Humanities desk
< December 18	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 20 >

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.

December 19

legacy preference

I wonder if Harvard university has legacy preference in their application process? And also I have looked up Harvard's early action, they only talk about single choice early action. So is that the same thing as restrictive early action? Looks like the same thing to me. Is there any other option in Harvard's early action? Like applying early action at Harvard and also able to apply elsewhere.184.97.227.164 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! "Harvard’s acceptance rate for legacies has hovered around 30 percent—more than four times the regular admission rate—in recent admissions cycles". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the Harvard Crimson is a reliable source. Source from something big like NBC as an example should be reliable. If this is true then the lucky for whoever has a parent that attended Harvard in the past. However this is simply an unfair disadvantage for those whose parents are not very high statue in the society and they have to overcome much more to have the same success in term of education as those that from the top of the ladder already. The reason for legacy preference itself is stupid, just to get more donation from alumni. I'm surprised that an elite school like Harvard has such a bad moral, willing to trade legacy preference for money.184.97.227.164 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of socialism? 40% in 2003! Compared to the overall 11%. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People calling it an "unfair disadvantage" should remember that Harvard is a private institution. OsmanRF34 (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some would consider it suspicious that certain of those who are most vocal against affirmative action seem curiously unbothered by legacy preferences... AnonMoos (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being against affirmative action is equally not reprehensible as such if you are a private institution, even if you have a strong legacy program. My way of thinking about it is that the state shouldn't be creating privileges, since it's the government of all, but it's OK for private enterprises to use their privileges as they please. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right it sounds like single choice early action is simply another (perhaps less confusing) name for restrictive early action. In fact they even have pretty much the same exceptions [1] i.e. public universities, foreign ones (of course the problem with foreign ones is such concepts as early action don't always translate well, probably one reason why no one tries to limit them). It doesn't specifically mention stuff like rolling admissions and special programmes, but since the restriction is under any of the three listed 'early' possibilities, I don't see why these would be a problem. As per the source, it sounds like you can apply for anything after receiving Harvard's decision/ So any institute which has stuff with a deadline after the ~December 15th of receiving notification is an option, which evidentally includes a number of Early Decision II programmes. Note that as discussed in the previous topic and also mentioned in the Harvard site and in the early decision II ref and also I guess in our article early decision is distinct from early action. Early decision means the application is binding so if admitted you have no choice baring special circumstances (I think if the financial support offered wasn't enough is usually one of them when you aren't offered full financial support). I believe this also means early decision is by definition single choice or restrictive [2]. Whereas with early application you (generally) find out faster if you may be admitted, but you still have until the normal deadline to make up your mind which university, if any, you want to enroll at. (In case it wasn't clear from the previous discussion and the source, in both the Harvard and Stanford case you are still free to apply under regular decision at other universities even if accepted at Harvard/Standford. You just find out sooner if you are accepted and can't take advantage of any other 'early' processes.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Israel from User:Donmust90

yeshivas in Israel reform/progressive and masorti/conservative

How many yeshivas that serve the reform/progressive jews and conservative/masorti jews in Israel? -- 04:23, 19 December 2012‎ Donmust90

I found one, ([3]) by spending a few minutes using Google. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Actually, that doesn't count, as it's aimed at secular Jews, not non-Orthodox. There is a big difference. The answer to your question is probably that given by AnonMoos, below. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button

or

located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

chief rabbi sephardi in Israel

How many places in Israel that have sephardi chief rabbis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Chief_Rabbinate_of_Israel#Chief_Rabbinate_Council --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reform rabbis and conservative rabbis in Israel

How many places in Israel that have rabbis of progressive and masorti judaism, regardless they are women or men? -- 04:23, 19 December 2012‎ Donmust90

Lots. If you tell us why you want to know, it might help us answer such a broad question. Also, it might help us communicate if you tell us what is your first language. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you never seem to understand that non-Orthodox forms of Judaism only have a somewhat niche presence in Israel (as far as formally-established organizations go), no matter how many times you are told this? AnonMoos (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term Orthodox is by no means consistent or easily defined. Depending whether you are in Israel or not, Jew or not, you'll be using the term differently. However, Orthodox Judaism claims that only 25 % of Israeli Jews were Orthodox, as of 2001. Many among the rest are secular Jews. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, only rabbis recognized as being Orthodox by other Orthodox can join the official rabbinate, and if you're of Jewish ethnic/historical origin in Israel, you can be affected by provisions of inheritance, marriage, divorce etc. laws as interpreted by Orthodox rabbis, no matter how much of an atheist you are -- and relatively few synagogues or other religious institutions have declared themselves non-Orthodox. To put it in Ottoman terms, the Israeli government only recognizes one Jewish "millet", the Orthodox Jewish "millet"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are pressed into the orthodox Judaism category, but that wouldn't mean that someone in Israel, even if recognized as orthodox, cannot hold progressive views and be female, would it?. Would Dweller's answer (Lots), be right under some perspective? OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your first sentence. By definition, someone who is Orthodox is not progressive. By definition, people who are Orthodox includes (roughly 50%) women. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any female orthodox rabbis in Israel? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You missed out the word "rabbis", you said "someone". Now that makes sense. There are Orthodox women who have been given the title of "rabbanit" (our redirect to Rebbetzin is unhelpful) or similar. As with the cases below, they're mostly not recognised by the rabbinate, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. --Dweller (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider this: Rabbanit is the Hebrew word for Rebbetzin (Yiddish), an honorific title for a respected wife of a rabbi. That page is entirely helpful. In no way is the term conferred for ordination, for which women are ineligible as many key religious obligations (mitzvoth, commandments) are for men only. There is no Orthodox ordination of women. In the Reform/Progressive movement, the Hebrew word for female rabbi is rabbah. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some confusion here. There are plenty of rabbis in Israel who are rabbis, regardless of recognition by the official rabbinate. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me attempt to straighten this out:

The OP failed to capitalize Progressive [Judaism], the name for an umbrella movement in Israel for the streams elsewhere called Reform, Liberal, and Reconstructionist. See World Union for Progressive Judaism. The term "Masorati" (Hebrew: traditional) is sometimes used in Israel as equivalent to the foreign "Conservative" movement. "Progressive...Masorati" are the OP's way of referring to "Reform...Conservative" in Israel.
The term "Orthodox Judaism" - while it covers many subsets - is generally that of adherents who practice the commandments (in Hebrew, mitzvoth) of the faith, largely as expressed in laws of Halakha, set down and administered by rabbinic figures and bodies. Familiar practices include Sabbath observance, the laws of Kashruth (eating kosher), men and married women covering their heads in public, and much, much more.
The only form of Judaism recognized in the State of Israel is halakhic (according to Halakha), i.e. Orthodox by its many names and forms. Synagogue membership is not obligatory, but only an Orthodox rabbi can officiate at weddings, burials, and conversions. Rabbis and cantors ordained by non-Orthodox streams of Judaism (outside of Israel) may lead congregations but otherwise have no legal status.

Hope that helps. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what happens to officially orthodox Rabbis that hold progressive positions? Is the Progressive Judaism movement a partof Orthodox Judaism in the same way that Theology of Liberation is a movement within the Catholic Church (but not a rupture)?OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made the fatal flaw of confusing "Progressive" as a term to apply to a particular tradition within Judaism and "progressive politics". The two have nothing to do with each other. Liberation theology represents a certain worldview that favors social justice in many of the same ways that progressive politics does, but it isn't inconsistent with the core tenets and doctrine of the (religiously conservative) Catholic mainline. Likewise, a Jewish person could be "politically" progressive and work for social justice in the same ways, but still be "orthodox" in his/her practice of Judaism. --Jayron32 18:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See: Rabbi Haim Amsalem. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany anti-Jew legislation

Do we have, or can anyone point me in the direction of, a timeline for the introduction of anti-Jew legislation in Nazi Germany? Timeline is important here. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a very incomplete list of the 2,000 German laws see [here]. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A concise timeline posted by the Anti-Defamation League. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Forest of Kings The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya

I've had the book A Forest of Kings by Linda Schele and David Freidel for a while now, but I've never gotten around to finishing it. I'd like to read as much as I can before it's too late... However, the book is from 1990 — are there any whopping mistakes or glaring omissions I should be aware of? TresÁrboles (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Same deal with Breaking the Maya Code by Michael D. Coe. The book is twenty years old this year. TresÁrboles (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Before it's too late"? I think you'll have a little more time than you seem to believe. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the world is ending, let's get the date right!

I guess this is an inexact science; most sources I've seen has the Mayan calendar rolling over on December 21, 2012. But as a note in our article says, " Various sources place this on other dates, notably on December 23."

In fact, this is from A Forest of Kings:

December 23, 2012, will be 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 3 Kankin, the day when the 13 baktuns will end and the Long Count cycles return to the symmetry of the beginning.

I'm surprised I have not heard more about this. Have the experts settled on the 21st after all? TresÁrboles (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Experts?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, experts in ancient Mayan civilization. Anyway I found in our article the kind of info I was looking for. So the answer as to why the 23rd date is being ignored in the media is probably because of the solstice. "This date is also the overwhelming preference of those who believe in 2012 eschatology, arguably, Van Stone suggests, because it falls on a solstice, and is thus astrologically significant" "the date's falling on a Solstice would be ever so much neater if one believes Zodiacal horoscopy" (See http://www.famsi.org/research/vanstone/2012/comments.html) TresÁrboles (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, experts might come to a consensus on when the Mayan calendar cycle ends, although leap years might be tricky. Real experts, however, would never argue that the end of the Mayan calendar is the end of the world any more than the end of our calendar each year means that. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the world had already ended... several times? Blueboar (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth mentioning that the end of a baktun is neither the end of the Long Count, nor the end of a 'calendar cycle' as such. There are four more uncommon significant figures on the Long Count after the baktun, and with distance dates factored in there's anything up to 24 significant figures. There are more baktuns still to go (2012 represents the change to the 14th baktun out of 20) and there are a number of examples of Mayans referencing dates past the 14th baktun. The Long Count calendar itself ends something in the order of several quadrillion years in the future, well after the solar system is expected to be destroyed by our dying sun. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Tank

I found this image at the LAC:File:CD Howe first tank.png. I had it in the Ram tank article and it was removed as being a Valentine tank. Can anyone confirm which type it is so I can categorize it correctly?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed seem to be a Valentine; This image (on the header) seems to match every detail including the wing mirror. Alansplodge (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one - same similarity. Alansplodge (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, "The Valentine, while not used by the Canadian Armoured Corps overseas, holds the distinction of being the first tank manufactured in Canada, prior to the Ram. Of 1420, all except 30 were sent to Russia..." Everything that you ever wanted to know about Canadian Valantines is here, except the date that the first one (which I believe is shown in your photo) was completed. According to that article, the official designation of it was Tank, Infantry Mark III*** (Valentine Mark VI). Alansplodge (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I've just seen that the date is on your photo caption. C. D. Howe was the Minister of Munitions. Alansplodge (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help. Can we safely call it a Valentine Mark VI or should it be labelled Tank, Infantry Mark III*** ?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Valentine Mark VI is more intelligible. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

..and thanks again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome - I have added the image to the Department of Munitions and Supply article, which talks about both C D Howe and armoured vehicle production. Alansplodge (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]