Humanities desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 5

HISTORY

Please provide details of IKSHVAKU DYNASTY in details.from prasenjeet to sodhadev of KACHHWAH dynasty.Link is missing.you also provide details of DHEKAHA RAJPUT(bihar , eastern up,MP) of KACHWAH dynasty Not of PARMAR.They are branch of kachhwah .plase link correctively. -- 01:39, 5 December 2018 2409:4064:50a:1f52::1468:30a0

What articles are you referring to? We have Kachwaha and Ikshvaku dynasty... AnonMoos (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where Are We Going? by David Lloyd George

Where Are We Going? by David Lloyd George (New York, George H. Doran Co, 1923) is, as I understand it, essentially the same as Is It Peace? (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1923) but with a different arrangement of the contents. I have a copy of Is It Peace? but do not have a copy of Where Are We Going?. I would be interested to see the contents pages of Where Are We Going? in order to compare the two. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in fact, the book is of sufficient significance (read:notability) that it should have its own article. ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia rules disregard the long-term significance of a work, and only care about citations in third-party sources. We have numerous missing articles. Dimadick (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How was God viewed according to Judaism before the Babylonian Exile?

Before the Babylonian exile, how did Judaism conceive of God? Did they believe that he was immaterial like modern day Judaism does now? -- 19:12, 5 December 2018 208.98.223.47 208.98.223.47 (talk · contribs)

Do you have a misunderstanding of the meaning of immaterial, or did you inadvertently choose the wrong word, or are you just trolling? Akld guy (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of immaterial in this context is 'not consisting of matter', which is one of the definitions given by Merriam-Webster. - Lindert (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to avoid a term like that in this context, as it's usually taken to mean "unimportant", as in the old expression, "incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We're not here to guess the context, as Lindert did. Akld guy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. It was obvious what it meant, in context. See Gricean maxim. The only way it wouldn't have been obvious is if you just don't know that sense of the word, in which case you should improve your vocabulary. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did know that meaning of the word, but it's not the most common meaning, and certainly not in the wider English speaking world, of which the US is only a small part. Again, you're guessing that the OP chose the correct word. Why? So you can be snarky? Akld guy (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the question is about the nature of God, surely the ontological meaning should be the primary one. Why would you jump to the "irrelevant" meaning? It doesn't make sense in context, notwithstanding the existence of apatheists.

It's a side point, but actually roughly 2/3 of the L1 speakers of English reside in the United States. Not that I understand why you brought that up; I don't think the meaning in question is especially American. If it's anything in particular, it's philosophical, and I'm not aware that Americans are more likely to be philosophers than other English speakers. --Trovatore (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is now obvious that the question was originally posed by Lindert, as he/she has since signed it. When I first replied to the original post, which was this, I did so thinking that the question was perhaps posted by a troll ip. If I had known a registered user was the poster, I wouldn't have challenged it so curtly. Akld guy (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OP never signed it, I posted the OP's name just so it was clear who asked the question. [Got the wrong OP! Now fixed. See below.] And the choice of "immaterial" was misleading to the average reader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask this question. I posted only because to me it was obvious what the word meant in context. Please do not sign posts of other people based on assumptions. - Lindert (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, you're right. It was an IP. I didn't make any assumptions, I just didn't get the right diff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. - Lindert (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as your question is about whether the Babylonian exile changed something in the idea they had about the nature of God, the answer is: no. There remains a number of subsidiary questions I'm not the one able to answer however. --Askedonty (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest the OP read our God in Judaism article. It has a section that may answer some of this. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It's best to avoid a term like that in this context, as it's usually taken to mean "unimportant" "

Curious. I was taught English since I was 8-years-old, and I have never heard immaterial connected to "insignificant". It is typically used as a synonym to "spiritual" or "incorporeal". See Incorporeality. Dimadick (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been an English speaker all my life, and the "insignificant" or "irrelevant" meaning is overwhelmingly the one I've encountered. I have heard the "spiritual" or "incorporeal" meaning, but its occurrences are very much in the minority, and require a certain context. The OP's question did provide such a context. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]