Revision as of 16:11, 18 March 2017

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 13

A fruit as the main course

In the frozen food aisle, there may be frozen dinners. Most of them are centered around chicken, pork, beef, or fish. There may be a tiny "vegetable" section. Why are the body parts of plants lumped together as "vegetables" instead of selecting one tasty fruit or root of a plant (eggplant or lotus root) with veggie or meat side dishes? 107.77.192.34 (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

We keep trying to explain this to you, so here's one more attempt. What qualifies as a fruit to a botanist or other scientist is different than what qualifies as a fruit to a dietitian or nutritionist or chef. Botanically, a fruit is the seed-bearing body of a plant. Culinarily, a fruit is a part of a plant which typically is used in sweet or sour (NOT savory) applications. A vegetable is used culinarily as any part of a plant or fungus that is used in savory applications. The term "vegetable" has no meaning outside of culinary applications. So, if you are asking "what foods are considered vegetables" vs. "what foods are considered fruits", the answer is "plant/fungus parts used in savory applications are vegetables, and those used in sweet applications are fruits" Lots of things we call "vegetables", including maize, green beans, eggplant, cucumber, chili peppers, etc. are ALL botanical fruits, but are NOT considered culinary fruits. Culinary fruits are those such as berries, apples, citrus, melon, etc. all of which are used for their sweetness. --Jayron32 14:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Think it may be simply sales and marketing going for the lowest common denominators of peoples buying habits. Just have to shop around. You also missed out Okra etc. Google around and find local outlets. Buy in bulk (cheaper) and store in the deep freeze.--Aspro (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

They sometimes are - a Baked Potato is generally treated as the main component, with whatever other vegetables/meat accompanying it treated as the side dish. Similarly, with baked peppers, aubergine, marrow, etc. Iapetus (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Peas, beans and lentils are often the centre of main courses. Perhaps the OP should look up some vegetarian recipes online. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

One issue with packaged food is that they want the packages to be small, so more will fit on the shelf. A salisbury steak does that, but a salad, with the same amount of calories and protein, would be much larger. Also, some salad ingredients can't be frozen. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How many frozen salats are there and when did "they" stop deceiving us with larger than needed packaging and how related is your "input" to the question of the OP and do you have any citations to back up your claims?--TMCk (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a ref that says you can spell salads that way ? Do you really need a source to prove that meat is more dense in calories and protein than salad ? OK, then. Here's nutrition and weight data for a salisbury steak meal: . Here's the same info for a garden salad: . I get about 6 times as much protein per gram in the salisbury steak meal. If you have a source saying that every food package is deceptively large, then I'd like to see it. As for irrelevant, your link to another Q certainly won't answer the OP's Q. Regarding freezing salads, I find many of the ingredients can be frozen, although there's some change in texture. Leafy greens fare the worst. Beans, diced tomatoes, and many other ingredients fare quite well. I regularly freeze some of the salad ingredients, so they will last, and then thaw and mix them with fresh salad ingredients that don't freeze well. StuRat (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you mumbling? Nobody has asked you about density of food. Looks like you're pulling a "Conway response", mostly unrelated to the question. And salat=Hindustani.--TMCk (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You asked me for info on protein density in foods when you asked me for refs for my claims, as that was one of them. If you wanted refs for something else, you should have said so. And you didn't actually provide a source to prove that "salat" is valid, but I won't be as annoying as you and insist on one. I would like a source showing that all food packages are deceptively large. (Certainly some are, but others are designed to pack as much product on the shelf as possible.) StuRat (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the ref desk talk page, the both of you should take your barbs to each others' talk pages rather than posting them here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If she will keep her attacks off this page, I will keep my responses off it, as well. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Think we can rely on the OP's common sense to know which foods can be frozen. There is a point though, that when from freezing from fresh – blanching is often necessary.--Aspro (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think I understand the OP's question; if they are asking about dishes with plants (rather than meats) playing the main course, besides various vegetarian and vegan dishes, there are several well-known dishes where vegetation takes the main role; the Levant-based dish falafel, the Italian eggplant parmigiana and its Greek counterpart moussaka, the French ratatouille, the Caribbean red beans and rice, the Puerto Rican Mofongo, etc. --Jayron32 02:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"The Helicopter Song" - banned?

Our brief stub article on The Helicopter Song claims the song was banned in the UK (or Ireland, I'm not clear). No source is given, but this claim is frequently reported on the net.

It's unclear if the song was simply banned by the BBC from being broadcast on its station, or if it was a full ban on importing and selling recordings of the song.

Can someone try to track down which legislation the song was supposedly banned under? I know that "glorifying terrorism" is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2006. But firstly, that's a recent law, and secondly, a prison break is not in itself a "terrorism act", one would assume. Nor would hijacking an aircraft, if the hijacking was not "political, religious, or ideological" in itself, even if the criminals freed were terrorists. But anyways, I don't want speculation here, I want sourced answers. The author deliberately chose an episode which did not involve violence (nobody got hurt in the incident), just to make his point about thumbing one's nose at Government, without endorsing violence.

(For those curious to hear the actual song, you can hear it at )

So, which law back in 1973 allowed the song to be banned?

Also, does it remain on the banned list today, even if only "technically"? If yes, which UK or Irish Government department would make the decision on any request to lift the ban? As in, whom does one submit a request to?

I don't think this is "legal advice", as it can presumably be answered from public domain sources. Eliyohub (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

War and Peace: Ireland since the 1960s by Christine Kinealy (2013) says that it was "immediately prohibited from being played on RTÉ stations" (sorry, it's and e-book, so no page number).

A Four Nations Reception History of The Wolfe Tones says: "...there was sufficient concern about the effect of ‘Up and Away’ for the national broadcaster RTE to severely restrict the playing of the song, reflecting anxieties among elites about the propriety of explicitly nationalist culture. Although their concerts in England were well attended by Irish emigrants, particularly in London, the vast popularity of the Wolfe Tones in Ireland was not replicated in England, and the band never charted. Furthermore, despite the English being the target of greatest scorn by the Tones, the level of concern among political elites (as manifested in the restrictions imposed by RTE) was also far less significant. In The Guardian, the band received a rather favourable review, comparing their ‘punk-like excitement’ to The Pogues. Even disparaging reviews focused on the band’s aesthetic inadequacies more than their political potency. Writing in The Times, one reviewer wrote that ‘their general amusement made itself felt in the audience’ but that the performance was ‘more a collection of tuneful anecdotes’ and that ‘more important work was elsewhere’. The political views expressed by the Tones did not touch on the same sensitivities in England as in Ireland, where debates on the propriety of nationalist music were well rehearsed, and so were seemingly interpreted more as a harmless novelty".

I couldn't find any reference stating that it was banned in the UK that doesn't look as though it came from the Misplaced Pages article. However, it's possible that it was banned by the BBC, which at that time had a monopoly on domestic radio broadcasting; the first commercial radio station in the UK was Capital Radio which launched in October that year. Our List of songs banned by the BBC shows that they have a considerable track record in the censorship department, although Up and Away (The Helicopter Song) is not mentioned. Alansplodge (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So it wasn't banned from being sold on records (the common format in the pre-CD era), just public broadcasting on the Irish national radio station? Eliyohub (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Irish Singles Chart at that time was based entirely on the retail sales of single records, so yes. I found a full breakdown on a site blacklisted by Misplaced Pages: Up and Away (The Helicopter Song) came straight in at No 1 as a new entry on the chart for November 29th, 1973 (sales for the week ending Saturday 24th November 1973) and remained at the top of the chart for four weeks until December 27th, 1973 (w/e Saturday December 22nd 1973) when it dropped down to No. 2. The Kinealy 2013 source which I linked above states that 12,000 singles were sold in the first week. Alansplodge (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the "banned in the UK" claim from the article and added some details from the references linked above. Should anyone find a source about banning in the UK, please feel free to reinstate it. Alansplodge (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Walking across Manhattan

If an average adult starts at the East River midtown, like somewhere between 40th and 55th Streets, and they walk to the Hudson River, how long could they expect to take if they walk between 9 and 5? According to Google Maps, it takes about 40 minutes for the two-mile walk, but it says 40 miles for a two-mile walk in small towns, too, where they don't have lots of traffic like in midtown Manhattan. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think walking is affected by traffic, except slightly, waiting for the light to turn green. (I think you meant to say "...but it says 40 minutes for a two-mile walk in small towns...") Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I used to live in Manhattan, Hells Kitchen, and I never really noticed people stopping for traffic. Instead, traffic tries to avoid pedestrians. Pedestrians try to avoid the bikes. Tourists stand in the middle of it all and look up at the tall buildings. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It'd depend on how aggressively they jaywalk and their jaywalking skill level and how fast they walk. Here's a guide: 0-3 mph: tourist 4-5 mph: New Yorker. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So lots of pedestrians walk regardless of the traffic and the "Don't Walk" signs, and they just expect not to get hit? 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not zero skill. Learning to full blown weave through traffic without affecting others' safety or making cars brake or change lanes too hard would take judgement, experience, quick good geometric prediction intuition, and the ability to never pass a point of no return where you could end up trapped with no way out (unless car(s) evade unsafely) no matter what you do next. Newcomers should jaywalk with their head, not over it (though staying 1 foot behind and 1 foot downstream of someone and switching to 1 foot dead astern if that becomes unsafe (i.e. bike passing you) as long as you can accelerate, sprint, stop and retreat at least as fast as him and his judgement's sound probably always works without looking at traffic (instead, look at the dude). I don't use this no-look trick much cause what if the dude's insane?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

208.95.51.38—Manhattan is not vehicle-friendly. The timing of the traffic lights seem skewed to disadvantage vehicles, and to favor pedestrians. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In my experience (yes, this is WP:OR) as a repeat visitor, pedestrians in Manhattan frequently ignore "Don't Walk" signs if the street they have to cross is only two lanes, which means most of the east-west "Streets". The north-south "Avenues" are four lanes or more, and people crossing those usually do respect the lights. So traffic lights will indeed slow you down in the case in the original question. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are a tourist, travelling 2.5mph in a high traffic time period, there are 17 intersections on 55th Street between the East River and the Hudson. So, assuming you hit every green light, you could make the 2 mile trip in about 48 minutes. According to this article from the NY Times (almost 20 years ago), green lights change in intervals of 60, 90 or 120 seconds. Since this is a street and not a main avenue or artery, odds are its going to be 90 or 120 seconds which could add 26 to 34 minutes if you hit every single red light (and don't flagrantly break the law). You would be looking at a 50-80 minute trip to walk 2 miles. uhhlive (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A walking pace of 3 miles an hour seems normal. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, have you ever needed to get through 1.00 miles of this area at this time within 15 minutes and decided to save transit fare? You have to run like hell. It's only 4 mph pace - not hard to sustain a mile at with a normal walking gait but the cars and crowds slow you down that much. My intuition would be it'd take an hour on a workday maybe more if you go the lesser of 3 miles per hour and what's possible without jaywalking. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it depends on the day of the week and the time of day. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Manhattan is almost entirely laid out in a grid with avenues "east-west blocks" laid out 5 to a mile and streets "north-south blocks" being laid out at 20 per mile. I see no real reason to discuss or debate this further, especiaclly given most New Yorkers entirely ignore red lights, if not traffic. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Senator for" vs. "Senator from"

I've noticed that here in Australia, we use the title "Senator for Western Australia" etc. whereas in the USA, they use "Senator from Michigan" etc.

Why is is different? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

One can also ask why in most Australian states and federally, ministers are "Minister for ...", but in South Australia it's "Minister of ...". -- Jack of Oz 20:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A cynic might say that this is because Senators in the US aren't "for" their state, but rather for the lobbyists, campaign contributors, and whoever promised their relatives jobs for passing whatever legislation they were told to pass, while opposing the rest. StuRat (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably from the British tradition. Members of Parliament in the UK are always described as the MP for a certain constituency - perhaps reflecting the fact that there is no requirement that an MP actually be from the constituency. Although today most will have a home in the area they represent, historically that was not the case, and there are examples of MPs who rarely, or never, visited their constituencies. Wymspen (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Like that Canadian who was elected without ever having been in her riding? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That is the strange case of Ruth Ellen Brosseau. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Because Australian English and American English are different dialects and, thus, can be expected to sometimes use different words or phrases. --Jayron32 03:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Buddhism in China

Why did Buddhism become popular in China after it was introduced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Whole books have been written on the subject. As an extremely basic (and no doubt oversimplistic) generalization, before the spread of Buddhism, China didn't really have "religions" in the meaning of that word as it commonly applies to Europe, the Middle East, and India, but rather philosophical systems. Buddhism also imported organized monasticism into China... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What about Chinese polytheism? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way -- By the time we know much about it in detail, it seems that most educated Chinese didn't take it seriously as an overall theology, though certain individuals could be strongly devoted to certain mythic figures, and forms, ceremonies, and rituals were often considered important. AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Buddhism, in the form in which it was introduced to China, was not much different in nature from the existing philosophical systems. The proliferation of gods and idols in contemporary Chinese Buddhism to a large extent reflects influence from traditional Chinese folk religion / polytheism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Does anyone intend to be useful by directing the OP to read Chinese Buddhism or are we all just going to make up our own answers? --Jayron32 12:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That article only has 4 or 5 sentences on the subject. I wasn't making anything up, but loosely paraphrasing from passages by William H. McNeill: "Confucianism as it emerged under the early Han managed to appropriate elements from most of its rival philosophical schools... the Chinese expressed in private life the sentiments which other civilized societies incorporated into organized religion..." etc. etc. The basic fact is that before China imported Buddhism, it was conspicuously lacking in the ecumenical religions of individual salvation which had developed by the early centuries A.D. in the other major civilizations or empires of the old world. McNeill also suggests that official Confucianism was less attractive during the long period of political turmoil following the decline of the Han dynasty, which may have in part opened the way for Buddhism... AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The reference desk! -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What industry is Chicago

Los Angeles is the centre of the film industry,San Jose the computer industry,Detroit the automobile industry,and New York the finance industry. What about Chicago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Traditionally famous for its stockyards and meat industry, as you can read in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

As emphasized by the Cows on Parade and also by the Chicago Bulls. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Commodities exhanges? The Chicago Board of Trade and Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The tallest building in mid-20th century Chicago had an aluminum statue of Ceres, the Goddess of Agriculture at the tip (Chicago Board of Trade Building). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Take a look at Economy of Chicago.--TMCk (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If you wanted to boil it down to a single industry, I would say "transportation". Its central location makes it pretty much the hub of the North American rail network and it has one of the busiest airports, and it also links to the Mississippi River system and the Great Lakes. One page I found says at least 1/4 of all rail traffic in the country passes through Chicago. However, much like any other city with a population north of, oh, 200,000, it's pretty well diversified. --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. While it's economy is very diversified, transportation was originally Chicago's raison d'etre. This article covers a lot of the history of Chicago's economic past, and notes "From its start, Chicago was a city built around transportation.", originally near one of the easiest portages between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River (see Chicago Portage), such a site was a natural location for a transportation hub, the portage was later crossed by the Illinois and Michigan Canal and then the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal which famously reversed the flow of the Chicago River. As a water-transportation hub, it later made sense to grow into a rail hub as well. Being a transport hub also made sense for it to later develop industries close to transportation, so Chicago's industrial base noted above grew up around its transportation network. --Jayron32 03:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. There's almost nothing in many azimuths from LA, the major routes out of New York are fairly short except the I-80 and I-95 South corridors and Chicago's much better. 200,000 city or metro area? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding New York: New York is clearly also a transportation hub as well, with three of the busiest airports in the world in its metro area, the Port of New York and New Jersey is the busiest on the entire East Coast, and the road network is well connected to routes in all directions; it is true that I-80 and I-95 are the two long-distance route numbers that converge on New York, but the New York Thruway/I-87 provides a straight shot to I-90, I-78 gives you a straight shot to the I-81 corridor down the Appalachians, etc. You can take a bird's eye view of New York to see it as an obvious hub of a highway network that distributes vehicles in all directions quite efficiently. --Jayron32 04:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The difference is the destination — New York has plenty of road and rail connections, but they're largely on the East Coast and secondarily to central cities, while Chicago connects by land to almost everyone. New York's a huge international transportation center, while any international trade directly to Chicago, aside from stuff coming from Canada that can go to lots of different Lakes ports, requires stopovers in or through Canada (and without transshipment, this was impossible before 1959) or very-long-distance flights that could easily go to other cities if they had some reason to do that. The biggest international trade advantage that Chicago has, compared to places like Duluth or Buffalo, is that it's very much in the center of the US, more than Milwaukee, and much more than any other Lakes port cities (again, why it's so critical for domestic transportation), so Canadian shipping headed for parts of the central US has a much shorter land journey than if it stopped in any other major Lakes port cities. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's how Carl Sandburg described it :

 "Hog Butcher for the World, 
  Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, 
  Player with Railroads and the Nation's Freight Handler" StuRat (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• That Economy of Chicago article is woefully inadequate. Abductive (reasoning) 06:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Flugtag airshow

I was reading about the Ramstein air show disaster and was wondering whether the "Flugtag airshow" was ever held again at the Ramstein Air Base after 1988. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I found this source from 2008 saying: "Nothing has happened since," said Wolfgang Hofmann, a spokesman for U.S. Air Forces in Europe. "At Ramstein, we’ve never done flying again.".--TMCk (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

March 14

National Literary Classics in (DVD) Miniseries Form

I'm looking for suggestions for video (DVD) adaptions of national literary classics. For example, I have seen most of Shakespeare's works as movies in English. I have also seen War and Peace and Master and Margarita in Russian as miniseries. What I would really ike to do is watch such things as The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Faust or Don Quixote in long form in their original languages, with or without subtitles, since I speak those languages. (Subtitles are good, though, as I am not idiomatically fluent in French or German.)

But, frankly, what I'd like is a miniseries of every national epic whether it be the Kalevala, Der Ring des Niebelungen, or Tirant lo blanc.

I'd appreciate recommendations by (especially native speakers) who are familiar with such works. I am not at all limited to interest in Western works, as I love Wuxia and Bollywood, for example. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If you would consider I, Claudius a British classic, then I, Claudius (TV series) is must viewing. --Jayron32 02:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Jayron 32 is correct about Claudius. The recently deceased John Hurt was one of a dozen or more wonderful performances in the series. This Mahabharat (1988 TV series) would seem to fit your criteria but I do not know whether it is easily available or not. MarnetteD|Talk 03:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That Mahabharat was one of the first massively popular "mythological" serials made in India. It's wonderfully acted and rather Shakespearean. From the same era is Ramayan (1986 TV series) which is slightly slower and more sentimental. New versions of both these epics are made regularly, with attempts to update the special effects, etc (Ramayan (2008 TV series) has particularly beautiful sets) but the originals are still my favourite for their storytelling. Each has well north of 100 episodes. For other versions of these two national epics, see the yellow menus at the bottom of each article. There is also a very accessible Japanese animation, Ramayana: The Legend of Prince Rama, which is a simplified movie-length version of the epic. Subtitled versions are generally easy to buy via Amazon. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Also, are you looking for specific works of national importance in fixed form, or simply the sort of "national stories" of cultural importance, like Robin Hood or King Arthur in English culture? If so, Errol Flynn's The Adventures of Robin Hood as well as the earlier Douglas Fairbanks Robin Hood are both well regarded. As far as series on Robin Hood, The Adventures of Robin Hood (TV series) was extensive and is released on DVD, but I don't know how true it is to the source material. Robin of Sherwood also has a DVD release. For Arthurian works, Arthur of the Britons is available on DVD; I've not seen it myself but it may meet your requirements. Of theatrical films, there haven't been a lot of well-received English-language Arthurian films, sad to say, the best is probably the French film Lancelot du Lac (film), the best English-language film (by reception) may be Knights of the Round Table (film) or the children's film The Sword in the Stone (film). --Jayron32 04:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

For Chinese, the "four great classical novels" have all been turned into TV series. For Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the 1991 version is critically praised, but might seem a bit dated now - the more contemporary alternative is the 2008 remake. For the Dream of the Red Chamber, the 1987 version is the most critically acclaimed, the quality of the 2010 remake is debated. For Journey to the West, the 1986 version is the best, but it is abridged. For Water Margin, either the 1998 version or the 1983 version. All four are far longer than the typical miniseries you may have in mind. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

For French classics, there are tons of adaptations of The Three Musketeers, but the one to look for is the 1969 four-part television mini-series which is both true to the original novel and also its two sequels. French article. Notre-Dame de Paris (The Hunchback of Notre-Dame) has had a ton of adaptations as well, but many of them are quite fanciful and stray from the original novel, so caveat emptor. The 1956 film version is considered a classic, however. Same goes for Les Misérables, where the film version from 1982 is pretty accurate (the 1995 one by Claude Lelouch moves the events into the mid-20th century, so that's not so great). You can also look for Le Rouge et le Noir with Gérard Philipe (1954) which is considered an absolute classic, and Germinal as filmed in 1993. Madame Bovary and various Balzac novels have also been adapted numerous times and would fit your criteria. You'll need to hunt around to find DVD copies of all of these, but this should provide a start. --Xuxl (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Also in French, Marcel Pagnol's novels were made into some decent film series; Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources. --Jayron32 16:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion Jayron. Two other Pagnol novels, La gloire de mon père and Le château de ma mère were also turned into very good films in 1990. --Xuxl (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Brideshead Revisited. And, of course, there are some excellent American TV serials: The Shield (which seems to be rather under-rated); The Wire; and Breaking Bad. Sons of Anarchy is apparently based on Hamlet, but I can't say that I particularly made the connection. Shakespeare can be viewed in different formats, such as Throne of Blood, Ran, and an excellent DVD of Verdi's "Macbeth" - make sure that your DVD has subtitles to get the full effect - after the murder of Duncan, a chorus lets rip with, 'Let Hell open its gaping mouth and swallow all of creation!' 86.164.42.188 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, I actually watched I, Claudius over the holidays. (I've watched it three times, and read it twice.) I am not interested in American material, having seen Breaking Bad. I'll check out the rest. 02:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Again, my thanks. I have gotten Romance of the Three Kingdoms (TV series) -- 1991, as well as the 9th series of Midsomer Murders (with the Siobhan Phillips episode) which I will watch with my parents, since that is one of their favorite series, and a musical version of the Mahabharata produced recently. Not sure how that last one will work.

Are there any suggestions for Norse, Irish, or Japanese or Korean epics? How about Euskara? Georgrian? Do we have a list/category/article on national epics on DVD? BTW, I do have both Zulu and Shaka Zulu. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

past GDP (PPP) per capita

I was looking at this table List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#1.E2.80.932003_.28Maddison.29 and notice that a lot of the countries shared the 700 value in early history. Is that just a place holder value or what? Or does it mean the author think all those countries had relatively similar GDP per capita back then? (which would make sense before the industrial revolution) ECS LIVA Z (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a SWAG estimate. StuRat (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Did Vin Diesel study at Stella Adler's acting school?

Why would it be called an alternative fact?173.10.31.59 (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your assumption? Or did you just invent it for this question? Please provide some context. --Jayron32 03:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, what assumption are you referring to? I didn't know I had any assumption in my question. Invent it? What is the "it" that you wonder whether I invented it? But yes, I SHOULD have given more context! ...On Twitter, someone said Diesel might have studied at Adler's school and then referred to this website called "Alternative Facts." I'm just trying to figure out what it's about and why it would matter enough to be a "burning issue" enough to get on Alternative Facts.173.10.31.59 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Health insurance

University of Cambridge

Is a "member" of a college at Cambridge the same thing as a "fellow" of the college? I'm trying to add the correct categories to a new article about a Cambridge professor, Elizabeth A.H. Hall. She is described as "Vice-President of Queen's College" and "a member of St. John's College". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

At Oxbridge colleges, all students (past and present) are members of the college. Fellows are members of staff - either teaching or doing research. The article makes it clear that she has been a member of a college since she got her MA (which in her case would have been an honorary award as she already had a PhD). Wymspen (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Wymspen, so "fellows = faculty" and "members = alumni". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Members = current students + alumni. Fgf10 (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct - though in the context of the article mentioned, it does mean an alumnus. Or should that be alumna?. Wymspen (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The fellows are also members of the college. The term 'college staff' (at least at Cambridge) usually refers only to non-academic staff, such as porters, and those working in the kitchens or gardens. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So Oxford differs from Cambridge in this respect. The term "staff" embraces more than porters and kitchen staff . Dons are also considered "staff".86.169.56.176 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

UK Nuclear Arsenal

In the event that the United Kingdom decided to launch its nuclear missiles, who would push the button that launches them or issue the command to fire to the trident submarines. Would it be the Queen, as Commander in Chief, or does the Prime Minister have the authority to do this on their behalf, or would she have to go to the Queen and request permissions to launch them. It's not really something I can imagine the Queen doing but I don't see how the PM has the authority? --Andrew 23:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

We have content about this at Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom#Nuclear_weapons_control. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"who would push the button that launches them" See the photo that I've added, taken from the article Someguy linked; apparently it would be the weapons engineer officer. Unlike American submarines, British submarines apparently are not controlled (in a technological sense) by their naval headquarters; American commanders could hit all the buttons they wish and the missile still wouldn't fire, but apparently the technical details of launching a British missile are all performed by the crewmen and officers of a specific submarine. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That's scary. What happens if terrorists manage to take one over ? StuRat (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thankfully, the British political propaganda has not convinced their populace that is a possibility. --Jayron32 02:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• The greater risk to British nuclear subs was never terrorists, but rather lesbian canoeists. There was one serious UK incident involving an armed sailor, who shot and killed an officer before being overpowered by two civilians. In contrast the US lost an entire sub because a redneck contractor wanted an early weekend. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

More details and images at The red button that could launch Britain's nuclear warheads. I know it's the Daily Mail (not everyone's idea of a reliable source), but it agrees with the details in our article. It seems infinitely improbable that even if terrorists could somehow get into the control room, that they would be able to access the safe with the launch codes in it and then work out the launch procedure. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you including the possibility that they have an "inside man" familiar with the process, who helps the terrorists ? StuRat (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I imagine that some kind of risk assessment has been done. Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If they do it themselves, it could be a conflict of interest situation, where they don't want to let anyone know they have a potential problem. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, whatever countermeasures they have in place, they're hardly likely to tell us about them are they? Reading the rather minimal article above, it would seem that at least three insiders would be necessary, and those would all have to be holding the key roles. I'm not losing any sleep about this. Alansplodge (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

March 15

Cook

Can someone help me find the earliest publications of Captain Cook's voyage? There are too many editions and I am not sure which is the original. Also can anybody help me find where did he say "For tame Animals they have Hogs, Fowls, and Dogs, the latter of which we learned to Eat from them, and few were there of us but what allow'd that a South Sea dog was next to an English Lamb"? From which voyage as this quote from? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So far as I can see the first publication was by Cook himself, both volumes in 1777 and the quotation you ask about is in his journal of the first voyage, published in 1790. Gutenberg transcribes the 1893 edition. Thincat (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Otaheite Dog and Wolf

There are these two aquatints of Otaheite Dog and Wolf by Charles Catton the younger. Can anybody help me find additional clarifying sources for them? They don't seem right and I suspect they may be mislabeled Australian animals or the New Zealand kuri instead since wolves did not exist on Tahiti and the dog does not particularly resemble description of the native dogs.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I've found a lovely (free) Google ebook of Catton's 1788 original illustrated book. The wolf is on page 35 and the description solely relates to Great Britain. The Otaheite dog is on page 43 and credits Cook with the quotation you gave above. Cook called Tahiti "Otaheite". It seems Cook's and Catton's taxonomy hadn't quite caught up with those new-fangled Linnaean standards. Thincat (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been grabbed by Catton's illustrations so I have uploaded them to commons at commons:Category:Charles Catton, Animals drawn from Nature Thincat (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Was Catton on the Cook voyages or did he create all of these prints from other eyewitness sketches?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

He used a number of specimens (dead and alive, I think) brought back by explorers and a lot are of native British animals. The book is online here but it's better as an ebook. Thincat (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Thincat (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Origins of the Grove Encyclopedia series

This is not about the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, but about the plethora of other Grove Encyclopedias like The Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts, Grove Dictionary of Materials and Techniques in Art or Grove Encyclopedia of American Art. All of them seem published by Oxford University Press, but they seem to have no connection to George Grove. I am guessing his original title was popular enough OUP decided to use his name for many other works, with no other rationale than "good marketing". I was thinking that they may merit an article about a reference work series, but I cannot find any reference for whether such series officially exists, how was it established, etc. I wonder if anyone here would have better luck? PS. If replying here, please WP:ECHO me, thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The Grove Dictionary of Art was first published in 1996 by Macmillan, who at that point also published the long standing New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. They appear to have considered it to be a similar work, so gave it the same well-known title. In 2003 Macmillan sold the rights to both Grove dictionaries to the OUP. What OUP has subsequently done is to take selections from those two massive works, and produce them as single books - which is the case of the encyclopedias you mention. They are not really new works. Wymspen (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Living in a permanent residence

Is a person legally obligated to live in a permanent residence? How do governments allow nomadic tribes live within their own country then? Are nomadic tribes allowed to cross country borders? Aside from nomadic tribes, does an individual have to live in some kind of permanent residence? While some individuals may not find the office room very comfortable, other individuals may make do with whatever they have. So, can an office worker just live inside the office building and sleep within his/her cubicle and cook food on a portable campstove? Or is the office worker obligated by law to find some kind of permanent residence (apartment, condo, house, automobile)? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No fixed abode and the links at the bottom of the article answer your questions. Hofhof (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. That does answer my question. Short, but at least it provides the formal term and a brief description. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There may not be rules that you must have a fixed residence - but in many countries there are rules about where people can and cannot live. The planning laws (building codes) may well make it illegal for someone to live in a building built as an office or a factory, just as they make it illegal to run some types of business from properties built as residential homes. Wymspen (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"Sedentarization" or "forced sedentism of Bedouin has taken place over many decades in the mideast. It receives more coverage in Israel, though sometimes done more brutally in certain Arab countries. AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that poor people, such as nomads, often live outside the law. Not so much breaking the law, as that the laws aren't written for them. Depending on the current government, they may just ignore the law when it comes to such people, and leave them alone, or they may prosecute and harass them. A related problem is that many poor people who do have homes don't have an official legal right to that home. This includes squatters, who moved into a vacant property, and also natives in nations which have been colonized, who always lived there, but were never granted a legal claim to their own land (this may overlap with squatting if there is an official owner of the land). StuRat (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A mailbox has traditionally been one of the worst problems for the homeless. Without that, job offers, communications with the courts and government, etc., were difficult to receive. Post-office boxes are one cure for this, and general delivery was another, where mail would just be held at the post office until you collected it. The lack of a phone was also quite a problem, until recently, when low-priced cell phones have become available. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

At least one domain registrar (I am looking at you, eNom) refuses to allow you to own a domain unless you live at a fixed address with a street postal address (no PO boxes or general delivery) and publish it for all of the world to see. As you can imagine, this policy is very unpopular with the homeless, those living in recreational vehicles, women who have stalkers, celebrities, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You also have to consider the agreement the owner and the occupier have entered into. It's commonplace for people to live "over the shop". Here's an extract from an application for a business grant:

* 12. Where a grant relates to capital expenditure the following are excluded:

purchasing land and/or existing buildings

ornamental features such as murals, flower beds, statues and pools/fountains

residential accommodation, whether included in a building used for business purposes or a separate building

any on-road vehicle

Conversely, a specifically residential agreement might state

Not carry on on the property any profession trade or business or let apartments or receive paying guests on the property or place or exhibit any notice board or notice on the property or use the property for any other purpose than that of a strictly private residence

A business licence may specifically exclude residential use, as in this example:

Mr. --- shall not allow any person to sleep in the Licensed Area and will use the Licensed Area only in connection with Mr. ---'s Business.

86.169.56.176 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Look up Vagrancy_(people)#United_States. It is a very common theme in stories of 18th-early 20th century America to find that travellers without significant money, a fixed address, a job, or a train ticket are told by the town constable they are unwelcome after sunset. See also, highwayman. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

But people got hired differently too. In a time without electricity and big databases, people in Of Mice and Men and Riding Freedom just got hired directly by the employer. There was no middle man (aka Human Resources). A person with the intention of finding work will probably find work somewhere. However, there might be an issue that the person couldn't find anyone willing to hire him at sundown and then, if he didn't have any money for transportation, he would be stuck in the town! It might have been easier just to take the trade of your relative, as that's what Pip did in Great Expectations. 50.4..254 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What the heckare you talking about? Of my first nine employers in the last two centuries, eight of them employed me off the street as a walk-in. UPS and NY Tel were a bit choosier, but I got a paycheck within two weeks in every case, and proof of employment from each the day I was hired. My only trouble has been proving I am self-employed during periods when I worked as an academic. Of course at that point I was not living off the street either. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Miller's thumb

I know it's a European bullhead, a fish. But I've heard it is something about the miller feeling the texture of grain between thumb and forefinger. What does it mean and where could I write about that at Misplaced Pages? Cheers,

(By the way, there might be something at Google Books, but I cannot access that. I looked elsewhere on the net, to no avail.)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was because they were an ugly fish with a wide, flattened head - as if a miller had squashed their thumb under a millstone. A more common expression might be a cobbler's thumb, but I'd always thought the "miller's thumb" expression had the same origin.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Yes, I think I remember my mum telling me when I was little that millers get a big, flat thumb from years of feeling grain. Similar. It seems like it has something to do with it being flat. I'd love a google books source to make a bit at the miller article about that and then hat the fish article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean "hat" or do you mean to add a link ? StuRat (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi StuRat. Hatnote. But I see your point. Well, couldn't a hat go to a forthcoming section within miller? I mean, there must be numerous people who search miller's thumb and end up at the fish article when wanting to know about the thumb of a miller. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought that was called a "dab", where at the top of the page it says something like "If you're looking for the thumb condition of a miller, see ....". See Mars for an example. StuRat (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Miller's thumb (bullhead): "From its stocky, thumblike shape (the phrase miller's thumb was originally a folk expression referring to millers who gave short weight by tipping the scales with their thumbs)". yourdictionary.com - miller's thumb referenced to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition Copyright © 2013 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing. More about miller's thumbs in their original context here including a quote from Geoffrey Chaucer. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"Speaking of the river Bullhead, commonly called the miller's thumb, Mr. Yarrell explains the application of the latter term on the authority of Mr Constable. 'The head of the fish is smooth, broad and rounded, and is said to exactly resemble in form of the thumb of a miller, as produced by a peculiar and constant action of the muscles, in the exercise of a particular and most important part of his occupation. It is well known that all the science and tact of a miller is directed so to regulate the machinery of his mill, that the meal produced shall be of the most valuable description that the operation of the grinding mill will permit, when performed under the most advantageous circumstances... his hand is constantly placed under the meal-spout to ascertain, by actual contact, the character and qualities of the meal produced. The thumb, by a particular movement, spreads the sample over the fingers, and hence has arisen the sayings of "worth a millers's thumb" and "an honest miller hath a golden thumb" in reference to the profit that is the reward of his skill. By this incessant action of the miller's thumb, a peculiarity in it's form is produced, which is said to exactly resemble the head of the fish...'". The Athenaeum, Issues 375-426 (London, 1835) p. 297. This is referenced to A History of British Fishes by William Yarrell (I could only find Volume 2, I think we need Volume 1). Alansplodge (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Bingo User:Anna Frodesiak! A History of British Fishes Volume I (London, 1836) pp. 57-58. Presumably a later edition (the quote in The Athenaeum linked above is dated to the previous year) but the relevant text is all there. Yarrell claims that this account was told to him by John Constable, perhaps England's most famous painter, whose father was a miller. You could add this to the "European bullhead" article, a brief note in the "Description" section, or make a new section called "Origin of 'miller's thumb' name" or something similar. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Alan. I cannot view Google books or archive.org, so I just added the google book ref you provided. Please give Miller#Miller' thumb a looksee. Also, if others would copyedit it, that would be great. I was never a wonderful writer, so please do what you can. Again, thank you!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the "Bingo" in response to Anna, Stu, Alan, or Alan? —Tamfang (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi StuRat. Those things at the top of the page are called hatnotes. A dab page is like Race. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all. Miller now has a section and European bullhead now has a hatnote, but no mention of why one of its common names is "miller's thumb". Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not ? StuRat (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi StuRat. Because miller's thumb is just one of many common names. I didn't think it worth the mention. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

March 16

Why does RationalWiki continue to subscribe to the Christ myth theory despite academic consensus against said theory?

I'm fully aware of the origins of RationalWiki and how it's pretty much a secular/atheist counter to Conservapedia. But I really find it weird that a site which prides itself on fighting bad or fringe science heavily supports the Christ myth theory, itself considered to be a fringe theory by mainstream religion scholars. The site even tens to cite Robert Price and Richard Carrier, two scholars whose work has generally been rejected by mainstream scholars. RationalWiki supports the arguments of these two, even when the arguments of the two researchers are no different from the arguments of proponents of "woo science". Why is this the case? Narutolovehinata5 07:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not ask them directly, instead of inviting us to guess? I remember that most issues of the (U.S.) Nation magazine in the 1980s had a small ad in the classifieds offering to sell copies of a "proof" that Jesus had been invented by Jewish historian Josephus... AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The New Republic had those ads too. —Tamfang (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know why you say the site "subscribes to" and "heavily supports" the theory. They have an article about it, similar to the Misplaced Pages article, and it says "It has been accepted by some academics.". That's not an endorsement. Loraof (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It even has a section called "Academic consensus" which begins with "The increasingly common view of Jesus among New Testament scholars as of 2007 is that "historical research can indeed disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus" but "the Jesus we find at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament". Loraof (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I must have misread or something, I'm pretty sure I read an article there which supported the Christ myth theory. Must have been an older/outdated article. Narutolovehinata5 11:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you perhaps thinking of http://rationalwiki.org/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ ? Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Christ-myth theory is a faith based one. The argument is, God does not exist; Jesus is claimed to be God; Jesus the person did not exist. If you look at the evidence against interest in Christian scripture alone, it is pretty clear there was no professional forger writing well-crafted stories to project a "perfect" being. Otherwise the Gospels would be very unlikely to report such things as Jesus' violence toward the money changers, and his doubt on the Cross. Basically, Christ-myth theory is itself religious and faith-based. I can be an atheist (I am) without being an anti-theist with the need to deny Jesus even existed. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• While it appears to be widely accepted that Jesus actually existed, the part of the Christ myth theory that says "if he did , he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity" (quoted from the Christ myth theory article) does not appear to be universally refuted: From the last paragraph of of the introduction to the article "the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate." Also, Iif I recall correctly, Reza Aslan in "Zealot" writes that Jesus was basically one of several rebels against Roman occupation of Israel, and was chosen decades after his death to be the focus of the new religion of Christianity rather than being the founder of the religion himself. (I realize this doesn't address why RationalWiki might subscribe to the Christ myth theory, if it does.)--Wikimedes (talk)

I'd highly suggest A. N. Wilson's Paul and Jesus, a Life on this topic. They are speculative works by a writer of fiction and history. The large number of contradictions yet odd verisimilitudes in the stories of Christ make it almost impossible to believe in a conspiracy to make him important at any one stage by one single party. Why would Jesus, as a "typical" Jewish warlike messiah say that his kingdom was not of this world, or that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, or, especially; to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's? Paul, who never was an apostle, seems to have created "Christianity" after the fact, based on a combination of his own Jewish, ascetic, and gnostic peculiarities. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Paul the Apostle is considered to be an apostle, though he was not one of the twelve disciples that made up Jesus' entourage. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't take too much notice of RationalWiki. They say at http://rationalwiki.org/Leap_second 'So-called "leap seconds" have nothing to do with any change in the Earth's rotation.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.70.229 (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

But that is true, at least in what they were responding to (claiming a constant decrease in rotation)? It could perhaps be stated better but that's really an edge case to disregard an entire wiki. --Golbez (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Readability studies

Are there any studies that compare the readability of using things like abbreviations and symbols compared to spelling out the words they refer to in full? A couple of examples:

• Which is more readable: 10%, 10 per cent, ten per cent?
• Which is more readable: Prime Minister, prime minister, PM? (assuming that the abbreviation 'PM' has been spelled out earlier)?

Note: in the second example, I'm not interested in whether initial capital letters should be used in a job title such as this. That's a separate debate. I'm only interested in readability. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 12:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Acronyms and readability are discussed in this paper ¸ and it provides some explanations and references. The cognitive processing load is higher for acronyms. I'm finding it harder to search for the numerals. Most style guides recommend using numerals for 10 and greater, so the only numbers that get spelled out (except if beginning a sentence) are one through nine. (for one of innumerable examples, see ). 174.88.10.107 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hikikomori and the job market

If a Hikikomori in Japan wanted to come back to 'normal' life, would companies there give him a chance? Or, once a Hikikomori, always a Hikikomori.--Llaanngg (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to get a career-track job with a major Japanese company, then most of the time you need to attend a somewhat prestigious college and be hired right after graduating (or at least that was the case until quite recently). Of course there are less prestigious and well-paying jobs with less strict requirements... AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

See Entry-level job or more likely laborer. The article Labor market of Japan will help your research; it notes that "many unpopular jobs go unfilled" and a footnote notes a shortage of unskilled labor in Japan. Laborer jobs typically require minimal prior training outside of the ability to come to work on time and follow basic instructions. --Jayron32 19:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

As long as you have the necessary skills and the ability to use them in the workplace, it's unlikely you'd get rejected by a company simply because of a past history of being a hikikomori. Of course, that requires that you have the skills in the first place; and if you don't, there's always less skilled jobs in things like manual labour. Alcherin (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Legal obligation to look after a sick child

Please do not give me information of what should or should not be done. I just want to know what is happening right now (by whatever country) or perhaps the formal terminology in law. Anyway, how do different societies deal with a poor family and the inability to provide medical care for a sick child? Is there a line between acute illness (like a parasite infection) and a chronic disease (childhood diabetes) and lifelong, debilitating condition (autism and others that require special needs)? Are the parents legally obligated to provide unaffordable medical services and therapy, or can they just provide emotional support until the child dies naturally? I know this is a very ethically controversial topic, but aside from ethics, what is happening right now? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The "formal terminology in law" is universal health care. --165.225.76.95 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the OP is seeking, by the sound of it. Universal health care is a government system, not a "rule of law", to my understanding. And in many places, particularly but by no means exclusively the U.S., it's a seriously inadequate system. I'm interested in the answer as well - where does a parent's obligations end, when it comes for caring for a child? Particularly once the child reaches "legal adulthood", but remains totally unable to provide for themselves due to a disability? Can the parent just drive them to the nearest public hospital and dump them there? Which law, or legal concept, talks of parental obligations vis-a-vis providing for children, particularly children which are legally adults (and any limits to such obligations)?

I know that Nebraska's Safe-haven law controversially allowed any child to be surrendered, right up to the age of 18. The State legislature (idiotically, IMHO) changed the law to limit it to babies. From what I read, of the older children surrendered under the old law, the vast majority had either something seriously wrong with the child, or something seriously wrong with the parent(s). So where do parents stand now, if they have a child whose day-to-day needs they cannot provide for? Does the age of the child (as in, are they over 18?) matter here? What sort of laws cover this area? Eliyohub (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Children's rights and right to health are also relevant, but don't seem to drill down to the particular question, which only would apply in jurisdictions without universal health care. Here is one reference from the USA, such a jurisdiction: 174.88.10.107 (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Eliyohub, the point - left unexplained - was that in all countries with a sufficiently advanced legal system to have clear and consistent apportioment of civil or criminal responsibility for the wellbeing of a child, there is universal health care. Bar one. The OP's question asks what is the answer everywhere. The answer to the OP's question (how do different societies deal with children's health care) is (almost) everywhere universal health care. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The universal health care article shows it is not everywhere. India, China, Mexico, to name a few. There are 58 countries with that type of healthcare system. 196 countries are on the world. That's 30% of all countries. No, it's not everywhere, and I think saying so is misleading. And what do you mean by "sufficiently advanced" legal system? Maybe a country just lets nature to weed out the sick children. They can't survive, so they die. It's like a sea turtle's nest. A sea turtle can lay a hundred or so eggs, but only a lucky few survive and dive into the sea. Animals in the wild have a shortened lifespan, because they can be infected with parasites and die as a result. If the parasite doesn't affect the host too adversely, then the host can survive and reproduce offspring. I suppose that will occur in a case without any kind of healthcare, and as a result, perhaps it gets interpreted as "not sufficiently advanced", because the assumption is that humans should be different from animals and allow every human being to survive despite challenging natural forces. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, bollocks. The (unnamed & evil) US has universal health care, just not a single-payer system and not without means-testing. No indigent American goes uncared-for barring problems like insane or negligent caregivers; and we don't have two-year waits for urgent surgery. Most clinics will provide same-day service with emergency medicaid applications getting retroactive to the date-of-application within a month. When I was diagnosed with diabetes at the same time my unemployment ran out a decade back, I got immediate, top-notch treatment. I had full coverage until I won a large lawsuit against my employer, at which time I resumed paying for my own care. At no point did I flee to Scotland for service. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Except you were the first to bring up a single payer system and few people disagree that Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland do not have a single payer system but do have universal healthcare. Actually as the article you linked to makes clear most places don't have a true single payer system. Even if you include places like NZ and the UK (including Scotland), you're still far from all places with universal healthcare. Nil Einne (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Technically this is just the obligation to provide child support, although discussions of child support, both in our article and in legal materials, are primarily addressed to family dissolutions and absent parents. For intact families, general principles of common law indicate an obligation to support children, including disabled children, through the age of majority. In practice, securing care for children whose parents are unwilling or unable to provide it tends to fall to government agencies, and they typically do not find it a good use of their resources to sue parents for child support; the more usual consequence of parental nonsupport is a loss of parental rights. The exact contours are a matter of local law, which varies from place to place. John M Baker (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is most useful and pertinent to the question. You have provided legal terms and described how they are related to providing healthcare, which is, on legal grounds, a form of child support. Your answer makes me appreciate humanity over other creatures. While other creatures have to rely on biological evolution, humans have a lot of cultural evolution, and part of that cultural practice is to revoke "parental rights" and transfer the child to another family or orphanage, believing that the second home would be better than the last. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Christian_Science#Religious_exemptions has relevant information.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John Baker once again. Yes, one has an obligation to financially support one's child. What remains unanswered in my mind, is that child support is a financial obligation, and it has clear limits. Limits which often seriously fail to suffice in the cost of raising a disabled child, and their often expensive needs. Let alone the emotional impact on the parent(s). What about the obligation to provide actual day to day care? Is there any mechanism whereby parents can surrender their obligations in this regard, and say "I'm willing to pay the usual rate of child support no problem, but I am totally unable to practically care for my son/daughter, I demand they be taken off my hands"? Particularly if the child is above the age of majority? I've heard of parents being charged for "dumping" their child at a hospital or whatever, so what is a parent in that situation expected to do, as far as the law is concerned? Eliyohub (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Proportional representation how many votes to earn one seat

Is there a proper website that shows how proportional representation works and how votes does a party need in order to earn one seat in the parliament based on the threshold they have? like for example in Israel, their threshold is 3.25% so how many votes do a party need in order to win a seat in the parliament? How about in Netherlands with threshold at 0.67%? Donmust90 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It really varies. The exact number of votes will be affected by how many parties pass the threshold. The Dutch have one of the lowest thresholds. In other countries they're usually around the 3-5% mark. You can get descriptions of various countries systems at this website (use the drop down menu at the top.) Valenciano (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that there is inevitably a limit, by virtue of the number of seats in parliament. Even imagining if Israel had no threshold as such, they would inevitably be left with a threshold of at least 0.83%. Israel's parliament has 120 seats, so you would need at least 0.83% of the vote to reach the "threshold" for a single seat. The obvious reason for thresholds is that otherwise parliaments would be very messy. Israel being a classical example, where coalition negotiations, and maintaining coalitions, can get awfully messy, leading to many elections being held (whenever a coalition breaks down).

As you are no doubt aware Israel has raised the threshold, largely for this very reason - it once used to be 1.5% . Doing the figures, by the time Israel reached its' 66th year, it had been through nineteen Knessets. I was surprised to discover the average term was just under three and a half years. Not as far from the four year maximum as I had anticipated.

Regarding Israel specifically, in the most recent election, there were 4,210,884 valid votes cast. So given the 3.25% threshold, some simple math shows that one would need at least 136,854 votes to get the minimum (5 seats). Meretz were the smallest party to cross the threshold, with 165,529 votes (3.93%). Only two parties missed out due to the existence of the threshold. One being Yachad, which came pretty close to making the cut (and would have done so under the old threshold). The other being Ale Yarok, which would have missed the cut even back when it was 1.5%, but would have got in if thresholds didn't exist. All the rest of unsuccessful parties didn't get (anywhere near) enough votes to get even a single seat, so the threshold was not what thwarted them. Even if they had all banded together, they would only have equalled 0.42% of the vote. Obviously, if more of the electorate had turned out to vote, the absolute number of votes required to gain a seat would be higher. Likewise, had turnout been lower, it would be smaller.

Note, also, that the threshold has an effect, by forcing parties who would otherwise run seperately to band together, for fear of failing to make the cut. The Israeli example would probably be the arab parties, who joined together in the Joint List. So if the threshold didn't exist, it's likely that the Knesset would have more than two additional parties. Hope this helps, and isn't TL;DR. Eliyohub (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe also relevant is the D'Hondt method that describes (the most frequent example of) how seats are allocated, given that the fraction of votes for a party rarely is expressible as an integer fraction of whole representatives (and even the most dedicated politicians are not usually eager to be divided into parts). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The 0.67% in the Netherlands does in fact correspond to exactly one seat in a 150 member parliament.Wymspen (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Careful with words like "exactly" in the presence of numbers. That word does have a meaning there ;-). The difference is 0.003333...%, or, for a properly fed representative, about 3g. I guess it depends on which part that represents... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

See also (if you haven't already): Elections in the Netherlands, Open list (which seems to be the variant of the D'Hont system used in NL) and Dutch general election, 2017. Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking for a particular book about 19th century crime in NYC

I'm looking for information on an old book I read once online. (I assume that means it was out of copyright, but it might have been illegally posted somewhere.) I do not remember the title or the author, but it was a series of allegedly real accounts of the methods of actual criminals in NYC in the late 1800s. (I may be wrong about the time period. It may be turn of the century.)

I thought I was looking for "The Right Way to Do Wrong", but having read that book, that's not it.

One particular con I remember appearing in the book, is workmen deliver an ugly couch to an address, the lady of the house reluctantly accepts delivery assuming her husband ordered it, later the workmen show up and admit that it was delivered to the wrong address, and take the couch away. Numerous valuables are later found to be missing, stolen by a small child hidden in the stuffing of the couch.

The book also featured details of more traditional crimes like pickpocketing, or swiping luggage at train stations.

Any idea what book I read? I would very much like to get my hands on another copy. Thanks!

ApLundell (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

At a guess: New York by sunlight and gaslight. A work descriptive of the great American metropolis by James Dabney McCabe (1882). Alansplodge (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Or How the other half lives : studies among the tenements of New York by Jacob August Riis (1890, reprinted 1932). Even if they're not the book that you wanted, they're rather wonderful documents. Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• He probably did not write the book you are looking for, but the late prolific writer Colin Wilson who went from "the next big thing" with his work The Outsider to an enfant terrible with a rather mixed and sordid reputation wrote copious non-fiction books on true-crime, mysteries, and crime on certain topics and periods (e.g., an encyclopedia, and a work solely on Jack the Ripper). I have only read The Outsider and the Lovecraft-inspired sci-fi work The Mind Parasites, but recommend them. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The answers above are not the book I was thinking of, but they're close enough that I'm happy I asked my question. I'm starting to suspect that my memory is faulty so far as that book I barely remember. Thanks all! ApLundell (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't find my copy of it right now, but a more recent book that might guide you to the older one is "Low Life," by Luc Sante. Herbivore (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Pilot mortality rate, Second World War

What was the mortality rate among Britain-based pilots (anyone flying from British aerodromes, regardless of nationality) who were shot down in combat with the enemy, as calculated from 1 September 1939 through VE-Day? If they landed alive and were captured, or landed alive and were killed afterward (whether in combat, or the poor Pole who got lynched by confused British civilians who thought he was German), I want to count them with those who landed safely, since I'm looking for those who died (or went missing and were never found) as a direct result of being shot down. Also, I'm ignoring training accidents and cases of friendly fire where no enemies were around, those being outright errors, not the hazards of active combat where enemies are shooting and you run the risk of mis-aimed fire by your friends. Air_warfare_of_World_War_II#France_and_the_Low_Countries.3B_Dunkirk gives aircraft losses, but only aircraft, and only over the Netherlands; I'd like to put in some stats about pilots as well. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The Dresden Firebombing: Memory and the Politics of Commemorating Destruction by Tony Joel (p. 183) quotes a Bomber Command mortality for aircrew of 43%. Not having much luck with other commands. Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I've never heard of a Polish airman being killed by British civilians. I have read The Forgotten Few: The Polish Air Force in World War II but I don't recall such a thing being included. The claim in our article is referenced to The Guinness Book of Military Anecdotes, so I'm suspicious to say the least. Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To accept that story one would have to believe (a) that the pilot knew so little English that he was unable even to say "I'm an RAF pilot", "I'm Polish" or "I'm not German", which seems unlikely, and (b) that no one in the crowd recognised his RAF uniform or insignia, which seems even more unlikely. (Were there even any cases of German pilots being killed by civilians after crashing or bailing out?) Proteus (Talk) 15:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added a Template:Dubious and a note on the talk page; any help appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you excluding bomber crew who are not pilots? Bombers usually have two pilots and fighters have one pilot. You're excluding ship launched planes and planes flying from France (during the Phoney War) and North Africa?
Sleigh (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Excluding them because I didn't think of them. I'd been reading about fighter pilots' deaths, and when I decided to ask the question, I didn't think of the fact that larger aircraft would have non-pilots. The geographic restriction was to ensure (1) that all pilots were the same side, ensuring some compatibility of record-keeping, and (2) to provide a well-defined example that could be studied, since "all pilots" surely is a good deal harder to quantify than this large subset of them. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking for the whole pilot mortality rate, don't forget test pilots. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No, not that. I'm specifically wondering about death in combat, regardless of death in other circumstances. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Nerve: Poise Under Pressure ... states "Consider fighter pilots. According to the 1945 report 'Men Under Stress,' the mortality rate for dogfighters was among the highest in the military; the pilots knew that half of them would be killed in action." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting find, thank you. A pity that book doesn't cite its source; I have access to Men Under Stress and am looking through it right now, but I'm not yet finding any sections that address that issue. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

March 17

Idle poor and vagrants

Classifications of poor used in the Poor Law system gives four classifications of poor. The first two I understand well, but what's the difference between "of able body but were unwilling to work" and "those who could work but had refused to"? Is this basically a first-time offence (idle poor) versus recidivism (vagrants)? Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If the "Idle poor" were just static shirkers, then they were denied relief, and that was all. If they moved around causing trouble, then they were actively punished. AnonMoos (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Whipped out of town was the punishment for vagrants. But I understand also that the poor could be allotted a specific role as a servant to a specific person and then if they refused they would fall into the latter category. This is based on my reading of primary documents and the Poor Law went through many changes. I found Lynn Hollen Lees, The Solidarity of Strangers to be a readable and comprehensive history. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The Vagrancy Act 1824 and its predecessors defines vagrancy as "...wandering abroad, or placing himself or herself in a public place, street or highway, court or passage to beg or gather alms...". In modern language, homelessness (outside of your home parish) or begging. If I recall correctly, because the unemployed and homeless were the responsibility of each parish, the idea of those people wandering off to try their luck somewhere else was seen as a threat to the order of society. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in later centuries it was formalised that you could only live where you had a "settlement", which you could obtain by birth, apprenticeship or marriage. Without a settlement you might become an undesirable "charge on the parish", and to prevent that you could be removed. These rules applied during a period of rapid urbanisation. See Adam Smith for a critique of the system. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you point directly to Smith's criticism? I'd like to read it, but not his entire opus. μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Weather Underground

What was the long term effect of the Weather Underground?

Did it move the general population to the left, or right, or how did it affect the government's behavior?

The legacy section seems to talk about people calling it terrorism or not, and members regretting it or not, but not so much about the actual lasting effect of their actions.

Benjamin (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

They were bomb-throwers, and we still have occasional bomb-throwers. But they were so far out there that the public was repelled by them, and once we got out of Vietnam they fizzled. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Benjaminikuta -- If they wanted to overthrow the system, or seriously shake the stability of the system, or gain widespread public sympathy for their goals, or cause a major U.S. government crackdown which would create destabilizing resentment against the system, then they pretty much failed. The Symbionese Liberation Army was much more successful in gaining continuous widespread publicity for itself than the Weather Underground... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there any sources saying their lasting effect was negligible? Benjamin (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There as a minor political dustup when an old member of the WU sat on a few panels with then-candidate Barack Obama. See Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy. --Jayron32 18:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps their biggest impact was that there is now a weather forecasting site named after them: . StuRat (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Judaism and Zorastrianism

Isn't Judaism a type of Zorastianism?144.35.45.84 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not usually considered so. Do our articles not enlighten you? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually Zoroastrianism. Out of the night / When the full moon is bright / Comes the oracle known as Zoroaster. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Among other things, Judaism is solidly monotheistic, teaching that G-d is in control of everything (an idea comparable to Christianity's teachings about the sovereignty of God and Islam's teachings that God determines everything that will occur), and all hold that God basically puts up with the devil because the devil's actions further God's plans, while Zoroastrianism teaches that there's a competitor; it's much closer to dualism. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

144.35.45.84 -- Historians of religion do in fact describe how during the Persian empire period some concepts from Persian religion as a whole (not necessarily only orthodox Zoroastrianism) were assimilated into Judaism, such as an afterlife heaven and hell, angels (as good-doers, not simple messengers) and demons, a single evil leader of demons, a future apocalyptic day of judgement when the dead would be resurrected, etc. Before that time, Judaism basically only had a vague afterlife concept of "Sheol" (which was not necessarily greatly different for the virtuous and the wicked), Satan meant a kind of heavenly prosecutor, etc. The word "paradise" actually comes from the Persian language (though in Biblical Hebrew it only occurs in the meaning "park" or "forest").

So while Judaism is by no means any kind of form of Zoroastrianism, it is true that Persian religion did influence Judaism during one particular historical period. A significant part of the controversy in Judaism between Sadducees and Pharisees (rabbis) during the Roman period was due to Sadducees rejecting certain Persian-influenced concepts, which Pharisees/Rabbis accepted... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

*The single-purpose OP geolocates to Salt Lake City; maybe that is not relevant to the bizarre and unsupportable claims. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Criticism of monotheism

The concept of "criticism of monotheism", as I see it, is either criticism from religious perspectives that are non-monotheist (polytheist, there's-a-nonpersonal-higher-power, or something else) or atheist/agnostic criticism that focuses specifically on the beliefs of monotheists and, presumably, criticises the actions of monotheists that specifically grow out of their monotheism; if you're criticising monotheists for a merely for belief in the divine, it seems to be more criticism of religion in general, or perhaps you're criticising monotheists of one or two religions, in which case you're more criticising that/those religion(s). The criticism of monotheism article seems to hold a perspective similar to mine — it's talking specifically about criticism of monotheism for things such as intolerance that grows out of there being one god running everything, as opposed to religions that teach multiple gods that might have multiple perspectives.

There are four articles in this category:

• The God Delusion
• God: The Failed Hypothesis
• The Grand Design (book)
• Alan Moore

Here's the actual question for this thread: Are all four primarily critics of monotheism, or are some of them basically just critics of religion? All three books seem to be much more of criticism-of-religion; judging by their articles, these books seem to say that the concept of the divine can't withstand modern science, a teaching that could also be applied to polytheism, for example. This leaves only Moore, with his "Monotheism is, to me, a great simplification..." quote, as the only one of the four criticising monotheism. But since I'm not familiar with any of the three books, I could easily be misunderstanding them. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:COATRACK, but I'm not clear why you bring that in. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Because these articles claim to be criticism of monotheism, when most of them are actually criticism of religion in general - as you said. True criticism of monotheism as such would be arguments in favor of polytheism. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree, you might as well have a category "criticisms of the NY Yankees" which includes Mets fans and baseball haters. Where's the category for deletion page? μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Category. The only problem is with the contents. Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Meaning what? I am an atheist who has read The God Delusion (as well as Dennett, and God is not Great) and who thinks they all woefully failly the "if you have not presented your opponents argument in its strongest form you have not defeated it" premise as quoted by Hitchens and originated by others. Please say why the category is coherehent, and not a hodgepodge. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that in theory there could be a Category:Criticism of monotheism, but if there is nothing to put in it, it may be pointless to have the Category. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I too am confident that such a category could exist reasonably. Surely there are plenty of Hindus who have criticised both Christianity and Islam, and plenty of ancient Roman pagans who criticised Judaism and Christianity, on polytheistic grounds, and the criticism mentioned in the criticism-of-monotheism article, and from atheists saying "unlike polytheism, monotheism is problematic because its narrowmindedness leads followers to be intolerant". Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that Nyttend makes the obvious point here. Contrary to what BB said, criticism of monotheism doesn't have to mean you are supporting polytheism. It's easily possible to argue monotheism has special problems while not supporting or arguing in favour of polytheism, e.g. an atheist. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you're both wrong. You've got an implicit double negative here. A category "reasons for polytheism or atheism" would be a coatrack and that's exactly what this means. We don't need to have a category for every utterable bit of nonsense. μηδείς (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem of evil seems like it should be added. After all, equal good and evil dieties battling for control better explains it than one god. StuRat (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Bad dieties? Is that something like this page, perhaps? Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "diet-ease" would have been a good replacement for the name Ayds. 04:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm I'd like to push the pun up to the un-eased area the sale of Campana to Purex in that article does not in fact target its link right. --Askedonty (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk