Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 5

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 5

HMS Challenger (1858) in Tonga

When exactly did the HMS Challenger (1858) visit Tonga? It was somewhere between 1872 and 1876, does anybody know the exact dates, ie. year and months, even dates. And also does anyone know who was the Governor of Tongatapu, picture here, was during the time this ship went there?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Answering part 1: according to this, HMS Challenger was at Tonga between the 19th and 22nd July, 1874. The log of the Challenger (in an awkward spreadsheet format here) from the National History Museum gives dates for log entries of the 22nd of July for Tongatapu. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Answering part 2: The same photograph is on the NZ National Library website above with a name that I can't magnify the image sufficiently to read, but you can take a shot at it yourself. (Actually the name is in the text and is given as Governor Tungi.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Third question, the link to the Natural Museum site seems to say that the ship had one photographer abroad. Is this the same person as this Corporal C. Newbold? And what is his full name and birth and death date?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The ship seems to have had only one official photographer at any given time; however, it was unlikely to have been Newbold at the time the ship was visiting Tonga, as he seems to have deserted the ship at Cape Town on the outward voyage, per this and other mentions online. (His first name was Caleb and he was a corporal in the Royal Engineers) According to the above source, the ship's photographer at the time of the visit to Tonga was Frederick Hodgeson, who was recruited in South Africa. He later left (or deserted) the ship at Hong Kong, but that would have been after Tonga. I can't find much more about him online than is given in the source above, except that he was back in South Africa by 1889 and is mentioned in the journal of the Society for Psychical Research as a "witness" to some spooky shenanigans in that year.(link) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

PS A lot of sources use the spelling Hodgson, rather than Hodgeson, and he seems to have been an active photographer into the 1890s at least, from mentions in passing online.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you give me a range of their years as official photographer like when they started and ended? Basically when Newbold left, when was Hodgeson recruited and when did he also leave. Not even exact dates.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So is it Caleb Newbold (1872-1873), Frederick Hodgeson (1873-1874), and then Jesse Lay (1874-1876)?

That looks about right. You can use the Challenger expedition article to narrow the times down to a matter of days or weeks and Challenger logs are probably online somewhere. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 06:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote of Karl Marx on (classical) liberalism?

Hi, I have been trying to google a quote of marx on liberalism, and just couldn't find it. A lot of commentary, but no quote...

I would much appreciate any help! --MeUser42 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know any more about the quotation? It would help your searching if you knew any of the words used in the quote, the date and/or to whom it was said (if a spoken quotation) or when it was written (if it's a quote from one of his books). You might find something useful in the collected works of Marx and Engels. The same site has a list of Marx quotes, but no matches for 'liberal'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Classical liberalism" is a recently developed political term, of great usefulness for certain discussions. The term emerged after Marx, so he is unlikely to have used it, but almost certainly referred to some of its referants. Marx commonly commented on the "Manchester School," on "liberals" in power on the Continent and in the United Kingdom, and on the "Political economy" movement. It would help if you remember if the discussion relates to economic or political economic theory; the political economic disciplining of the working class in the UK; the policies of "liberal" politicians; or, some other context. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Luxembourg Continuation

Does the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg identify with the medieval County and Duchy of Luxembourg? Does it consider itself a continuation of those states or do they consider themselve a country created in the 1800s? Does the Grand Dukes consider themselves part of a line stretching back Siegfried of Luxembourg or is this a wikipedian concept? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The history page on the Grand Duke's website only goes back to 1815: (French) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The guide in the Grand Ducal Palace, Luxembourg told us pretty much the same stuff as on the Grand Duke's website. The family looks back six generations (line Nassau-Weilburg from 1890 to present). They also show paintings of the three kings of the Nassau-Oranien line (1815-1890), who were distant relatives of the present house, considered foreigners and had Luxembourg ruled by governors. The ancient counts of Luxembourg were not mentioned at all. The city of Luxembourg, however, is very proud of its tradition extending back to Siegfried of Luxembourg, who built the castle of Lucilinburhuc on the Bock (Luxembourg) promontory. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Extracting a contiguous history for many Continental European countries prior to the 19th century is difficult because the map of Europe essentially got erased and rebooted by Napoleon and the later Congress of Vienna, and further developments like the Revolutions of 1848, German and Italian unification. The history of Luxembourg is intricately tied to that of the other Low Countries, the modern Grand Duchy was itself created in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, though its borders were considerably re-written at the Treaty of London when the French-speaking parts of the Grand Duchy were transferred to the newly-recognized Kingdom of Belgium. The 1890 date is important because that is the date when Luxembourg got its own royal family. Prior to 1890, the King of the Netherlands was also Grand Duke of Luxembourg, but the roles were seperate (much as the Queen of the UK is also Queen of Australia and Queen of Canada). The reason the crowns seperated in 1890 was that the Netherlands and Luxembourg had different inheritance laws, Luxembourg being a former state of the Holy Roman Empire was bound to Salic law and did not allow females to inherit. After the death of William III, his daughter Wilhelmina succeeded in the Netherlands, while Adolphe, Duke of Nassau succeeded in Luxembourg. --Jayron32 19:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic "rivalry" between Britain and Australia

I've seen it written that there is apparently a strong rivalry between Britain and Australia at the Olympics, but here in Britain you would be hard-pressed to find many people who were aware of this. Is this so-called "rivalry" entirely one-sided, observed in Australia but not in Britain? Or has it now been quietly forgotten in Australia, too? 87.112.129.180 (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I can think of a few Australians who might give a more definitive answer, but I'd assume it has something to do with playing a country that used to control it. Hot Stop 14:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that Australia used to be ruled from Britain, and so were many other countries. I didn't ask why such a rivalry might have arisen, anyway. I asked if there was any evidence that both parties observed it, rather than just the Australians. 87.112.129.180 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the UK, and haven't seen or heard any mention of it here. Headlines in the UK tend to be which GB athletes have won medals, plus the more high profile of other controversies (such as the badminton "not trying hard enough" claims), and the organisational/host nation issues (such as the empty seats problems).

However, there is a perception this year that the GB team is doing unusually well, and that this is somewhow at the expense of the Australian team doing unusually badly. BBC News website in the UK did have a piece on this, and they also linked to this Australian news report. But really, as far as the UK is concerned, any mention of this comparison is swamped by other coverage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's quite a few news stories from 2012 which mention the rivalry, many from the British side: "the age-old sporting rivalry between Britain and Australia"[1], "GB and Australia's water polo girls to renew old rivalry"[2], "GB four enjoy Aussie rivalry"[3], "More than a century of fierce sporting rivalry"[4] as well as some internationally: "I personally believe the rivalry to watch is Great Britain vs. Australia"[5], "Australian and British team bosses squared up at London’s Olympic village in a demonstration of a friendly rivalry"[6]. The rivalry probably partly carries over from the older rivalry in cricket (The Ashes etc), which has been very fierce since the late 19th century, and rugby. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As with many things when it comes to sport, the commentators/journalists make a lot of stuff up. Yes, the Ashes is a huge rivalry in cricket. But with other sports, there's no special rivalry between Australia and the UK compared with Australia and any other country. There's the odd comment here and there, and such things are always good media fodder for blowing up way beyond what's real. The ordinary Australian people do not know this rivalry with the UK. If it existed, it would not just come out at the Olympics, it would be live all the time. And it's not. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In 2008, when the UK passed Australia in the medal count, some Australians claimed that the UK was earning many of its medals in "sit-down sports" (such as cycling and rowing), to which some British replied that Australia won many of its medals in the "lie-down sport" of swimming... AnonMoos (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that it's alive and well on my Twitter feed! It has something to do with the Ashes, as Colapeninsula says above. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And it's only the Ashes, really. See my comments above. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. According to my Twitter feed, Yorkshire has more gold medals than Australia does in these Olympics. Also according to my Twitter feed, NZ has more medals than Australia. And according to my Twitter feed, Australian TV has cut its coverage of the Olympics because Aussie teams are doing so poorly. Believe me, the rivalry between Eng and Aus is alive and well in Eng. It's present every time we play Aus at rugby league or union. It may not be as strong in Aus, but certainly over here... --TammyMoet (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the complete reverse of the OP's premise. He was saying this rivalry is a big deal in Australia but not in Britain. It's not a big deal in Australia, apart from the Ashes. It's just not. It does appear to be a big deal in the UK, though, if your Twitter feeds are anything to go by. Yorkshire can have its little joke.

Australian TV has most certainly NOT cut its TV coverage, by the way. The fact that 9 days in we've still managed only one gold medal is a matter of extremely widespread discussion and commentary, not something we're ashamed of (apart from Emily Seebohm, who seemed to consider only winning a silver was the worst disaster of her life and brought shame on herself and her family). We've done way better in the silvers, and in total medals, than a number of countries ahead of us in the standard table, which places 1 gold ahead of 1,000 silvers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also the bet between the sport's ministers: [[7]].90.214.166.145 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I submit that the cohort of Twitter users is not representative of the Australian and British population as a whole. I'm with Jack on this. The Ashes matter. The rest is a media beatup, although many Australians like to think they should be able to beat anybody at any sport. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, media beatups in sport, particularly the Olympics, deserve their own gold medals. I remember the mythical rivalry between Sebastian Coe and Steve Ovett at the Moscow 1980 Games. The media made it the BIG story of the Games, and talked endlessly about it for weeks and months beforehand. Meanwhile, Coe and Ovett themselves, on those few occasion when their opinion was considered at all relevant to the story, consistently denied there was any such huge rivalry. They were both competitors and both ran to win - surprise, surprise - but that's as far as it went. They were politely listened to, but their message was just ignored. The journalists had to get back to writing even more purple prose about their so-called fantastic rivalry. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course the people of Oz don't entertain the existence of such a rivalry now that they're not doing so well. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be fair comment if there was any truth to it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The decline in Australia's medal tally performance suggests there's plenty of truth to it. 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. The most circular (non-)argument I've ever heard. The only thing the decline in our medal tally suggests is that there's been a decline in our medal tally.

But this is all very premature; we're only a little over half way into the 2012 Games. Yes, we've done very poorly in the pool, where we've traditionally performed very well. But the final medal tally is the thing that matters when comparing countries' overall performances. Let's hang fire till then before rushing to judgmement.

Fwiw, we currently have 20 medals overall, which is already way better than our total tally at Seoul (14), Moscow (9), Montreal (5), Munich (17), Mexico City (17), Tokyo (18), Helsinki (11) or London 1948 (13). We will surely do better than Rome (22), Los Angeles (24) or Barcelona (27). That will give us a result that is at worst our 6th best since 1948, and if we take out the home advantage we had in Melbourne (35) and Sydney (58), then only Atlanta (41), Beijing (46) and Athens (49) will be ahead of us. I don't call that a half-bad result. The folly of believing the unutterable tripe the media often dishes up to us is readily apparent. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Australia was one of the first nations in the world to have a national institute of sport in the late 70's early 80's. We've been riding a huge wave of success since that time consistently punching well above our weight in the "medals per population" stakes. I think all that has happened is the initial advantage we had has now worn off, I actually read predictions of this since before the last olympics. Vespine (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence: before the Olympics I heard on several occausions British people saying to non-British, non-Australian people that Britain's "goal" was to beat Australia in the medal tally. I think it's a relatively recent thing, and must be related to the fact that Britain and Australia have tended to finish in the same rough band on the medal tally at recent Olympic games - obviously neither has a chance of beating the US or China, so competing against someone in a similar band of the tally seems a reasonable and realistic goal to pick. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As someone who lives in Australia, and was raised in Australian culture: the only thing worse than the poor losing of the Australian [media and crowing mob], is the poor winning. The 7.30 Report (a news-review on ABC) featured a main story segment last night on "Is this worse than Montreal?," a question they answered (being the ABC) by digging up reports into elite sports funding that criticise the concept of elite rather than popular (and more than popular, popular mass participation) sport. The 7.30 Report, to paraphrase badly, claimed that elite sporting medals are the pay-off for Australians. They also pointed to the post-Montreal decision by all governments to specifically fund national elite sporting, even when governments were winding back funding in other public benefit areas under neo-liberalism. Sport and nationalism are bound up in Australia in ways that are unusual in other nations. We don't have a space program, we don't have a large military, but we did have a swimming team [in the eyes of Channel 9's journalists]. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I could broadly agree with all of that, but it has little/nothing to do with the topic of Olympic rivalry between the UK and Australia. All the evidence I've seen is that it's pretty much all from the UK towards Australia, not the other way. There's nothing wrong with a healthy rivalry, and we have often been rivals on the sports field, particularly cricket, where we get huge pleasure out of beating the Poms at their own game (whenever we do actually beat them, which is certainly not all the time). But in the Olympics specifically? I don't think so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There's very little evidence of this supposed rivalry here in Britain, either, as I said at the outset. I think on balance that what you said earlier was correct, about the media creating this story based on very little. Is there any reason why we should have a specific agon with the Aussies for medals, as opposed to other traditional sparring partners such as Germany or France? 87.112.129.180 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I was suggesting that any "rivalry" in the Olympics is an invention of Channel 9 commentary, and its tail enders in the Channel 9, 7 and 10 newsrooms and a few crowds of 9, 7, 10 influenced street partiers. Your comparison to cricket where the teams genuinely look forward to coming to grips is apt. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As a Brit living in Melbourne I can confirm the Aussie media are obsessed with the "Ashes" Olympic rivalry. I could cite numerous articles from The Age confirming this. Plus the 9 and Foxtel commentators talking about it regularly. People at my work were also quick to give me some banter when the UK hadn't won a medal for the first 4 days. Coolcato (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some citations to back up that Australian media are obsessed with the UK's Olympic performance (and this is just one newspaper in Australia):

"...Again, satisfyingly for those Australians tiring of likeable British winners..." "Ready to rock the boat in medal fight with Poms" "A long jump to the conclusion Brits come first" "Aussies far from perfect but still better than Brits" "Gold medal? No thanks, we're British" Coolcato (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

How many men commit rape?

I know this is kind of difficult to discover, and controversial, but is there some educated guess available? Someone somewhere should have researched the topic. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you have to make your question much clearer. How many men make a habit of committing rape? How many men have ever committed rape? How many men have been convicted of rape? What proportion of the male population is involved in any of the foregoing? By country? World-wide? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Any place, US would be OK. And it's not about convictions, nor habitual rapists. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php - 99% of rapists are men. As for the exact number, I'm not sure if you mean in your state, the U.S., or the world. You'll need to clarify on this. Futurist110 (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to know how many men are rapists, not how many rapists are men. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason that so many rapists are men could be due to laws defining rape as 'penetration by the penis' or 'penetration of the vulva'; in the former case, only men could commit rape, and in the latter, only women could be its victims. V85 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading, it may have been in Before the Dawn, that some 10% of conceptions historically have been due to rape. That doesn't give you a number of men, but it gives you a ballpark idea. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Though historically a good deal of that is due to mass rape and pillaging, which has gone out of style in most parts of the world since the end of World War II. It would not give you necessarily a good contemporary estimate. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sadly Mr.98 mass and systematic rape have not gone out of style. It remains a tool of preference by state agencies for the disciplining of ethnic minorities. Off the top of my head, Europe in the 1990s: Rape in the Bosnian War. Our article War rape seems to cover the mass disciplinary use of rape to a certain extent. There are other incidents in the post-war period, but no mass rape seems to have occurred between Great Powers after the resolution of WWII's immediate occupations. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides that, from the number of women who get raped, you cannot get the number of men who rape, unless you know how many rapes each rapist commit, which is still unknown. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note that there is often a difference between legal rape and a moral one. In many nations, it's has been perfectly legal for a man to first marry a woman, against her will, and then force her to have sex, also against her will. In some cases the marriage step has been optional. StuRat (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

33% of men fantasize about it. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a nation where forced sex, outside of marriage, was legal? I know of legal systems where the evidence required of a rape is such that it is almost impossible to get a conviction (eg. only men can be considered witnesses, so the victim can't testify), but it is usually nominally illegal (although it may be more of a crime against the husband/father than the woman). There is sometimes are exception made for slaves or the women of an invaded land, where they basically aren't consider people with any rights - is that what you meant? --Tango (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides rape in war, which is illegal under international law but frequently legal under national laws, there are other cases. For example, in Morocco and Jordan, a man who is convicted of rape may be excused if he then marries the victim (and this can again be a forced marriage): [8]. Also, for a historical case, there was droit du seigneur, where the victims were serfs, rather than slaves. StuRat (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As our article says, there is very little evidence droit du seigneur/prima nocta ever existed. Your examples of Morocco and Jordan are news to me, though, and are certainly good examples. --Tango (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The article said there wasn't strong evidence of it in Western Europe. It then added "Instances of the right have, however, been observed elsewhere, such as the Ottoman Empire. As late as the early twentieth century, Kurdish chieftains (khafirs) in Western Armenia reserved the right to bed Armenian brides on their wedding night." Two sources were provided. StuRat (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

While I know I'm getting a bit off-topic here, I'm really curious how this locution prima nocta came about. Tango uses it; the IP below uses it, and a Google search for nocta finds a lot, but it's very strange; it does not appear to be real Latin at all. Here's the declension of nox; you can see that nocta does not occur at all. Correct Latin would be jus primae noctis.

Is calling it prima nocta just a mistake that somehow caught on, or is there something I'm missing? --Trovatore (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nucta or nykta would be the Greek accusative singular (νυκτα). "Nocta" doesn't seem to be anything in Latin (though "Noctua" is an owl)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's a possible lead, but prima doesn't seem to have anything to do with Greek, at a cursory check (I don't really know any Greek so I could easily miss something there). --Trovatore (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I just kind of threw in the Greek as trivia; it doesn't do anything to help "nocta"...AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Above comments are very gynocentric. While not technically legal, the state relies on prison rape to accentuate the severity of punishments of incarceration in jurisdictions where hard labour and corporal punishment cannot serve that purpose. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, see prima nocta. 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The best data you are going to get is for convictions/prosecutions, but for at least some countries, that is believed to be completely off the mark. Listening to one of the NPR weekend shows (I forget which one), it has been estimated that 25% of men in South Africa, over 12 million, have committed rape at some point, and half of those have raped more than one woman. Yet only ~50,000 rape cases are pursued annually in South Africa. And in the less developed parts of India, it was estimated that there are enough rapists to place at least one in every household, but looking at the criminal convictions for rape would belie that fact. We do have articles such as Rape in the United States and Rape statistics, which itself has links to similar articles about other countries. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How can anyone get Jimbo Wales to speak at the Landon Lecture series?

This is a series of lectures made by highly prominent individuals (including two sitting Presidents at Kansas State University. I believe it is high time that Jim Wales was brought in to speak, as there have been a dearth of Landon Lectures lately. --70.168.121.147 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

He has a talk page, innit? μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

First you'd have to get KSU to invite him. Get in touch with them, not us. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Polynesian researches, during a residence of nearly six years in the South Sea Islands' Volume 2

Does anyone know what event is depicted in the title image of the William Ellis (1833) Polynesian researches, during a residence of nearly six years in the South Sea Islands, Volume 2, Fisher, Son & Jackson, shown here? It seems to be a conflict or war. The previous image has thte title The Cession of the District of Matavai in the Island of Otaheite to Captain James Wilson for the Use of the Missionaries but this one doesn't. Also can anyone make out the engraver/artist.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Kavebear. Just a thought, but looking at the date on the image (and some quick Googling) suggests the image is from an American reprint of the book, dating 4 years after the original publication by the London Publishers Fisher, Son and Jackson in 1829. (Original here). There is a possibility that the image has no real connection to any events in the book; rather it might be an exercise of artistic license by the publishers. However, I do see the name H. Corbould as the original artist, who quite possibly might be the artist Henry Corbould. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(PS) The engravers names on the right are "Illman & Pilbrow", Thomas Illman and Edward Pilbrow, who apparently did a lot of engravings for various New York publishers; the original artist is H. Corbould, who I am fairly certain is Henry Corbould.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that only the 1833 reprint had this illustration while the 1829 version did not. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

http://histoire.assemblee.pf/articles.php?id=360 calls it "Scène de la bataille de Fei Pi (Scene of the Battle of Fei Pi)", but from personal experience, I know some of the captions on this site are unreliable. It really sucks that their are no records on the title of the engraving like there is on the other ones. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why only 2?

In human history, there have only been 2 diseases that are eradicated. They are smallpox and rinderpest. What I don't understand is why don't we try to eradicate as many diseases as possible? Why we only eradicated 2 diseases? I know we have vaccines for a large portion of diseases out there now. What are we waiting for? Is it because of the money problem? Aren't human lives worth more than money? 174.20.39.60 (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Eradication of infectious diseases gives you information about eradication efforts. Some diseases are on the way of eradication, however, I suppose the last mile is quite tough. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There were many short-lived epidemics of past centuries which briefly caused havoc, then didn't recur... AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of a good article, since you are asking a negative question. But among other things there are: a general lack of profit motive; drug shortage; the problem of international boundaries and local inertia; the fact that carriers often don't care or comply (HIV, Tuberculosis); the problem of resistance (Gonorrhea); and that people refuse inoculation (Whooping Cough, Measles). μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And many diseases can't be eradicated, because they have many strains and/or are constantly mutating, like the flu. StuRat (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Many diseases have animal hosts in the wild and would be very difficult to eradicate. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer your last question, money only has value because of the things you can buy with it. If you buy one thing with it, you can't buy something else. The cost of eradicating diseases can be extremely high, so what you you rather not have instead? Education? National defence? Other aspects of healthcare? It sounds great to say that lives are infinitely valuable, but in reality it doesn't work that way - people do put finite value on their lives and on the lives of others. For example, people are willing to do dangerous jobs in order to earn more money than they could be doing a safe job - if their life was infinitely valuable, then even a small increase in the risk of death in return for a much larger wage wouldn't be worth it, yet people still do those jobs. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If people assigned an infinite value to their lives, they wouldn't do any work at all, since the fractions of their lives spent working would be worth more than any monetary compensation in the form of wages. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody suggested spare time having infinite value, just life itself. You are still alive even when you are working. --Tango (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't say much new that's not said above, but the briefest explanation is that 1) it's quite hard to do period, and 2) many diseases have natural animal hosts that carry the disease but do not get sick from it, and so these reservoirs of disease make it exceptionally difficult to eradicate. I believe that there is optimism that Polio may be eliminated within most of our lifetimes. Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary tangential rant. This is not a debating society. Shadowjams (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Because human beings are stupid. Because they are ruled just about everywhere by an astoundingly shortsighted, mindlessly greedy & stupid elite 1% of the 1%, economies worldwide strangled by absurd economics that grossly starves public expenditure, except of course, for the titanic untouchable streams of welfare for the 1% of the 1%. Because a profit motive is absurdly inserted into the procurement of such a public good. The "what would you rather not have instead" argument fails in a time of financial crisis & great unemployment of human and other resources which has followed decades of intentional imposition of higher unemployment and slower growth worldwide. A multi-trillion dollar worldwide effort would not present any "what would you rather not have instead" choices. Compared to the costs they impose, the cost of eradicating any eradicable disease is minuscule in any real terms. Who knows which are eradicable? Some look tough, but you won't know til you try. Nowadays, societies don't even try. Because people used to have more of a can-do attitude - and the one successful eradication effort was not coincidentally undertaken at a time when somewhat rational economics was dominant, and resources put behind the effort by a US president Lyndon B. Johnson, who in spite of his many other faults, no one ever said didn't have a can-do attitude.John Z (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that my "rant" (I'm OK with the word) was in any way tangential, or proper to a debating society. Your answer was the best of the others above IMHO, Shadowjams, but also IMHO many of the others were simply wrong. There is no real economic obstacle to doing what the OP implicitly proposes, the real obstacles are as I said, and I suggest that you uncollapse it.John Z (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

There's one thing I never understood about them. They are one of the few denominations I have heard of that made their own version of the Bible, which is also the only modern Bible I am aware of whose authors are anonymous. But why does it seem that whenever skeptics of the religion find "flaws" in their doctrines, they apparently change the scriptures instead of apologists trying to reconcile the differences? That is, why do they seem to change the verses in order to fit the doctrine, rather than the other way around? If other denominations or biblical scholars question some of their beliefs, why don't they just drop or modify them? I would find their behavior rather ironic for a religion that started as a bible study group. I'm not saying that JW is a false religion, I'm just asking for possible motive behind this behavior. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean -- The "New World Translation" has some extremely disputed translated passages (John 1:1 etc.), but JW's don't make up scriptural verses from scratch. For a group to arbitrarily change around the Bible (going way beyond an arguably dodgy "interpretive" translation to reauthor Biblical books) would be to make itself a prominent target for vilification and scorn by evangelical/fundamentalist Christians. The Mormons supposedly theoretically reject the inspired status of Song of Songs, but still include it in the Bibles they distribute... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On what do you base your belief that "they apparently change the scriptures" "in order to fit the doctrine"?

—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

For example, they changed all instances of "cross" to "torture stake" due to their belief that Jesus was executed on a stake rather than a cross. They also changed "coming" to "presence" due to their belief that Jesus had already arrived on Earth in the 1800s. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 -- those are all dodgy interpretative translations, while the rhetoric in your original post led others to think that you were accusing JW's of making up stuff at random... AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And they are not all more "dodgy" than more conventional translations. Many features from the New Word Translation also occur in other independent translations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The JW's are far from alone when it comes to dodgy interpretative translations of scripture, but they have attained a certain frequency and concentration of them beyond most others... AnonMoos (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has information about the torture instrument at Crucifixion#Cross shape (version of 16:42, 3 August 2012). The two images are by Justus Lipsius (1547 to 1606). More information is in the article "Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion" (version of 20:40, 28 July 2012).

Wikipedia has information about the second "parousia" at Second Coming#Jehovah's Witnesses (version of 14:38, 5 August 2012). More information is in the article "Parousia" (version of 12:53, 8 July 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is information about σταυρός (stauros) at http://mlbible.com/matthew/10-38.htm and http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/10-38.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/4716.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/strongs_4716.htm.

There is information about παρουσία (parousia) at http://mlbible.com/matthew/24-3.htm and http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/24-3.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/3952.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/strongs_3952.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an article "TORTURE STAKE" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004456. There is an article "PRESENCE" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003548.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There do seem to be parts of the Bible that could use changing, like where God orders the Jews to commit genocide [9]. So, I'd change or scrap large portions of the Bible. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Herem" war is described fairly briefly in the Old Testament in passages concerning some groups which were considered to be blocking the Israelites from core areas of the Holy Land assigned to them, before the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel. If you imagine that "large portions" of the Bible are devoted to Herem war, then you've never read much of it... AnonMoos (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(So the lesson is that you can only commit genocide if you want to steal someone else's land ?) Genocide is just one of the many things that could be scrapped from the Bible. The "begats", for example, while at least not teaching us to be evil, are incredibly boring and utterly useless in instructing people how to live their lives. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That's nice -- the Bible describes cruel practices in one particular phase of Israelite history more than 3,000 years ago (not setting it up as a general rule of conduct). It may be shocking or reprehensible, but your pattern of rushing to condemn without bothering to understand does not impress me. By the way, genealogy was the way that the ancient Israelites understood their place within their nation and within the world. The tabula gentium of Genesis chapter 10 is a kind of map of the world as understood by the Israelites ca. 600 B.C. Actual diagrammatic visual maps were somewhat rudimentary or restricted in purpose at that time, so it was expressed in genealogy... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my link ? That's just one of many examples. The Flood is another. Supposedly everyone but Noah's family was evil and had to be drowned, including the children. Similar destruction happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Of course, I don't believe those stories are true, but it's still an example of the lesson from God that it's OK to kill off anyone you think of as evil, including children. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Biblical criticism doesn't come very well from somebody who doesn't know too much or care too much about the Bible. If you want to indulge yourself with a generalized rant about the inherent evil of all religion, then there are plenty of other places to do it. And since I was not particularly impressed with the style, attitude, or factual content of your comments on this thread, why would I click on your link?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How did you assess the factuality of his comments without looking at the reference he cited? 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw plenty of old "freethought" literature in past decades, and I'm familiar with what it is, and someone who regurgitates fragments from that material without having any real personal knowledge of what he's trying to attack or criticize really does not impress me, and does not even interest me. Some attempts in that genre can be rather interesting and amusing, such as the letter to Dr. Laura, or the list of "Top Biblical Ways to Find a Wife" (which is circulating in many variants) -- but those were made by people who actually knew what they were talking about... AnonMoos (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Geez, somebody piss in your corn flakes this morning ? Somebody who doesn't read the sources I provide before forming their opinions doesn't much interest me either. StuRat (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that general type of source already, and your particular approach towards the subject in this thread did not leave me wanting to know more about that particular URL. AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That site is cherry picking quotes without context... And if you would look later on, you'd see no genocide occured, and many native groups remained and lived there. --Activism1234 04:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

But god was not pleased... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses DO indeed sometimes change their doctorines. Even the notorious Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions issue has had more then a couple of revisions, none as far as I know involved modifying their scriptures. Vespine (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Locations for Olympics

I know they bid to decide the locations for every Olympic games but I don't know what they actually mean by bid? So is it like whichever country can bid with the most money win? What determine the result? How did a country eventually win the bid?174.20.39.60 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In theory, the decision is based on who can put on the best Olympics (this is why you don't often see them in third world nations) with some value placed on new locations (that's why they don't just stick to the same old location). So, number of stadiums, hotel rooms, public transportation, etc., would all figure in. Unfortunately, there has been corruption in the selection process, so bribery is also sometimes a factor. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Politics plays a role. Not sure why, but the IOC seemed to very deliberately yank Obama around in the process of the selection for the 2016 Olympics -- they made an ostentatious point of telling him that Chicago's bid might fail if he didn't show up personally, then when he did show up, they made an ostentatious point of giving him the bum's rush and dumping Chicago's bid in the first round. Hope they don't need any favors from him... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, after the London olympics bid and Tony Blair, having your leader show up began to be seen as important. Regardless of whether this was a good thing, if this was how the IOC members felt, it seems to me it was fair to point out to the US that if they thought they were special and didn't have to do what everyone else was doing to win, they weren't. However having your leader show up was still only a portion of the bid. You can't blame the OIC for quicky rejecting the US if the rest of the bid was crappier then other candidates. If the US felt that doing what every other country was doing would somehow give them a better chance then the other coutries (and even when they did do it only at the last minute), that was surely their own misconception. Our articles list several problems with the US bid, only one (the amount of money going to the USOC) of which could really be called politics (and like it of not, taking more money then others feel is fair, is going to cause resentment). The article on the Chicago bid in particular notes that it may not have even been intended by the IOC members for Chicago to go out. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet the IOC always makes a point of stressing the Games are awarded to a city, not a country. On that basis, they ought to be satisfied with the mayor. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be the official claim of the IOC, but it doesn't mean the IOC members who actually vote share the same view. Besides as with so many things the IOC claims about the unimportance of countries (or more accurately NOCs), long before the London bid the significance of the country involved has been clear. E.g. the bidding taking place in a non candidate country, the clear reluctance to avoid a the olympics to the same country too often. (The same way that despite the official view that atheletes not countries compete, the IOC posts medal tallys, atheletes march in under their country flag, the flag is raised along with the anthem for the medalist, in many sports the number of competitors per country is limited, the IOC pushed for women atheletes from all countries, earlier Chinese bids being rejected for human rights reasons, etc etc.) The more accurate view is that while cities are competing for and ultimately win the bids, the countries the cities are in are still a big factor. So having your countries leader support your cities bid should hardly be surprising. (If the Americans are unable to see this, again this is ultimately their fault.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

N.B. I just wanted to mentioned that I'm not suggesting politics is not a big factor in the bidding process. It clearly is. I was only pointing out that I don't see much evidence the IOC was intentional trying to dick around Obama. The nature of the bidding process means no one wants to reveal too much information on a countries chances early on, and in any case, there is some evidence minds are not always made up until fairly late in the game. So it's hardly surprising if some IOC members pointed out to the US that if they wanted to have any chance of winning (or perhaps wanted the IOC members to actually look at their bid seriously), they better get with the programme (again regardless of whether the requirement is a good idea). But then when they actually seriously looked at the bid (perhaps after the US had finally gotten with the programme), they realised it was still too crap to win. (Although as I pointed out, it's entirely unclear whether Chicago was really rejected at the first round intentional; or it's more of a accident from voting blocs and the politics about which specific country to support, since there's no actual 'oppose' vote.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nil Einne, it says right in the Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics article that "Both indices correctly predicted the winner, Rio de Janeiro, but failed to predict the poor showing of Chicago". In the minds of many in Chicago, or who followed the process, that translates to a null hypothesis that the IOC chose to slight or snub Obama (enjoying exercising the power of making him come from DC to Copenhagen at their beck and call, and then ruthlessly slamming him after he behaved like a good boy and arrived on command). I wouldn't be surprised if many in the administration had the same impression. AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See for example Bids for Olympic Games and Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics. You are apparently thinking of meaning 1 at wiktionary:bid#Noun. Meaning 3 is more relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)