Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 31

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 31

Malingering vs. sinistrose

What, if anything, is the difference between the English-language concept of malingering and the French-language concept of sinistrose? NeonMerlin 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is really a question for the Language desk, where it would get more answers... In brief, though, sinistrose is defined as a genuine medical condition, a psychological syndrome, whereas a malingerer is someone feigning sickness, usually for some selfish purpose. Someone found to be a sufferer from 'sinistrose' might be paid out under an insurance policy, but someone found to be a malingerer wouldn't. Xn4 04:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Visionary Writing

Hi again! I am back for a bit. Tonight I'm looking for classic works of visionary literature: the passage in Moby-Dick in which Pip sees God's foot upon the treadle of the loom, and the "multitudinous, God-omnipresent coral insects, that out of the firmament of waters heaved the colossal orbs" is my starting text, but other works that would fall into this category are the poems of William Blake and the mystical reveries of writers like Emmanuel Swedenborg and Julian of Norwich and Walt Whitman.

In other words, writings that attempt to give concrete form to spiritual realities, as when a certain mystic catches glimpses of the Byss and the Abyss, or when Blake sees spiders crawling round the sun. Great visual imagery. Can anyone recommend a few more?

Thanks much! 66.112.246.159 05:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Melancholydanish

The whole of Dante's Divine Comedy, for a start, and also parts of CS Lewis's Narnia books and the Perelandra trilogy deal with visual imagery of heaven and hell. SaundersW 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a browse through Category:Mysticism. Since you mention a Middle English author, I'd like to add Piers Plowman and Pearl. In French, the Roman de la Rose is certainly a classic. (For a taste of many of the classics of Christian mysticism beyond literary fiction—everything from Hildegard of Bingen to Bernard of Clairvaux to The Cloud of Unknowing—the most readily available source for browsing is Bernard McGinn's The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism, ISBN 0812974212.) I don't know why, but what leaps into my mind reading your Melville quote is the Merkabah. Wareh 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To those, I would add only Dark Night of the Soul and The Seven Storey Mountain by St. John of the Cross. Not only was Juan de la Cruz a mystic, but he attempted to translate a vision into words. This said, other than Juliana of Norwich, I have some trouble here. Most mystics don't describe the visions or even really try to offer paradox and metaphor for their visions, as it's impossible to do, and so they discuss the method (Stairway of Perfection and Cloud of Unknowing) or the meaning of the vision. For mystical description (where the description is mystical, or a description of the mystical state), I can only think of St. John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, and the end of Dante's Paradiso. T. S. Eliot attempts it in both Ash Wednesday and overall in Four Quartets, but he goes at it kind of sideways (following Dante). Geogre 13:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesuits in Beijing

Does anyone know anything about the Jesuit mission in Beijing? Seventeenth century, I think. MindyE 09:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that there were Russian Orthodox missions in early Qing China (see Albazinians and Spathari). As for the Jesuits, I guess our articles Jesuit China missions and Roman Catholicism in China may be helpful. Unfortunately, Paris Foreign Missions Society and Nantang are stubby. Our articles about individual missionaries are collected in Category:Jesuit China missions. There is more information in French Wikipedia, where the relevant article is featured. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The mission was established in 1601 by the efforts of Matteo Ricci. His whole approach was quite subtle, interesting the Emperor and the Chinese authorities in aspects of western technology and learning as a point of opening. He also made attempts to reconcile Christianity with the Classic Confucian texts, though he was hostile, along with the other members of his order, to Taoism and Buddhism. Ricci died in 1610 but the Jesuit mission went on to become an important part of the Imperial civil service, right into the eighteenth century. In 1644 a German Jesuit, Adam Schnall von Bell, was appointed Director of the Board of Astronomy by the new Qing dynasty. Jesuits were also given posts as mechanics, musicians, painters, instrument makers, and in other areas which required a degree of technical expertise.

The Jesuits pragmatic accommodation with Confucism was later to lead to conflict with the Dominican friars, who came to Beijing from the Philippines in the middle of the century. Their leader, Dominigo Fernandez Navarrete, in responding to the question 'Was Confucious saved?' said that as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all damned "how much the more Confucius, who was not worthy to kiss their feet". In responding, Antonio de Gouveia, a Portuguese Jesuit, said that Confucius was certainly saved, "which is more than can be said for King Philip IV of Spain!" Clio the Muse 02:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I could not help copying this lighthearted reply to the article Roman Catholicism in China. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are embarrassing yourself

When was this dreadful phrase first used? What is it intended to mean? - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

that sounds like an impossible question to answer, like asking who first said "nice day, isn't it?" SGGH ^speak! 12:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you ask what it means, as your command of English seems excellent and the phrase is both widely used and fairly self-explanatory. In any case, the Languages Desk may give you expert information on its origins. --Dweller 12:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the meaning is a little odd. I mean, if it means literally "you are causing embarassment to yourself," then it is an odd statement, since if that were true presumably the person in question would know it. What it probably really means is something like, "you are behaving in a way which ought to be causing embarassment to yourself, from my point of view", which is a little bit more subjective in its implications. --24.147.86.187 15:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, a bit more objectively, "you will be embarrassed when you stop to think of how your behavior looks to others." —Tamfang 23:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish word "embarassado" is my favorite false cognate. 38.112.225.84 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely you mean embarazada.  :) Corvus cornix 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, I surely did. Very polite of you not to just come out and tell me I was embarrassing myself. :) 38.112.225.84 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

could it be virtue knocking on vices door ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.9.216 (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Edward the first

Hi, people. I bet some of you remember me from last term when i asked some history questions and got GREAT help from Clio Muse, BRILLIANT help. Here I am back at school (aaaaarghh!!!) with a new history assignment. Here it is-Was Edward I the English Justinian or an imperial bully? Discuss with examples. Please do not hit me with 'we dont do homework'-i know, i know, and just need some directions along the road. Your stuff on Edward is not an big help, sorry, because there's too much bully and not enough Justinian (a law maker). I see you are still around Clio so i look forward from hearing from you, and anyone else, please dont hassle me like some person did last year. From Clio's friend ( I just LOVE it that she is a girl!!!) who is now, cheeky as ever, Kathy in redKathy Burns 11:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what level you're at, but you need to delve a little deeper into Justinian's character; "bully" gives you a clue, in that your teacher has opposed the two terms, so they're going to be two ends of a spectrum in some way. Other advice with Edward; 1) don't watch Braveheart (historically, it's the worst kind of toshvery inaccurate) 2) try not to fall into the question's trap by oversimplifying his complex character. He came mighty close to securing a huge empire for his son and he was a pretty shrewd man, capable of different types of response to different problems. Compare his actions vis a vis Scotland, Wales, France, the Barons (including early in his reign vs late) and the Jews. --Dweller 12:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at each character's use of force to solve a problem/benefit themselves would be one good indication of bullying behaviour.87.102.88.202 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kathy, how nice to see you back. So, you are now looking at the reign of Edward I, quite a change from your last area of study!

As you clearly have discovered, the Wikipedia page on Edward I does not really do proper justice to a seminal reign (Why, I would have to ask, is there such a large section on contact with the Mongols, a minor episode, out of all proportion?! And the picture of Patrick McGoohan as the absurd 'Longshanks' from Braveheart is grossly out of place!) The real point to hold in mind here is that Edward was a complex man. Do not, I urge you, fall into the trap opened by the question you face; for Edward was both law-maker and law-breaker; Justinian and Joshua! He was certainly a 'bully' when it came to dealing with the Welsh and the Scots, jealous in every way of his imperial and feudal rights. But he could also be quite overbearing when it came to his own subjects. At the beginning of his reign, determined to restore some of the rights of the crown eroded during the reign of Henry III, his politically inept father, he instituted a series of legal inquiries, known as Quo Warranto. By this he challenged holders of liberties, particularly those with jurisdictions, like that enjoyed by the Palatinate of Durham, to prove that they held these by legal title. These investigations were a source of much friction, and Edward was compelled to modify his legal offensive in 1290 under political pressure from his barons. But it also provides an insight into the lawyer-like and nit-picking mentality with which Edward doggedly pursued the prerogatives of the crown, a clue to his later attitude towards his feudal superiority over Scotland.

So, yes, something of a single-minded bully, without a great deal of interest in constitutional niceties. Yet consider this: in 1275, not long after the beginning of his reign, he wrote to the Pope, explaining that he could do nothing concerning the power of the crown without "consulting the magnates and the prelates." It was during his reign that Parliament began to be a regular feature of the English political landscape. In the summons for that of 1295 it was announced that "What touches all should be approved by all.", meaning that taxation could only be granted by consent, one of the great founding principles of English constitutional law. It was during this time that the census known as the Hundred Rolls was taken, the first comprehensive survey of English property rights since the earlier Domesday Book. As a result, the law was further refined in the Stute of Westminster, and other law codes issue subsequent to this document. So, here is your English Justinian!

In ever sense, therfore, Edward was the perfect feudal lawyer; therin lies his strength, and therin lies his weakness. For his notions of what was right were often so narrowly defined and pursued with a single-minded purpose, regardless of the political damage caused, and with hidden costs to the crown. Unlike his father, he was a good soldier; but his conquest of Wales, and the attendant castle building, was ruinously expensive. It would have been wise to consolidate and pause for reflection, but the vacancy of the Scottish crown following the death in 1290 of Margaret opened what was to be known as the Great Cause. It was, perhaps, the defining moment of Edward's reign, confirming that jealousy of privilege and title that marked the outset of his reign in England. He came to Scotland as a lawyer, and as a bully; and he fought his wars in Scotland as a lawyer, and as a bully. You see-and this is a point that is often overlooked-Edward never, at any point claimed the crown of Scotland for himself: he simply fought to maintain his position as feudal overlord, granted to him by the Scots in 1292. Even in 1305, when the conquest seemed to be complete, Edward produced Ordinances for the government of Scotland, of which he is Lord, not King.

So, Kathy; lots to go on. Think about it carefully; tailor your answer towards the question, writing in your own words, and with all subtelty. Just remember that Edward came, like most important people in history, in shades of grey; never in black and white. Good luck! Clio the Muse 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The McGoohan image hs been removed as a violation of fair use. Corvus cornix 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, Corvus cornix; my sincere thanks! Like Dweller, I really hate the distortions and corruptions of Braveheart; but that is quite beside the point. Patrick McGoohan has nothing whatsoever to do with the Edward of history. Clio the Muse 22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of Edward's ambitions (particularly those pertaining to continental Europe) can better be understood in the context of the extent of the lands formerly held by Edward's antecedents. --Dweller 12:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Magaret Maid of Norway episode is quite revealing of Edward's character, though it can be interpreted variously. --Dweller 12:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

GREAT!!! THANKS +++++to Dweller and Clio Muse (i wish you were my teacher Clio). See you both. Sincerely, Kathy Burns 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

English tourists in Italy 1856

I am preparing a 19th century travel diary by a Yankee for publication. He is in Florence during November, 1856 and writes: "I was glad to conduct my sight-seeing in Florence somewhat more leisurely than during my rapid tour of the last few weeks. I found the city full of strangers, particularly of English tourists, whom recent political troubles have shut-out from the South of Italy."

Using the following website http://researchitaly.us/historyofsouthernitaly/ad1801to1860.html I composed the following footnote: In May of 1856, Ferdinand II, the ruler of the Two Sicilies, was censored by the British and French governments for his tyrannical methods. Later in October, England and France withdrew their ambassadors from Naples.

I surmise that the English and French tourists were subject to some sort of harassment. Was this solely at the hands of government officials or did it also include the common folk? 69.201.141.45 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus

I don't know the history here, but I think you want 'censured', not 'censored'. Algebraist 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, 69.201; it just would not make good sense to go there in such politically unsettled times, with the prospect of no diplomatic protection if things went wrong. I certainly cannot see ordinary people in the south being in any way hostile to English or French tourists. Very few of the southern Italians had much in the way of sympathy for Ferdinand II, also known disparagingly as 'King Bomba', whose rule was famously described by William Ewart Gladstone as "The negation of God erected into a system of government." Clio the Muse 03:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The withdrawal of an ambassador always leaves travelling nationals without recourse to a protective diplomat. --Wetman 06:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I am surprised that I didn't catch the censor/censure mistake. Homonyms are well-known, but the near-homonyms (quasihomonyms?) are trouble to me because as I age, I tend to type phonetically. I think this is also a result of no longer writing in long-hand. (Remember Truman Capote's comment about another best-selling author, "She doesn't write books, she types books.") I will include in the footnote the fact that it is dangerous for nationals to travel in countries in which they have no diplomatic recourses. I guess this applies to U.S. citizens in Cuba. 69.201.141.45 12:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus

Leaving money to pets

Leona Helmsley was recently in the news for leaving millions to her pet dog after she died. Do courts actually recognize such actions, and how do they administer them? What happens when the dog dies? (I only care about U.S. law, really, but if someone has a take on it from another country, by all means, pony up.)

Additionally, Helmsley left what looks like long-term stipulations on some of the money (the grandsons lose half of their take if they don't visit her late husband's tomb each year) — exactly how specific can such stipulations be? Can you really require someone to do something each year or else half of some set of assets will be taken away? Do courts really recognize such a thing as valid? --24.147.86.187 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Read something on this stuff, long ago, but here goes:

1. you can't leave money to a pet (or a car or house) as they have no rights to property. You can leave money to a person to be used for the care of said pet (or car or house), with the stipulation that if the person does not use the money for such, it goes to the red cross or your cousin or some such instead. I assume you can daisy chain it, leave the money to your brother to care for your dog and if he doesn't, then to your sister to care for your dog, and if she doesn't etc. etc. Lot's of times the money assigned for the care of the pet ends up buying a nice big house for the pet to live in, and incidentally the person who's supposed to care for the pet; that kind of thing.
2. when the pet dies, if there is money left and the will doesn't specify what happens to it, then it's just part of the general estate and goes to the legal heir like any other unspecified property.
3. generally you can stipulate most anything in a will, like taking care of your pet, but such stipulations are only as good as whoever is watching. Thus, it is advisable to have somebody at the end of the "and if he doesn't then the money goes to..." chain who wants the money and so will watch the beneficiary to try and catch them not following the stipulations, like a jealous brother, or the Red Cross, to keep them honest
4. however, some stipulations do get struck down for various reasons.
5. you do have to be careful, to some degree; if you leave the money to your son on condition he get a job or it goes to some charity, and the charity goes broke before the will is probated, then the son inherits the money even if he doesn't get a job, since neither of the conditions specified in the will are doable, and therefore the money would just go to your heir. Gzuckier 15:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This calls to mind of the deceased dog continued to be "walked" due to the stipulation in a will providing for the care of said dog.69.201.141.45 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

double barrelled inherited names

An idle musing I've had has led to a convoluted question.

In this modern age we live in, I've noticed a number of married people with different surnames who double barrel their surnames for their children (e.g. the son of John Smith and Jane Jones would be Adam Smith-Jones). Now if this 2nd generation man married and had a child with another double barreled woman, would their child be quadruple barrelled (Adam Smith-Jones and Julia Stewart-White are pleased to announce the birth of Imelda Smith-Jones-Stewart-White)? And so on? I understand that different people would have different ways of dealing this but the crux of my question is: what's the most barrels anyone has come across and how far would you be willing to take it? - 212.240.35.42 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel count? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What about Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern -schplenden -schlitter -crasscrenbon -fried -digger -dangle -dungle -burstein -von -knacker -thrasher -apple -banger -horowitz -ticolensic -grander -knotty -spelltinkle -grandlich -grumblemeyer -spelterwasser -kürstlich -himbleeisen -bahnwagen -gutenabend -bitte -eine -nürnburger -bratwustle -gerspurten -mit -zweimache -luber -hundsfut -gumberaber -shönendanker -kalbsfleisch -mittler -raucher von Hautkopft of Ulm? Adam Bishop 19:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A few examples from the British upper classes; they are big fans of adding names:

Triples:

• Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound
• The Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe family

Quadruple:

• Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax

Quintuple:

• Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville

Honorable mentions also for Celtic F.C. footballers:

• Jan Johannes Vennegoor of Hesselink (of means or in Dutch)
• Jean-Joël Perrier-Doumbé (a double, double barrel)

--Rockpocket 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guinness Book of Records (1997 ed.) notes the sextuple-barrelled surname belonging to a certain Major Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatafilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana-Plantagenet-Tollemache-Tollemache (1884-1917). He was known at school as "Tolly". -- JackofOz 05:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Errr. I only count 5 barrels there (and its taking the piss slightly to have the same surname barreled three times and a variation for a fourth!) Rockpocket 07:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I count six, Rockpocket. I think this is in the form "A de B", where A is "T-T", and B is "O-P-T-T". Of course, this means that Tollemache is used 4 times, but that doesn't alter the fact that the surname comprises 6 distinct elements, separated by hyphens. (Smith-Smith, for example, is clearly a double-barrelled name.) I'd agree with Guinness's assessment that this monstrosity is a sextuple-barrelled name. -- JackofOz 06:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that this name appeared in a recent Ref Desk answer - Fictional character w/ same first and last name – in a quote from Bill Bryson's book The Mother Tongue. If User:TotoBaggins got the Bryson quote right, Bryson seems to disagree with Guinness on the spelling of the Major's 5th given name (Guinness has "Fraudatafilius", Bryson has "Fraduati"). -- JackofOz 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, the lack of hyphenation and the list of Ralph Tollemache's children's names suggest to me that all but the final Tollemache-Tollemache were given names, not part of the surname. —Tamfang (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The British tradition was that an heiress's maiden name was perpetuated when she married and her husband was considered to represent the family that had become extinct in the male line. Otherwise a double-barrelled name was a pretentious affectation. Some old fogeys believe this still holds true. Nevertheless, modern usage is a free-for-all: you can call yourself whatever you want. About half the babies born this year in the U.S. will have their mother's last name, things being what they are. --Wetman 06:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For a fictional example, memorized by many generations of German speaking children (Dschingis Khan chanted it, and so did Boy scout groups where I grew up): Hadschi Halef Omar Ben Hadschi Abul Abbas Ibn Hadschi Dawud al Gossarah, appearing in a number of books out of Karl May's oriental cycle. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your interesting answers!212.240.35.42 13:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

pls help me

thanks for your effort i'm from Egypt there is a hospital in Benib called national hopital send to me to work and required fees before i travel through western union i ask it is true or nor is this a big lie or this true what can i do ? what is the guarantess? pls help me waiting for your reply thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.121.105 (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• We cannot give you meaningful advice on the particular, but it is a common scam and confidence game for people to claim to be speaking for an employer and asking for money up front. A real employer should not do that. First, contact the hospital directly and ask if this is their policy. Second, do not send the money, but request that it be deducted from your pay. That might get to the truth. Utgard Loki 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Several websites list CENTRAL NATIONAL HOSPITAL AND UNIVERSITY - Porto Novo Cotonou Rep Du Benin as a common job scam.[1][2][3] The scammers even have set up a fake web site that looks very professional. The "contact us" will connect you with the scammers. Beware.  --Lambiam 20:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

More on this: the website of the CNHU: http://cnhu-benin.net/, is copied with some modifications from the Madonna hospital in Nigeria: http://www.madonnahospital.com/. A dead give-away that this is a scam is that in copying over this page they forgot one time to change the name "Madonna" on their copy.  --Lambiam 21:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In brief it is a lie. Do not send any money. Skittle 21:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Prodivian

Hi, I'm looking for the Prodivian credit card company but there was a red link. Can someone create the article, or is it under a different name? Thanks. --129.130.38.131 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Try Providian. Rockpocket 18:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mythological god with the ability to impregnate women with his stare

Yesterday at quiz bowl, someone mentioned a (hilarious) tossup we had last year on a mythological god (of fertility, I think) with the ability to impregnate women with his stare. I cannot for the life of me remember his name. I do remember at the time, I looked him up, and he had a Wikipedia article. Someone please tell me what his name is. Raul654 18:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Was the packet from the Stanford Archives? You could search that. (Although I just tried and nothing useful came up...) Adam Bishop 19:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was. Raul654 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul, you might care to work your way through the list of Fertility Gods. I personally have never heard of this 'cock-eyed' deity! Clio the Muse 00:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be an Aztec god? In their mythology, Coatlicue, Mother of the Gods, was impregnated by a ball of down falling her way while she was sweeping a temple. Xn4 03:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In my trip through the stanford archive per Adam's suggestion, that came up about 50 times. Raul654 03:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I found two unreliable and completely unreferenced mentionings that the peacock, with its many staring eyes, had this ability in "Chinese mythology". I found nothing else on this, just thought I'd throw it in, might well be a red herring though. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember something about Ra (or Amun - a solar deity, at any rate) using this technique to impregnate the pharaoh's mother. I can look through some books if Wikipedia's articles don't mention this, if you'd like... Random Nonsense 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I could be totally wrong on some or all of this, but I seem to remember that it was some native american mythology (Hopi, maybe) and he, the god, was a dwarf or something. Also, I think his article was illustrated (again, making him look like a dwarf). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul654 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it possibly Murugan who was born this way?

Here is a site containing a story of the birth of Kumara (the Sanskrit name of this otherwise Tamil deity). Śiva, after becoming a beautiful six-faced form, looked at Parvati lovingly ... and "a dazzling lustre similar to numerous suns arose from the eye in his [Śiva's] forehead" and the lustre spread throughout the world; thus was born Kumara, of Śiva and Parvati (as recounted in the Skanda Purana. Antandrus (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism and Communism

If I were to say "Marxist economics are the basis for Communism as Market economics are the basis for Capitalism", would this be accurate? If not what terms would you substitute for in place of Marxist and/or Market? thanks, --Czmtzc 18:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To start, I wouldn't say that "market economics" is the basis for capitalism. In modern capitalist society, we have a market economy. Economics is the science that studies how economies work. Although capitalist societies have a market economy, the economic system of Western societies preceding the advent of capitalism was also largely market-based. Marxist economics does not specifically study the economic system of communist societies. On the contrary, the focus seems to be on the study of capitalism! Marxist economics is a school within economics, and other economists than Marxist study communism as well.

It is not clear that any of the states self-identifying as communist were actually a communist society; in the philosophy of Marx, the advent of communism would be marked by the "withering away" of the state. We are still waiting for that to happen.  --Lambiam 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. While true communism (which I will define as everyone sharing everything equally) could only exist, IMHO, in a small group, many countries have claimed to be communist that are really just the same old dictatorships with a new propaganda tool. I wouldn't take North Korea's claim to be communist (share the wealth equally) any more seriously than I take their claim to be democratic. StuRat 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Capitalism" requires Smith (and then Marx) defining a system that was based upon a description of practice rather than outlining a theory of what should be. In other words, Smith begins and goes forward by looking at how capital moves at the present time (1770), and Marx sees this system described and theorized by Smith as having peculiarities that Smith does not address. Because Smith was descriptive before proscriptive, he doesn't design his system and doesn't see the problems of surplus credit and the disequilibrium of wage/cost that Marx would make hay of. Therefore, the basis of capitalism is simply the slow, accidental, and haphazard evolution of a trading system as it is then modified by certain accumulations of wealth and state power. In fact, I would almost say that capitalism is derived largely from Marx himself, as capitalists somewhat embraced his description and went from there. Well, maybe not. Geogre 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Very difficult question, since it is about definitions. I think the following distinctions are useful to keep in mind:

scientific theory concerning the economy	Marxist economics	classical economics
influential exponent of this theory	Karl Marx	Adam Smith
political ideology of this exponent	socialism	liberalism
radical version of this ideology	communism	libertarianism
economic system of this ideology	socialism	capitalism
control of the means of production in this economic system	the community or for it the state	private individuals
main device for distribution of property	state planning	free market

I hope this helps in explaining what

1. communism is: namely a radical brand of socialism, a political ideology
2. what marxist economics is: namely an economic theory
3. what capitalism is: namely an economic system
4. what free market economy is: namely a way to distribute goods

To answer you question, no this analogy is not correct since these are four different things and not two pairs of similar things. C mon 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have only one or two tiny points to add to C mon's excellent submission here. First, Czmtzc, as others have indicated, Karl Marx has far, far more to say about capitalism than he does about communism. You will, however, find some sketchy references in The German Ideology and the Critique of the Gotha Programme, where he first used the phrase From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Second, and for more general reference, there has never, so far as I am aware, been a state that has identified itself as 'Communist', a clear contradiction in terms. There are, and have been, countries ruled by Communist Parties, but that is a different thing altogether. In these particular cases the economic system is defined as 'Socialism', as in Socialism in one country. I will also say that capitalism, and Karl Marx, requires David Ricardo as much as it does Adam Smith. Clio the Muse 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good chart by C mon. Geogre 02:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In a true communist society there is not only no state, but also no money. And therefore no economy. DirkvdM 08:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You can have economy without money. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, such as a trade economy. But that's not what people usually mean by economy. You can turn it around, though. In a true communist society there is no economy and therefore no money. DirkvdM 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; that is wrong. Economies can-and do-exist with a complete absence of money, or when the the fiscal and banking system has collapsed. At the most basic level an economy is merely the production, transport and exchange of goods. Even under the purest forms of communism these activities would have to continue. Otherwise communism means exactly the same thing as paradise: an ethereal world beyond both life and history; beyond hunger and want. Clio the Muse 22:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

About the first bit: I already acknowledged that an economy can exist without money. About the last bit: Isn't that sort of the communist ideal? Or am I overstating the dreaminess of communists? Anyway, the exchange of goods will certainly not be an aspect of a communist society, because everyone just takes what they need (and nothing more) - no exchange needed. There is total freedom of the use of products, without competition over their use. Production and transportation will still be needed (although transportation will greatly decrease when there are no more low wage countries). In a capitalist society those are parts of the economy, but not in a communist society. No system for the division of labour or goods is needed. People decide for themselves what they do and take. They are all so educated and good natured that that would work - in the ideal communist society. So there is no economy. Note that this is a bit of an academic discussion because such a society will never work (on a large scale and in the foreseeable future, that is). This is why the economy article backs you up - it reasons from the reality we live in and treats communism as an aberration. DirkvdM 07:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Overstating the dreaminess? Yes, I think you probably are; you are certainly far closer to concepts of a paradise not of this earth. Marxists have always had a notion of communism as an ideal goal, though you will search hard to find a detailed description of what shape a communist society would take; even the link between the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and the 'withering away of the state' is highly problematic. But for a view of a perfect future that Karl Marx would almost certainly have dismissed as 'utopian' you could do no better that read Robert Tressell's Bunyanesque novel The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.

OK, now let's deconstruct your image of the 'economics' of communism (and we are talking, I have to stress, about an economic system). Everyone will take what they need, and nothing more? How does one define need? I need a rolex and a rolls royce; would that be OK? Yes, you might reply in terms of your ideal, because everyone can have a rolex and a rolls royce. Ah, yes, but this is in paradise, is it not? In the real world of finite resources decisions would still have to be made about how resources are used and labour allocated, on the assumption that things, real things, will have to be made. Now we are already seeing, even in the purest forms of earthly communism, an uneven distribution of power; because some will have to make the decisions about the allocation of resources and others will have to implement these decisions. Again speaking in earthly terms, and assuming no cornucopia, things will still have to be made, skills nurtured and labour divided. Goods made in one place will have to be transported to those places were such goods cannot be made, and handed over in some process of exchange. So you have, in other words, an economy. You also have the makings of disaster; for in a world of equal demand resources will be used up at a rate that makes our present problems over climate change, pollution and vanishing assests seem like the true paradise. A world where everyone has a rolex and a rolls royce is unsustainable. Even as a dream, Dirk, it goes beyond the limits of the possible. More than that, it is a dream that forever tumbles into nightmare. Perfection is only for the dead.

Anyway, I am sensitive to the fact that this discussion is going too far from the point of the original question, so I do not propose to add any more here. If you would like further clarification on any of the points I have made in the above you are welcome to come to my talk page. Clio the Muse 22:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To summarize what Clio, DirkvdM and StuRat said about the distinction between communism and socialism in Marxist theory in a small table. Note that according to Marx history goes through phases, that are characterized by who controls the means of production.

time	name	control of the means of production	form of government
current time	capitalism	bourgeoisie	"liberal democracy" (dictatorship of the bourgeoisie)
near future	socialism	proletariat	dictatorship of the proletariat
distant future	communism	community	none (there is no state)

It is very important to note that the terms socialism and communism as used in this table are distinct from the use in the previous table. So communism both refers to a political ideology (a radical brand of socialism) and a future phase in the marxist theory of history (where there is no state, only community). To make confusion even worse: socialism refers to a political ideology (a very broad movement of ideologies actually), an economic system (where the state controls the means of production) and a future phase in the marxist theory of history (the dictatorship of the proletariat). C mon 08:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To expand, the second meaning of socialism is actually state socialism, which, for even more confusion, was dubbed state capitalism by some 'real' communists who rejected the way the USSR functioned. The most common form of socialism is social democracy (a better term would be democratic socialism, but that is used for something different). Even the most hardcore capitalist democratic society (eg the US) has some of it, in the form of what one could call 'institutionalised charity'. Playing Robin Hood, basically, to combat the worst excesses of capitalism - without that, the poor would soon be so poor that they would have nothing to lose, which would make them very dangerous. One could say that socialism killed the communist revolution in western Europe. In the Netherlands, after there had almost been a revolution in 1918 (see Troelstra#Proclamation of the socialist revolution), the right-wing government got so scared they started taking all sorts of left-wing measures to prevent another uprising. DirkvdM 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Gemstone Healing and Christianity

Is Gemstone healing mentioned directly in the Bible? And if so, Is it against the Christian religion? 196.207.47.60 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)zen'aku

Witchcraft is mentioned, of course, and so is idolatry. However, the specific method of healing is irrelevant. In medieval medicine, people believed in both gems and plants based on their homologous forms (lung shaped plants were good for the lungs, and blood colored stones were good for the blood), and this was seen as being efficacious because of the divine plan. At the same time, believing that healing comes from anywhere but God's providence is forbidden, as it involves idolatry or holding other gods before the Lord. Thus, you can believe that a pretty rock will help your arthritis, if you think it's just because of hidden medical properties or God's plan, but you can't if you think that it's the Spirit of the Earth refashioning your body. Medicine is fine. Spiritualism isn't. Geogre 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't mean 19th-century Spiritualism, do you?  --Lambiam` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I did. In an Old Testament sense, all of that stuff fell afoul of the law. I also meant, though, what people now call "spiritualism" in distinction to religion. The term is sometimes used to say, "I believe in a thing that has no religion but has plenty of spiritual powers." That, in both an OT and New Testament sense, would be against Jewish and Christian doctrine. Geogre 12:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that 'amethysts protect against' drunkeness or some other minor sin - and that it is mentioned in the bible, though I've never read it myself.. Is that the sort of thing you were thinking of??87.102.87.15 11:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Amethysts offering protection against drunkenness is not mentioned in the Bible, although amethysts feature in a few places. However, this doesn't mean the belief was not around at the time. Apparently the name referred to this supposed property. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a handy resource for this sort of thing, but you can also search online bibles for the word 'amethyst'. Skittle 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

e-pol

There is an organization at www.e-pol.org which appears to claim some sort of jurisdiction over internet use. Can anyone confirm (a) Does this organization actually exist? (b) what, if any, legal status it has? or (c) is it some sort of hoax? I am not asking for legal advice - just information, thanks. DuncanHill 21:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No article about it. Commercial company? If a hoax, why would someone make a hoax so boring? A hoax to me on - for example, the release of an Apple Mac kneetop (ie. mini) notebook, or something like the flying spaghetti monster (and to pretend it be aa worldwide, serious religion with millions of follower) sounds more fun.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What it's being used for isn't for "fun" hoaxes, but a darker use. Corvus cornix 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"e-pol.com" is a domain name from Go Daddy.com, Inc. out of Scottsdale, Arizona. I can't find anything else about it on the Net, but I know we have some ace searchers who watch this desk. Bielle 22:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be related to UNNET and UNombud, two "organisations" which briefly had WP articles which have since been deleted. The websites (.org) are fake database frontends, and the ultimate host of the sites seems to be [a site which I can't link because the spam blacklist complains]. It's either some sort of scam, or a kid messing around with flash and javascript. Either way, no, it's not a real organisation and isn't anything to be worried about. FiggyBee 09:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference?

Can someone tell me the differences between these words? Thanks. Coalition, alliance, and union. 67.169.185.206 23:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

coalition, alliance, union? SGGH ^speak! 23:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Coalition" is most often used for a temporary agreement of two political parties to work together, typically voting the same way in a legislature. The term "alliance" has a similar meaning but extends to many other fields, especially the military and nowadays also business, and may refer to a longer-term agreement (for example, NATO is an alliance that has lasted over 50 years). "Union" indicates a stronger joining, normally one that is intended as permanent and takes precedence over the interests of the individual members, which may not even exist afterwards. --Anonymous, 00:28 UTC, September 1, 2007.