Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 August 31

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

August 31

Sin

Was it sinful if I honestly thought it was my wife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.32.122 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sin has no objective definition. You'll have to decide for yourself, or ask your priest/rabbi/imam/etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Depends on your particular faith. Most religious faiths require that a sinful act be done intentionally. Only you'd know the particulars of that - though I've never mistaken my wife for another woman in bed, and never been where I could mistake another woman for my wife (she and I either travel together, or we travel far enough apart where that kind of confusion's not possible). loupgarous (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure that the sinful act must be done intentionally? My impression is that some/many religions also recognise the concept of Recklessness (law) or maybe even something like Criminal negligence. If you get drunk that may be a sin and is intentional. If you drive, that too may be intentional (in some fashion) and a worse sin. If you run someone over and kill them that may not be intentionally but arising from the other intentional acts it may be considered to make the sin more serious. (Not as serious as intentionally killing someone obviously.) For some views from Christianity, see also [1] [2] [3] [4] although it may be obvious from there that one complication is a distinction often between sins where the person knew it was a sin and sins where the person did not know it was a sin with the later sometimes being called unintentional or accidental sin even though the act itself was intentional. For a different perspective see [5] which I think is serious [6] although probably a real minority viewpoint. Nil Einne (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Why don't you go home to your wife? On second thought, I'll go home to your wife. And outside of the improvement, she'll never know the difference." -- Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If one believes in sin, and sin must be intentional, then there is no reason for Infant baptism. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you unpack your reasoning, DOR? In many denominations, infant baptism is an initiation into the church (to summarise some theologically complex ideas), not a means of forgiving sin (original or not). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Baptism describes how many people think baptism "cleanses one from sin", that others "likewise believe that baptism removes what they call the ancestral sin of Adam". Baptism "by the merits of Christ's blood, cleanses one from sin". The 'Catholic Church also states: "Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin...'. "Baptism washes away sin". Etc etc.

Sure, maybe not every single person who practices infant baptism thinks it absolves sin, but it seems very fair to say that's how most Christian sects approach it. In that light, DOR's reasoning seems apparent to me, as does your objection to complete generalization. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To Nil Einne and DOR (HK), 'original sin' as a Christian, and to some extent Muslim concept - that all humans are born with a propensity to commit sin. However, that and the concept of negligence you mentioned both involve voluntary acts. These faiths allow the faithful to learn how not to sin, so a choice is being made - which is what I was talking about.

Nil Einne, Your "driving" analogy is rather good. By failing to learn how to drive or by not being in good shape to drive (having taken alcohol, drugs, or prescription medication that impair driving ability), but choosing to drive anyway, you may not intend to kill someone you hit with your car, but you do intend to drive unsafely, knowing this could take another life. So the sin's still intentional and voluntary. All licensed drivers ought to have in their heads precisely what sort of killing machines they know how to drive, and what misery they can make for others with them if they choose to be careless or reckless.

DOR (HK), Infant baptism is the first part of many Christian sects' reception of a new human into the body of believers, where he or she may be taught how not to sin. Of course, that new believer retains free will and may elect to sin regardless, and if so, intent is involved. That's the reasoning of most Christian sects.

Some religious sects believe in predestination, in which case, nothing the believer does can save her or him from sin - the believer must accept grace in order to be free of sin. loupgarous (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstod my point. I mentioned that the driving was a sin already and generally at least partially intentional. My point was that killing someone is often viewed as a worse sin despite the fact the killing wasn't intentional and you haven't intentionally commited any worse act than the sin of driving because the killing was coming on the heels of a intentional act even though it wasn't intentional in and of itself. In other words, the sinful act here is at least partially the act if killing which wasn't intentional. It's not simply the act of driving drunk which was as said, is often at least partially intentional. Or the act of getting that drunk in the first place which was also generally considered mostly intentionally. You could try to argue that the whole thing should be consider the sinful act (getting drunk then driving drunk then killing someone) but the fact remains, one of the most significant parts of the act doesn't have to be intentional. In fact, it may start with something which isn't a sin, as a number of religious traditions don't consider drinking alcohol a sin provided not done to excess. In fact, some may not even considered getting drunk necessarily a sin especially if not done often.

This is similar to the concept of recklessness or negligence in criminal law where killing someone while driving drunk (or whatever) is generally considered a worse crime than simply driving drunk, despite the fact it's acknowledged that the killing wasn't an intentional act. And in many cases, being drunk often isn't a crime in and of itself, and historically driving drunk may not have been.

This is highly relevant to the OP because it's not really clear how you can "honestly thought it was my wife". There may be some situations where there was really no negligence but it seems likely in many cases there would be. Actually being drunk is one possible example, although some would suggest that when so seriously impaired you couldn't be said to honestly think anything. (There is well known case here in NZ where being drunk lead to someone performing a sex act on a person they claimed they thought was their partner, although in the example there was something far more serious than it not being the partner [7].) In other words, even if you want argue that the "sinful act be done intentionally", it's important to acknowledge that honestly believing someone was your wife doesn't mean that the sinful act wasn't intentional if it's part of a long chain starting with intentional acts which may not have even been sins. (You did mention the part about not knowing the "particulars". But if you intended this to mean that while the sex with a person not being your wife may not have been intentional, the acts which lead to this honest confusion could have been and would be enough to make it a sin, it wasn't clear to me. It sounded more like you were questioning whether it was really an honest belief which is fair question. But IMO not the only factor likely to be considered in a number of religious traditions where the honest belief could accepted but there is still a sin if it's considered you should not have had an honest belief.) And as somewhat hinted at in my comments, there could be the added complication where the "intentional" gets less and less clear.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. For another example from criminal law loosely related, see DPP v Morgan, [8], [9], [10] for some info on the issue about how a honest belief should be handled surrounding issues of sexual consent when there's a honest belief but it's argued to be not resonably held.

Another area where honest belief comes up is in civil law relating to employment disputes in the US [11] [12] [13] [14].

Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Medieval warfare

I've re-read Lord of the Rings for at least the fourth time (just read up through the siege of Gondor last night), and there's something I'm wondering about: The forces of the Fellowship are always heavily outnumbered (except during that first ambush at Weathertop, but they were still outmatched there too -- of them only Aragorn had any combat experience at that time, and they were pitted against five extremely powerful enemies), but they still always manage to win, or at least escape relatively unscathed, while inflicting disproportionate casualties on the Enemy's forces. My question is, was this even remotely possible with medieval weapons and tactics? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Some of it makes sense in context. Two of the battles were defensive sieges with decisive cavalry engagements, Aragon won on weathertop since he's basically described as the best swordsman who ever lived, and in at least one battle the Uruk-hai were deliberately trying not to kill half the fellowship. Throw in a wizard in plot convenience and voila. I get the general impression in the books that most of the orcs are just terrible fighters with shoddy equipment and little to no training, so the lopsidedness makes sense. Regarding possible? I guess take a look at List of military disasters for some historical examples, though ignore the Chinese battles with ridiculous numbers. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

During the Norman conquest of southern Italy, the Normans won several battles against seemingly improbable odds with minimal losses, due to a combination of equipment, unit cohesion, and lucky circumstances. See e.g. the Battle of Olivento, the Battle of Montemaggiore, and, maybe most impressively, the Battle of Cerami, where (if one believes the sources) 300 Normans fought against 50000 Sicilian Saracens, killing or wounding 35000 of them - impressive, if implausible. The Battle of Agincourt 400 years later was a bit less imbalanced, but still is reported with casualties of about 100 to 1 in favour of the numerically inferior side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So, in other words, the answer would be "unlikely but possible"? Thanks! BTW, am I right that this would crucially depend on "the few" having better arms and armor, superior training (something which most real medieval armies utterly lacked, being mostly glorified citizen militias), the right mix of forces (knights, archers and pikemen), and most of all on the commander's skill in coordinating these different types of forces? Because these are the same factors which allow an outnumbered force to win today, except that the mix of forces is different (no longer knights, archers and pikemen, but tanks, infantry and aircraft). 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and in later English history too. E.g., the Battle of Blore Heath, 1459. The earl of Salisbury was outnumbered about three to one, and still fought his way through, leaving the opposing total force with major losses and a dead leader. Of course, see the Battle of Nancy for the more usual result. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It's post-Medieval, but see the Conquistadors like Hernán Cortés and Francisco Pizarro who overthrew empires with shockingly few troops. --Jayron32 08:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

People often forget that Cortes and Pizarro pulled that off by convincing shockingly many local troops to join their cause. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Weathertop occurred before the Fellowship was formed. Most of the Fellowship are experienced in combat: Aragorn (ranger), Gandalf the Grey (wizard), Legolas (experienced Elf), Gimli (experienced Dwarf), Boromir (experienced heir of the Steward of Gondor), Frodo (inexperienced thief), Sam (inexperienced thief), Merry (inexperienced thief) and Pippin (inexperienced thief).
Sleigh (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I find it odd that you describe the hobbits as thieves. Is there a reason for this, @Sleigh:? μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st edition) is my guess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

and perhaps the fact that Bilbo was hired as a burglar (and also proved to be a Thief! Thief! Baggins! We hates it ... hates it forever)! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps User:Sleigh is actually Gollum? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes AD&D is the first thing that occurred to me, but then one might as well call Elrond a Vulcan, hehe. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

In LoTR Tolkien occasionally hints that things were "meant to be" a certain way - there is a degree of destiny, and of external intervention, in the outcomes. Gandalf being sent back, with increased powers (or possibly with permission to make greater use of his natural powers) is one example. Perhaps the most obvious is that at the most important battle (the Pelennor Fields) victory is only made possible because the wind changed, making it possible for Aragorn to get there in time. Sauron's control of the weather has been nullified - not apparently by Gandalf, so we must assume some divine intervention. Wymspen (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Gandalf acts as Tolkein's hidden Deus ex machina; we are led to believe him to just be a magician, especially early in the stories; a trickster who knows a few spells. In reality, he's a powerful immortal being known as a Maia. Gandalf's miraculous rebirth following his fight with the Balrog becomes understandable when we see that Tokein conceived of Gandalf's human form as something of an avatar. When his first human form (the grungy "grey wizard") dies in the fight with the Balrog, he's sent back to Middle Earth by the Valar in a new human form, the shining "white wizard". His immortality grants him much more power than the other characters ever realize; and he's one of the main instruments of the "destiny" of which you speak. --Jayron32 12:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Gandalf is certain a deus ex machina - though perhaps not a hidden one. However, the hints that Bilbo was meant to find the ring and Frodo was meant to inherit it come well before his full powers are revealed (and are supported by things Elrond says at council), and to me suggest some even higher purpose. What I have never been able to identify with any certainty is whether Tolkien was suggesting some continuing involvement of the Valar in the events of Middle Earth (other than through their Maia servant, Gandalf), or whether he was hinting that Iluvatar had intervened at what was such a key moment. The Valar seem to be constrained by certain set limits - though it is not clear if they set those limits themselves, or had them imposed from above. If something seems to happen which is beyond those restraints, does that imply a higher level of authority? Wymspen (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing about Gandalf is that his true nature is revealed slowly. Through the Hobbit and the LOTR, his full powers and nature are only known to the reader as they are known to the characters; and his real nature as an immortal Maia aren't really understood without Tolkein's background notes and the like... --Jayron32 16:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Gandalf (like Sauron) is of the same kind as the Valar, though of a lesser degree; so if Gandalf could not steer Bilbo to the Ring, I reckon the Valar could not either, so it would have to be Ilúvatar. — Or that's what I would say, if I thought Tolkien gave any effort to making magic systematic and consistent. —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be borne in mind that Tolkein was writing in the tradition of the great early medieval epics like Beowolf and the Arthurian legends. I found this extract from the 12th century History of the Kings of Britain : "In this manner was a great part of that day also spent, whereupon Arthur, provoked to see the little advantage he had yet gained, and that victory still continued in suspense, drew out his Caliburn, and, calling upon the name of the blessed Virgin, rushed forward with great fury into the thickest of the enemy's ranks; of whom not one escaped alive that felt the fury of his sword; neither did he give over the fury of his assault until he had, with his Caliburn alone, killed four hundred and seventy men". A kind of antidote to this type of heroics in the Rings is Frodo, who although he gets involved in combat several times. never actually kills anybody and rather than a hero's death on the battlefield, goes home to his pipe and slippers. Alansplodge (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not true -- he does in fact kill at least one orc during the battle of Moria! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

One aspect that hasn't been mentioned yet is that, in the books, the only cavalry available were the Rohirrim, who were consistently described as being fantastic horsemen (and women). A small number of skilled horsemen have a huge advantage over foot soldiers, particularly if those soldiers are not accustomed (or otherwise lack the tools or maneuvers) to fighting them. So, at the battle of Pelennor Fields, they would have had a disproportionate effect (keeping in mind also that their success depended partly on arriving at just the right time and while avoiding other hazards thanks to Ghan-buri-gan). Matt Deres (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Gondor had cavalry - though much of it had been wiped out when Faramir was ordered to make a futile counter-attack after the enemy crossed the river. On the other side orcs rode wargs, while the Haradrim had war elephants, and when the army marches out of Minas Morgul Tolkien speaks of a "great cavalry of horsemen" leading it. At the Battle of the Pelennor Fields the knights of Gondor, led by Prince Imrahil sortied to try and join up with the Rohirrim - but that would no have been enough without the timely reinforcements arriving by river. Wymspen (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Gondor had a small cavalry, mostly under Imrahil (though Faramir's group clearly were also versed with horses). When they arrive, Gandalf instructs Pippin to see to Shadowfax's well-being, as the men of the city were unused to dealing with horses. I do not believe either side received many reinforcements from the river; that is mostly a Jackson addition. Aragorn et al arrived with a small group from the south, but his chief purpose was in stopping the armada from arriving. So, instead of a mass of fresh enemies, the heroes received a small number of allies (and the oath-breakers were, of course, not part of that arrival at all - not that you suggested such). Matt Deres (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Did Pippin know horses? Or was he sent to see that the grooms at least made an effort? —Tamfang (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

And in any case, knights cannot defeat pikemen in closed ranks (because their horses are instinctively afraid of impalement, and so will not charge a hedge of bayonets) -- however, this only holds true if the enemy pikemen are sufficiently well-trained to keep formation in the face of even an overwhelming cavalry charge. Horse archers, however, can cause attrition to pikemen in closed formation (especially in closed formation) at no risk to themselves, unless the enemy deploys his own archers (foot or horse) to counter them. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

We've left out mention of the Oath Breakers from the Paths of the Dead. (And the Ents, who defeat Saruman.)

I only just finished rereading the Silmarillion and the LotR immediately before, and although one can read the story as a war adventure, I think that's a mistake. It's basically a morality tale about loyalty, mercy, temptation, powerlust, perseverance in the face of inevitable loss.

Whereas Gandalf and Galadriel refuse the ring when it is offered, in the end Frodo decides to keep it, and it is only his prior acts of mercy to Smeagol that save him in spite of himself.

Consider this in light of The Battle of the Five Armies where Tolkien simply glosses over the conflict by having Bilbo knocked unconscious. It's moral, not physical conflict that drives the story. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a "[request] for opinions, predictions, or debate". I'm a Tolkien fan, but it's pretty clear Tolkien was not writing military fiction intended to realistically portray historical combat. He was writing "modern mythology". --47.138.165.200 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Another way to get a lopsided victory was to get the enemy to run (not an organized retreat). Since many soldiers were unprofessional, they might do this more easily than modern soldiers. One particular method was to kill or capture the commander, especially if he had no designated successor. Once the enemy was on the run, they would be easy to kill, if your ethics permitted this. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Bilbo the burglar and when Gandalf the Grey charges Pippin to climb up to the bonfire and light it.
Sleigh (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Pippin climbing up to the bonfire is, unfortunately, Peter Jackson, not J R R Tolkien. Wymspen (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Guilty.
Sleigh (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised there isn't mention of the older epic tradition. D'oh, I see Alansplodge made an excellent comment above, sorry. My impression of Homer was that the ideal was that the best soldier decides the battle - if you have Achilles on your side it doesn't matter who else is fighting, or how many of them there are. This seems pretty absurd, yet not knowing a damn thing about real medieval battles, I can't actually swear that a high-level character can't kill an infinite number of lower-level opponents. I always assumed it was just dumb luck and it was a miracle if they didn't bury the meat cleavers in their own buddies by accident... There's also the aspect that as far as I've heard, battles of hoplites were sometimes basically just a matter of pushing rather than actual swordplay. I am so far from an asnwer here. Wnt (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In general the other army could simply go around any one person, or small group, they were unable to defeat quickly. The Battle of Thermopylae is an example where a narrow pass prevented this, until the Persians did find a way around. The Battle of the Alamo is an interesting case, where Santa Anna's army could have just bypassed the Alamo to confront the real threat, but pride would not let them, delaying them and giving their enemies time to organize, ensuring their eventual defeat. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Credit card use and decline rates

Hello, I am researching credit card use and decline rates. Wondering how to find out how many declines there are in a given territory, starting with USA, Canada, Mexico, etc. and then elsewhere. I found on Google that there are supposedly 220 million declines per year. The questions are 1) Is this true, 2) how many are due to fraud, 3) how many are due to suspected fraud, 4) how many are due to being at or over limit, 5) how many are due to other factors. I would love to get some help with this.

Eric Todd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.225.22 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to claarify, you mean declined attempted charges? In other words, not a decline in the actual use of cards, but an attempted use where the charge is not approved? μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Utterly pointless side argument not relevant to the OP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The question is perfectly clear. --Viennese Waltz 11:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Not everyone here is as clairvoyant as you are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC) I fail to see how anyone with more than a rudimentary grasp of English could possibly interpret the question as being about a decline in the use of cards. --Viennese Waltz 14:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Unless you have some information that will help the OP, go away and hassle someone else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Read the question in full. It's possible for a decline in card usage to be attributable to card holders relinquishing their cards because of negative news reports of 2) fraud or 3) suspected fraud, or because so many users are persistently 4) at or over their card limit that they choose to destroy their cards and not apply for another. The question is ambiguous and the reader can't just assume the more likely meaning, that is, the declining of transactions at the time cards are presented. Akld guy (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times recently published an article on this. Hope that helps. Margalob (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)