Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 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.

January 12

Today's Judaism Tanakh versus the Bibical Old Testament

Is there any difference between the Modern Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts and the Old Testament of the Bible? Do they consist the same stories? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking of the text of the Torah has changed since ancient times? Or are you asking of modern Judaism has "founding legal and ethical religious texts" besides the Torah? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern Judaism really took form after the Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. As a religion, the focus changed greatly since the center of worship (what religious scholars call its axis mundi) was destroyed, it changed the fundemental nature of what Judaism was about. Jews don't sacrifice goats anymore, and there are no more priests in Judaism as there were up until the 1st century AD. While there are threads in Judaism that go all the way back to the Patriarchal age, it has changed greatly over 3000 years, and is a very different religion than it was even 1000 years ago. --Jayron32 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Old Testament of the Bible is merely a fraction of the legal and ethical religious texts of Judaism, though your premise reveals what is a common misconception. The Old Testament (and, more specifically, the Five Books of Moses) presents an almost incomprehensible array of law snippets (i.e. Written Law) that cannot be understood without the missing details provided by the Oral Torah. I can give you an exceedingly long list of examples if you'd like (in a different forum, though). But, no, there is no difference, assuming you modify your question to read, "Old Testament + accompanying Oral Law." To contest Jayron's assertions, Judaism is not a different religion than it was 1000 years ago -- it is merely a truncated religion, being that only 270/613 of the traditionally enumerated biblical laws are applicable today in the absence of the Temple in Jerusalem. And the fact that the Temple was destroyed doesn't mean that the founding legal and ethical religious texts differ at all. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's quite true. The texts still exist, as do the oral traditions. However, a large part of a religion is in the interpretation of and the enactment of those texts and traditions, and I'm not sure that modern Jews and, say, those from the time of Solomon or even from the time of the destruction of the temple would necessarily recognize each other all that well. They'd easily all consider eachother Jews, but they would certainly recognize fundemental differences in the way they practiced their Judaism. That the texts do not change does not mean that the religion does not change. The religion is not equal to the texts alone. --Jayron32 02:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your response hardly seems appropriate, seeing that the OP did not ask about the modern practice of Judaism vs. that of years ago, but rather if the founding texts of modern-day Judaism differs from the OT, which can be reworded to say, I suspect, "Is modern-day Judaism based on the Torah?" (my modification suggested above being worked into this rewording). And your supposition that Jews from various ages would not recognize each other -- I see no real problem of recognition after a sense of perspective settles in. Sure, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai wasn't on Facebook, but would he not recognize me as doing my best to keep the laws in the absence of the Temple, as he was forced to modify his life (he lived on the cusp of the destruction)? And would Moses not recognize RYbZ -- for there was but a wandering Mishkan? Sure, there are temporal and social and technological differences that change the way Jews lived over the ages -- even between now and in Europe in the 1800s -- but a different religion? Certainly Judaism will still be Judaism when the Temple is rebuilt and sacrificial offerings recommence -- the religion doesn't change, even if the relative availability and appropriateness of practice does over time from Sinai to Israel to Exile and back. The focus may change, but the religion will have sustained a theological and theoretical (the latter in the absence of practice) continuum. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at it this way; I have changed in the past 10 years of my life, but I am not a different person, and yet I am different than I was ten years ago. I am still me, but a me that has changed after ten years of experiences in the world. Likewise, Judaism has changed in the 3000 years since the wanderings in the desert. It doesn't make it a different religion, but it does make it different. --Jayron32 05:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayron said "there are no more priests in Judaism as there were up until the 1st century AD". That's only partially true. Less orthodox strands of Judaism have done away with priests altogether. In orthodox Judaism, the Kohen retains some of his ritual duties (such as Pidyon Haben, and all of his traditional status in Jewish society. --Dweller (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To the OP: yes, there's a massive difference. For one, the Bible does not contain all of the traditional stories - many are in the Midrash and texts derived from it. Orthodox Judaism would view a large proportion of those Midrashic stories as original and as old as the Bible. (Eg the Bible tells us virtually nothing of Abraham's life before he's an old man. The Midrash does.)

As you're also interested in "legal texts", you also notably omit the Oral Torah, that traditional Judaism says was given to the Jews at Mount Sinai. A Jewish teacher might say - on Mt Sinai, Moses was handed the two tablets of stone. That took maybe 2 minutes. So what do you think he was doing for the remaining 40 days and nights? He was studying the Oral law. --Dweller (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are differences. But that is because the world is different. The old testament, or the torah, remains unchanged, or at least that is an important intention. In fact even interpretation of it remains unchanged. But application of it requires adaptation to an ever-changing world. Everything is a story. When you read the newspaper you are reading stories. Their reality and importance is not diminished by their being merely stories. Obviously, different people derive different meaning from the same "story." The Jewish "meaning" derived from the torah is the same now as thousands of years ago, or at least that is an important intention. The significance of those stories is applied today to some additional circumstances than existed in times long past. Judaism requires informed participants due to the need to remain true to the "...legal and ethical religious texts and the Old Testament of the Bible." Thus the emphasis on scholarship and worship in Judaism. Judaism is said to be an "action" religion. (Christianity and Judaism: "Judaism places emphasis on actions…") Thus the real crux of the matter is not only the existence of the same texts, containing the same stories, but the constant application of the lessons derived from those stories to modern day lives. Modern day Judaism is supposed to be the same as that practiced a very long time ago for the important reason that it is practiced by real events and actions (by positive and negative injunctions) in everyday life. That is the relationship between "Today's Judaism Torah and the Bibical [sic] Old Testament." The question may be ultimately unanswerable. But I think it is important to note that the intention of observant Jews is to adhere to the directives of the torah now as then. Bus stop (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To the various responders: there seems to be an odd sort of phenomenon here in the sense that questions dealing with religion in general that drum up focused debate on Judaism tend to elicit questions of "how is this relevant," but a focused question here on whether the founding legal and ethical religious texts and the Old Testament of the Bible differ conjures up a wide ranging discussion on Judaism throughout the ages -- something about which is not being asked. If there is no Temple now, there certainly cannot be Temple service, but that doesn't undermine the founding text. The issue of "Bible" versus "Torah" is an important one, and certainly forms the basis for the OP's question and any appropriate answer -- but digression onto any and all other topics in Judaism seems ill suited for this discussion. I mean, we don't blow shofar and trumpets on fast days anymore, but that has nothing to do with the founding text remaining the OT (and related/associated texts to modify the "Bible" into the "Torah"). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why my response to the OP focussed on texts. In summary, the OT hasn't changed, but it's not the only text to consider in terms of "founding legal and ethical religious texts" --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then to you was the focus of my comment on was not on your posts :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If people responding are unsure what the question is, there are going to be unfocussed responses. I don't think the question posed was crystal clear. Even the first person responding basically asked for clarification of the question. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no expertise on Judaism or its scripture, but I would point out that the Torah is just the first five books of the Tanakh, or Jewish Bible. The Tanakh as a whole is the basis for what Christians call the Old Testament, though the books in the Old Testament are arranged in a different order than they appear in the Tanakh. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking if the stories of all the Jewish books differs from the Biblical Old Testament. Is there any missing information or story in either one? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There are some differences between the Tanakh and the Old Testament, but these are generally minor. All of the books of the Tanakh are included within all forms of the Christian Old Testament, regardless of canon. However, the differences between the Tanakh and the Old Testament fluctuate from canon to canon. For example, the Protestant Old Testament is nearly identical to the Tanakh, with only a small number of minor differences (Protestants number the Old Testament books at 39, while Judaism numbers the same books as 24 because Judaism considers Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles to form one book each, groups the 12 minor prophets into one book, and combines Ezra and Nehemiah into a single book, unlike the Protestants). Meanwhile, the canons of the Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox Churches are much more different. These canons include books that were excluded by the Jews and Protestants, called Deuterocanonical books. The Catholic Deuterocannonical books are as follows: Tobit; Judith; Additions to Esther; Wisdom; Sirach, also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus; Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah; Additions to Daniel: Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees; and 2 Maccabees. In addition, the books 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannasseh were previously Deuterocannonical books, but were not included in the list of canonical books at the Council of Trent. The Orthodox Deuterocannonical books include the seven Catholic ones, 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras, and divide the Epistle of Jeremiah from Baruch, thus creating a 49-book Old Testament. Some Orthodox Churches also include such texts as 4 Maccabees, 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Mannasseh, Enoch, and Pslam 151 in their canon. So, there are variety of different forms of the books, but they generally correlate and cetainly are similar. Hope this helps! Laurinavicius (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

10th Amendment and State Laws

On what grounds can the federal (United States) government criminalize marijuana (medical or not), if a state chooses to have it legalized/decriminalized? I don't understand where Feds have the delegated power to overrule states (in this case about Marijuana), if the power is not assigned to them in the first place (Constitution). Isn't that the point of the tenth amendment? If federal legislators (US Congress), chooses to pass any law, how can the State exercise its own sovereignty?

My question is essentially, how can the 10th amendment and the supremacy clause coexist? The mandate to outlaw marijuana is not in the US Constitution.

So if Congress passes a law that is clearly tyrannical, unfair, and unjust, by what means can State(s) challenge the law? Wouldn't all states be bound to following it by the code of the supremacy clause? One would obviously say the State could merely choose not to follow the statute imposed, but this led to the Civil War. And speaking of which, wasn't the Civil War an infraction of the 10th amendment by the Union (Lincoln)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxefremov (talk • contribs) 01:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

One possibility is the regulation of interstate commerce, which the federal government is constitutionally authorized to do. However, there is probably an article on this subject somewhere. Start with Marijuana and see where it takes you (article-wise, I mean). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, that's exactly what it is - Interstate Commerce clause, as discussed in Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that the Supreme court has very rarely ruled laws unconstitutional based on the Tenth Amendment. In fact, the only times that it has ruled laws unconstitutional based on the tenth amendment has been when "the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes". So if the federal government, for example, forced states to pass their own laws criminalizing marijuana, then their might be a reasonable Tenth amendment arguement. However, as our article on the Tenth amendment mentions, and Bugs alludes to, the federal government does have the ability to "pre-empt state law" through the commerce clause (in fact, reading the cannabis in the United States Article, I see that this is how the federal law criminilizing marijuana was passed).

So it certainly appears that criminilizing marijuana (as a federal statute) is OK, and as long as it's federal officers going after offenders, there should be no problem. Of course, marijuana is illegel in most states too, so it's generally state or local troopers who are catching marijuana offenders. But if a state decriminalizes marijuana, I don't think that the federal government could compel state cops to help them bust users. Buddy431 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the commerce clause only covers interstate commerce, so the Feds can, for example, throw you in jail for transporting marijuana across state lines. However, where drugs are legalized on the state level, the Feds generally cannot interfere if there is no "interstate" nature of the drug trade. For example, I am pretty sure that, if its legal to smoke pot in a state, as long as the pot so smoked is grown and transported entirely within the state, the feds have no say what goes on with it. That being said, most states consider marijuana fully illegal, so what the federal gov't has to say on the matter is moot; it is state laws that come into play in most cases. Even with so-called "hard drugs", most offenders are taken care of on the state level; the Feds really only become involved in taking down large interstate or international drug trade operations, not on street level dealers or users. --Jayron32 02:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See Gonzales v. Raich. According to the decision, "Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Before 2005, it appears my assertions were correct, but I was not up-to-date on recent Supreme Court rulings... --Jayron32 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, not exactly. Since Gibbons v. Ogden the federal government's power has expanded, and really since the 1930s most currently illegal drugs (that existed then) were illegal. Somewhat recently the federal power has quit expanding, the example being United States v. Lopez, which was the first SC case since the 30s to actually restrain the commerce clause. But BaseballBugs perhaps underplays the importance of the 10th amendment. The 10th actually gets mentioned more than you might think, perhaps to little effect, but it's still around. If you really want to get into state sovereignty see Hines v. Davidowitz. You should be running away screaming by now. Shadowjams (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Buddy's absolutely right too. For a good example of that see Printz v. United States, which is exactly the issue he's talking about. Shadowjams (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What could be tyrrannical about wanting to rid the world of filthy drugs ? Some claim these things expand their mind, forgetting that if anything, it controls them even more than any government, repressive, or otherwise. I guess suggesting the US get rid of its federal system is a big no no. In principle, if your Founding Fathers gave you laws, which your federal government claims to live by, they must obey them. I wasn't aware though that individual states could legalise Marijuana. I hope each individual state legislature sees sense. One drug leads to another, and the little spider monkey of cannibis grows into the King Kong of Heroin. Just Say No. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just say no to alcohol and tobacco also, while you're at it. Their being legal is not important, they're still bad for you. Medical marijuana at least has some theoretical benefit (as with "medicinal use" of alcohol during the Prohibition era). The issue really is whether the government has the "moral" right to tell you what to consume. Drew Carey said it in this pithy way: "I don't think the government has the right to limit the ways I can hurt myself!" But the other side of the argument is that these laws theoretically emanate from we the people, and if we want them changed we have to get the Congress to change them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. Thank you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I agree about tobacco and alcohol, but as for Drew Carey, what about the ways he could hurt others, not just himself ? And I don't just mean by his comedy. A number - may be not all - who take drugs can do others harm also - this has been seen in New Zealand with a P user who cut off a lady's arm with a Samurai sword after shooting dead a man she knew, while high. He later died in prison, but no one here will ever forget his crazed eyes. Weird. This is my concern, whether people think they are harming themselves or not - it is true they can harm others. I realise there were urban legends spread in the 1960s against LSD, where it was claimed a group of stoners went blind because the drug caused them to keep staring at the sun. Sounds more like a plot Cheech and Chong might have rejected for one of their films. Anyway, I hope we do not leagalise any of that in NZ. People say the drug problems are out of control, but it still won't stop the pro weed lobby from making it worse, even if they think they are doing good. As for pain relief ? I don't know. The Russian Christopher Lilly 14:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Why must topics like this always result in people posting personal opinions irrelevant to the original question? To address one part of the original question, wasn't the Civil War an infraction of the 10th amendment by the Union (Lincoln)? You might want to read States' rights, especially the section States' rights#Since 1865 (the sentence Exactly which—and whose—states' rights were the casus belli in the Civil War remain in controversy, is striking). Perhaps also Equal Protection Clause, for 20th century trends, and maybe Nullification Crisis for a 19th century prelude to the American Civil War. Pfly (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Internet enabled Air condiontioning unit

Why is it that no air conditioning manufacturer sell air conditioning unit that the owener can turn on from the internet? 139.130.1.226 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Sounds like an opportunity to me. Maxefremov (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is - this one is controllable using the X10 system, which in turn can be controlled over the Internet. I'm sure there are other X10 enabled devices for the home, and similarly many office/factory HVAC systems are controlled via LonWorks, which again can be bridged over, or controlled via, the Internet. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 02:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Harlem renaissance Songs

Does anyone know 10-20 of the most popular Songs during the Harlem renaissance and there names??? thanks everyone :) !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs)

This site seems to be an excellent source of information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Weather under ground

Dear folks: Its almost 3 in the morning and for 3 hours have been reading page after page and link after link on the Weather underground, Only because I was looking for info on the Weather ie rain, snow, clouds and things like that. I got caught up in the 60's 70's and 80's holy cow! I'm trying to find out how or what the link is between a hostile radical orginization (fighting the Gov't) called the Weatherunderground turned into a Weather station called the Weatherunderground ? 72.74.212.20 (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

From Weather Underground (weather service): "Based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, it was founded in 1995 as an offshoot of the University of Michigan's Internet weather database. The name is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the 1960s militant radical leftist student group the Weather Underground, which also originated at the University of Michigan." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And the radical organization Weather Underground Organization took its name as a metaphor from a Bob Dylan song that spoke of a change in the weather (as in the political climate or whatever). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"You don't need to be a weather man to know which way the wind blows" is the appropriate lyric. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So, to the OP's question, the answer is blowin' in the wind? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Marriott connection

The History Channel aired this presentation on the eighth anniversary of 9/11. It was called, "Hotel Ground Zero." Some surviving guests who were staying at the Marriott World Trade Center Hotel told their stories about what happened on that fateful morning. Those surviving guests were in a reinforced section of the hotel when the towers collapsed. (That particular section was reinforced after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The bomb went off beneath the hotel ballroom.) Shouldn't any of this be mentioned in the article about Marriott International?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You should discus it on that specific talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More appropriate would be Marriott World Trade Center. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How much of the Vatican Library has been catalogued?

What proportion of the Vatican Library, the Vatican Secret Archives, and similar libraries have been catalogued in modern times? Could there be for example classic works of literature waiting to be discovered? 89.242.107.166 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to think so, ever since the Alexandrian Library was destroyed so long ago. Shame us normal people aren't allowed in, but even a Protestant like me would be interested to find out. Scandals. Murders. Conspiracies. And after them, all the real interesting stuff, like the proof to his theorem that Fermat couldn't fit on his margin. I suspect they have done a bit. I saw the documentary that Brit did on the Sistine Chapel and its link to Waco. He got in there, and also got to read rare books, but whether any in the Vatican for his research I know not. Shame for them to keep all that stuff to themselves, especially if they got it from someone else. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that Christopher Lilly's comments are meant ironically - or else he's been reading too much Dan Brown. The Vatican Library is open to properly qualified researchers. Is there any reason to think it is not fully catalogued? Some museums have backlogs, and backrooms, that they haven't got around to processing yet, but I don't know of any reason to suppose there is anything significant yet to be discovered. The Secret Archives are not secret in the modern sense, and documents up to 1939 are available to outsiders. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican Library has most likely been fully catalogued long ago. The Secret Archives may also have been catalogued, but depending on the method of cataloging, the actual knowledge of most of the documents in the archive may be more or less unknown. Because of the sheer number of documents in most archives, they are rarely catalogued individually, instead bundles or collections of documents are usually catalogued based on donator, year or area of origin or even just its location in the archive. Of course this means that the Secret Archives are liable to contain a lot more interesting discoveries for the future. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the Vatican library etc is not the neat indexed affair that people seem to be assuming/guessing - I recall news items over the years of various things being re-discovered in it, for example http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=136& The manuscript referred to would have been placed in the library centuries ago. 89.242.107.166 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Manuscript archives are a little different though. The Vatican archives, even the "secret" ones, have a lot of easily catalogue-able regular plain old books. As DJ Clayworth said, it's not really "secret", although it's not like a library where the books are on the shelves for anyone to take, you have to know very specifically what you want, and the librarian will go get it for you. Unprinted, unpublished manuscripts sometimes get lost though. The most exciting adventure in a boring academic's life would be to find a lost manuscript while noodling through an archive. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You are just repeating what is in the linked Wikipedia articles above, plus guessing. 89.242.107.166 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just speaking from experience: big manuscript archives, even if they have been cataloged at a series level (and not, say, a document level) often contain a lot of gems that go unnoticed or unappreciated for a long time. The U.S. National Archives, for example, are unbelievably vast, poorly catalogued, and impossible to simply peruse. (Which makes them about as secret as the Vatican archives.) Cataloging large collections at the document level is very difficult and rarely done—usually the series level ("Records of Some Organization") and sometimes the box level ("Records of Guy in Organization") and more rarely at the folder level ("Guy's Correspondence on a Given Subject"), and almost never at the document level. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The discoveries that await are, first of all, unnoticed texts that have been bound into codices behind other texts, where the catalogue entry solely mentions the main text. Then, close examination of texts on vellum may reveal unnoticed palimpsests. And scraps of old documents were used to stiffen bindings and get discovered during conservation. These are the three most likely avenues. --Wetman (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dan Brown ? Me ? I wouldn't read that hack ! I only watch documentaries. Sure I saw one on the da Vinci code, and such, but that is it. I apologise since I was ignorant of who could get into the Vatican to read their stuff. I meant what I said about hoping they find a lost treasure. I was simply overawed by the fact they could have goodness knows what in there. So, whoever can get in to study, I trust there is some sort of guide as to what is available. Some of that stuff must be rare, ancient and invaluable. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Would Woods have been so cruel ?

I saw a documentary not that long ago on the Nuremburg executions. The Wikipedia article says John C. Woods may have " accidentally " botched the killings, but the documentary says he did it on purpose. Now although I support what they did, considering these men butchered millions, such that not killing them would seem to devalue those lives they took, I do not approve of making them suffer. I see no point in that. They are going to die, that is enough. But what then is the truth, and why does the wiki article differ from what was claimed on TV ? The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What was the TV show's source for their claims? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Your premise that they should not have suffered is not universal. You may possess an emotional/moral drive for A, while someone else may possess a drive for B, and for those who contend that morals are subjective, your disapproval of their suffering is not a concern. This is not my position, just my critique of your comment. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He did ask what the truth of the matter is, and what I was trying to tell him is that "the truth" from wikipedia's standpoint must come from valid sources. Somebody making an assertion on a TV show is not necessarily a good source, since for all we know they could be making it up. But if reliable and independent sources make that claim, there could be something to it and it could be considered for the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

From Ribbentrop - A Biography by Michael Bloch, 1992: The hanging seems to have been quite badly botched: accounts vary, but all agree Ribbentrop took at least ten minutes to die, some say almost twenty minutes.. Sources for this are by Andrus, Maser and Tusa (quoting a Foreign Office document FO 371/57552) who have all written about the Nuremberg trials. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't get their source. I believe the film was on the History Channel. I understand others believe they should suffer as those they killed suffered. But then maybe that is immaterial, if one believes in Hell, where there is unimginable suffering. What would Jesus do ? I cannot even see Him condoning the suffering, because it is still a cruelty on the part of the hangman. Mr. Wood did say, " Did you see what I did to those Nazis ?" or such like. Obviously he executed them, but it can be taken that he means he deliberately botched the killings in the sense that " Did you see how I made those SOBs suffer ?" I can understand his reason, if he did it deliberately, since he may have had dozens of soldier buddies die at their hands. But then Jack Ketch, who botched the Duke of Monmouth's execution was known for his cruelty. He is more condemned probably because a lot of those he despatched were innocent to some extent. In the end justice was done at Nuremberg, but then, so should it have been done to war criminals on both sides. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What is solar system

what is solar system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.205.202 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Solar System --Jac16888^Talk 15:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The term comes from "sol", which is the Latin word for the sun. That root appears in other terms, such as solar eclipse and the summer and winter solstices. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also one of our broader featured topics - especially when you include the Dwarf Planets. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The solar system contains anything that either orbits the Sun and/or orbits another object orbiting the sun and/or is within the Sun's gravitational sphere of influence, which actually overlaps with that of Alpha Centauri. The objects in the Outer Oort Cloud and hyperbolic comets would be on the borderline between being in the solar system and not. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Project on 'Discrimination of Homosexuals'

To cut a long story short: A friend and I were persuaded by our teacher to sign up to an anti-discrimination project at our school. The aim is to create a project that will put the participants into the position of the person or group of people being discriminated and thus help them understand the problems this person/group of people have to deal with. My friend landed himself 'Discrimination of the pysically handicapped' so he is going to have the participants tie one hand behind their back, and then get them to open bottles etc with only one hand. I was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to something I could do to demonstrate a similar point, only in relation to my project 'Discrimination of Homosexuals'. I'd really like to help make a difference, but I can't see how I could make my project as memorable as that of my friend. I'd be grateful for any hints or tips anyone could give me. Thanks in advance! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.83.88 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This does not look like an altogether serious question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but it really is...--217.227.83.88 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. The obvious forms of discrimination would be impossible to simulate properly in a classroom setting - not getting a job, for example, due to one's homosexuality. The marriage issue is an obvious one, but again, how do you simulate that? Unless you sit down and have the group work out how much they save if they're married (healthcare, taxes, etc), and then tell half the class "You can't get married, so you don't get this money". But it's pretend money and a pretend marriage - not really an effective or memorable lesson. Might want to trade it in for color-blindness or tone-deafness. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can come up with is to wear a sign that says "GAY" and to instruct others to treat those with the signs differently than if they didn't have the sign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That might work, actually. The awkward bit would be ensuring that, while you create fake hostility toward fake gay students, you don't end up stirring real hostility toward real gay students, out or otherwise. It's touchy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps 217's teacher had something in mind like the exercise that Iowa teacher Jane Elliott did with her students. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

e/cOr perhaps one of the points of the exercise is to show that you can't tell someone's sexual preferences just by looking at them - as you can with many physical disabilities, and skin color. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You have picked up on the point I was trying to make. You can tell someone is physically handicapped or of a different race, just by looking at them. But you can't tell someone is gay just by looking at them. It's not the same situation. The suggestion below, of assigning arbitrary fake colors, is a much better idea than labeling, as for one thing it won't bring real prejudices to the experiment and "personalize it". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

e/c The idea has potential, but I think a better move (to avoid the problems UltraExactZZ mentions) would be to give 90% of the class one marker (red stamp on the back of the hand, say), and 10% another marker (blue stamp), and then invent some small culture where blue-stampers were discriminated against. Imagine playing a game where there was a move which benefited a player, but was only applicable to red-stampers for some specious reason. Marnanel (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pedantic it may be, but you should know that "discrimination of" any group is a positive thing, while "discrimination against" is negative. You mean the latter.

The former means the ability to be discriminatory, ie deciding between right and wrong, good and bad, tasteful and tasteless etc. Discrimination of Homosexuals when it comes to fashion is, according to the stereotype presented by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy outstanding, and something Heterosexual men in particular can learn from.

These quirks of language are important, even if they seem irritating. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is important. Notice that native speakers understood what he was getting at, even though he said it wrong. But if they're going to use English (or any language) they need to understand the subtleties. Someone said to have "discriminating tastes", for example, is assumed to be cultured or refined, a good thing. Price discrimination is another variation, where the maker of a product or service might charge a different price depending on who's buying the product or service. And that could be OK or it could be illegal. Such as, charging different insurance rates based on age and sex, i.e. actuarial science - vs. charging a black man a much higher price for gasoline than a white man - or vice versa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "discriminate between", because it's neutral, and you can't discriminate unless you treat two or more things differently. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The original poster might try reading The Third Wave to see if any ideas can develop from that. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the novel The Wave (novel) is based on the Third Wave experiment. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

List of terms for gay in other languages

I am crazy or there was an article of "List of term for gay in other languages". But I can't find it!, any help appreciated. --190.50.90.243 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's sister project Wiktionary is the place to look up word definitions, and it also often has translations. Try this link and click the "show" link to the right. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comet Tuttle links to an exclusively sexual interpretation of the word gay that is more responsibly defined here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

John Kufuor's govt policies

Since my high school principal said "John Kufuor is the most outspoken person and there have been many concerns about John Kufuor's rule" is this because of his corruption he makes. A black people have said John Kufuor is devil, did john Kufuor's econmic plan concern people? Sorry I don't know that deep about politics. I'm still very young.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't know what is this about This talks about John Kufuor's impeachment. I don't know what degree have make JAK's leadership became a disruption or my principal is wrong.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the most important things to know about politics is that many people have strong opinions about it, and people's opinions will differ. It sounds as though your principal has a low opinion of Kufuor. Others, particularly members of his own political party and some foreign leaders, have a better opinion of him. Early in his presidency, in 2001 in particular, Kufuor cut government spending. This was because government spending was greater than its revenues, resulting in inflation. Kufuor's policy seems to have stabilized Ghana's economy and currency. However, it must have caused some hardship for government workers and for sectors dependent on government funding, such as education. This could explain your principal's dislike for Kufuor. Opposition leaders, such as the one quoted in your article calling for Kufuor's impeachment, felt that Kufuor was wrong to choose a policy that caused hardship for some Ghanaians. If you want to learn more about Kufuor and what different people think of him, try searching for his name in Google. This will help you to learn more about him so that you can form your own opinion. Marco polo (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

French Law on Public Rights of Way

Is it correct to say that French law allows the creation of public rights of way only by statute? Or the Code Civil rather. Does a Road require to have a public right of way over it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.189.57 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, there exists a body of traditional law called 'droit communal". If I own a piece of land, and for generations people have been crossing it, I can't just fence it off. Rhinoracer (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)