Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

Counting the hours (back when 6 AM was called the 1st hour)

Important note: The title of the section originally was Counting the hours (European Middle Ages) but thanks to a friendly and pertinent observation from AnonMoos I've now changed it to the more accurate Counting the hours (back when 6 AM was called the 1st hour). I have not struck out the changed part in the title (like so Counting the hours (European Middle Agesback when 6 AM was called the 1st hour)) but deleted it instead because I imagine the wikicode would make it more tricky to search for. Sorry about that. Basemetal 15:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I was taking a look at Liturgy of the Hours#Canonical hours (never mind why) and something struck me: if 6:00 AM was the 1st hour and 7:00 AM the 2nd hour, what did they call 8:00 AM? Not the 3rd hour because that apparently was what they called 9:00 AM! Can anyone explain? Thanks. Basemetal 18:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't about telling the time - it is about praying eight times a day, at roughly equal intervals. Nobody would have bothered to think of names for intermediate periods, because they were not needed. If they had ever needed to describe what we would call 8.00 am they would just have said it was between prime and terce. Wymspen (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh really? You know that for a fact, do you? If you don't know an answer then there's no need to make stuff up. It's ok not to answer. And if you're gonna make stuff up, do it when you can come up with something a bit more sensible. Incidentally my question of course had nothing to do with the canonical hours and praying. The only reason I referred to that article was because it uses the phrase "the 1st hour", "the 3rd hour", etc. Not because I was somehow confused and thought the canonical hours were a way to tell the time. I'd never imagined someone could conclude that. I thought that was clear from the way I worded my question and never imagined that it could confuse any one. You point at the moon and they look at your finger! So if this confuses anyone remove the previous wording, remove any reference to the Liturgy of the Hours article and replace my question with this wording:

I'm told they called 6 AM the 1st hour, 9 AM the 3rd hour, 12 PM the 6th hour, 3 PM the 9th hour, etc.

Does anyone know what they called 7 AM, 8 AM, 10 AM, 11 AM, 1 PM, 2 PM, 4 PM, 5 PM, etc.?

Whew. Thanks. Btw, I don't know for a fact that 7 AM was the 2nd hour. I was speculating. It was part of the question. I was guessing. Just to make that clear. I could as well have guessed, I don't know (which means I don't know), that 7 AM was "one hour from the 1st hour" and 8 AM "two hours from the 1st hour", in which case there would be no problem. But, again, I don't know what they did. That's why I'm asking this question. Basemetal 07:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Look at the etymology of "hour". Its origin is in the sense of "season" (i.e. the appropriate moment for something) rather than the modern sense of an interval of fixed size. In the pre-timepiece era, when it was largely impractical to measure such an interval, the first meaning makes more sense and is of more practical use. The term "hour" was even used like this in a calendar sense, meaning a month or season - see book of hours. It would be most surprising if the liturgical hours were numbered 1,3,2 and out of sequence, but their varying interval just wasn't an issue at the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• I wouldn't put too much weight on the values given in the Wikipedia article (for "Prime" = "6am" etc.); it's not obvious to me whether and how they are sourced at all. In any case, this is a bit speculative, but I suspect the hour names were not so much names for time *points*, but names for (approximate) time *spans*, so "first hour" would have meant anywhere between 6 and 7 am, "second hour" anywhere between 7 and 8, and so on. Also, Latin didn't have a convenient way of speaking of a point "zero". So, "at the third hour" could easily be understood as referring to a time point "three hours from the beginning of the day", but if you wanted to refer to the very beginning itself, "zero hours from the beginning of the day", there was no way of saying "at the zero-th hour", so you had to call it "at the first hour" instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West By Robert F. Taft has a long preview on Google Books. Alansplodge (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Alan. Basemetal 15:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise -- It's very noticeable that on modern clock faces, "12" plays the role of zero. Most people in ancient times and the middle ages who paid attention to hours divided the time between sunrise and sunset into equal intervals, and the time between sunset and sunrise also into equal intervals (but of course a night hour would have usually had a different length from a day hour). Abstract hours that were 1/24th of a full day were mainly of interest to astronomers, and played a negligible role in most people's daily lives... AnonMoos (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Not in the daily lives of the characters of stageplays: "Madam, an hour before the worshipped sun peered forth the golden window of the east, a troubled mind drove me to walk abroad, where underneath the grove of sycamore that westward rooteth from this city's side, so early walking did I see your son" or "Faith, I can tell her age unto an hour" or "And in this borrowed likeness of shrunk death thou shalt continue two and forty hours"... Not all occurrences of "hour" refer to "clock hours" but many obviously do: "What o’clock tomorrow shall I send to thee? By the hour of nine. I will not fail." or "Come, stir, stir, stir! The second cock hath crowed. The curfew bell hath rung. ’Tis three o’clock." including mentions of half hours and quarters of an hour. Clocks have been around for a long time. The oldest clock tower in England dates back to 1288 and even earlier on the continent I think. Basemetal 11:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Shakespeare is obviously not medieval, so I really don't know what purpose you think quoting him here has. Mechanical clocks certainly played a big role in establishing the concept of the hour of uniform length (1/24th of a full day) in the mind of the general public, but public clocks were very thin on the ground in most cities until rather late in the medieval period, close to the renaissance (and of course almost non-existent outside of cities). AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

His time is included in my question. The whole period where people called 6 AM the 1st hour is obviously included. Except for the title of the section (a grievous fault and grievously you're making me answer it) there was no mention of anything necessarily medieval at all. Basemetal 14:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that by Shakespeare's time, the Reformation in England had swept away the practice of the Liturgy of the Hours, except for a few recusants who carried it on in private. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer prescribed only two daily services for private devotion and public worship, Morning Prayer which replaced Matins, Lauds and Prime, and Evening Prayer which replaced Vespers and Compline. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In general parlance, 6 a.m. was "the twelfth hour" [1], [2]. 92.19.171.33 (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey that would make sense. That's the closest they could possibly have gotten to calling it the 0th hour (see Future Perfect's answer). If that's true then that solves everything, the 1st hour would be 7 AM, the 2nd hour 8 AM, the 3rd hour 9 AM and so on. So the name "Prime" for the Office of around 6 AM would not be connected to the designation of that hour but simply to the fact it was the first one? Basemetal 18:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The hours were often sung in sequence with no gaps in between (one of the reasons why Cranmer combined them) but they are making a comeback [3], [4]. 92.19.171.33 (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the English "noon" comes from a word which originally referred to the ninth hour (approximately 3PM, or more precisely ¾ of the way between sunrise and sunset). Its meaning seems to have drifted over the centuries... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Etymonline gives several explanations for that drift, of which the most amusing to me is "In monasteries and on holy days, fasting was ended at nones, which also perhaps was incentive to push it forward." In a similar vein, when did 12 o'clock become Midnight instead of 6 AM? Basemetal 00:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Numbering the hours from sunrise and from sunset fit in with the traditional practice of cultures with lunar observational calendars of starting the month when the thin lunar crescent is first visible at sunset. Days which start at midnight are more convenient in that most people are asleep at midnight... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church has a foot in both camps [5]. You can see why Cranmer did what he did. 86.169.57.223 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

March 30

Countries that require social media information for visas

With reports that the US is planning to implement a rule requiring disclosure of at least five years of social media accounts and posts, I was wondering: do any other countries have similar rules or otherwise proposed similar practices for visa applications? Or just the US? A Google search couldn't find much information about non-US cases. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Israel does. As with the United States proposal, it is not a requirement. They will let you leave your social media section blank if you are not considered a threat of any kind. But, they can require it just as well. There are cases, going back to 2016, where they've required usernames and passwords for social media accounts. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not a requirement? Most reports e.g. [6] [7] and the proposal document itself seem to disagree [8]. While it was previously optional in many cases, the new proposal is it is compulsory for the listed sites. Other sites will remain optional. It may be they won't investigate further in many cases if the applicant simply says there are none, OTOH, lying in a visa application form tends to be a good way to at a minimum, ensure you will never be allowed into the country in a long time even if you are later willing to be truthful, and can also affect you being allowed into other countries. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This depends on WHAT is required. It is a requirement that all visa forms include a space for social media identification. There are many visa forms. You can use printed forms or web forms. They come in many languages. However, it is not a requirement that the person requesting a visa fill out the information. Then, all it takes is one news article to do a terrible job explaining it and then hundreds of articles source that news article and parrot a half-truth until it is truthy enough to replace the original story. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's ignore the news sites then and concentrate on what the State Department themselves are saying since as I already said this is also coming from they themselves said. Can you explain why says: "One question lists multiple social media platforms and requires the applicant to provide any identifiers used by applicants for those platforms during the five years preceding the date of application." Can you explain why the State Department themselves are saying they will require the applicant to provide any identifiers if it is optional? Even in the Trump era, the state department seems to know how to use words. Since as I also said, they themselves also said "Will be given the option to provide information about any social media identifiers associated with any platforms other". Yes this only applies to DS-160 and DS-156. But DS-160 is what most tourists who need a visa need to fill out. Or for that matter, many others who need a visa, again as per the state department, it's even what diplomats fill out albeit they won't be asked the social media question. (At least that's how I interpret what the state department have said although weirdly DS-156 doesn't say this anywhere.)

I think one thing which perhaps quite a few media and even people here have missed is that this if you are eligible for a visa waiver, you don't have to fill out either form AFAIK. You do have to fill out the visa waiver thing, and I admit I missed until now that it is the thing that currently asks about social media as an optional question and I don't think it's being changed at the moment. DS-160/156 currently do not. Only the extra forms some people who require further vetting need to fill out ask for social media info when it comes to visa applications although my understanding is it isn't optional for them either.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually let's look at the further info [9]/[10]]:

Select from the list below each social media platform you have used within the last five years. In the space next to the platform’s name, enter the username or handle you have used on that platform. If you have used more than one platform or more than one username or handle on a single platform, click the “Add Another” button to list each one separately. If you have not used any of the listed social media platforms in the last five years, select “None.” Next, the form will include a data field labeled “Social Media Identifier” for the applicant to type in his or her social media “handle” or identifier. The applicant may select “Add Another” if the applicant has more than one provider/platform or social media identifier to disclose. Applicants will be advised they do not need to list accounts designated for multiple users within a business or other organization. Applicants may be provided help boxes to assist in common questions, such as how to find the “social media identifier” of an account. Applicants will be advised to list each identifier used, including multiple identifiers on a single platform. No visa application is guaranteed approval, and all can be denied for a variety of reasons, but an applicant who does not have a social media presence will not be denied on that basis.

and

In addition, a new optional question on the DS-160 and DS-156 will ask applicants if they wish to provide any other social media identifiers for platforms they have used within the last five years to create or share content (photos, videos, status updates, etc.) not listed in the initial social media question. The question will require applicants to respond “yes” or “no,” but applicants who decline will not be required to provide any additional identifiers.

The example form [11] (page 5) seems to confirm the info is an accurate reflection of what the proposed form will look like.

Actually I didn't include DS-156 now partly because it's not that important since most people are required to use DS-156 in most circumstances, but also because the explanation is missed key part of the form. DS-156 [12] (page 2) says

Have you used any of the following social media platforms during the last five years? (If "Yes", provide social media identifier for platform.)

Can you explain what part of either form the person who is filing it should interpret to mean they are allowed to not fill out this info? Sure they said they will not deny visa because a person does not have a social media presence, and as I said in several places, it may be reasonable to assume in some cases they won't investigate further if the person just answers none. But I'd like to know what parts suggest; if you fill out 'none' when you do have profile, or you answer it as 'refuse to answer', this is not going to often be a significant barrier to entry. Of course there is no guarantee this proposal is going to be implemented without change, but I think most informed sources and those here were clear on that point.

I already provided most of this info before you responded albeit only in the form of refs, and yet you continue to insist stuff which is not supported at all by the refs including those coming from the State Department themselves and have provided zero evidence for your claims. I don't see the relevance of different languages. Is there some reason to think the different languages aren't simply going to be as reasonably accurate translation of the English form as the state department can manage? I'm not even sure if the 'there are many forms' is accurate, since it seems that they've consolidated on the single DS-160 and DS-156 for most visa types, but I don't know enough to say it's definitely not. Unless you actually provide refs, I'm going to assume you are wrong and there's no point engaging further. (Actually even if do provide refs, I probably won't be back.)

Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

A Schengen visa can require a face-to-face interview. That interview can escalate into a requirement for social media information. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't hope everyone implements something like that but I do hope they do for American and European travelers. If we have to disclose our Pornhub accounts why shouldn't they?

Oops. I expect I'll have to discuss this one with an American or European embassy employee some time in the future.

Naaah. I'll just not post anything for 5 years. See you guys in 5 years.

Hold on now... Come to think of it, wouldn't that look suspicious?

There are many more, based on how the laws are translated. When you apply for a visa to anywhere, you are asked for your identity, including any aliases you use. What does "any aliases" mean? Is your Facebook ID an alias? Is your Twitter ID an alias? The two examples I gave, Israel and Schengen, both consider social media account names to be aliases. Under Obama, they were considered aliases as well, but now the state department is looking to make it very clear that a social media account name is considered an alias. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

What if one does not have any social media accounts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Then one does not have a relevant alias. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if they would require one's Wikipedia account User name, if one had one? And if one was to declare that one does not and has never had any social media accounts (which is true of myself), would one be believed? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Of course not. If they did everybody would say that, whether they did or didn't. No, what I advise you to do ahead of your next trip is to open a few token accounts where you do absolutely nothing, or, better yet, some silly innocuous stuff and then when they ask you about social media accounts you give them those. Gotta plan ahead. Basemetal 15:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I make occasional trips to other European countries, and have never been asked, nor heard of anyone I know being asked, for such online 'aliases'. As I have never and almost certainly will never visit the USA, the necessity for your logical suggestion will likely never arise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be from the UK, it's likely UK residents at least until Brexit and even accepting they are not part of the Schengen have some additional protections as EU citizens. More to the point, 209 seems to be claiming that online alias are something that you are supposed to provide when asked if you have any aliases. I don't know how many forms ask for 'alias'. The UK [13] and NZ [14] forms ask for 'other names' not aliases. I guess it's not impossible that 'other names' could be interpreted to include aliases you've used online especially if you've used them a large amount, by some governmental agency. I have my doubts though. The UK's guidance [15] for example, doesn't say anything to suggest this.

(The US visa online form does ask "used other names (i.e., maiden, religious, professional, alias, etc." The guidance is "Other names used include your maiden name, religious name, professional name, or any other names which you are known by or have been known by in the past." This also doesn't seem to clearly include online aliases although per the other responses they are considering requiring social media profiles of certain networks.)

The Schengen visa form doesn't seem to ask at all, it only seems to ask for current name and also name at birth [16]. The Israeli form is similar asking for current names and previous family name [17]. I'm concentrating on visitor visas since that seems to be what the original question and many of the concerns are about. Maybe 209 is thinking of some other visa type given their comments below.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I get at least one visa every year because I work with various foreign medical aid organizations. Every year, I answer "None" for aliases. I've never been asked if I'm telling the truth. If I were to be asked if I have social media profiles, I wouldn't mind showing them that I have a profile using my real name - which is not an alias. I've never been asked about that. Instead, I am more often asked who I voted for in the most recent election or if I donate money to Israel - things like that. It is a vetting process. They don't want more trouble than they already have. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Many people have suggested something similar relating to requirements to hand over devices and sometimes even encryption passwords e.g. burner phones etc [18] [19] [20] [21]. You'd note though that many of these themselves note, and experts elsewhere have pointed out that going to far can actual be problematic in itself, raising suspicion and increasing problems for you [22]. They've especially note that it's generally a bad idea to lie to border agents. And if you've been asked to hand over all profiles for Facebook but only hand over your dummy one, well.... (Before some nitpicks, yes I'm sure there is some allowance for people who can't remember some old profile. But if you're regularly logging in to your profile, this isn't likely to work.)

If we're talking something with a public profile e.g. Facebook and your Facebook etc account is with your real name, even if your name is a very common one, it seems to me you're normally hiding something which you have zero point in hiding. Even if it's not in your real name, if your friends list includes anyone who people could fairly easily associate with you and any of these friends have their friends list public, you're still hiding something people with a small amount of info could like uncover in less than an hour. There is perhaps a small risk they may require you to hand over passwords at a later stage so in that case you now have a problem however that risk seems to be fairly small and as said before, trying to harder counteract that risk is likely to increase the chances you get a lot more scrutiny.

To be clear, I'm not saying the US requirement is innocuous. I agree it's a disturbing requirement. I'm simply saying that the best way to counteract it is simply to not visit the US if it matters that much to you. (Or if you don't mind handing over the profiles, but do mind the passwords hand over the profiles, and make a plan of what to do in the unlikely event they do demand passwords.) Creating other profiles and not revealing the main ones seems a recipe for disaster. (I'm sure if done well and there isn't any reason why you set of a red flag, it probably isn't going to be picked up. That still doesn't mean it's a good idea. The risk-reward simply seems to high.)

Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I should make clear that in many ways the social media situation is worse that some of the advice for devices. If the form asks for all social media accounts from a certain network and you hid your main ones, you have a significant problem from the get go. You may want to at least say you've hidden your personal profile as it's private in the form and hope for the best. With devices, you can follow reasoned advice and then tell the truth and refuse to cooperate (or be unable to cooperate) if you are unhappy with the demands and accept being rejected at the border. Also although the author of the Medium article said they'd provide advice in a followup, it doesn't look like this happened. Also by refuse to cooperate, I don't mean don't hand over a device. Simply saying you refuse to provide a password, or some other detail despite a request. As many of the sources say, physically refusing is a very bad idea. Refusing to provide some detail may not be completely risk free, but the most likely outcome for a non-citizen without any real right of entry is rejection. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What if my alias is the name of a licensed character? Will I have to prove I've paid royalties? Basemetal 15:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Russia may ask for similar things in some circumstances [23]. The Russian spokesperson quoted there claims the UK does the same thing but I tried making an application (not submitted obviously) as a Russian want a UK tourist visa and there was no such question. It doesn't matter if you've visited Syria and Iran for a few years, nor if you declare you've been a member of a terrorist group or expressed sympathies for terrorism. (Although you re asked to provide details in 500 characters or less for the later 2.) They do however ask for at least 2 parents details, dependent children (but not non dependent), all income (not simply if you have enough), any work for the government, judiciary, media, armed forces and security organisations. Of course details could be requested in an interview but this seems to suggest it's not a regular thing. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a pretty obnoxious requirement if they want all your online nicknames, since if you post under a pseudonym that means they're basically asking to see your private correspondence (the words are out in the open, but their connection with you is private). Is there much opposition to the proposal from activists etc.? I'm suddenly gladder than usual that I don't use a Wikipedia account. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The proposal only makes certain sites compulsory. As per below, Youtube is likely to be one of them. I quite doubt Wikipedia will ever be. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Fo an important caveat to any of my earlier responses not dated today, see my response dated 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC) here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#What is social media anyway? Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

March 31

Questions about the King James Only movement

1. What is the reaction of the movement to scholarly consensus that the sources used for the King James Version were inaccurate compared into other sources? The article mentions some reactions but they don't go into too much detail.

2. What are the thoughts of the KJV-only movement to scholarly consensus that certain verses included in the KJV (such as the Comma Johanneum, the Jesus and the adulterous woman story, the doxology in The Lord's Prayer, and the longer ending of Mark 16, among others) were likely not to have been in the original texts?

3. Why does the movement continue to exist when the Textus Receptus is believed by scholars to not be the best source for Biblical translations?

Before anyone asks, I've read the article on the KJV-only movement, but it doesn't really go into much detail on the questions I've asked. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That article was longer and more informative in the past (for example [24]). Anyway, the "inspired KJV" groups adjust things to fit their basic premise that the KJV is divinely inspired... AnonMoos (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've spoken with a range of people who prefer the NKJV for textual reasons (it uses the same manuscript tradition as the KJV), so they're relevant here. Basically, I've been told "the Alexandrian text-type is based on manuscripts that were discarded by the authors, because they made transcription mistakes", but I've never heard any explanation of how that can be determined, and also there's been a preference for the Byzantine text-type because it represents a majority of witnesses and because it has such a long history of use. As far as the Comma, I've been told "it appears in a 14th-century Greek manuscript, so Erasmus didn't add it", but no explanation of why one rather late manuscript (or maybe a few; it's been a while since I was told this) can trump the vast majority of witnesses in this specific case even while you're arguing for majority rule in most situations. This kind of thing tends to come up via rabbit trails from other discussions, so I don't tend to push the discussion too far because it arises when I'm not prepared. And finally, it makes sense for the KJV Only movement to continue among people who reject the established consensus on #1 and #2, while if you hold that the KJV is new inspiration from God, the scholarly consensus on the ancient texts shouldn't particularly matter, since the KJV is inspired and they're talking about one that isn't inspired. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

In any case, I have the strong impression that most of the ordinary "inspired KJV" believers don't know or care about Greek, since they aren't motivated in their beliefs by anything having to do with Greek texts. Debates between KJVO Protestant fundamentalists and non-KJVO Protestant fundamentalists are more likely to be along the lines of the non-KJVOs taunting the KJVOs that King James was a homosexual, while the KJVOs celebrate the fact that King James was strongly against smoking... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You're asking why believers in a particular religious doctrine aren't swayed by evidence contradicting it? The thing about religious beliefs is they're frequently not subject to examination by those holding them. After all, as Martin Luther tells us, "reason is the greatest enemy that faith has". KJV-only isn't even that crazy, in my opinion, compared to some other, more widely-held beliefs. You know most of the events in the Tanakh, like The Exodus, didn't happen, right? Now go ask some random Westerners if they did, and I bet most will say "yes". And then there are things like prosperity gospel, young Earth creationism, or evolution denial. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

47.146.60.177 -- I'm not sure why you're juxtaposing an event from semi-mythical times before the Israelites kept written historical records with the results of rigorous philological researches based on the documentary evidence of manuscripts written over 1,200 years later. These are not at all comparable things, and I really don't know what would be gained by pretending that they are. Anyway, it didn't take place as written in the Book of Exodus, but on the other hand, it's probable that refugees from Egypt were among the components which coalesced into the Israelites in the West Bank hill-chain area in the period before 1000 B.C... AnonMoos (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Because both the belief in the literalness of the Tanakh/Old Testament narrative and the belief that the King James Version of the Bible (well, there are technically multiple KJV editions) is divinely ordained are fundamentalist beliefs contradicted by evidence. You seem to be doing some conflating yourself; to a biblical literalist, "the Old and New Testament are literal historical records of events, including the Exodus, that happened exactly as stated in the text", and "there may be some scraps of fact behind these myths, but they aren't a literal narrative" are definitely not the same thing. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Christian Responses to Friedrich Nietzsche?

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

I am currently studying Friedrich Nietzsche (I am studying Ancient History, that is the reason I became interested into Nietzsche, because Nietzsche did somewhat of an Antiquity reception back in his day), and was wondering, who did the most famous Christian response to Friedrich Nietzsche`s works was. Let me phrase my question this way: who did the most effective Christian apologetics against Nietzsche? Who was his biggest religious concurrent? I once heard that some consider C. K. Chesterton`s answer to Nietzsche in "Orthodoxy" as one of the best apologetics of the day (Chesterton apparently started writing while Nietzsche was still alive), but I really do not know much about Christian apologetics and theology in general.

Thank you for your answers

With kind regards--2A02:1205:502E:4030:212B:BBDD:6B91:C909 (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I also know little about Christian apologetics and theology, but there was a discussion of this question over at Reddit a couple of years ago, many Christian rebutters of Nietzsche being suggested. You might find that an interesting read unless you were the OP there as well, in which case possibly not. --Antiquary (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

April 1

Possibly dumb etymology:hersh and cyrus.

Hi are the Jewish names Hersh and Kurosh derived from the name Cyrus, as in Cyrus the Great? Thanks.107.77.229.107 (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hersh (Hersch, Hirsch, Hirsh, Herschel …) is a Yiddish (German) loan translation of Hebrew Zvi. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 01:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And Kurosh is a Persian name, which has become Cyrus in Classic literature. Omidinist (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Despite being Jewish myself, I've never met or heard of a Jew named Kurosh. That said, I haven't met many Jews of Persian decent, so I couldn't tell you if they would use the name. OTOH, I have heard of many Jews named Hersh or its derivatives. Eliyohub (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

With regard to 'many Jews of Persian de(s)cent', please read this entry. Omidinist (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Kurosh was a renowned Russian-Jewish mathematician. I was told once that Kurosh corresponds to Hirsch as a name. Neglecting all the transliteration issues, there is some similarity to the original Persian form of English Cyrus.107.77.231.202 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparent similarities can be misleading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

”apparent similarities”are not the only thing I’m relying on, obviously, since I came to reference desk to ask about it.75.148.101.22 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

'Cyrus the Great (Kuruš) figures in the Hebrew Bible as the patron and deliverer of the Jews.' See here and here. Connection is obvious. Omidinist (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I’ll spell out the part that’s obvious to me(I was trying to do starting to do so before, but got interrupted):When or even before Cyrus allowed the Jews to return and rebuild Temple, it’s possible that some Jews named their offspring after Cyrus. There are other possibilities too.75.148.101.22 (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Omidinist -- The ancient Persian (Achaemenid) empire is the only empire that the Jews have overall very positive historical memories of (as opposed to their distinctly negative historical memories of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Seleucid, Roman, and Byzantine empires, and more complicated experiences with some of the others), and Cyrus is referred to using the word for "Messiah" משיח in the Bible verse Isaiah 45:1 (though this word has a slightly different meaning in the Old Testament), but I never heard of any large number of Jews naming their sons Kurosh or (more authentically Hebrew) Koresh כורש. The most prominent people named "Koresh" in English are a 19th-century hollow-earther (even weirder than a flat-earther), and of course the Waco dude... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Although I do not know about Jewish names derived from Cyrus, I have a friend who is an Iranian Jewish woman living in the United States. She named one of her sons Darioush, after the Achaemenid king Darius I. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reincarnation in the New Testament

Are there any verses in the New Testament that can be interpreted as referring to reincarnation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.82.188 (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Verily, verily, I say unto thee. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Though whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, April 1, 2018 (UTC)

Basically (on the authority of my degree in theology), No! Neither of those quotes has ever been interpreted in orthodox theology as a reference to reincarnation. There is a lot about resurrection, about immortal life, about being born again (which has a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning) - but nothing that suggests returning to a mortal life as a different person, or creature. The teaching that the soul is immortal, and either goes to heaven or hell after death, rather contradicts any concept on reincarnation. The concept of resurrection has always been understood as meaning the restoration of the same body as before - to the extent that cremation was banned for a long time in case it meant that the old body would no longer be available. Wymspen (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Except for the teachings of Father Guido Sarducci. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

To take your question literally, I suppose we must admit that several verses in the Gospels can be interpreted as referring to reincarnation since a few people do interpret them as meaning that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah ([25][26]), but this is very much fringe stuff. That interpretation is answered here. --Antiquary (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And on that note, remember that Nicodemus kind-of interprets "You must be born again" literally: Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?", John 3:4. The fact that it's completely different from Jesus' meaning doesn't affect whether it can be so interpreted, just whether it should be. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

In what article can I get information about the history of cutlery using ?

In what article can I get information about the history of using, it says in what places this culture began (Europe, Arab countries etc.). As far a I know in the past all over the world it was customary to use hands directly (without cutlery) while eating. I'm looking for an organized information about this topic. Thank you. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Table knife, Fork and Spoon all have history sections. You might also find Cutlery and List of eating utensils useful for suggesting further reading. Rojomoke (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

See table manners and the links therein. Matt Deres (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Eurotunnel capacity

London to Amsterdam via the Channel Tunnel will start on April 4. I would like to know how many trains a day the Chunnel can manage. This says "Up to 400 trains pass through the tunnel each day, carrying an average of 50,000 passengers, 6,000 cars, 180 coaches and 54,000 tonnes of freight." Assuming that's 200 trains (a suspiciously round number) in each direction it means one train every 7.2 minutes, which impresses me, as they must have to get to the portals at the right time and all go through the tunnel at about the same speed (which would also impress me). I once read a document related to Deutsche Bahn's ambition to run Germany to London, and I think it mentioned the Chunnel capacity, but I can't find it now. So, is the Chunnel full? Hayttom (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know about the chunnel specifically, but in internet routing, you don't need to strictly synchronize arrivals if you can queue lower-priority traffic. If there are holding yards for freight trains and if they make up more than about half the trains, the passenger trains can be almost totally unsynchronized and can still get through with almost no delay. Of course, the total cannot exceed 100% of the capacity or the queues will grow too large for the holding yards. -Arch dude (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'm fairly sure it can also get more complicated than that. This discussion, while fairly speculative or based on hazy 'memories' in many cases [27] has some discussion on the complexities including flighting trains to help with differing speeds of freight and passenger trains (although it's unclear whether this still happens in practice). If you're not aware of the term, this source on page 345 (13 of the PDF) [28] has an explanation, it basically means putting trains of similar speeds in groups to improve capacity. That source, although old, gives you some idea of the complexity of managing capacity. This source is from a real world example [29]. Of course part of this complexity arises from trains on different railway lines intersecting at some stage.

This source [30] suggests a capacity of "30 train movements per hour in each direction", although that was from around the opening so things may have changed since then. Notably a comment in the non RS suggests the signalling headway may be 3 minutes now suggesting up to 20 trains per hour, not 30. BTW, that discussion and the other link and this [31] gives some idea of the additional complexities face by the channel tunnel not common with general rail capacity management.

The European Commission has in the past been concerned that the tunnel was being used to capacity for reasons they considered problematic. This ref [32], suggests at the time in 2013, 43% of the capacity was unused. It also includes info on the total number of freight trains at the time, although doesn't really include info on passenger trains. And the number of freight trains is so low that it doesn't seem that significant. (Well the info it has is on passenger numbers not on trains.)

Probably the biggest omission are the Eurotunnel Shuttle service (I presume because they're not covered by EU rules), as it sounds to me like those may represent the biggest current usage of the capacity by far, up to 6 an hour or more. [33] [34] [35] BTW, the commission's concerns seem to have been at least partly address by this move [36], meaning the number of trains may have gone up.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The phrase to search on is "paths per hour". The 1994 book Channel Tunnel Trains published by Eurotunnel (ISBN 1-872009-33-6), by Peter Semmens and Yves Machefert-Tassin, states on page 128 that "The Treaty of Canterbury... requires Eurotunnel to install signalling equipment that will permit twenty paths per hour in each direction". This 2001 article by John Noulton from Japan Railway & Transport Review states that "The presently available number of standard paths in each direction is 20 per hour, and about two-thirds of this capacity is already being used. Improved operating techniques will stretch the available capacity to about 24 standard paths per hour. The ultimate capacity, which would require moving block signalling, is 30 standard paths per hour. Under a usage contract signed by Britain and France, up to 50% of tunnel capacity is available for international passenger and freight trains." Similarly Channel Tunnel Transport System conference proceedings from 1996 (I think; this was a Google Books hit and I see different dates in different places), P.M. Robins writes that the initial 20 paths per hour "can be expanded to 24 paths per hour with the current system but the ultimate target of 30 paths per hour will probably only be achieved by a new system".

It must be noted that the paths per hour are calculated based on all trains going the same speed. If the speed varies, one train can occupy multiple paths. In the early days of the tunnel it was expected that the shuttles would go 140 km/h (and the last two books I cited both say that the paths were intended for that speed) while the Eurostars would go at 160, so that slowing the Eurostars to 140 would save paths. I don't know what speeds the different trains go at now. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What is social media anyway?

This is motivated by the question further up about social media disclosure requests/requirements at border crossings. What is social media anyway? Facebook is a well known example, so it's definitely social media. I don't use Facebook but I do sometimes post to a few web forums related to niche technical subjects. Are those social media? If not, what about Reddit, which is basically a collection of similar specialty forums? Not looking for legal advice but just wondering if there is any established classification scheme for this stuff.

The whole concept seems horrible, since there are many forums for discussing things like health issues, where the info is unremarkable when anonymous (some unknown forum poster is discussing their medical treatment) but very private when tied to specific people. Are the usual organizations like the ACLU raising a stink? Maybe they are but I haven't noticed anything. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Social media can help explain it to you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have looked there earlier of course. The article is helpful though it tries to "cover all bases", making it hard to exclude anything. It even lists youtube and skype as social media sites. Maybe they are under some conception of the term, but they wouldn't have occurred to me as examples. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe YouTube qualifies as social media. It allows comments on most videos. These comments sometimes become quite intense and heated discussions. Here is a topical example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZpvlY6miFM (Scroll down below the video, and give it a few seconds to load the discussion.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

EO dates the term "social media" to 2008.[37] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Youtube also allows liking videos, adding them to public watch lists etc. (There is also the history component if you don't clear it and give password access although since we're talking about US visa requirements, that isn't one.) And of course Youtube is also part of the web 2.0. Remember while most people are simply looking at other people's videos it is a user video sharing site. Some people do have their own public videos, e.g. of them speaking, sometimes of events etc; more rarely holiday videos etc may be there. (Mostly of course of their cats.) Considering one of the reasons that the US is interested in this info is the typical 'terrorism' concerns, it's quite likely the US would be interested in someone's Youtube profile. And this source [38] claims Youtube is one of the one's they specifically list as an option. A quick search for images finds [39] which seems to confirm Youtube. Interesting enough GitHub and JustPaste.it are also there. (The later, our article provides good hints why if you don't already know.)

Skype and other messaging services like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger (which our article also lists as an example of social media) are different part of social media. They can and particularly for the later frequently are used for sharing stuff including with groups. (I've seen it suggested that in some places a lot of non personal news info is obtained at least in part from such services.) While the structure is different and there's no real 'public' option, there's no real reason to say it's distinct from Facebook or Twitter which I assume you are accepting as social media.

It's true that as messaging apps, these are also used in ways that isn't perhaps typically considered social media e.g. regular chatting and which probably few people will do on Facebook or Twitter but the lines are always going to blurry between these activities at times. E.g. if someone posts to Facebook 'any good movies to see?' is it somehow more social media than if they post to some group they're part of on WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger the same thing? Maybe if you just ask one or two people individually it's not really 'social media'. In any case unless you put the border so far as to exclude anything happening on these services, the fact that both happen means these no reason to exclude them.

I know also that for a time at least, Microsoft was trying to make Windows Live Messenger very social media -esque. This wasn't particularly successful, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of it made it over to Skype even if it also probably didn't have much success but it may be that Skype also has a number of distinctly social media like features that are rarely used.

BTW, I excluded Snapchat; although it has some similarities with other messaging apps, it also has stuff like the Snapchat stories which I guess make it even clearer as social media. When it comes to the question, although Skype, Facebook Messenger, Whatsapp etc may be social media; the fact that it's all private and the US isn't demanding passwords means it's probably of little interest hence why none of these are on the earlier list. Well Facebook Messenger account is not distinct from Facebook, and Whatsapp is tied to some phone number so to some extent they could easily have these without specifically asking. I doubt that's the main reason though and you'd note they also don't ask for Snapchat. (Although it doesn't have to be just what is public. I would image the US also has a list of 'profiles' which are concerning. So if you joined a 'killing Obama' group chat at some stage, this may be known even if it isn't public. OTOH, the fleeting nature of most Snapchat content means even with your password, there's no guarantee they'll find the stuff of interest. Perhaps you once had a story which included photos of you in Syria or with some preacher of concern. But even without effort on your part, it may be long gone.)

There are of course limits. While news stories on traditional sites may be frequently shared on social media, and some of these sites even have social media aspects like commenting on the story etc, these probably often aren't going to be called social media.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Re opposition: There is [40] from before it was proposed to expand it to all visitors. I suspect you'll find similar for the recent proposals either already or soon.

In terms of privacy, it's worth remembering that if you are not a US citizen the US can, and does sometimes, demand access to all your devices including any encryption passwords [41] [42]. They obviously generally can't force you to do so, but failure to comply can mean you're turned away. If you think that is bad, remember that while the UK may do it less often, they actually can do it [43] [44] and Key disclosure laws mean that there even citizens may not be protected (and apparently they may arrest you for not complying). NZ has or had policies and laws which likewise allowed them to demand passwords and also I think not just of visitors [45].

It was claimed this may also apply to Canada and Australia (in addition to UK and US) although since this was from NZ customs maybe not the best source especially since it wasn't a definite claim [46]. But if you look at the comments there is mention of this case [47] [48]. A quick search suggest nothing much came from it since the person pled guilty [49]. I didn't find any discussion of Australia although this is good for a sad laugh. [50] Considering this is the same country which is locking up migrants including a number of refugees traveling to Australia by boat in atrocious conditions in various places, and also the country who've started deporting many people who've lived most or in some cases all of their lives in Australia back after all sorts of crimes; well, does would anyone really be surprised if they were like Canada, NZ, UK and the US and could demand your keys at the border for non citizens (particularly visitors)?

My impression from all I've read that many other countries also have this possibility. While citizens and perhaps some other long term residents (and of course within the EU, any EU citizen in any EU country) may be protected (at least requiring probable cause), the idea is often that visitors either have the choice to comply or leave. Entry is generally held at complete will of the government so if government decides the border protection agency should have the power, they may not even need a law change. I'd note that both the UK and Canadian controversial cases seem to be long term residents or citizens. While this is likely in part because visitors who refuse to comply are simply sent back and have no interest in challenging their case even if they could, it's probably also at least in part reflective of the fact they have little opportunity to challenge their case if they wanted to. (A number of the sources I provided also mention the catch-22. If you encrypt stuff and refuse to hand over passwords, this may be taken as probable cause of the need to search you!)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Device searches at borders are simple to avoid, by the crude tactic of not bringing any devices (or only bring a completely empty one, and download any data you need from your encrypted storage at the other end). It's much harder to leave your online footprint at home, so this is in some ways more troubling than device searches. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree it's simple. See my comments above regarding the suggesting to make fake profiles by Basemetal. Even most people who provide advice like the EFF agree that doing a lot of that runs a strong risk of getting a lot of scrutiny or simply being turned away. (One of them, the Conversation suggests you make a big deal about trade secrets etc beforehand. That may work okay if you're job where this makes sense. If you're simply a checkout operator at Pak'n'Save, well good luck with that....)

Of course as I think all of them including the Conversation touch on a big issue is 'lying' to border agents. You don't bring a a phone and the border agents seemingly innocuously asks you why you don't have one. Sure you could answer you didn't think it was compatible or something. Most of the time that isn't going to be picked up. However assuming the main reason is actually because you didn't want them to search it, you've effectively lied to a border agent so if this is ever found out, it could create significant hassle for you. The alternative is to say 'because I didn't want border agents to search it' and raise a big red flag. Even if you are also traveling to some country run by a despot, you could still easily expect a lot of added scrutiny or to be simply turned away for that answer.

BTW in case there is any confusion, as many of those emphasise since handing over passwords is part of the issue, you cannot simply rely on putting the data in cloud storage. You need to ensure you don't know the password and the person who knows it will not provide it to the border agent or to you when you are with the border agent; yet somehow develop a strategy where they will let you in despite that. The only thing you've likely achieved if you put all the data in cloud storage but you know the password is ensured more wasted time while they access it from cloud storage provider. Of course if your device is very slow, it could be faster, but then again they're also probably going to scrutinise it more carefully so still a lose-lose situation.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. In case it's not clear, if anyone is actually planning to do anything to hide data from border agents I strongly recommend they read one or more informed guides beforehand. Getting into this uninformed risks causing more problems. For example, at a minimum you probably should delete anything which could be seen as illegal. Copyvios may be the only exception. Yet ideally you should wipe this stuff, however on Windows at least since there's no default software to easily do this you may have to download something. However now you have this software or probably signs of it on your computer. If you have an SSD, TRIM may or may not be enough to cover you. The kerfuffle by some random Australian MP partly emphasises the problem. The Australian government themselves told people 'delete illegal stuff on your devices' before trying to cross the border. Some Muslim group repeats this advice and suddenly they're evil. Also make sure you pay attention to the distinction between citizens (and maybe some long term residents or other special cases) who may have added protections and generally cannot simply be turned away; and tourists and other very limited purpose entry attempts who can simply be turned away at the border often without needing much reason, the later AFAIK is what we're talking about here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

P.P.S. Although I'm not saying things are perfect for a citizen either. As the Canadian and UK case illustrate, the risk for a citizen, especially for a change outside the US where there tends to be fewer protections, is that they will find their refusal to cooperate by handing over their password interpreted as an offence. Even if it's not, the cost (in time, money, etc) associated with mounting a legal challenge to that is likely to be significant probably partly why both cases don't seem to have amounted to much. Nil Einne (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Until recently I resisted having a smartphone at all (finally broke down and got a cheap Android because I needed it for work). So I've only travelled with dumbphones and there's not much private data in them (my contact numbers, ok, but they can also figure those out from my phone records). I'd hope that travelling with just a dumbphone isn't too suspicious. Among other things it avoids getting the more expensive smartphone stolen. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Btw, thanks in particular for the engadget link from further up, which is the only place I see the DHS's list of specifically named sites. Of course it's still open ended since there's a selection for "other". Sigh. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be open ended, but the DHS proposal is only to make the listed sites compulsory at this time per the sources I provided to the original question. Considering one of the sites is a pastebin site (with a reason but still), I think it would be very difficult to enforce a compulsory open ended question. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As I note below, my info above is a little wrong. The engadget link is for the ESTA and AFAIK it will still be optional i.e. probably for many on this board they won't have to provide social media info to the US if they want to go there as a tourist even if the proposal passes. The current list seems to be the same as in the Engadget link. The list of sites which will be on the forms for most people who do need a visa is different. According to all info I can find the listed sites are compulsory (despite 209 continuously claiming they won't be). They can be seen here [51] (page 2) [52] (page 5). Also the optional sites defines social media: "any other websites or applications you have used within the last five years to create or share content (photos, videos, status updates, etc.), please list the platform and associated unique social media identifier (username or handle) below." Personally I would say wikipedia does fall within that definition, although I wouldn't say Nil Einne is a unique social media identifier under normal circumstances. Of course, so does Google Docs if you've ever used it to 'create and share content'. BTW, to be clear, it is optional both ways. If you answer yes, you still get to choose what you want to list, aren't then required to fill out every site. Although one thing which is unclear to me is whether you have to fill out all handles if you do list a platform. To me this part is ambiguous. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, some of my older answers may have been a bit wrong. When I wrote them I was under the impression that the previous optional social media question was part of DHS-160. It was not. It is part of Electronic System for Travel Authorization used by people who don't need a visa (or those who think they don't need one). As far as I'm aware, there are no current proposal to make social media info required info for the ESTA. Social media questions was asked for certain visa applicants who needed further vetting, I don't think it was optional there either but I didn't investigate this a great deal since it's not of significant interest to me. It's possible social media could have come up in the interview or maybe there is some other form which asked about it, but generally, I don't think most visa applicants have even been asked about social media until now unless they tried for ESTA first. What this means is if you are from the UK, NZ, Australia, Germany etc i.e. countries that are part of the Visa Waiver Program this isn't going to affect you at the moment if you are just an ordinary tourist without anything that is going to bar you (e.g. many convictions). Also other countries with special programmes e.g. Canada. It is only mostly those from developed countries, and those who do have a bar, as well as those going for more than ordinary tourism or short term business (e.g. journalists, students) who will be affected. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2

perhaps the most important quote on economics

According to an article in the German Wikipedia, Adam Smith says in the Wealth of Nations (on p. 452 of a 2003 German translation) that a market economy can only work if the government engages in some regulation, namely regulation that ensures that the market works and that competition is not stifled. I was not able to find this statement by Smith on https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations. Any idea how to find it? --Espoo (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Smith's belief in the role of government is famously expounded on in the the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 1, where he outlines 3 roles for the government (that he calls "The Sovereign"). This is often reduced to the pithy statement "The role of the government is to a) defend the nation b) protect people from harm from each other and c) handle those public works projects the markets would not otherwise produce." He never said exactly that, but many summaries of Book V, Chapter 1 will read similarly. I don't know anywhere where he discusses the role of government in the actual regulation of markets; merely that the government's role is to provide those things that people need, but for which there is no market mechanism to produce equitably. --Jayron32 12:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, those are the parts that are often quoted, but it seems he also had very strong opinions about the need to protect competition and prevent monopolies and that this is a very important role of government. Any idea how to find that info online? --Espoo (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

See here for some of his thoughts. He mostly saw monopolies as government enforced monopolies, where the Sovereign granted the right of monopoly to home-grown industries, either as part of mercantile theory embargoes; or through the use of protective tariffs. I'm not sure he deals with so-called "natural monopolies", that is those that occur through the market without government intervention. --Jayron32 13:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't understand how to make the search function work; I would like to search for "competition" and "regulation". --Espoo (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

These are the two Adam Smith quotes I know. They aren't directly about government intervention, but discuss some of the factors which might make it necessary in the eyes of some: AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [merchants and master manufacturers] ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Thanks! Do you know what the page numbers are? --Espoo (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"The Wealth of Nations" has been reprinted so many times down the centuries that I'm not sure page numbers mean much. The first quote is from Book I, Chapter X. You can probably find the location of the second quote with a little searching. AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Identity of background music in YouTube video

Can anybody identify the music in the background? And another example. Bus stop (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Cute - the same actress doing different accents. Trying to figure out the song is another story - just trying to figure out the words would be a challenge. I think I heard "London, Paris, we all can pass for..." but that's all I can make out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's "London, Paris, New York, and Moscow". Bus stop (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• You may try asking her at her own site Chameleon Voices. There's an email address listed there. Since the music of her videos is always the same she shouldn't have any trouble knowing what you mean. (You can also try sending a message through her YouTube channel here or leave a comment with a question here but it doesn't look like she ever answers those). Basemetal 11:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, maybe I will do that. I will see if other answers come up. Thank you, Basemetal, for those links. Bus stop (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

April 3

Definition of peasant

I remember reading Thailand, or perhaps something else on Wikipedia. One thing that I remember is the use of the word "peasant" to describe the Thai farm workers (I assume farm workers because I assume they live an agrarian lifestyle). I think Thailand actually has a monarchy, but what is the actual relationship between the sovereign and Thai peasants? By the way, would a migrant undocumented farm worker working on American farms and living in shacks be American peasants? Or are American farmers who own family farms free, rich peasants who enjoy middle-class lifestyles? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Peasant would be regarded as insulting in the US, even by a farmer who proudly call himself a "hard-working country boy."

It's an arbitrary social class, and only as real far as is accepted by a society. As such, I would say that there are no peasants in the US, even though there are individuals who, in the exact same socio-economic situation but in other times or places, would be considered peasants.

It's like how America doesn't have royalty, even though the richest portion of the country inherits their wealth and has serious influence over major issues, and some people insist that's all God's will. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

140.254.70.33 -- the anthropological definition of "peasant" is along the lines of traditional farmers who have a dependent role within a larger society or hierarchy, so that a portion of the crops they grow is owed in taxes or tributes or repayments of debts to non-farmers. The operators of highly mechanized and modernized "agribusiness" operations are not usually called peasants, though in some cases they may be in almost perpetual debt (like some kinds of peasants are). A "migrant undocumented farm worker" falls into the category of a landless laborer, who does not have direct responsibility or authority for any plot of land, and so is not really the same thing as a peasant. In United States history, sharecroppers probably approach closest to the usual definition of a peasantry... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Working Class Hero, by John Lennon, famously includes the line "But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see". Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, it does. What of it? Matt Deres (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It shows the term in contemporary use. It shows the derogatory significance of the term. I think it shows the wide-meaning significance of the term. Its use there is figurative, encompassing just about any walk of life. In its use there, hardly anyone escapes being considered a peasant. That is a contemporary song. The lyrics are reflecting possible current use of the term. It may supersede historical usages, as we know language constantly evolves. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The terms "peasant" and "pagan" have the same, seemingly neutral origin.[53] But there's often a tendency to ridicule farmers as being rednecks, rubes, bumpkins, jays, hayseeds, etc. (Usually by city slickers.) Hence those terms are no longer neutral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

A working class hero is something to be. Bus stop (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"It's like how America doesn't have royalty, even though the richest portion of the country inherits their wealth"

The United States does not have either royalty or nobility, and is constitutionally forbidden from establishing one. Per the Title of Nobility Clause (1787): "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Nothing in the Constitution forbids hereditary wealth. As for "peasants", serfdom in the Kingdom of England had ended by the Tudor period, and was never established in its colonies. Per our Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom: 1574- "Last remaining serfs emancipated by Elizabeth I."

History of serfdom elaborates a bit: "In England, the end of serfdom began with the Peasants' Revolt in 1381. It had largely died out in England by 1500 as a personal status and was fully ended when Elizabeth I freed the last remaining serfs in 1574. Land held by serf tenure (unless enfranchised) continued to be held by what was thenceforth known as a copyhold tenancy, which was not completely abolished until 1925 (although it was whittled away during the 19th and early 20th centuries). There were native-born Scottish serfs until 1799, when coal miners who were kept in serfdom gained emancipation. However, most Scottish serfs had already been freed. " Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Dimadick -- Serfdom is a legal status, while "peasant" is a social-agricultural term (which can become a vague derogatory epithet). Scottish coal-mining serfs were not peasants, while there have been many cases of peasants who were not serfs. AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think a peasant is basically someone who lives by subsistence farming and without much mechanization. That's different from serfdom in that a peasant could in principle leave the farm and move to the city or whatever, though most don't. It might, however, include sharecropping. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

173.228.123.121 -- I still prefer the anthropological definition (see above). Peasants can be serfs (though not all are), while tribal farmers who are not exploited by overlords or agents of an overarching state are not usually referred to as peasants. AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Which brings to the question in the OP. Are those agrarian Thai people peasants ruled by a monarch or independent farmers? What are they? Is there really feudalism in Thailand? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is that all words have shades of meaning including implied tone based on many contextual factors, including the time and place of the interlocutors, the intent of the speaker, the grammatical context of the word, and important for us the social, cultural, and historical context of the use of that word. When Lennon (as noted above) called people "fucking peasants" he had a clearly pejorative connotation in that context. However, merely because Lennon was using it in that way for that context does NOT mean that the word "peasant" is a purely pejorative word. Likewise, in the context of European medieval life, "peasant" implies a certain role in the economy based on European medieval life. I must stress this point, because it is central to everything I am saying: this doesn't mean that it's use in other contexts without aspects of European medieval life is wrong. Perhaps the use of peasant to describe Thai farmers is the proper term or perhaps it is not, but to claim that only the singular usage of any word, based on a specific application, is the only possible definitive way a word can ever be used; well, that's not right. Maybe peasant isn't right, but the reason would not be because "peasantry" must only include European-style feudalism. Peasantry as a broader term simply means politically unconnected agrarian classes. That doesn't mean we have dukes and lords and ladies. --Jayron32 16:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I don't think there is currently actual official serfdom anywhere in the world (is there?). Serfs as I understood the term are literally the property of the landowner. That's different from chattel slavery in the sense that you can't sell your serfs to someone else, but they're basically part of what comes with the land: they're not allowed to pick up and leave. So if you sell the land to someone, they get the serfs with it. The "fucking peasants" thing sounds like calling someone lumpen proletariat, i.e. a snotty way to refer to someone by their (from the speaker's point of view disfavored) socio-economic status. I sometimes hear insulting terms for Silicon Valley tech tycoons based on their socio-economic status, so it goes in all directions. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

History of politics

What do historians agree on to be the most political decision ever made by politicians?86.8.202.255 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the most political decision"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thats up to the respondents to present the evidence isnt it?--213.205.242.246 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If we don't know what the original question really means, then we can't answer it (or even decide whether or not it's worth answering). AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This was asked on yesterday's BBC comedy programme Cunk on Britain [54] which is a spoof on the historical documentary programmes now quite common on TV. The programme involved asking experts stupid, meaningless or impossible questions about British history - and that was one of them. The expert involved got very muddled, and failed to come up with any sort of answer. My own thought was that (in the British context of the programme) it might be the execution of Charles I - but there are plenty of other possible answers. It may depend on whether you are looking for the decision which had the greatest political impact in historical terms, or the decision which was made for the most purely political motive. Wymspen (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So the British-based OP simply parroted that question from the show. Looks like an April Fool's joke that was late by a couple of days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Appeasement of Hitler.
Sleigh (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as a time traveler from the future, I'd posit that the GOP refusing to censure Donald Trump in any way will end up being one that historians will agree on. --Golbez (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It might also be the Brexit. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

April 4

How do they make films like that?

I just watched The Full Metal Jacket, a Stanley Kubrick's film, a movie made 12 years after the Vietnam War ended. In the movie there are rows and rows of bombed out buildings, skeletal remains actually, with fires inside and outside. The impression is that they are miles in every direction. The ground is littered with just every piece of junk imaginable. How did they make it so realistic? I don't even mention dozens of tanks. The same thing with The Killing Fields, although the background there is tropical countryside. In one scene, thousands of Cambodian peasants are digging a circular hole in the ground, perhaps half a mile in diameter, presumably their own grave. The soil is wet clay.

So, how do they make films like this?

Thanks, - AboutFace 22 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

See Special effects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Full Metal Jacket#Filming—You can do a lot of things if you have the budget. Stanley Kubrick was notorious for being meticulous and obsessed with detail. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There's also the idea of how to carefully block a scene in film so as to add illusion of greater depth of scene. By composing a frame a certain way, you can turn a small bit of scenery in a back lot into a much more impressive looking scene. --Jayron32 10:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding The Killing Fields, there's a rather well-known documentary (more of a monologue) about the making of it by Spalding Gray titled Swimming to Cambodia which goes into some detail on its production. --Jayron32 10:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As for the tanks, Kubric actually purchased vintage tanks from a collector. The model cited was M41 Walker Bulldog.

If the budget is large enough, film production can afford purchasing or renting retro vehicles, weapons, and other equipment. For The Birth of a Nation (1915), D. W. Griffith managed to purchase or rent actual artillery from the United States Military Academy. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So he literally got bang for his buck? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• They filmed it in England, in the 1980s. That's what England looked like in the Thatcher years.

More specifically it's Beckton Gas Works. Kubrick did have to restore a few bits to make it look more like Huế. East London isn't noted for its use of traditional Vietnamese moon gates, although one of them (the courtyard where they rest) was removed from the set afterwards and ended up in a restaurant. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking more generally, the US military is often happy to lend/loan equipment out. It doesn't hurt their PR and can definitely help them a great deal. Even silly stuff like I Dream of Jeannie made use of military resources on occasion. We should probably have an article on it as it's a very common occurrence. Some stuff here. Matt Deres (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. For a non-specialist like me it is incomprehensible. AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Filmmaking has come a long way since The Great Train Robbery (1903 film), where sharp-eyed viewers saw concrete curbs of a modern street, in the foreground of one shot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thus heralding a long tradition of bloopers in film. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Adoption in the US

If the immigrant parents pass away, then are the children placed into US foster care or sent back to the country of origin to live with extended relatives? Does the citizenship of the child matter - whether the child is foreign-born or US-born? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming that for the purpose of your question, they don't have any family in the US (because either the kid would stay with them or be deported with them).

If the kid was born in the US, it would be harder to send them to their parents' country of origin unless that country's quality of life was comparable to the US, the kid's extended family was begging to adopt the kid, the kid spent more time there than in the US, and the kid says they want to go. Still, there are a few activist judges who would try to send them "to be with their families" anyway because some on the US extreme-far-right seem to have forgotten that (except for Native Americans) what Jus sanguinis laws we do have only work because of Jus soli laws.

If the kid is not a citizen, it would depend on the country of origin (lower quality of life = more likely to stay), how much of the kid's life was lived in the US (more time in the US = more likely to stay), and the political leanings of the judge (liberal = more likely to stay). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Does the US attempt to find extended relatives even if they are overseas? How can the US confirm that some US-based relatives are present? What happens if there are two or more children involved where the older child is a foreign national and the younger child is US-born American? What happens if the country of origin is politically unstable, and the immigrant parents are really refugees? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It probably depends on what part of the US the kid is in (poorer areas have fewer resources to contact foreign relatives), the country of origin in question, and whether the other family members are/were legal or undocumented immigrants.

The court's job is to go with the kid's best interest as far as is possible within the law. Left-wing judges are somewhat more inclined to disregard the law in favor of the child, far-right-wing judges are somewhat more inclined to favor the law over the child. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that it doesn't have to be the US attempting to find. Very often in this day and age, immigrant families are not completely out of touch with their relatives including those back wherever they came from. It's likely therefore that the death of the parents will make it back to the extended family and anyone interested in take over the care of the children will get involved themselves. Also about Ian.thomson's first response, while I think we can understand the point they were making, the presence of relatives in the US is not always going to mean they are the ones to take over care. Often parents will find someone who they'd ask to take over care and in such cases it's likely these people will follow through if they are in the US. (If the parents did choose someone outside the US for whatever reason, while even with legal documentation the court doesn't have to follow this, there's probably a reasonable chance they will if there's nothing to suggest the parents will be bad parents and everyone supports it.) Even without that, it's common relatives especially if they live in the US themselves will step up. But not everyone may feel they are able or otherwise be willing to take over care. It would seem likely on rare occasions the reason may even be because they have children but are in the US without proper documentation and fear they will be deported if they get involved in any legal process that may be necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April 5

Berkshire Hathaway

The opening paragraph of Berkshire Hathaway claims that Berkshire Hathaway wholly owns Comcast. Is this really true? The Comcast article doesn't say anything about it, Comcast isn't on List of assets owned by Berkshire Hathaway at all, and Googling doesn't bring up any relevant news. Mũeller (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this Mũeller. Comcast was added on April 1 with this edit. Could be an April Fool's edit or just a run-of-the-mill item. As it is unsourced I have removed it. If anyone can confirm it please feel free to restore with a reference. MarnetteD|Talk 04:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Indications in Google are that Berkshire Hathaway does not own Comcast. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Common Law Marriage - Mississippi

Why did the Mississippi legislature abolish common law marriage in 1956? Did it have anything to do with the budding civil rights movement? Did it have anything to do with false widows' claims after World War II/Korean War? 2610:E0:A040:B6FD:29E0:753C:DA2D:C87A (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't found anything yet, but according to this seemingly reliable source (if not strictly WP:RS) only 16 states recognize common law marriages, so it's definitely not just Mississippi. Matt Deres (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Identity

How can I tell if I'm Jewish? 86.8.200.243 (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Read Who is a Jew?. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April 6

9999-year lease

Has any ever heard of a 9,999-year lease that's not a recent stunt? This edit claims that an English nobleman made such a lease in 1597; neither it, nor anything else in the current version of this article, has a source. 99-year lease notes that this is generally the longest possible lease term under common law, although we have examples of 999-year leases. Not sure if this is a typo, vandalism, or just a really really long lease. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Imperial yellow

Where did the dye for the imperial yellow robes of Chinese emperors come from? What natural substance was used to create it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7CF0:3070:7065:E3C9:FDE3:DEC7 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

essay on the film adaptation

Is there a website that shows an example of argumentative essay of the film Adaptation by Charlie Kaufman with the following elements: binary oppositions, the context-author's argument and one that would make the author's argument different, anomalies, habitual thinking, assumptions, subjectivity, how did he use logos, ethos, and pathos (modes of persuasion), the thesis, dialectic, the language and style, and the 10 on 1 strategy? Please and thank you. Donmust90 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)