Humanities desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

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.

July 13

Adoption in the United States on the basis of religion

I have read two contradictory statements regarding the religion of adoptive parents in the United States. The first is that it is forbidden by United States law to take the religion of the natural mother into account when placing a child for adoption. The second is that whenever possible the child should (or even must) be placed with adoptive parents of the same religion as the natural mother. Can any user please tell me which of these two statements is correct. Thank you.Simonschaim (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that in the case of a child of a Jewish natural mother the guidelines for adoption may take into consideration the special role of matrilinearity in this system. There is a Jewish adoption service (Denver, CO) which states on the webpage "There are, however, many Jewish children in the United States who aren't as lucky." when referring to adoption. Based on this statement, it must be assumed that adoption does not always take into account this specific aspect. Clearly (or so I assume), the procedure would be a different one within Israel. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Simonschaim (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace

I'm editing a piece (the author has long since passed away otherwise I would ask him) that alludes to a relgious group or sect that not only says grace before meals, but recites an appropriate prayer before other daily activities as well, for example going to the toilet/bathroom. Does anyone know what group this might be a reference to?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All abrahamic religions have this sort of short prayers for every daily act including what you have mentioned, but only the most fanatic believers observe them. --Omidinist (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them have these. -LambaJan (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a number of situations listed on this page about Orthodox Jewish prayers in daily life. While perhaps only the most strictly observant would perform all of these, Orthodox and many Conservative or even unaffiliated Jews would include some or many in their personal level of observance. Other abrahamic sects, including those small or far enough out of the mainstream to be labeled "cults," might incorporate some or all of these elements in their ritual observance and prayer.-- Deborahjay (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would tell us which country the group is in, and even the name of the author, we might be able to be more specific. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: if the author were American, we'd think of Shakers.--Wetman (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "author" is just some English person (not a professional writer), but he could have been talking about any country. What he says is that these people "carry this [he is talking about grace] to the extreme and have a little toilet verse. Every single thing they do has an appropriate little verse." Thanks for your responses. I didn't realize these customs were so widespread.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it said the early Celtic Christians would have prayers for many everyday activities, but I've never heard of them having a toilet prayer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesore

I came across this article and couldn't make up my mind if it's been written on a serious note, or someone was trying to joke (sic). It'd been nominated for deletion citing it as a dictionary entry, and a consensus couldn't be reached. I personally feel, it's more than a dictionary entry as other aspects like etymology, famous instances of use, etc. could be discussed. It'd be nice if some one with some kind of expertise could look into the article. As of now, it seemingly discusses the term in a very narrow sense of architecture and town-planning, which I'm not sure is accurate or inclusive enough.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 09:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ok.. maybe some extra work would help ?

It certainly fits nicely into a series of articles on 'town planning', 'aesthetics' or 'architecture'

It would be a poorer place without it.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the page will improve, slowly over time, if left to its own devices.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head's-up, Ketan. I took a look at the page, which I do consider a good start on a topic of significance, and did a bit of cleanup on its talk page. Then I applied to the Talk page of the Urban planning WikiProject asking that it be evaluated for inclusion in the project, for the sake of attracting the attention of knowledgeable editors who might do some work on it. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article only deals with one aspect of the term, perhaps it should be renamed eyesore (town planning). StuRat (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as I understand page naming. A parenthetical qualifier is only added to a second or subsequent page with the identical name, and not on the page considered primary for the topic (which may not necessarily be the first one created). It's probably covered somewhere among the naming conventions, though a brief look just now didn't yield anything I could cite. For now, I recommend leaving the Eyesore page name as is. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A strictly pejorative term that inherently falls afoul of neutral POV because one generation's "eyesore" is another's treasure. The subject is capable of being fully covered as a question of Taste (aesthetics). Only amateurism keeps the article at Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But here it has a certain legal usage, such that if a structure is deemed to be an eyesore, by a planning commision, city council, or other body, it may be demolished if this isn't remedied in a timely manner. As such, it's not simply a matter of taste, but also has legal consequences for the owner. This is similar to how an insult differs from legal libel. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page even now is developing along the lines StuRat describes. Wetman, this isn't a "List of Eyesores" (which would likely "run afoul" of NPOV as you suggest) but an exposition of the concept of "eyesore" in two aspects indicated by its present categories: Aesthetics and Urban studies and planning. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me, Eyesore isn't really a subject for an encyclopaedia, more a word (a pejoritive one, as Wetman says) needing a dictionary definition. I've just edited the opening of the lead from "An eyesore is an unpleasant view..." to ""An eyesore is an unpleasant sight..." As a rambling definition, the rest of what's there could be better. Xn4 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies. I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of replies. I'm not sure if I didn't phrase my query accurately enough, but I (also) wanted to ask if "eyesore" is a term conventionally applied to town planning/aesthetics, or is it a word of common usage? I just looked up the "The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English" (1994), which simply defines it as a noun meaning "an ugly thing". But, searching on Google turned up results that indeed use eyesore almost entirely in context monuments/buildings/landmarks, etc, even though the meaning was almost always close to "an ugly thing". I'm confused by these results. Given these results, may be the article in its current state is alright in dealing with "eyesore". —KetanPanchal^taLK 07:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word and the notion exist, particularly in relation to the general public's view of Modernist buildings in particular (and anything new and unfamiliar, generally!) so the article should stay. For a more detailed critique, see my edits later on, starting with the numerous errors of fact in this article. For instance its a myth that Harvards Science Centre was designed to look like a polaroid camera. But what really annoys me is the statement about "natural eyesores: faeces, mud, weeds". Thats suburban western POV nonsense that sees no value in fertiliser, compost, swamps, wetlands and successful, but undesirable-in-the-garden plants. Nothing that can't be sorted by severe but well informed editing! Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mhicaoidh for your reply. Well, I for one never thought that this article should be deleted. It was just that I'd never encountered the usage of eyesore specifically in context of architecture or aesthetics. I think I'll be able to explain my (somewhat cleared by now) doubt by giving examples:

"This photograph on the mountain is an eyesore in your photo-album"
"The red shirt is an eyesore in your wardrobe"
"A definite eyesore by Wikipedia standards."—my original usage in Wikipedia that lead to this doubt (see in context). Of course, here I've used it more like "black sheep" rather than an eyesore.

This page with some usages from literature might be helpful. Now, I have no doubt that it can be used in context of architecture, but the doubt is if that is the only/most appropriate context. —KetanPanchal^taLK 11:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this discussion could usefully be moved/copied to the article's talk page. The article needs some sort of cleanup/edit tag (multiple issues?) but I can't decide which one is the most appropriate.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shantivira! —KetanPanchal^taLK 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About His Person by Simon Armitage

Yes, this is homework. I have thoroughly analysed the poem and understand most of it, but some things still elude me:

1. What is the significance, if any, of the amount of change - "five pounds fifty"?

2. Similarly, what is the significance, if any, of the date the diary is slashed - "March twenty-fourth to the first of April"?

3. What do the words "mortise" and "kepsake" mean?

Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.8 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 - see mortise lock, and kepsake is surely a typo for keepsake. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 - I don't know either the poem or the poet's dates, but that week would have been approximately the first week of the year in the 'Old Style' calendar in the UK - see Lady Day and the Julian calendar links from there. WikiJedits (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Question 1: First, [1]here is a link to the poem, should anyone else have further ideas. Second, the five pounds fifty, being an amount of the modern era - Simon Armitage still lives- is physically somewhat weighty, but monetarily meagre. The subject of the poem had very little of the world's goods with him when he died. (The poem does not say he is dead, but that is usually when such inventories are made. Other possible times are at a hospital or at a police station.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

people sometime slash through dates on a diary to signify something is going on in that time period and not to make any other appointments then.From the dates I would make a tentative guess at an Easter holiday, but it could also perhaps be a hospital stay.Easter would fit with the theme of death as would a hospital appointment. The money is a small amount ,perhaps indicating poverty.Perhaps it signifies we can take nothing with us when we die or perhaps signifies how little we leave behind, the poet may be saying he is leaving behind nothing of value. I think mortice and keepsake are deliberatly slightly old fashioned words to recall traditional poetry.hotclaws 21:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Five pounds fifty" is a small amount. Any small amount would convey the same semantics, but this particular amount scans well. The poem is late twentieth century since it mentions an "analogue watch." before that "analogue" is assumed, and after that "digital" is ubiquitous. Depending on the precise year, "analogue" might indicate that the person is older or that the person had been wealthier and has now fallen on hard times. -Arch dude (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital is ubiquitous? I can't remember the last time I saw someone wearing a digital watch. 79.66.54.186 (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FDIC bank and financial institution ranking systems

What does CAMEL stand for in the FDIC bank rating system? Does the FDIC CAEL system replace CAMEL? What are the ways to find current bank ratings on the net other than Bankrate.com? Which ones are free and which ones cost money? Thanks, Ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherwoodard (talk • contribs) 12:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The acronym “CAMEL” stands for Capital, Assets, Management, Earnings, and Liquidity, five components of a bank’s financial operation that are examined by the regulators. In the late 1990s a sixth component was added to the CAMEL rating system, recognizing bank and thrift Sensitivity to interest-rate or market risk (CAMELS). CAMELS ratings are assigned on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest and 5 the lowest. Because the empirical portions of our analysis relate to ratings assigned before the late 1990s, we reference the five-component rating system in effect at that time." FDIC. (This, by the way, was the first hit on Google for "fdic rating camel".) OtherDave (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hedonic treadmill and things other than money

Does the hedonic treadmill occur for happiness factors other than money and material goods (e.g. sex, fame, power, importance of accomplishments)? Might it be a contributing factor in cannabis's reputation as a "gateway drug"? Neon Merlin 19:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From experience yes,don't know,yes,yes and yes..

I think it's well documented that some drug users move on to harder drugs for greater highs..

Did you want references?87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed Mongolian Building

What's the name of the building pictured in question two of this quiz? Thanks, --MagneticFlux (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Ghengis Khan monument in Sükhbaatar Square in Ulan Bator [2] [3] -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly the building is the State Ceremonial Palace and the statue is Ghengis. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of soldier from the Second World War

The photograph is of a soldier during the Second World War. Can any user please identify details about this soldier, e.g. country, unit, etc. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a member of the British airborne forces, judging by the Pegasus shoulder flash. I'm still trying to track down the other insignia. - Eron^Talk 21:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the soldier looks like a member of the Parachute Regiment. Unfortunately, the uploading of the WW2 soldier's image overwrote the image used in an existing article in an inappropriate manner. Please reupload the image using a different name, and change the image on the right to the new name. Astronaut (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simonschaim uploaded the image to 3 names and only one of them overwrote an existing image. I picked one of the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, someone else did the uploading for me and any overwriting was unintentional. This person informs me that he has no idea how to correct it. Simonschaim (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Astronaut already fixed the overwritten image, and in this section I linked to an image your account uploaded correctly so you don't have to do reupload or do anything else now. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the image itself, what I find interesting is that the cap badge looks like that of the British Army parachute regiments, but it is lacking the lion and crown on top. (see this to compare.) I don't know if there was a point, early in their history, when the airborne forces of the British Army wore such insignia, or if this is someone from an allied force that wasn't under the Crown. - Eron^Talk 05:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I apologise for the unintentional overwriting and thank you for putting it right. Also I thank the users for their answers to my question. I have now looked again at the original photograph and it seems that on the upper band on the soldier's arm is written the word France. Is this possible? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you look at the wings on the man's sleeve, they don't really look like the Image:Wings.JPG, the British parachute badge. This page about the Free French SAS shows a variety of styles of jump wings, cap badges and Battle Dress. I don't think it shows anything exactly like the picture, but some are pretty close. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The jacket shown about 4/5ths the way down on the page you linked to looks to be the very same. Fribbler (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, there is a cap badge on the page that looks identical as well. That page also shows a black beret worn by Free French SAS; the beret in the picture does seem a little dark to be a maroon beret as worn by the British. So, it looks like this is a picture of a French paratrooper from the Second World War. - Eron^Talk 18:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)e[reply]

It definitely says France on the shoulder. Maxatl (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Simonschaim (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]