Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 8

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< February 7 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 9 >
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.


February 8

edit

How to make a new religion?

edit

It seems to me that the recipe for a religion is this: beliefs + rituals + ethics + time + follower(s) = religion. Perhaps, a person may invest in the pursuit of an established belief system that is closest to the person's values taught by his parents/guardians since birth, adopt a series of rituals that fit and make sense with this belief system, collect ethical wisdom that the person deems agreeable, spend some time practicing his new faith, and begin his religious teaching, thereby creating a new generation of disciples that shall hold this school of thought or maybe even expand the school of thought. How does one characterize a religion made from scratch and a religion based on an older religion or a religion with the religious leader being a follower of an older and more established religious tradition while simultaneously teaching a new religious tradition? At this point, would this new religious movement be characterized as a religious denomination of an older religion, or a separate religion in its own right, or will the new school of thought merely be more of an ethical-philosophical belief system within already established religion or can be made compatible with the founder's native faith? 140.254.226.231 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See L. Ron Hubbard. --Jayron32 00:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In a cult, there is one person at the top who knows the whole thing is a scam. In a religion, that person is dead."Dncsky (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad founded cults that became religions when they died? It's a witty line, but doesn't really stand up to close examination. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Most scholars wouldn't class Christianity as either a cult or a religion until several decades after Jesus' death, at the very earliest. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 14:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dnc's comment is kind of in the same category as "A statesman is a dead politician". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you (Dweller) know that Christianity was an illegal iconoclastic minority religion until well after Jesus died? As such, it would satisfy the commonly-understood definition of a "cult". Islam is different because Muhammad was a ruthless military leader who conquered a vast territory before he died. Even so, Islam remained a minority religion within the Islamic empire itself for centuries. We know nearly nothing about the lives of Buddha or Moses, and they may even be purely legendary, so I don't know how they support your point. Incidentally, this suggests an addition to the OP's list of requirements. If a language is a dialect with an army and navy, then a religion is a cult with an army and navy, because the history of Christianity and Islam show that armed force is the best way to spread a religion. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in certain ways there's a pretty good parallel between Muhammad and the Roman emperor Constantine, who established Christianity as the Roman state religion, and was just a tad ruthless himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely someone has previously pointed out to you that Constantine the Great did no such thing? Have you been reading Chick tracts? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My source was The History Channel. Silly me. I should have believed an IP address instead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you shouldn't trust me: I linked you to our article, or you could have done some basic research in a history text book. Did the History Channel also tell you that Jesus was an alien? It does that. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The History Channel isn't what I call a reliable source. If I were you, I would read generally accepted academic textbooks on the subject matter. There was one time I watched Intelligent Design on Trial, and apparently, it seems to portray creationists as believing in a 6000-year-old Earth. That is not really the case, when you consider that that there are different types of creationists. Yet, creationists are creationists, because they believe in that the Genesis is literally true to some degree, or at least treat Genesis as a science or history textbook. PBS has written extensively on the rise of Christianity. It features the opinion of Rodney Stark, an academic scholar whose textbook on the subject matter has actually been chosen as part of the academic curriculum at the university level. Sneazy (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
140.254.226.231 -- Such matters are studied by scholars of "new religious movements", but this field is littered with bitter controversies. AnonMoos (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Leary wrote a pamphlet with the title Start your own religion. I haven't read it, though, so I can't say if it is any good. But he was certainly not unfamiliar with the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JIHAD IN ISLAM

edit
Wikipedia is not a debate forum. Please seek an online forum for this discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I refer to the verse 22:78. “And make jihad in God’s cause with true jihad. It is He who has chosen you, and has laid no hardship on you in religion; the creed of your forefather Abraham. It is He who has named you Muslims, in bygone times and in this [book], so that the Messenger might bear witness for you, and that you might bear witness for all mankind. Thus, attend regularly to your prayer, and pay out your zakāt, and hold fast to God. He is your Guardian: the best of guardians and the best to give support”.

On the part “…has laid no hardship on you in religion…”, all the tafseer that I have researched basically gives the explanation of the concessionaries that are given. For instance, when performing one's ablution or standing erect due to establishing prayers requires much pain, provision is given in tayammun and prayers in sitting position.

However I believe a different perspective can be made: Basically the main theme of this verse is about jihad:

1. It starts out with the exhortation “…And make jihad in God’s cause with true jihad…”.

2. The previous verse “Believers! Bow down and prostrate yourselves, and worship your Lord alone, and do good, so that you might be successful.” Some mufassir says the command of prayer is a preparation for jihad.

3. The last part of this verse “…He is your Guardian: the best of guardians and the best to give support.” could also indicate that making jihad is “difficult”, but Allah is here to give support.

So we could see the statement “…has laid no hardship on you in religion...” in the context of jihad. Jihad could be perhaps be regarded as the aspect of deen that seemingly brings the most hardship,more so with true jihad. However Allah is implying that in the real sense, jihad would actually bring ease not hardship!

For example if we makes jihad to pray tahajjud, at first it will be hard to wake extra early in the cold morning. But if we make the jihad, after some time, we will actually find nikmah in the tahajjud prayer. Also we will find ourselves more energetic in the day. However if we succumb to sleep, we will sooner or later becomes lazier and more lethargic.

Another example is giving charity. We might think we will be more “hard up” if we are not well off. However if we do give,we will find Allah will make actually our rizq more than before.

This concept would be consistent with the meaning of the verses: “So, verily, with every hardship, there is ease: Verily, with every hardship there is ease” (Surah Inshirah 94: 5-6)

What is your comment? Please give your arguments whether you agree or disagree with this perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASMA89 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a debate forum, even if it seems that way at times. If you want to find out what wikipedia has to say about it, start with Jihad and see where it takes you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Role in 2011 NATO Libya Intervention

edit

I've recently heard some people criticize the U.S.'s role during the Libya intervention as too small. What is the reality in regards to this--how much of a role did the United States have in the 2011 NATO Libya intervention (between March 2011 and October 2011)? Can anyone please shed some light on this? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See 2011 military intervention in Libya. --Jayron32 05:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will look at this article (again). Futurist110 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the US air support was absolutely critical to defeating Quaddafi. What were they criticizing, the lack of a ground invasion and occupation force afterwards ? StuRat (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They were criticizing the fact that the U.S. let France and the U.K. do most of the work (and that the U.S. took more credit that it should have after the end and the success of the intervention). Futurist110 (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering all the wars where the US does most of the work, it seems only fair that the European nations should take the lead occasionally, especially in wars which are "right on their doorstep", and when the US was spread thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This allows them to participate in ways which would be impossible on the other side of the world. This site seems to support the idea that France took the lead, at least as far as as sorties go: [1]. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I have a question--did the U.S. let Europe take the lead in the 1990s Bosnia and Kosovo operations as well? Futurist110 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. According to this article, the US accounted for some 62% of the sorties: [2]. Of course, the US wasn't committed in two other wars, then. Still, it seems that Europe should have taken the lead in a European war. France has impressed me recently, though, what with taking the lead on both Libya and now Mali. And the UK did quite a bit in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now if only the rest of Europe would pull their weight, we'd all be safe (and I think it's time to re-arm Japan, too, so they can do their part, and defend themselves from China and North Korea). StuRat (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the US didn't contribute many aircraft to the long-running air campaign, it formed a core part of the operating by 'kicking the door in' during the first days of the intervention by destroying the Libyan air defence network (using capabilities the European countries don't possess, such as stealth bombers and large numbers of cruise missiles), and then provided a large chunk of the vital intelligence and in-flight refueling aircraft with which the campaign would have been impossible. From memory, the European countries also had to draw on US stocks of bombs after their supplies ran low (which the US Government was pretty unhappy about, for obvious reasons given that its NATO allies are meant to hold large stocks of such weapons themselves). Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most or all of this is listed/written in that Wikipedia article that Jayron linked, right? Futurist110 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The US only played a logistical role, mostly. They were reluctant to get involved. Don't get me wrong, their role was very welcome, but there was not much combat involved, whilst the UK had planes in the air and boots on the ground (in the form of our SAS and Intelligence Services). The French did their bit, and the Italians helped too. The Americans just supplied the weaponry, with a few isolated attacks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

spanish american war

edit

in the spanish american war why did the imperial nation get involved in colony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpenn (talk • contribs) 06:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your question. Which nation and which colony? The war primarily involved Spain and the U.S.; and colonies involved ranged from Cuba to Guam to the Philippines. You can read more at Spanish-American war. --Jayron32 06:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By 1898, Spain's overseas colonial empire was a kind of creaking anachronism (disproportionate to its weakness within Europe), and Spanish misgovernment of Cuba created instability in the Caribbean, etc. Those in the U.S. who were in favor of the war saw easy pickings for the U.S., an end to the perpetually-festering sore of Cuba, the possibility for U.S. to acquire island bases relatively close to (but separated from) the east Asian mainland, etc. Those in the U.S. who were opposed to the war didn't want to see the U.S. become an out-and-out aggressively imperialist power, doubted whether the inhabitants of Cuba or the Philippines would really benefit too much, etc. (very few opposed the war out of any tender solicitude towards Spain). AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Companies paying for university degrees

edit

Some large corporations pay for, or subsidize, higher education for some of their employees. Is there any study available that demonstrates the cost/benefit? I have figured every corporation has its own prestige reasons for doing so, but also someone somewhere has probably run the numbers and claimed that, say, paying for an employee to get an MBA costs US$20,000 and ends up earning the company US$60,000 if the employee stays for 5+ years ... or whatever. Any pointers are welcome. Tarcil (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the thing you may want to consider is the cost difference between training employees in-house versus outsourcing the training to universities. Much (possibly even most) of the university-outsourced training of employees is retraining employees for management: employees which work as "underlings" or without any supervisory or policy-making experience may be groomed for transition into management positions within the same company. This training is often done through graduate programs in management or administration. As you note, there is a cost involved in such training; the real question is whether the company gets more value in outsourcing that training versus doing it in-house: it is necessary training (excepting in those organizations that use non-standard management models, i.e. W. L. Gore and Associates). Insofar as a company needs people to manage its employees and make broad strategic decisions about how the company operates, people need training in those fields. So, if you're going to retrain an employee to be a manager, do you have an on-site management training staff, which teaches the principles of management and administration to them; or do you send them off to be trained at a nearby university. For a huge company with many thousands of employees, you may be training dozens or hundreds of such people every year. IBM, IIRC, has its own internal management school for employees it is grooming for advanced management and executive positions. For a smaller company, you may only need to train up one or two employees each year, and then it isn't cost effective to do such training in-house: keeping a teaching staff and facilities around to train one person a year seems wasteful. Just some thoughts. --Jayron32 14:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
my experience has been this is negotiated as part of a benefits package, so it is seen as a perk for working at that company rather than one which doesn't offer such a benefit. And I believe its very tax-beneficial for the company. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, such training is under the guise of continuing professional development; again, the company has an interest in seeing that its workforce remains well trained, and doesn't become ossified in the skills that they had merely at the start of their jobs: the nature of any work changes over time, and a company has a direct interest in seeing that their employees keep abreast of such changes. The couching of the training in the terms of "benefits" is merely a semantic distinction to make the prospect more attractive to employee candidates than "we're going to require you to be retrained every so often". Which is the real goal of the company. Again, it comes down to outsourcing professional development versus handling it in house. Professional development is a vital part of keeping a business going; the difference between in-house training versus outsourcing it to universities is likely one of scale as I described above. For some companies it makes sense to do all such training themselves; to others it makes more sense to offer to pay their employees to get that training from a university. --Jayron32 18:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your initial conclusion. What are you referring to when you say "in that case"? Is it the tax benefit? If so, and if I remember my Australian tax law correctly, all sorts of fringe benefits are tax-beneficial without it having to be continuing professional development, and often it is simply part of the benefit package, as Medeis says, akin to a "free" kettle or iPod, rather than a way to outsource professional training. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the specific example of which I was thinking regarded a corporation that would pay for any accredited higher education in which the student earned a C or higher grade, regardless of relevance to the job application. Many employees took advantage of this to earn degrees in totally different fields and then quit the company. In most such cases I am aware of it was a benefit, not job-training. Of course the latter is quite common too. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Archdukes

edit

How many Austrian archdukes and archduchesses were alive at the time the Austrian monarchy ended?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question. As noted by the article Archduke, the title was used by any bloodline decedent of the House of Habsburg, which may mean that by the 20th century, the number of people so titled could have numbered in the hundreds. --Jayron32 15:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why couldn't they use the title while they were alive? --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
I am not sure if it could have been hundreds. The House of Habsburg went extinct in 1780, with the death of Maria Theresa. Her patrilineal descendants belonged to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and never (or extremely rarely) failed to point that out. Thus, after the last male member of the House of Habsburg died in 1740, patrilineal descendants of only one woman were entitled to bear the title. Maria Theresa had 16 children, five of which were sons. One died as a teenager, one was celibate and one died childless, leaving the mother of 16 with two children to pass on the title. The agnatic line of the younger of the two went extinct in 1875, long before the monarchy ended. The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all archdukes of Austria alive in 1918 is the older of the two, Holy Roman Emperor Leopold II. Four of Leopold's sons (Francis, Ferdinand, Charles and Joseph) made suitable matches which resulted in agnatic descendants living in 1918. I suggest that you start counting them, while of course excluding those descended from morganatic marriages. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auguste Doriot death date

edit

Any of you sleuths able to come up with a date of death for Auguste Doriot and a source to support that? I checked Google books and even tried to get a clue from ancestry.com and familysearch.org, but did not find anything. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the document Quand deux sociétés Peugeot concurrentes construisaient des automobiles (1895 - 1910), page 242 (note 37), Auguste Doriot died in 1955 in Menton. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

any great inventions that were thought up while high?

edit

subject has it all. any great inventions (meaning, actually mass-marketed) that were thought up while high? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you mean by "invention". There are well known works of art which were conceived while under the influence of drugs, going back centuries. The works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, notably Kubla Khan, were conceived or composed under the influence of opiates. You're also likely to find many examples of popular music and art which were conceived while high. --Jayron32 14:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean like a typical invention, lightbulbs, steam engines, wallkman or ipod or 3d tv or whatever, you get the idea. I do know about the creative examples - millions or records sold to which the answer (if I had asked that question) would have been yes. I was wondering the same thing about hard, technological, inventions. Any examples of millions of items sold of an invention that was thought up (invented) while high? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until recently, anyone other than an artist who admitted to indulging in that manner would be taking a serious risk. So if it did happen, it most likely wouldn't be told.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until recently.... I think you meant to say since 1913. And to quote bill hicks:
"I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years were rrreal fucking high on drugs." Shadowjams (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It may also depend on which types of mind-alterations you mean by "high". There's the classic trope of having "sketched something out on a bar napkin", many such things may have been "invented" while the discoverer had a few drinks in them. There's also a few other problems with the premise of the question:
  • The problem that correlation does not imply causation. The fact that someone may have been under the influence of some mind-altering substance (be it alcohol, weed, acid, Ecstasy, whatever) doesn't mean that the invention happened because of the mind-alteration. It may have happened in spite of it.
  • The problem that the romantic notion of one man, working in his garage, through sheer force of individual will, and with no help from anyone, invents some important thing out of whole cloth which has a profound impact on the world. That almost never happens. Most major inventions and innovations occur collaboratively, sometimes deliberately (people working together for a common cause) and sometimes randomly (a collection of events slowly produces incremental changes to existing technology to provide new things). Many people we consider major inventors or innovators were actually managers of people more than singular inventors (Thomas Edison's invention of the lightbulb and Wallace Carothers invention of nylon fit this pattern), or they were fantastic marketers, both of themselves and of their work. People may also invent things by finding ways to better express, organize, or restate existing concepts in novel ways. The core parts of Albert Einsteins great theories of relativity already existed within the physics canon; Einstein's contribution was as much his way of taking existing, disparate concepts and explaining them in simple terms. If you really want to get an interesting perspective on how invention and innovation really occur, the old TV series Connections does a fantastic job of it.
--Jayron32 15:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your points seem to be, respectively, "although you did not list your reasons, your question clearly shows the wrong reasons.", and "there is no such thing as an inventor, nor an act of inventing, so even if we excuse your wrong, unlisted, reasons, it is a question about unicorns". Thank you, but I believe there are inventors, and there are inventions. And thank you, but I believe it is not possible to jump to the wrong correlation when you are only charting a single axis: inventions that have been made by high. Even if that number is precisely, exactly 0, it doesn't say much if in your opinion the number of inventions worldwide is precisely 0. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Strawman. I have said neither of those things. --Jayron32 17:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I thought you were saying something that we were to have construed as in any way related to answering the question. Of course you're right, a lot of things weren't invented by a great inventor, and, of course you're right, that it would be impossible to draw any causation from knowing some kind of correlation between inventing and being high. Thanks for clearing up that in no way was anything you wrote intended to have any kind of relevance to the question. It was rather silly of me to try to relate your answers to the question in some way! I admit it was a stretch. I can see I shouldn't have done that now. Anyhoo thanks for the chat, if you do happen to think of anything even remotely related to answering the question, I'd be interested in hearing it! Otherwise feel free to continue chatting about just fucking anything, thanks. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you? Are you the same editor as 91.120.48.242? If you can't keep your own identity consistent from post to post, why would we be required to keep to the same topic? In any case, you've gone completely off the deep end. Jayron merely denied your understanding of what he said; but what he did say was on-topic, if you care to re-examine it. You're the one accusing people of veering off the topic. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I can't remember them. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's probably not true, but I have a hard time imagining Frito Pie wasn't invented by someone one toke over the line, as it were. --Jayron32 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know. Poutine inspires the same sort of speculation, but I don't think that weed is necessary to account for these sorts of culinary aberrations. Human folly is endless even without pharmacological assistance. Deor (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pregnancy brain could also be the culprit. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Mmmmm. Poutine... --Jayron32 23:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Medeis said. Shadowjams (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the early research about anesthesia was done by doctors trying various substances on themselves. They were without doubt sometimes "high". Sjö (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I would imagine that a lot of the items at the local head shop (if you live somewhere where they still exist) were devised under such conditions. Gzuckier (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment lawsuit

edit

(Redacted)

Top 20 Destinations by Road in the UK

edit

Hi.

This question relates to the Driving in the UK article that I was updating at Wikivoyage, I'd like to include a reasonably accurate distance table for major destinations.

So what are the major 20 destinations in the UK, from a motoring perspective? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand a little on what you mean by "destinations"? Tourist attractions? Airports? Cities? National parks? Distance from where? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In context cities, and major ferry terminals.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


If it's any help, printed Road Atlases used commonly to feature just such a table of distances between major cities and towns (though not, say, tourist attractions), frequently on the inside back cover, and they probably still do. (My car is a few minutes walk away from the office or I'd nip out and check mine.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a printed road atlas with about 50 destinations. Really the only way to narrow that down would be to consider the top conurbations by population. Next you have to consider what you mean by "destinations". If you include commuting journeys as destinations, then you will not get beyond that list of conurbations, since commuting journeys are far more numerous per capita than long-distance trips, for example to ferry ports. If you are interested in long-distance trips, though, according to this source, UK households average 5.4 long-distance trips by car per capita per year, so you could multiply the population of each conurbation by this number and compare it to traffic from the various ferry ports. Multiplying this number by the populations of the conurbations ranked between 18 and 20 in the first linked table suggests that a ferry port would need to handle more than 1.8 million passengers to surpass, say, the 18th conurbation by population as a destination. Only 3 ferry ports in the UK handle that many passengers, according the tables linked here. They are Dover, Portsmouth, and Holyhead. Portsmouth is already one of the top 17 conurbations. So your table should consist of the main cities of each of the top 18 conurbations by population, plus Dover and Holyhead. Since one of the top 17 conurbations is Belfast, you will need to figure mileage through Stranraer, the main ferry port for journeys from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but Stranraer itself would not be one of your top 20 destinations. Marco polo (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's Cairnryan now, though that won't make much of a difference (it's only a few miles away). There's also a Belfast-Liverpool ferry; it takes substantially longer, but may still be a faster route if coming from southern England - it'll probably be worth checking.
It's also worth bearing in mind that a lot of the target audience for Wikitravel is inevitably leisure travellers, who even in a general article on road transport may well be more interested in Oxford (150,000 people) over Sunderland (250,000 people). I would be tempted to say "find the fifteen or so most popular places on Wikitravel and add the ports" ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind this was for Wikivoyage so the list should reflect 'travel' priority as opposed to 'commuter'. I'm not averse to extending the list, but I don't think I need the full 'Primary Destinations' list.

So let's see what an initial list might need, (excluding NI for the moment).

Cities(England & Wales):

  • London, (taken as Charing Cross/Trafalgar square.)
  • Manchester,
  • Birmingham, (taken as The Bull Ring)
  • Liverpool,
  • Bristol,
  • Cardiff,
  • Leeds,
  • Sheffield,
  • Newcastle,
  • Carlisle,
  • Lancaster,
  • Norwich,
  • Exter,
  • Turo,
  • Brighton
  • Oxford
  • Cambridge

Destinations:

  • Bath
  • Stonehenge
  • Salisbury
  • Cantebury
  • Winchester
  • Durham
  • York
  • N.E.C.


Cities(Scotland)  :

  • Glasgow,
  • Ayr,
  • Edinburgh,
  • Inverness,
  • Aberdeen,
  • Perth,
  • Dundee

Destinations (Scotland):

  • Fort William
  • Kyle of Localsh
  • Oban
  • Aviemore

Ports (Ferry):

  • Dover, (Eastern Docks)
  • Portsmouth,
  • Weymouth(for Channel Islands),
  • Hollyhead,
  • Harwich,
  • Hull,
  • Aberdeen (For Shetlands),
  • Ullapool (for Western Isles),
  • Southampton,
  • Stranerar,
  • Liverpool ,
  • Hollyhead (for Dublin),

Airpots:

  • Heathrow,
  • Gatwick,
  • Stanstead,
  • Luton,
  • Manchester,
  • Birmingham International,
  • Glasgow International.

which makes the list over 50, I've almost certainly missed some important ones :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC) AmmendedSfan00 IMG (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


If your concern is tourism, Bath, Stonehenge, Salisbury, Winchester, Durham, and York (especially York) are all important destinations missing from your list. Marco polo (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Is it over 50 yet? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now for the "distances from where" question. Where are you measuring the distance from? London? New York? Each other? What is the point of the measurement? (that answer might help with other answers) --TammyMoet (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to get is a 'distance table' I.E it's a table of distances between all 50 or so destinations.
I found these: [3], [4]. There used to be a good chart in the back of the AA Handbook (not including airports though) however, their website now has a distance calculator where you type in the towns you want to travel to and from. You could make your own grid if you have the patience. Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholics Anonymous and "God"

edit

UNITY - The 12 Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous

2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as he may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

It seems that AA incorporates a lot of spiritual stuff in their social groups. But I am quite interested in their concept of "God". Apparently, they think that:

1. "God" is loving.

2. "God" is powerful, or at least powerful enough to help you cope with alcoholism.

3. You repent to "God" your wrongs.

4. You ask "God" to help change yourself.

5. You pray and meditate to become closer to "God".

6. "God" seems to be a personal god, can listen to people, and help them in times of stress.

Is Alcoholics Anonymous a self-help social group for people with alcoholism? What are the religious beliefs of the founders? After attending these meetings, do people become more religious/spiritual as a result or employ this sort of spirituality as a form of self-discipline? I can't help but think that AA's concept of "God" resembles the Abrahamic god. Along with the fact that some AA groups just happen to take place in church environments, I am beginning to suspect about the number of people who attend AA meetings with issues become committed Christians later in life.140.254.227.65 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be inviting debate, which I don't want to encourage. That being said, Ayn Rand, the notorious atheist, had good things to say about AA and her Objectivist protege Leonard Peikoff in his weekly Q&A webcast (quoted here) had to say:

I once asked an official in AA, "Did you have to believe in God in order to join?" And he said, "No. We leave the higher power..." -- what they call a higher power -- "...to the interpretation of the individual. And if you want to make it objective external reality, that's OK with us. We want something that you can't manipulate by will. And, of course, since you can't manipulate reality by will, it basically plays to the same rule for an atheist that 'higher power' does."
I think, as far as I can tell, all of the steps that AA takes are actually interpretable in secular terms like that....
So I don't agree with a lot of their formulations. But, as far as I can tell, the essence of their creed -- combined with the important social support that they offer -- makes it not necessary to choose between AA and Objectivism.

μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you going to link to an article on American societal traditions and trends? A credible source about American societal traditions and trends would be very helpful, you know. It makes me wonder what Americans are really thinking of when they use the term "God" in a sentence. I wonder if "Thank God that you are safe" or "Thank heavens that you are safe" or "God blesses you" would count as meaningful or meaningless. 140.254.227.65 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They originally said "God", but, as has been noted above, they now say "a higher power". This can be viewed as doing the bare minimum to skirt around separation of Church and State laws. This way, they can still be offered as an alternative to other sentencing options for drunk drivers and such, without the court being sued. Penn & Teller's Bullshit! did an episode on this. StuRat (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the exact episode name? 140.254.227.65 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"12-Stepping", season 2, episode 11 (24th episode overall), first aired on August 19, 2004. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you remember the title so precisely? 140.254.227.65 (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. I clicked on the Bullshit! link I provided previously, then did a find (Control F) on "anon", which was found in the description of the episode. If that hadn't worked, I'd have looked through all the episodes listed. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other alternative options available as well? Or would I (hypothetically), as an atheist, only have the options of going to prison (which would probably kill me) or pretend-participate in AA, and therefor very likely keep my addicion and possibly harm others more? To put it another way, are there US courts that recommend the faith-based AA, but don't recognize science-based substance abuse treatment programs? /81.170.148.21 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The six points you list seem entirely consistent with mainstream Protestantism, and Christianity in general. It seems that the AA's "concept of God" is the same as just about every other Christian's, unless I'm missing something. Alansplodge (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. A very Christian conception. If you try substituting "Dao" or "Buddha" for God or higher power, it really doesn't fit. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Christianity is about faith in Jesus washing away your sins. Doesn't have anything to do with submission or following a path like Islam or Buddhism. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence may be correct, but the Christian faith can't be reduced to the glib one-liner in the first sentence. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't meant as glib: sola fide. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind it wasn't that long ago that Christians were operating with the same viciousness that we tend to stick on Islamists nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:12, 10 February 2013 , (UTC)
Viciousness has many faces. I've never heard of any Muslim institutions mentioned in connection with any allegations of child (sexual) abuse. I've heard of plenty of Christian ones; and a few Jewish ones. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 19:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, here they rape them; there they attach bombs to them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That probably says more about the media and your consumption of them, than actual practice. See for example: [5], [6]. But why spoil a good narrative? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have enlightened me, thank you. Well, since there seems to be no society or culture or group or family that doesn't practise what we call "child abuse", it's obvious it's an inherent part of the human condition, which means our definition of "child abuse" has been wrong all these years and needs to be rethought, to exclude from its ambit at least your common, every day rapes, molestations, tamperings and interferences. <end sardonicist commentary> -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do China and North Korea hate us?

edit

Us the Japanese. At least their governments are hostile toward us. Kotjap (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't engage in debate. So back up a step and find us a high quality notable source such as a book or essay by a notable author on the subject, and tell us what he says that backs up your claim, for which we have no proof, although we might be reminded of Rape of Nanking, Comfort Women or Hikkomori, for that matter. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the Hikikomoris have to do with it, it's a Japanese phenomenon and I was once one. My back up is that North Korea launches missiles over our skies and China is being hostile with the Senkaku Islands dispute. Kotjap (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that these people hate the Japanese is ill-supported, and my point was if the question is unclear, the answers will be unclear. You really do need to give us a reference explaining to us why you think these nations hate the Japanese. Missile launches and territorial disputes are not obviously acts of ethnic hate. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, differing interests do not necessarily imply hate. North Korea is a dictatorship, and those traditionally like to build an external enemy to help internal unity. Still, they seem to be more concerned with the US. Japan simply happens to be in the way of orbital and near-orbital rockets launched from Korea - it's a matter of physics and geography. Space rockets need to start eastward, to get the benefit of Earth's rotation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You really can't ignore the historical context in a question like this. North Korea's leaders fanned and extended existing resentments; they didn't create them. To the OP, the historical context is the Japanese conquest and occupation of the Korean peninsula and parts of China starting around 1905. The Senkaku Islands are claimed by both China and Japan, hence the hostility. thx1138 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have known people from Taiwan who distrusted the Japanese more than they distrusted "Red" China. It goes back to this little skirmish called Wor4ld War II, in which Japan attempted to dominate the Pacific Rim. Similarly, a lot of old-time Americans don't trust Germany very well either, having had some issues with them in the past. I wouldn't call those sentiments "hate", it's more like "wariness". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't trust Germany?!? Seems a bit petty, over something that happened nearly 100 years ago, or a piece of paper in the 1940s, don't you think? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you mean WW1 by "something that happened nearly 100 years ago", but referring to WW2 as " a piece of paper in the 1940s" baffles me. Americans fought the Germans from 1941 (well, 1942 on a large scale) to 1945. StuRat (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OR: China, Japan and the Koreas all went through leadership transitions in the past year. In each of these societies, an influential segment of the political spectrum supports a strong foreign policy posture. In other words, and in a gross generalization that won't stand up for five minutes, being concilliatory or even reasonable toward foreigners doesn't tend to win support. Put the four transitions together and there was almost no chance of relations among these countries becoming more reasonable in the past 12-18 months. The tendency is now running its course, and will soon end. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I Lay Dying

edit

In William Faulkner's novel As I Lay Dying, why does Darl burn down the barn? Any thoughts or insights? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... Anyone? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our article states that he "... burns down the Gillespie barn with the intention of incinerating the coffin and Addie’s rotting corpse." StuRat (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it makes a good homework question? DOR (HK) (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least he didn't ask us to explain Chapter 19, repeated, in it's entirety, here: "My mother is a fish." StuRat (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks. I am a college professor. I hardly have "homework" to do. I just finished the book, and I would like more insight on that event in the novel. That is the very purpose and function of this Help Desk. I had also read the article summary. I came to this Help Desk seeking more than just the one-line blurb that the article offers. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read Faulker's novel. Do these, not necessarily reliable sources, help at all?
I hope the above is useful --Senra (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, Professor, perhaps you would consider helping Wikipedia by contributing to our apparent poor coverage of Narrative arc, Story arc and Dramatic structure? Unless your professorship is in a non literary discipline. But even then? --Senra (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark

edit

I have read a report from a Danish organization that 10% of all Danish children have been sexually assaulted. Can it fit or figure is unrealistically high?--109.232.72.49 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That number does not sound at all surprising and if anything sounds low. That kind of thing is horribly common in many or all societies. See these figures from the United States. Marco polo (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward moment when you lose the last faith in humanity. --109.232.72.49 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would just be adding yourself to the list of victims. You have control over what you have faith in; don't let child abusers dictate this to you. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 23:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't let anti-child abuse panic organizations make you lose your faith in humanity. They may well be exaggerating and e.g. counting every dropped case as a genuine sexual assault, counting teenager situations like the one Stu mentions below etc. And round the numbers heavily. Remember that it is in their interest to make the problem they are fighting seem like the most important one in society, since that will likely make them get more donations and more money from government organizations, for their cause. I'm not saying that their cause isn't good or important, just that most organizations will put their specific cause ahead of others. /81.170.148.21 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those figures are extremely dubious, to say the least. Let's examine its claims, starting from its first citation. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services analyzed the reported child abuse cases in 2010. It found that 9.2% of children were victimized in 2010, and that 9.2% out of that 9.2% were sexual assault victims. It did not try to determine the percentage of children who were victimized at any point in their lives. The statistics from David Finkelhor suffer from a double conflict of interest: the webpage is from the Center for Victims of Crime, and Finkelhor is Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center. Furthermore, all of the statistics are uncited, with no stated methodology and no year. The webpage also claims "a Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows 1.6 % (sixteen out of one thousand) of children between the ages of 12-17 were victims of rape/sexual assault (page 18)." First of all, 1.6% is an order of magnitude less than the supposed Finkelhor figures. Second, if you actually go to page 18, you'll see that the table's title is "Standard errors for violent victimizations, by type of crime, by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age of victim, 2010". The webpage confused standard errors for the actual rate, and the year 2010 for a cumulative lifetime sexual assault rate. Whether the actual sexual assault rate is for children, the webpage is clearly rubbish and should not be trusted.
As for the OP's question, can you give us a link to the study? We can't judge its methodology or point out possible conflicts of interest without reading it first. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I hear such numbers I always wonder if they're including statutory rape, such as consensual sex between a 17 year old "child" and 18 year old "adult". StuRat (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. See Patrice O'Neal. --Jayron32 23:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should move to NJ, what you describe, Stu, is legal there. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither being 17 or 18, nor being interested in anyone who is, NJ would have little to offer me that I can't get here in Detroit, except perhaps hurricanes and a governor who makes (seismic) waves. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
I am sorry, StuRat, but are you sending me a gilded invitation to ask you whether you are quite happy with the price of crack and the murder rate in The Motor City? (although I think the latter may be higher in Camden, Lol. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got the 10% from this danish site (http://www.landsforeningen-spor.dk/fakta.html). --109.232.72.49 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers there also lack citations and are weird. The first bullet point says that 10 % of all Danish children have been abused, but the second bullet point says 1.200 of those born a particular year have been abused, which corresponds to 2 %. Unless there's a big difference between misbrugt and victim of overgrep I don't see how that adds up. Sjö (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw a decent study in the Netherlands (for example), it found a rate of about 10% by asking adults to anonymously record whether they had experienced sexual abuse as children. It did not include such American ideas as "statutory rape", and did not look at cases reported at the time or taken to court (which would seriously underestimate the rate). It found 10% of all adults had experienced sexual abuse as children, although the proportion who had experienced the most serious forms was (of course) lower. The study made all of this very clear. The rate in institutions such as children's homes, boarding schools, and young offenders institutes was closer to 20%. These are horrifying numbers, but not unexpected. Usually, such studies I've seen for western countries have a peak in the 1950s or 1960s. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the study, so that we can properly examine its claims? As I showed above, it's very easy to misinterpret statistics and imply that they say what they actually don't. Considering that not one reliable study has been posted here that shows a sexual abuse rate close to 10%, I find your numbers highly suspicious. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest starting with something like this [7] which provides an overview of the literature, and discusses usual findings and flaws. 10% is not a surprising figure ifor Denmark. A summary of the report I was referring to can be found here, with pages 8-9 being most relevant to you. I don't have a way to link you to the full thing. But really, this is the usual scale found in most studies, give or take. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark value in the fourteenth century

edit

As a person from the United States, I am a little confused on the "mark". I see in the article the "mark" had a value at first of 100 penny. After the Norman Conquest it was worth 160 pence. About what value in England did it have in the fourteenth century?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the C14 its value was standardised: two thirds of a pound, 160 pence. 13 shillings and fourpence. One good source is Jonathan Sumption's history of the 100 Years War. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_February_8&oldid=1073519409"