Humanities desk
< September 10	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 12 >

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.

September 11

Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah

I was wondering if anyone knows where I can find a free online English translation of Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah. I am looking for a translation in its entirety, not just excerpts, specifically on Ecclesiastes 1. Thanks! Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nastia Liukin's Religion

I have heard a few things that say Nastia is Catholic, but aside from one or two tidbits, I have not seen a single report on her religion. Does anyone know what religion she is? It is something I have been wondering about for a while, and I figured if anyone would know, it would be the Wikipedians.

Thanks! Ken Kenneth971 (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, she attended an Easter mass with her family at a Russian Orthodox church. The fact that it suggests this was a one off or unusual event, would lead me to think she is Orthodox by birth, but perhaps not practising. Fribbler (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korea's Major Accomplishments

I'm trying to find some of Korea's Accomplishments, but ones that aren't as well known. Anyone know of a site that lists all accomplishments?

--204.218.240.25 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what you're asking. In medieval times, the Koreans invented an alphabet which has been considered the most linguistic alphabet ever regularly used to write a language. The Koreans also defeated a late 16th-century Japanese attempt to conquer Korea (despite having a bureaucratic governmental system which was not greatly conducive to organized military valor), something which probably was a very significant influence on the shogunate's ultimate 17th-century decision to adopt an isolation policy, instead of trying to conquer an overseas empire.

In modern times, the South Koreans built up their economy from basically zero in 1951 to almost being one of the top 10 economies in the world in the early 1990's.

You can also see National Treasures of Korea... AnonMoos (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korea perfected the fermented cabbage relish known as Kimchi. Saukkomies 22:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the global authority on undergraduate research?

I'm undertaking a project with the aim of creating and implementing a system for delivering undergraduate research within a university. Contacting those with relevant experience is fundamental to overcoming the inevitable pit-falls, and I was wondering if there were any recognised figures in the area.

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottie G (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what field? --Tango (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) is an NSF program in the United States for students studying the sciences. The NSF has an REU Points of Contact list. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Ralegh's middle name

In our article Killua Castle, a monument to "Walter G. Ralegh" planting the first potatoes in Ireland is mentioned. Our article Walter Ralegh does not mention a middle initial or name. Does anyone know if he did have one, and if so, what it was? DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No middle name in either Britannica or Chambers biographical dictionary. Algebraist 13:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB has nothing either. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was very uncommon in those days for English people to have middle names. Even the English monarchs around then had just one name. If Raleigh had a middle name, which I very much doubt, he would have been one of the few exceptions. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone here actually been to Killua, or are we relying on internet sources as to the monument's text? Algebraist 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has been to Killua, but there is a picture in the article, and a link to the registration of the monument with Ireland's National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the monument's text, without the "G." the lines are centred, then there's the G, crammed up against the R with a subscripted stop between/below them taking that line to the left. Has it been tampered with since first engraving? Is it an early mayor making himself important through stonemasonry graffiti? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it sure looks like vandalism to me (and we're all experts on spotting vandalism around here). The G towards the end is in a very different style to the leading G, and it looks much more like a C. Even if he really did have a middle name starting with G, it's not usual to refer to people who are normally only known as eg. John Smith, as John G. Smith. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as weathered as the other letters, either. Perhaps a real Walter G. Ralegh added it in? Gwinva (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly some larrikin from the era when people believed what they saw in print/stone. Someone could email the find to Killua council while I get the beers, : )) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XXXX, naturally. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plume etiquette

Further to this thread Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Queen Victoria's funeral cortège: Edward and Wilhelm?, a question was asked at the end which I think is worthy of our attention - who was allowed plumes in that era? DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link to question: [1]. Gwinva (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The middle-class in US elections

Hello There,

I notice that the Democrats talk about helping the middle classes rather than the poor (working class). In the Uk, we rarely talk about the middle class in terms of needing help (because, well, they don't) so any sort of benefit is designed with the working class in mind. (in fact, i'd go further and say that the middle class in the UK is rarely mentioned at all, unless to convey busiboddyness or homogenity) So I'm wondering why this is? Is it a symptom of American positivity (like how problems are never problems, they're always 'challenges' or 'opportunities')? Or is it something nastier in that no one wants to stick up for the loser-ish poor? Anyway, i'd be interested to hear what the consensus is....217.169.40.194 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it said that this is because most American people consider themselves middle class, even if they in fact quite poor relative to the national average. Can anyone confirm this? Algebraist 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on American middle class points to some of this. As Algebraist gets at, it is a very nebulous term that by some counts 75% of the country self-identifies by. We don't say "working class" so much in the US though we do use the alternate term "blue collar" in political discourse (esp. when campaigning in Pennsylvania). And helping "the poor" does not have much of a ring to it in US political discourse, in part because a good deal of the American mythology is that everyone can succeed if they really want to, and thus people are poor because they are lazy or because they want to be or etc. My impression (garnered only from British documentaries like the Up series, I am sad to admit) is that in the UK the attitudes towards the poor are much more sympathetic, in part because the difficulties of true social mobility are more clearly recognized as a result of having a long-entrenched class system, whereas in the US most people (and esp. politicians) believe the social mobility is practically limitless (the old Horatio Alger story), even if actual economic and sociological data make it clear that it is not. I should note this is my own pop-analysis. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Middle class" certainly means something different in the United States than in the UK. In the UK, I think that "middle class" implies professional employment or small- to mid-size business ownership. As others have suggested, in the United States only the poor and the very rich do not identify as middle class. That includes anyone who owns a house (nearly 75% of Americans) or who owns even a decent-looking car but who does not employ a staff of domestic servants. Given the broad definition of the middle class, many Americans (not including myself) feel that those who have failed to qualify for membership in it have failed due to laziness or irresponsibility and do not deserve any "hand-outs" from the state, particularly not at their own expense as taxpayers. Meanwhile, many who define themselves as middle-class face low pay, rising prices, and a lack of health insurance. Many Americans feel that members of the broadly defined middle class, who are doing their best but struggling to get by, might deserve a helping hand, particularly if they see themselves as possible beneficiaries. Marco polo (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, as an American with little experience in British interpretations of words, I've always considered working class and middle class to be about the same thing. There's the rich, there's the middle class that works and so on, there's welfare cases. Pretty much how American attitudes have seemed to me. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, middle class and working class are definitely different things. Working class are often in council houses (cheap houses rented from local government) and on benefits. Working class are usually paid by the hour, middle class are usually salaried. I don't think there's a firm line between the two, but most of the time it's clear what a household falls under. --Tango (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American politicians never speak of the "working class," but Democrats often talk about "working families," by which they mean working-class families. As previously stated, Americans generally see society as divided into three classes -- the poor, the middle class (i.e., "us") and the rich. The middle class is divided into an upper middle class and a lower middle class, which may correspond to the "middle class" and "working class" of the UK. But any politicians who talked specifically about helping the lower middle class or the working class would be accused of "class warfare." Those who live in public housing and collect welfare would be considered "the poor," and, since many middle-class Americans resent any of their tax money going to such supposedly undeserving people, any politicians who talks about helping the poor does so at his peril. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found an interesting graph ([2]) that seems to show that about 60% of British households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. That rather surprised me (although I suspect it's due to child benefit which is paid to any family with children and child tax credit which is paid to most). --Tango (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The figures for final income in that graph include an amount for benefits in kind, such as education and health services. DuncanHill (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why one should always read the words accompanying a graph properly and not just give it a quick glance! Thank you. I wonder if that includes benefit from things like defence spending... I guess not, since the "all households" bars show a net loss, so some money must be going on something else (and that's not including corporation tax or public borrowing). I wonder what other things aren't included... --Tango (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moral question: Discriminate or avoiding conflict

Imagine that you have two openings in your company and you can choose people from group A or group B. You know that group A and B don't come along well due to some historical problems between their communities in the past. If you take a candidate from group A and group B, you know that they will not come along well, maybe they will even fight each other.

Would it be morally wrong taking two candidates from the same group?--Mr.K. (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If you take a candidate from group A and group B, you know that they will not come along well". Are you sure that is true of the particular people you are intending to hire? Just because groups A and B are fighting somewhere in the world doesn't mean people A and B will not be able to get along. I have personal experience of this working with people from different parts of former Yugoslavia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it is morally wrong to assume that because many members of group A are at odds with many members of group B, a given individual from group A will not be able to get along with an individual from group B. Furthermore, I think that it is morally wrong to reject an otherwise qualified person because of his or her group membership. However, it sounds as though a legitimate job qualification could be the ability to get along with members of both group A and group B. I don't see a problem with an interview question for a member of group A along the lines of "In this organization, we employ people from a wide range of backgrounds. Can you give examples of how you have worked in the past with people from groups C or B?" I think I would include people from more than one group in this question so that the interviewee does not feel that he or she is being singled out as coming from a group that has problems with people from group B. If the person then gave an example from group C, I might follow up with "And what about people from group B?" Marco polo (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree. You cannot assume that a person will act a certain way because of what group they're from. If the candidates have agreeable personalities then they should be able to work around any problems that the situation poses. They could even become friends and help diffuse the broader situation in their own localized way. I think the morality of taking people from one group or another varies depending on the situation. In some fields you're obligated to take the most highly qualified people nomatter what. Sometimes the job requires people with good interpersonal skills over qualifications. The historically persecuted group may have more candidates who can do the job (depending on what the job is, in some fields the qualification process is more rigorous and necessary) just as well as the other group but may not have as many qualifications to back themselves up. This is actually a layered and complex question. In general, morality aside, there are many benefits to companies in most industries in increasing diversity. - Lamba jan 18:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morality is a very personal thing. What's morally wrong for me may not be morally wrong for you. But, depending on the definition of groups A and B, choosing people based on their membership of such a group, rather than on their merits as defined by the selection criteria, may well be discriminatory in a way that's legally unacceptable (again, depending on the law where you live). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The largest discrimination is in assuming that any and all members of Groups A and B are the same as others of their same groups. Once you get past that prejudice, it become easier to understand. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical Questions Only - How to Address the US President

If Hillary Clinton had become presdient of USA, will she be addressed as "Mrs. President"? And if her and her husband where in public together, would they be addressed as "Mr and Mrs. President"? --Anilmanohar (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary would have set the precedent, so any answer would also be hypothetical. I'd go with Mrs. President. Bill would probably be The First Husband. Paragon ¹²³²¹ 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill will always be Mr. President because that's the standard greeting for ex-presidents (in the US), so they probably would say 'Mr and Mrs. President'. There would probably be a bit of a different precedent set if Palin becomes president. - Lamba jan 19:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess "Madam President", just as Nancy Pelosi is addressed as "Madam Speaker". -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds better. (Mrs President might be the wife of Mr President, in the sense of a married couple named Mervin and Gertrude President.) Women functionaries in their own right tend to get Madam <title of office>. We had a female President of the Senate, and she was always called Madam President. This sort of inquiry from journalists as to how to address a newly-appointed female ambassador was what lay behind the title of Irving Berlin's Call Me Madam. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with "Madam President and Mr. President" when they're addressed together (2nd person) and President Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton in the 3rd. Saintrain (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ditch the "and", it sounds weird that way, but otherwise I agree. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like the "Doctor. Doctor. Doctor. Doctor. ........" scene in Spies Like Us? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that anything like Major Major Major Major? — Michael J 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a formal presentation, such as at a European Royal Court, would they be introduced as "Madam and Mr. President Clinton?" Or perhaps "Mr. and Mrs. President Clinton?" I would expect that incumbency would give the distaff side presidential precedence. Or precedential Presidents. When Dwight Eisenhower was replaced as U.S. President by John Kennedy, Ike was immediately called "General Eisenhower," so perhaps the terminology would be "President and Governor Clinton." Edison (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, he'd be appearing as Hillary's husband, not as a former president (even though he is), so I suspect it would be "President and Mr Clinton". Also, she would be addressed personally as Madam President, but when referring to her it'd be President Clinton or Mrs Clinton - or even Hillary Clinton in some circumstances - but never Madam President. That's a confusion between a form of address and a title. Have no doubt, the protocol boffins would be working very hard to get these details just exactly right, so whatever we come up with here may not be what they agree on in the real world. But I saw Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark interviewed in a news grab recently, and the young upstart Aussie journo addressed him as "Frederik". So who the hell knows anymore? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a time when US presidents were commonly addressed as Mr. even when in office? I've never quite liked the way former presidents continue to be called president, as in, for example, "With us tonight is President Carter!" I have wondered when this kind of "eternal title" took root in the US. It wasn't always that way, was it? Pfly (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one suggested the obvious: Presidents Clinton (or, President Rodham and President Clinton). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously the Office of the Chief of Protocol is silent on this!? But the ultimate source states "American protocol dictates that only one person at a time can hold the title of president of the United States. Former presidents should never be so addressed, although they have even taken to calling one another that." Saintrain (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's common for those who formerly held high office in the U.S. to be referred to and in particular be addressed by their titles -- maybe because we don't have a House of Lords. "President Clinton endorsed Obama...," "We don't care what church Governor Romney goes to..." I suppose we should be happy that John Adams didn't get much support for his suggestion, "His Highness, the President of the United States and Protector of the Rights of Same." George Washington, thank heaven, declined the term "His Excellency" in favor of "the President." --- OtherDave (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the great Iron Lady was addressed as Madam Prime Minister, I would say it would be Madam and Mr President, or Madam President and Mr President. SGGH ^speak! 16:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I really doubt that. US ex-presidents get called "President Clinton", "President Carter" etc, but are they addressed as "Mr President"? I'd have thought that form of address was reserved for the incumbent. I could be wrong. (Otherwise, someone making a speech to a forum attended by both Bushes, Clinton and Carter would have to start out with "Mr President, Mr President, Mr President, Mr President, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen".) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering whether Thatcher was addressed as 'Madam Prime Minister', and if so, who by. UK Prime Ministers are generally addressed as 'Prime Minister' not 'Mr Prime Minister', though I dare say that style has been gaining ground. --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a crack on the structure of the universe"

Who said: "There is a crack on the structure of the universe" and what did he/she meant? It has something to do with science or philosophy. I have some times used this phrase, and before using it again, I want to know its original context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.65.112.51 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that one, but here's some free association that might accidentally hit on the right answer:

Cosmic egg (there's a book called "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg")
People sometimes talk about "the fabric of spacetime" being "torn"—meaning, I guess, curved spacetime with a singularity in it
Topological defects are almost literally cracks in the structure of the universe
Eddy's in the space-time continuum

-- BenRG (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, might it have something to do with the Large Hadron Collider and the associated paranoia about it opening dimensional rifts or destructive black holes? (That would depend on how recently the quote came about, though.) 68.123.238.140 (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wayne Kramer song called "Crack in the Universe". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they kept the receipt, they should just return it for a refund or a replacement... Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...but who keeps receipts for 13.7 billion years ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris? Though he probably caused the crack with a roundhouse kick. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I heard he never keeps receipts (he uses his stare to get his money back). :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]