of St. Francis de Sales, found on several Catholic devotional sites, but alas, no mention of printed source found in quick search; also checked both old and New Catholic Encyclopedia.

The concordance to his complete works in the original French is online and easily searched by a single word. Concordance - Œuvres Complètes de Saint François de Sales Find a French version of the prayer, a statistically unusual combination of a couple of words within a single sentence, search the first term in the concordance, and do a find on the second term on its huge results page. (No luck with "votre" and then, within results, "croix" - that title apparently not in source text). Alternatively, try the index of all 27 volumes - www.donboscosanto.eu Oeuvres de Saint François de Sales - Tome I - XXVII Touts les index, each in public domain and available on archive.org or, more conveniently organized on one page here: www.donboscosanto.eu/francesco_di_sales/index-fr.php Volume 2 looks promising, Défense de l'estendart de la Sainte Croix. Good luck! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the English phrase, "warmed with loving arms and weighed with His own hands" most promising for its unusual combination (more so in this context than "your cross", at least!) of "warmed" and "weighed" in a short passage, but found no results searching concordance (with Google Chrome offering helpful translations of results pages) for all matches on cognates of French words for "heated" or warmed": Réchauffe, Réchauffer, Réchauffez, Chauffent, Chauffer, Chaufferont. Maybe those with better French could try that phrase with alternate translations. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Great Wall of China accomplish what it was originally intended for?

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not really. --Jayron 32 11:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. It wasn't very big, and was not a continuous wall, but rather a bunch of shorter walls, so there were gaps in it for the northerners to easily get through. Calling it 'The Great Wall' would be erroneous, as it was a serious of disconnected walls, none of which was particularly great in comparison with the other walls. These days, local people have been dismantling it to obtain building materials for houses, etc.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

12:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nontheless, the wall was nearly continuous under the Ming dynasty, and it succeeded in delaying the Manchu invasion. The invasion succeeded not because the Manchu stormed the wall or found their way through gaps in the wall. Instead, the invasion succeeded because the renegade Ming general Wu Sangui opened the gates of the wall to the Manchu. Marco polo (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It wasn't like Wu allowed the Manchus in to a stable Chinese state; China was in a state of Anarchy, under widespread rebellion, and the last Ming emperor had just committed suicide. It wasn't so much that Wu "opened the gates" as much as "Abandoned his post because he had nothing left to defend". Wu switched sides to the Manchu because his former side pretty much disintegrated around him. It was the destruction of the Ming state from within that caused Wu's defection, not Wu's defection that caused the fall of the Ming. The Manchu takeover wasn't so much an invasion into a well-defended state so much as the Manchu moving into a power vacuum created by the extinction of the prior dynasty and the complete breakdown of the entire state structure from within. It's also quite likely the Manchu didn't need Wu to succeed anyways. --Jayron 32 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Wall of China actually refers to a variety of walls over a period of almost two thousand years. I think it's fair to say that some of these were successful and some were not. If you mean the Ming Great Wall built by the Ming dynasty, which forms the most visible parts of the Great Wall today, our article says: "In academia, opinions about the Wall's role in the Ming dynasty's downfall are mixed. Historians such as Arthur Waldron and Julia Lovell are critical of the whole wall-building exercise in light of its ultimate failure in protecting China; the former compared the Great Wall with the failed Maginot Line of the French in World War II. However, independent scholar David Spindler notes that the Wall, being only part of a complex foreign policy, received "disproportionate blame" because it was the most obvious relic of that policy." So that would suggest a negative or mostly negative answer. John M Baker (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scramble for Africa - shares of the colonial powers

What was the share of colonized Africa for each colonial power in 1913? While most key figures are probably impossible to reconstruct, the share of area has probably been calculated somewhere? --KnightMove (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are you measuring "share"? By population or by land area? Both figures are trivial for you to calculate. You just need sources for the numbers. For example, you can use the map you just shared at the right, and approximate the land area of the territories using the maps of the modern countries overlayed with it. From there you can portion out what % of the total land area of Africa is claimed by each colonial power. --Jayron 32 14:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partial answer: "By the beginning of the 20th century, 90 percent of the land area on the African continent came under colonial control....France and Britain together colonized over 70 percent of the land." Colonialism, by Gerald R. Pitzl, in Encyclopedia of World Poverty, Volume 1, Sage Publications, 2006, p. 186. [1] (The sources listed at the end of the article might help you get more specifics.) 184.147.117.34 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some numbers by population: "Between 1885 and 1914 Britain took nearly 30 percent of Africa's population under its control, compared to 15 percent for France, 9 percent for Germany, 7 percent for Belgium and only 1 percent for Italy."[2] 184.147.117.34 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the key, without which the colors are undefined. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Union of South Africa was independent by 1913, having become a Dominion in 1910 with the same status as countries such as Canada and Australia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although its Dominion status meant that it was still part of the British Empire even if not under the control of London. "The Union of South Africa was tied closely to the British Empire, and automatically joined with Great Britain and the allies against the German Empire" according to our History of South Africa (1910–48) article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is any US government agency allowed to lie to the public?

Re [3], I know it is a crime to make intentional false statements to a federal investigator [4] so why do the Feds let local police departments get away with it? What recourse do citizens have when government agencies lie in a news broadcast that goes out to the general public, which certainly includes federal investigators? Does the mere fact that a reporter accurately parroted the lie absolve the government agent of lying to investigators? EllenCT (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not, has not ever been, nor is there likely to ever be any law that requires police in the U.S. to tell the truth all the time. You are not allowed to issue false statements to them because the state has an interest in finding the perpetrators of crimes and bringing them to justice. Police can lie to you as much as they want, so long as they don't cross the line into entrapment, that is getting you to comit a crime you would not have otherwise committed. Lying is central to undercover work, it would be pretty impossible for an undercover officer to do their investigation if they were required to tell you they were a cop. The FBI can lie to you as well, as a police force they do what other police do. I am not aware that any police agency anywhere in the world is proscribed from ever lying. This and this explain it well. The second, from findlaw.com, a pretty reliable source, says clearly "The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect." Of course, you are not required to give any self-incriminating evidence to the police. Even if they lie to try to get you to confess, your Miranda rights ensure that you are under no obligation to answer them. Also, though police are required to give the Miranda warning before charging someone with a crime, even if you haven't been warned, you still have those rights. The rights do not exist because of the warning, the rights exist regardless of the warning. The warning is merely a required courtesy. --Jayron 32 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And with regard to your second questions: No, lying to the press is not the equivalent of lying to federal investigators, merely because a federal investigator may read a news paper or watch the 11:00 news. You are not required to tell the truth to a person 100% of the time merely because they are a federal investigator (for example, it is not against the law to throw a surprise birthday for someone who is employed in that job!). Also, it is not forbidden that lies are never heard by a federal investigator in any context. What is forbidden is lying to a police officer or investigator who is asking questions in the course of an investigation. The proper legal term in the U.S. is called Obstruction of justice, and only covers giving false statements to investigators during the course of an investigation. Not merely saying falsehoods that happen to be overheard by an investigator. Public officials can be penalized for lying only in certain specific circumstances: lying to investigators (Obstruction of justice), lying under oath (Perjury), lying to Congress (Contempt of Congress) are a few; lying in general may not be a specific crime, but can be used as evidence for removal from office under general concepts such as censure or impeachment. There is, however, no specific crime for lying to the press. What can happen is that such officials can be called to testify before Congress, at which point there would be specific penalties for lying. --Jayron 32 16:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that government officials lying to the public ought to be illegal, except perhaps in a few special cases like national security. For example, if the police claim they didn't arrest somebody who they did arrest, and who subsequently disappeared, that very much seems like it should be a crime. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is malformed. Agencies of the federal government don't talk to the public. Their officers may be called to testify before congress, which is comprised of the people's representatives. Lying under oath before congress is a crime. Agents of the government may not lie under oath, and perjury in a criminal case is a huge deal. Statements not made under oath are not governed by any standard, just look at the fact that fewer Americans have jobs now than since the beginning of the Reagan Administration, but that unemployment numbers are quite rosy. Such reports are political, not scientific or evidentiary--they have no epistemic value. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 1981, there were roughly 91,000,000 Americans with jobs. Today there are roughly 140,000,000. Demonstratedly a false statement. Use this tool and change the date ranges. If you have a different source of data, or wish to qualify your statement, that'd be fine, but you shouldn't make a statement of numerical fact like "fewer than" without an actual reference. I'd be glad to see a different reference you may have to provide that says differently than those numbers. --Jayron 32 02:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, Jayron, Amen. Hit 'em with solid data and watch the rapid retreat!DOR (HK) (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not even understanding what I said. I said the jobs numbers haven't been this low since the beginning of the Reagan administration. I didn't claim they were better at the beginning of the Reagan administration. I might also mention that you have to give percentage of population numbers in full-time work, not absolute numbers including part time jobs as "jobs", but I fear your heads might explode. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis may be essentially right about that, where essentially = starting from 1984, and ignoring post 2009-years that were obviously even worse. See graph here (didn't bother to restrict to full time employees). For interest sake, I also plotted the employment population ration for prime-aged workers (25-54 yo) to compensate for increased years of schooling and increase in senior population; by that standard US is doing almost as well as the best Reagan years, but not as good as the Clinton era. Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In February 2015 the official US unemployment rate was 5.5%, yet labor participation is at a 37 year low (so actually the Carter administration, not Reagan) but unemployment numbers reached 12% under Reagan, and meantime there's a record number of people on foodstamps, and a record number of people on disability. The problem with the 5.5% statistic is that it is gamed, it excludes people with part time jobs, and people who have given up looking for jobs (not reported a job search in the last month). My point is not about specific years, but the fact that every other indicator belies a 5.5% unemployment rate, and that these numbers are basically propaganda. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May be that's the point? Statements not made under oath like the above are often not governed by any standard except a person's personal standards. Most of us try to speak what we believe to be the truth, to the best of our abilities on the RD or wikipedia in general, except when making clearly indicated jokes etc. A few people may not. Unfortunately there's still a slight flaw in this logic. Statements on wikipedia are also governed by the communities standards, and making crap up isn't something that's allowed under those standards. Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

μηδείς, Show any shred of evidence that “job numbers haven’t been this low since the beginning of the Reagan administration.” In the first quarter of 1981, the US had 100.2 million civilian employees; in the first quarter of 2015 it was 148.3 million, an increase of nearly half. Unemployment then was 7.4%, now it is 5.6% (Q-1 average). In the first three months of 1981, 43.8% of the population had a job; now it is 46.3%. In 1981, 67.1% of the 15-64 year-old age group were employed; in 2014 it was 68.1%.

Those who cannot imagine an economic recovery are using all sorts of statistical nonsense to make it look worse than it is. The fact is that the US economy has grown, year-on-year in real terms, for 21 straight quarters, at an average rate of +2.2% p.a. Weekly unemployment claims have fallen, year-on-year, in 272 of the past 286 weeks. U-6 unemployment, if that’s your favorite, has fallen faster and further than at any time in its history.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several million fewer Americans employed today than in 2007, and only a small fraction of those have bounced back, but what does that have to do with my question? @Jayron32: do any of those sources say that police are specifically allowed to lie to the press or the public when federal investigators are likely going to be investigating those statements -- even if only because they are lies? I want to see a case or a statute, or even a procedural guideline in police regulations which suggests doing so is ever allowed. Yes, when two likely complicit suspects are in separate holding cells, by all means tell each that the other is singing for a deal and they'll be sent down the river if they don't as well, but allowing lies to the press obviously infringes on the First Amendment in a very profound way. Jurisprudence is jurisprudence. EllenCT (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't prove a negative. There is no statute or law requiring that anyone tells the truth to the press. You can demand all you want for a law that says that police are allowed to lie to the press; there exists no reason for such a law or rule or statute to exist in the first place. If you demand people to prove that unicorns don't exist by producing a non-unicorn, you get strange looks. The same here: no one can produce a source which proves the non-existence of something which never existed. --Jayron 32 00:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: lies to suspects have been regulated by the courts since the US Supreme Court ruled that police lies during interrogations can be so excessive as to render confessions involuntary and thus inadmissible. Are you saying that you think the prohibition against lying to investigators, which indisputably applies to speech or writing, has some exception when the lie transits through a diligent press accurately reporting? If so, how would that not be a law infringing on the freedom of the press? EllenCT (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a fantastic misunderstanding of what freedom of the press means. It means the press are allowed to ask questions of people. It places no obligation on the people asked to answer them. --Jayron 32 23:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: do you think deliberately lying to reporters whose livelihood depends on their reputation for accuracy doesn't infringe on their freedom? Do you think that such a theory could possibly agree with the Founders' intent or literal construction? EllenCT (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I and you think is of no bearing on the issue. It just isn't. Your outrage has no bearing on the law. --Jayron 32 02:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absent from those few categories where the law allows content-based regulation of speech is any general exception to the First Amendment for false statements. This comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private con-versation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee. The First Amendment guarantees a person's right to lie. It's clear and the Supreme Court has upheld that right as recently as 2012. --Jayron 32 02:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My "outrage"? Really? I am asking about violations of 18 USC 1001 which may occur when false statements are made to and repeated by the press, not the right to lie in general. EllenCT (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you read what you just linked. If you did, there was literally no need to have had any of this conversation, you'd have already found your answer. --Jayron 32 20:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for Western dominance?

Many Westerners believe that Western dominance is because they have freedom and human rights. To what extent is Western dominance (including problems in Africa, Middle East and Asia) actually caused by Western colonialism, racism and exploitation? There should be existing research on this topic. --Jangan Perkauman (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, and then see if you have any questions. --Jayron 32 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could start with British Empire. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this recent thread on Why is Europe much wealthier than Africa? Abecedare (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ridiculous trolling bigotry (when did the West stop beating its wife?) was brought to you by a single purpose account with no edits except at this page. I suggest he be starved, not fed. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

islamic countries vs western countries

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why are the islamic countries so backward compared to the western countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatterboxer100 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backward how ? Technologically ? Politically ? Economically ? Socially (such as women's rights) ? Part of it may be the curse of oil. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troll. Delete. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of this ? StuRat (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Eh..."backward"? Not a neutral term. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

socially backward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatterboxer100 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Female political leaders in Islam and in Muslim-majority countries is an area where they're doing better than the US. Iran's treatment of homosexuals is absolutely horrible, but their treatment of transsexuals is way better. More information here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason is extremism. The West is partly to blame for the rise of extremism. During the Cold War, the Americans supported the mujahideen. Iranian Revolution is because the Americans forced a brutal secular leader on Iran and destroyed the zakat system. Now Western racism, Islamophobia and blasphemy, plus Western presence in the Middle East, is used by terrorist groups to gain support from angry young Muslims. --Jangan Perkauman (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are also murderous "Islamic" organizations like Boko Haram that don't seem to have much to do with the West. Even ISIL seemed content to just massacre people in their part of the world, initially. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I said partly. But Boko Haram aims to reduce Western influence in Nigeria. --Jangan Perkauman (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Reduce Western influence" is quite the understatement. They murder or enslave anyone different from themselves. Also note that "western influence" is far more benign these days than in the bad old days of colonialism, yet Islamic fundamentalism is worse now. That would tend to disprove your theory. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps Boko Haram will help to stop the huge influx of emails from so-called Nigerian princes asking for money.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the British promoted Wahabism in order to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they write from right to left. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Majority Islamic nations are as varied as majority Christian nations. 173.32.72.65 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]