Humanities desk
< October 11	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 13 >

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.

October 12

Term for separated couples but not divorced in case of job?

The situation is this: one parent leaves home to search for a better paid job in a different country. The other parent stays behind with the children. Then, the first parent sends money home by snail mail. And the married couple lives like this for years, until one day, they save up enough money to buy plane tickets to bring the spouse and children along. The couple technically is separated, but not in a divorce kind of way. They just live in different countries. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Long-distance relationship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid using the term "long-distance relationship" as it doesn't indicate the formal status of marriage. In American English and perhaps other variants, the expression "separated [married couple]" indicates that besides physical separation of residence, their marriage is in some state of rift or dissolution, regarding their mutual relationship and reciprocal obligations, though not at the legal stage of divorce. I'd suggest "married couple living apart due to employment circumstances" until a better term emerges. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a better term: "Long distance relationship" or "Long distance marriage". If you live apart at some distance, but for example you still fill a "married filing jointly" on your 1040, you're not "separated" in the legalistic sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article legal separation but it does not apply in this case. Regarding things like child support one might be asked if there is an absent parent who provides support but lives elsewhere. If this is just for conversational purposes, one should simply say my spouse works abroad and we are going to move to live there once we have enough money. If it's an application or a legal document ask the clerk, or consult with an attorney as necessary. μηδείς (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Married" is what you would put on job applications, as they are only concerned with the legal status of the relationship. You wouldn't even put "separated" if it was due to marriage trouble, unless it was a court-arranged separation. The employer most likely wants to know if the spouse is the person to contact in case of emergency, too. I imagine they would be, even if in another city. However, a local contact might also be needed, say if they want somebody to take the person to a hospital to get some stitches. StuRat (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Physical separation" or "enforced separation" suggest the relationship itself is unaffected. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are we using bullets? I disagree that "enforced separation" would suggest that the relationship is unaffected. "Enforced" suggests that there is some person or governmental body that is keeping the people apart. And, IMO, it suggests some strife. Meanwhile, it is simply the circumstances that limit the couple's time together in the same physical location. Dismas|^(talk) 12:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First place with women's suffrage

Resolved

If we can trust our articles Women's suffrage and Timeline of women's suffrage, the first place to have introduced it seems to be Pitcairn Island. I was curious why, but that article doesn't give a reason. Moreover, it uses the weasel wording "... and was among the first territories to extend voting rights to women", which makes me wonder whether there were any others around that time. — Sebastian 03:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found some oral history which (if correct) explains why; the transcript of an interview on Radio New Zealand with "cultural advisor" Meralda Warren, who is "a descendant of one of Fletcher Christian's Bounty mutineers".

MW: "It was 1838 when they appealed to one of the captains on the ship to help protect the women of Pitcairn from the whaling ships, from being exploited by some of the whalers on the ships. The leaders of the island then who are the children of the Bounty who have grown up asked also that they give women equal rights and the right to vote."

Interviewer: "And this was the right to vote for your local government?"

MW: "Local government. That's the beginning of the local government."

Interviewer: "OK. So straightaway, as soon as Pitcairn was established, then, women had the right to vote for the local mayor?"

MW: "Yes. At the time it was chief magistrate. I think the men respected the women in those days because without the women of the Bounty to look after Pitcairn it probably would have failed because the women, led by Mauatua, and the other 10 women, they really looked after the island in the first four years and strived to help the islanders to appreciate this island and to grow. So it is the women of the Bounty who pushed this forward.

Interviewer: "You talk about the women of the Bounty. These were women who were originally from Tahiti?"

MW: "From Tahiti, from Tubuai and from Huahine."

BTW, I have added a "cite web" reference to the Wikipedia "Timeline of women's suffrage". Alansplodge (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alansplodge! And now I realized that I had been misreading Timeline of women's suffrage and Pitcairn was not the first place. I think I'll adjust the table in the Women's suffrage article. — Sebastian 23:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for art colleges

I am posting here because WikiProject Arts is bit of a graveyard and I want quick feedback.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts#Resident sketch artist

Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colonialism in Africa

I was just thinking about the end of colonialism in Africa, and I was wondering whether the end of colonialism in this continent occur more to anti-colonial struggles or to the Europeans desires to sort of 'give up' on Africa after the Second World War? --Yonglingtonshire (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this isn't something that can be answered in the abstract... A lot depends on which specific colonial power you are talking about, and which African colony. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, however see our Decolonization of Africa article, which has a useful table linking to articles for each country. Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early on, many vicious wars were fought for independence. Later on, colonial powers saw that that fighting wars in an attempt to keep a colony, which will likely eventually gain independence anyway, and, with world public opinion against them, possibly resulting in sanctions, is not a wise move. Better to grant independence, while trying to form a peaceful, democratic government with strong trade ties to your own, in the process. Also note that this doesn't just apply to European nations with colonies in Africa. For example, the US granted the Philippines independence without a fight, half a century after fighting a vicious war to prevent their independence. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No European country wished to "give up" its African colonies at the end of World War II. In every case, international opposition and colonial resistance or the threat of it led to a calculation in which the European power recognized that the cost of maintaining colonial control outweighed the benefits. That recognition occurred at different dates for different colonies. Marco polo (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that again, that's an over simplification. I've just had a quick skim through the Google Books preview for British Government Policy and Decolonisation, 1945-63: Scrutinising the Official Mind by Frank Heinlein, which proposes that cost was not the driving force in the UK's case, although in desperate financial straights in 1945, but international prestige. The aim in the 1950s and 1960s in Africa was to convert an outmoded colonial empire (which no longer gave the UK any international prestige) into a community of viable states in which the UK would have the leading role. It took time for this model to emerge and there were a variety of factors at play in the various regions. Things were different for colonies deemed to be of strategic value, such as Aden, which were to be held on to for as long as possible. Alansplodge (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the War did take a huge financial and human toll (less soldiers often brought from the colonies) that led to an initial spate of "independence"...however many others came about devcades later and in some ways still continue (Dieogo Garcia and Reunion are at the UN's committee on decolonization.Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let Jesus into your life

I have seen various posters and booklets saying "Let Jesus into your life and you will be saved". Now I am fully atheistic and have no intention of becoming religious, but out of academic curiosity, I have to ask. How does one generally go about actually letting Jesus into one's life? Is it simply a matter of starting to believe Jesus existed and did all that wonderful stuff, or is there some sort of ritual or ceremony involved? JIP | Talk 20:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to Christianity is our main article, and there's also useful material at Religious conversion and Baptism. There are at least as many "right" answers to your question as there are Christian sects, but most would require, in addition to a belief in the historical Jesus, a belief in the divinity of Jesus and the repentance of the believer - although not frequently used in a Christian context, the Islamic idea of Niyyah might be appropriate for what's required above "simple belief". As far as rituals are concerned, in addition to baptism, many churches (especially in the Catholic tradition) have a ceremony of Confirmation. Tevildo (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to invite Elijah the Prophet into your life, just leave the door open and set out an extra cup for him. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Some Christian denominations espouse what is known as a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (sadly, this link redirects to the article on being "Born Again", without really explaining the context of the concept. A hole in Wikipedia's coverage for sure). What this means is distinct from the recognition and acceptance of Jesus's life and teachings, it means something different than trying to follow his example and teachings as historical things one reads in the bible and tries to live by. It also means to believe that Jesus still takes an active, direct role in ones life, that one continue to pray for guidance in daily decisions, and to have a personal relationship with Jesus means the same as having a personal relationship with a sibling, friend, parent, etc. This extends beyond merely following the teachings of Christ, it is an earnest belief that Christ still takes an active role in one's daily life, and that one can continue to communicate with him and seek guidance from him on a continuous basis. --Jayron 32 01:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add context, "Let Jesus into your life and you will be saved" is pretty much a shibboleth for Protestant Christianity and in particular Protestant fundamentalism. Most such denominations do believe that you simply have to have a sincere belief in Jesus as the Son of God, and his death and resurrection as atonement for your sins. See sola fide. This is in contrast to the doctrine of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which teach that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation; one must receive certain sacraments, such as baptism. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think JIP asks a good question. So let us step back one or two or even six paces. We now live in a large society. Cooperation between members bring mutual benefits. Two heads are better then one and Wisdom_of_the_crowd brings even more benefits. Primitive tribes live in communities of between 120 and 160 people. No law enforcement was required because everybody within the village is one big family (ask an anthropologist). As communities got larger and people where no longer bound by close familial and genetic relationships – new concepts had to be introduced to keep and maintain cohesion and cooperation to maintain mutual benefit. In the middle East a concept of religion developed out of ancestor worship. In the far east a concept of Confucianism developed based on ancestor worship also (but omitted the big guy up in the sky with a long beard). In both cases it encourages people to 'go with the flow' but at the same time, resist attempts by bullies to force individuals against the flow (in order that the privileged few could to enrich themselves still further) . The US of America is now in a hell of a pickle because the oligarchy has cohered the US citizens into a corner -where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The US is now doing its upper most to force Chinese and European countries to follow suit and make their poor poorer via the World Trade Organization. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it. So what Jesus, the philosopher Confuses, and many others are saying: Salvation (saving oneself and those one cherishes) does not lay with those that claim Earthy Powers over you but on ones own ability to compare their propaganda to that knowledge and truth that has withstood the generations. To cast way old prejudice and cooperate effectively and productively with ones fellows. That is the way.) (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bit like WP in a way. “Don't shower and pontificate your beliefs upon us but show us verification in some reliable written word”.--Aspro (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Bible, with its record of Jesus's acts and words, and there are various church traditions and practices, but other than that, adherents of Christianity are asked to operate entirely on faith, which is totally unlike WP. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the existence of Wikipedia itself predicated entirely on faith? --Jayron 32 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Wikipedia is, inter alia, a massive collection of things that have been verified. Whether any of them reflects the Truth is a matter for individuals to decide for themselves. But that is no different from any history book. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Julius Caesar might have said : Veni, vidi, editi.--Aspro (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The third verb would have been ēdidī, a reduplicated perfect of ēdō, "I publish, put forth", not to be confused with edō, "I eat". μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to believe that - being a man before his time - what he really said was "Veni, et vidi Wiki", but nobody had the faintest idea of what he was talking about so they changed it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Especially not the Ancient Britons. Tevildo (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Μηδείς's comment made me feel how Brian must have felt when he was caught writing ROMANES EUNT DOMUS. Still makes me laugh even today.--Aspro (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]