Humanities desk
< March 27	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 29 >

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.

March 28[edit]

Canadians supporting and contributing Bangladesh Liberation War[edit]

Were there any Canadians who gave support Bangladesh's Liberation War, contributed to the Liberation War and spoke out against genocide on Hindus during the Liberation War?--Donmust90 (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Jesus's Resurrection[edit]

How do Christians reconcile Jesus's resurrection with the geological doctrine of uniformitarianism, the idea that influenced Charles Darwin on his famous theory? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you expect any deeper reconciliation than "it's a miracle" aka "God can break the laws of nature"? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read the article on uniformitarianism, it actually says that "uniformitarianism is an assumption..."; therefore, it is an assumption. Personally, I find the assumption very plausible. The statement that "God can break the laws of nature" assumes that the laws of nature are temporarily broken during Jesus's resurrection. However, the thing is, the Bible is not a science textbook or a history textbook. The New Testament is a collection of writings recording the gospels and the letters. There must be some explanation as to why the authors wrote that Jesus "resurrected" or thought that Jesus rose from the dead. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in uniformitarianism says that resurrection cannot happen. The fact that the Grand Canyon was carved over millions of years does not, in itself, mean that Jesus could not have been resurrected. Furthermore, uniformitarianism was modified long ago to incorporate new geological knowledge. In particular, we know that many processes that heavily influenced Earth's history were catastrophic by any definition of the word. In the Late Heavy Bombardment, Earth was bombarded with solar system debris. One of the impacts was so powerful that its ejecta formed the Moon. As recently as 65 million years ago, an asteroid hit what is now Mexico, killing off 75% of Earth's species in the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event--the same one that killed the dinosaurs. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could simply be that Jesus survived his crucifixion -- which is unlikely but possible. (It could even be the case that getting stabbed in the side saved his life, by allowing accumulated fluid in his lungs to drain out and thus allowing him to continue breathing.) FWiW 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be possible that the entire story is a legend. I still don't see how any of this has to do with uniformitarianism, or for that matter, any part of geology. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody got some links to Christian perspectives on the resurrection and how Christians actually interpret the event instead of basing on speculations?65.24.105.132 (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have still not pointed out a single connection between uniformitarianism and resurrection. Why would any Christians write about it if there's nothing to write about? What you're doing is similar to asking what your shoe size has to do with Sun's solar activity. If there's no imaginable connection, why would any scientists write about it? --140.180.254.209 (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been attempts to explain the Jesus story with naturalistic assumptions. Either the assumption is "he wasn't really dead" (see e.g. Jesus in India (book), The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail), to "it wasn't really Jesus, who was crucified, just a lookalike" to "it's just an invented story, like many other resurrection stories from middle eastern mythology". None of these is compatible with even moderately lax interpretations of Christian belief, where the death and resurrection of Jesus are the central element of the religion (modern English translation of the Nicene Creed have "he suffered death and was buried"). Ultra-liberal Christians can live with some of these interpretations, of course (and the original Greek version of the creed, as I understand, makes no explicit reference to death, only to crucifixion and suffering). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, the straightforward answer to the OP's question is "They don't reconcile it, they accept it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They accept the resurrection, by definition. Their attitude to the geological doctrine of uniformitarianism could include (a) total acceptance, (b) total rejection, (c) something in between, (d) indifference and (e) ignorance. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...where many hold several of these attitudes at the same time, sometimes even including (a) and (b). See Compartmentalization (psychology). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compartmentalization is one theory. Another is the acknowledgment by believers that just because we don't understand something doesn't make it false. (The trap avowed atheists typically fall into.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand something, being a believer is no better than being a denier. You're confusing scientific skepticism with pseudoskepticism. A scientific skeptic places the burden of proof on the claimant: if you don't have evidence for your claim, others should not believe you until you do. It is not necessarily wrong, although experience shows that pseudoscientific claims of this kind have almost always been wrong. A pseudoskeptic unwittingly places the burden of proof on himself, by declaring that a claim is false. Of course, the principle of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies. If you claim to have a flying reindeer, I can be 99.99999% confident that you don't, even if I've never seen your reindeer and have no idea what evidence you have. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are like a billion Christians, so that's a poor comparison. The atheist attitude is, "I've never experienced faith, therefore faith is false." Hardly a scientific conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the predominant atheist attitude. Even if it was, it's no better or worse than "I've experienced faith, therefore what I believe is true". Most atheists would argue that faith is not a good way of finding out about the world because 1) the universe does not bend to an individual's beliefs, 2) religious faiths contradict each other and cannot be all correct, 3) no religious claim about the world has ever been confirmed, and plenty have been falsified, and 4) it is inconsistent to believe in X but not Y, if neither has any supporting evidence. --140.180.254.209 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Experience tells me otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is based on a total and utter lack of understanding of the other's viewpoint; like a Christian who, upon hearing his friend is an atheist, says, "So, you do realize you're going to hell?" There would have been no attempt or desire by his followers or believers to speculate on some (pseudo-)scientific explanation like the restorative powers of Redbull, hibernating mitochondria, or the ability to fix anything with WD40 and duct tape. That sort of "explanation" would be as beside the point as would asking for the molecular weight of Hamlet's soliloquy. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's premise is indeed flawed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question about John Sturart Mill's first book[edit]

John Stuart Mills was born in 1806, but he had published a book in 1822 according to the "Major publications" section. That means that he was 15-16 years old when he wrote a book. I want to ask if it was really published around 1822. If it is true, then he is one of the youngest philosophy writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 06:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grotius published his first book at the age of 16 (although this was a translation rather than an original work), and Kripke's first published paper was written at the age of 17. Mill is probably the youngest published philosopher (for any reasonable definition of "philosophy"). Tevildo (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article notes that Mill was a child prodigy, who had read Aesop and Herodotus in Greek at the age of eight, and Plato in Latin at ten. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited by our article actually says he was reading Plato at eight, not ten. Plato wrote in Greek, not Latin. Plato is significantly harder to translate than Herodotus. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan, OJ, and Judge Ito[edit]

What, if anything, did the Japanese media (or populace) make of Japanese-American judge Lance Ito's involvement in the OJ Simpson trial? I don't want speculation, just info, thanks. Thedoorhinge (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OJ Simpson was not very well-known outside of America before the trial - I myself, as a Brit living in Japan, only heard of him from my American colleagues when they were talking about the trial (a year or so after it was over) - so there was not much coverage of the trial in Japan or most other countries. Lance Ito does not even have a Japanese Wikipedia page. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B.G. FONTANA[edit]

I am trying to find some information about a 19th Century Americam composer named B.G. Fontana.

Dispite numerous internet searches I been unable to find anything.

If you think you could assist I would be pleased to hear from you.

Kind Regards

Barry Hines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryhi2013 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's G B Fontana, a seventeenth-century Italian composer - I assume it's not him? Tevildo (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GB is the only one I know of. Where did you hear or read about BG? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Julian Fontana, nineteenth-century Polish. Tevildo (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a B.G. Fontana who composed Joy and Tears Mazurka, Blue Glass Waltz and other pieces. However I can't find any information about him/her, not even birth or death dates.--Cam (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - this is the B.G. Fontana I am looking for and am having the same problems - just no info ....

Lineage of Prophets of Islam[edit]

Is there a website that shows a family tree or lineage chart that shows how the prophets between Abraham and Muhammad peace be upon them are related to each other thus making Abraham the father of prophets and Muhammad (PBUH) the descendant of Abraham?--Donmust90 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Is Muhammed's descending from Abraham a standard claim of Islam? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

harassment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bugs, are you aware we have an encyclopedia here, with an article on Muhammad? Are you aware how silly it is that the first answer to a question on the Ref Desk is given by someone who is ignorant of the topic and unwilling to bother looking it up? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with all things theological and deep-historical there is controversy. One vague genealogy I have seen basically just goes Abraham -> Ishmael -> Kedar -> the Quraysh tribe -> Muhummad. Others trace Muhumaad more specifically from Adnan. But we're talking hundreds of generations here. Whether any of this has any relationship to actual historical fact is of course controversial and hard to establish. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of generations seems a bit of an exaggeration. Ibn Ishaq counted only 30 generations between Abraham and Muhammad (9 from Abraham to Adnan). Admittedly, this is historically quite implausible. This website gives five suggested genealogies, the longest of which is 62 generations in total. This still requires rather long generations (c. 40 years) however, if any credence is to be be given to Jewish accounts. - Lindert (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if you believe the biblical or quaranical accounts of Abraham, you'll believe that he was an ancestor of Muhammad; anyone who lived approximately 2000 years before an event (in this case, the birth of Muhammad) either has no descendents or is the ancestor of millions of people, and someone in the ancient world with numerous children would be the ancestor of virtually everyone in the region. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but historically this was not really deemed important, only a straight male line constituted one's ancestry, in which case only one person living in Abraham's time would qualify. - Lindert (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. Most gay male lines die out pretty quickly. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I'm responding to Bugs' first statement. Abraham is spoken of as the ancestor of the Arabs via Ishmael, and Muhammad (obviously) is believed to have been an Arab; besides that, I was meaning that anyone who believes that Abraham existed (in a manner identical or akin to what the Bible or the Quran describe) and had descendents must believe that he is the ancestor of most of the Middle East, simply by statistics. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Jesus, they made the point of Mary being of the House of David, in order to keep the prophecy intact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not quite accurate. There are two contradictory genealogies of Jesus, one in Luke and one in Matthew, and both clearly state the decent from David as being through Joseph. Luke states that Jesus was the son (it is was supposed) Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat... That is, Mary is never mentioned. In the Matthew genealogy, it works the other way, starting from the past and working forwards, and the Matthew genalogy ends with "...Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus" so Mary is mentioned, but the text clearly draws the line from David down to Joseph by noting Joseph's father and then that man's father. The discrepancies between the two genealogies cannot be explained or dealt with by the text of the Bible itself. The notion that one of these genealogies is of Mary and not of Joseph is one way to resolve the discrepancy, but that notion is NOT apparent from the text itself and is merely one of several later traditions to resolve the discrepancy. Genealogy of Jesus covers this. --Jayron32 18:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves them with a slight problem, as Joseph was not the father of Jesus. What's the Greek equivalent of "D'oh!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are, surprisingly, not the first person to notice this. --Jayron32 03:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked how Christians "reconcile" the resurrection with science. The answer is that faith enters into it. The descendant-of-David situation is hard to reconcile by faith alone. So how do staunch believers reconcile it? Or do they just ignore it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical inerrantists give lots of interesting explanations, none of which are particularly convincing. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That inadvertently raises another question, the one so often raised here about Jesus: Is there any evidence, outside religious writings, that Abraham actually existed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen a discussion of the subject, but I would presume not; I can't imagine the existence of any contemporary evidence for the actions, names, family members, etc. of nomadic pastoralists so far back. I don't know the quaranical account, but it would seem that the biblical account puts him as living away from literate societies except as an insignificant younger man in Mesopotamia and as a very short-term visitor in Egypt; neither one would be likely to attract appearances in written records. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, I think scholars of all persuasions are in agreement that the Torah is the oldest source we have for Abraham. The name "Abarama" is however attested in contemporary cuneiform tablets, though there is no indication that these refer to the Biblical Abram/Abraham (source). - Lindert (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get into some serious genealogy, we have exquisite documentation of the family of Frodo, son of Drogo, son of Fosco, son of Largo, son of Balbo, father of Mungo, father of Bungo, father of Bilbo Baggins, peace be upon him. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Thorvald Nlodvisson, the son of Gudleif, half brother of Thorgier, the priest of Ljosa water, who took to wife Thurunn, the mother of Thorkel Braggart, the slayer of Cudround the powerful, who knew Howal, son of Geernon, son of Erik... Tevildo (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tecon[edit]

Hello!

I'd like help, if possible...

I was searching (Wikipedia) for information on Clint Murchison - connected with John J. McCloy, and others involved in secret intelligence work - and read that he owned a company named TECON, a marine construction company. No further information was provided; i.e., corporate officers, projects the company worked on, etc.

I clicked the link to find out more about TECON, and discovered that all references to the company had been removed from Wikipedia's database.

In the past several years, I have found that many (MANY) references to activities and businesses owned by those involved in Intelligence Services have been 'cleaned up' or completely erased.

Have you any suggestions how I may pursue my search?

Gratefully,

Sean Galvin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.221.236.188 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some information on Tecon Ltd, and here's some info on Clint W Murchison III, the son of Clint Murchison, Jr.. Our article on John J. McCloy doesn't mention any connection with the Murchison family. Our article on the Tecon Corporation was A7'd (no assertion of notability) in 2009. Tevildo (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest warrants new york city[edit]

Can an arrest warrant be issued by a judge or magistrate without a grand jury indictment? Who else can issue arrest warrants?200.32.229.203 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the New York Criminal Procedure, Article 120.30, an arrest warrant can only be issued by a local criminal court at which an "accusatory instrument" has been filed. According to Article 100.10, there are several forms of "accusatory instruments" which do not require grand jury indictment. You should contact a lawyer (as a matter of some urgency) for a definitive answer if you're likely to be facing a warrant - we can't give legal advice here. Tevildo (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic habits of straight men[edit]

Do most straight men prefer to watch lesbian porn or straight porn? Academic research please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.117.58 (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enter your search terms here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Barbara FitzRoy[edit]

The Lady Barbara FitzRoy says that Charles II acknowledged her as his daughter, but his article says she was never acknowledged. Which is it? RNealK (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Lady Barbara FitzRoy article says she was acknowledged in the lede, but also includes a quotation stating she was never acknowledged in the body of the article. And the article is full of opinions on the matter without any matching citations. If no one has the answer handy, I will attempt to find my Bastards book... She appears in the Complete Peerage's appendix on the bastards of Charles II, but that list doesn't address the question of whether she was acknowledged. - Nunh-huh 23:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't her surname strongly suggest that she was acknowledged? Surtsicna (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does to me. I suspect she was [1] acknowledged but [2] not his. In the Addenda and Corrigenda volume (1998) of the Complete Peerage, there's a note regarding the Appendix which lists fourteen of Charles' bastards: "Two of the fourteen listed here, Anne Palmer and Barbara (Benedicta) FitzRoy, are queried in Geneal. Mag., vol. 22, 1987, p. 246. " "Geneal. Mag." is CP's abbreviation for The Genealogist's Magazine. So if anyone can get ahold of that, it would probably be a good reference for this question and for the article. - Nunh-huh 00:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Bastards book? I've been wanting to get my hands on a good one. I know there's one written by a descendent of Charles IIs - via Nell Gwyn, her older son, Charles, who survived childhood, & was created the Duke of B-something (Burford?) not long before Charles himself died.

As for the query, yes, Barbara Fitzroy was acknowledged by Charles, but largely thought to be the child of one of her mother's later lovers, John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough. Apparently it was less scandalous to be the king's mistress & mother to 4 of his bastards than it was for the king's mistress to publicly acknowledge a child who wasn't sired by the king? Anne Palmer, also obvious by her surname, was Roger Palmer's only child by Barbara Castlemaine/Cleveland, & was never acknowledged by Charles. Anne was Roger's sole heiress after he died. The 4 children who came after Anne were all by Charles, & the hapless Earl of Castlemaine knew it even without Charles's public acknowledgment of them, so they were excluded from inheriting anything from Roger. ScarletRibbons (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]