Humanities desk
< June 4	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 6 >

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.

June 5

Historians and jesus

Is it true that there were historians (non-religious) at the time of jesus? If so, did they write anything about jesus? ScienceApe (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if they were historians and they were contemporaries of Jesus they wouldn't have written about him because he wasn't historic then? -- role^player 01:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were historians, such as Josephus (slightly later), but they didn't have much to say about Jesus. Apparently, he was just one of hundreds of religious nuts who were executed, at the time. The myth of Jesus developed slowly over the following centuries. StuRat (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To give a slightly different take on that, there were certainly Roman historians (at least one!) considered very reliable in other matters, who attested that there was indeed a Jewish leader called "Jesus", who was very popular among the Jews at the time before and soon after his death. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus on Jesus is an interesting read on the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You can tell from the relative weight he put on his account of John the Baptist, that John was more (in)famous than Jesus, at the time. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of Jesus, as linked from the article Jesus. IBE (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there were historians, but non-religious historians? That would be pretty rare I'd say. And although there were historians in the Roman empire, no writings have been preserved of contemporary (non-Christian) historians living in the Palestine/Israel region. Josephus is the closest we have, he was born about seven years after Jesus' excecution. He mentions Jesus twice in his writings. A far more complete account of Jesus' life is was of course written by the Christian historian Luke. - Lindert (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and far more biased. StuRat (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see now. You refer to "the myth of Jesus" and yet you still call a certain writer "biased". Hmm, interesting. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim to be unbiased, but then, I'm not a historian. And the numerous conflicting stories of Jesus tell us that they can't all be true, so I am calling the "myth of Jesus" the consensus that later was developed under the Catholic Church. And Luke, who was trying to help spread Christianity, definitely had a pro-Jesus bias, while Josephus, who didn't seem to care about Christianity one way or the other, is presumably less biased regarding Jesus (although he may have been biased on other issues). StuRat (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A far more complete account of Jesus' life was of course written by the Christian historian Luke...and far more biased." I think StuRat's comment was directed at Luke, and not Josephus.Anonymous.translator (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

No. Just no. "Historians" developed around the time of Ranke. In the two hundred years after 1AD, there were no such individuals. People like Josephus wrote propaganda of varying facticity for particular individuals. People like the anonymous author of Luke wrote texts that claim facticity, but fail central elements of modern understandings of history. Moreover, attempts to use documents like Luke for historical purposes without working in the full textual transmission environment is illegitimate and faulty history. The synoptics, Acts and John appear substantially bizarre compared to other early texts, such as the various letters and other gospels like Thomas. Finally, none of these texts show attention to deep primary source reading within a methodological and historiographical tradition enforced by other historians who attempt to ensure that produced texts and analyses are fully faithful to the variety of recoverable facticities from the texts. Acts is a hagiography. Josephus is corrupt. Some modern scholars may be able to produce history from these texts, but the problem of document transmission with even the Synoptics, the probably existence of Q, and the "written for Greeks" issues mean that even plying the texts for social or cultural history is uphill work, let alone believing that particular incidents described in texts have any connection to what the discipline of history considers the basis of facticity. If you believe the texts are divinely ordained literal truth, then good for you, but that isn't history. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus' extant manuscripts have been modified over the centuries to conform with Christan dogma, but I don't think it's fair to call the person himself "corrupt". I don't see how Christians could have influenced him when he is in the safety of Rome while Christianity was still being actively prosecuted.Anonymous.translator (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was more suggesting that Josephus' trustworthiness as a historian regarding Roman / Jewish relations is undermined by his highly politicised career. Josephus obviously didn't have an axe to grind against a small Greco-Judean fusion cult, given the two obscure references. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search turned up this article regarding Tacitus on Christ which may be of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyk7 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifelfoo: I think you greatly overestimate the textual corruption of the New Testament documents. There is a consensus that they are substantially identical to when they were written. For example, the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman has estimated that only about 1% of the New Testament is impacted by meaningful and viable variants. So 99% of the text is not in doubt, even among secular and liberal scholars. Plenty of historical information from the 1st century I would say. - Lindert (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The texts may not have been changed substantially since they were written, but they are not contemporary accounts. The Gospel of Luke, for instance, was probably based on Mark and Q (and maybe some other sources). The substantial changes Fifelfoo refers to happened when Luke was written, not after. As Fifelfoo says, the lack of primary source material is a problem in any historical analysis of the life of Jesus. --Tango (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, what is your basis for asserting a lack of primary sources used by Luke? Have you read Luke's introduction where he refers to eyewitness accounts, and writes "I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning"? Can you cite a reliable source for this assertion? Most scholars agree that the author of Luke was a companion of Paul, who died c. 67 CE (i.e. Paul). Having accompanied Paul on his journey to Philippi, c. 50 CE, Luke is likely to have been a contemporary of Jesus. Regardless, when Luke's gospel was written, many eyewitnesses to the events were still alive, besides the written sources that he used (Mark e.g.). In any case, Luke is significantly closer to the events than Josephus. - Lindert (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your "most scholars agree" claim is correct. That is the traditional view, but does not enjoy consensus today. Also, of course, Paul never met Jesus (in the flesh), either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim a consensus, I said 'most', which implies a majority. Having looked at a number of mainstream publications, I think this is correct. The reason I mentioned Paul was because we know reasonably well when he lived, but you are of course correct. - Lindert (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke was a companion of Paul, but whether Luke was the author is the Gospel attributed to him is disputed. Either way, being a companion of Paul doesn't mean Luke ever met Jesus. The author of Luke's Gospel may have interviewed eye witnesses (but it seems clear that he relied heavily on written sources), but that still only makes it a secondary source, not a primary one. I never said Luke didn't have primary sources, I said that we don't have them. --Tango (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, agreed, Luke is not itself a primary source (i.e. for Jesus' life). But that is true of any history book or biography, whether modern or ancient (apart from autobiographies). A historian or biographer by necessity uses a variety of sources to compile an account, which makes it by definition a secondary source. However, according to the traditional authorships, which are attested by the earliest sources we possess, five of Jesus' twelve disciples wrote one or more books of the New Testament. - Lindert (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Luke doesn't cite Q is sufficient—the antecedents of Luke's work have to be detected by hermeneutic text analysis. He doesn't subject his sources to analysis within his text. His purpose is to document the stories of witnesses to divine truths and embellishes them with narratives that nobody could have born witness to, or remembered with precision (for example: infantcy narratives), as opposed to the instinct behind "wie es eigentlich gewesen." If we compare Luke to Q (by reconstruction) or Thomas, a new narrativist instinct has arisen in the Christian community. Luke is so very, very far from the requirements for historical writing. He may be an excellent author of a text that is true to predominantly second hand revelations and a few first hand revelations, and may well have consulted a major extant text (Q); but in so very very many ways the document is far from acceptable as history. Luke may be useable as a source for history, but I would have great expectations of text immersion from the authors doing so. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No primary sources? Sounds like ol' Luke was one of the first wikipedians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q is a hypothetical document; not all solutions to the synoptic problem require a Q source, so not citing this possibly non-existent source does not prove much. That Luke used written sources without naming them is not surprising, as ancient historians very rarely cited their sources by name (see e.g. [1]). As for Jesus' infancy, he may have interviewed Mary. - Lindert (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No ancients meet the criteria of historical writing, and we share a fundamentally different attitude to the capacity for the miraculous to intervene into the world. You'll find that the standards of history are firmly secular in the sense that the practice of history denies the possibility of adequately accounting for divine interventions, and so discounts any attempt to discuss such. History is not compatible with the actions of gods in the world. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going back

You ask if there were non-religious historians during the period, and if so, whether they wrote about Jesus. Virtually no non-religious people existed in the region at the time (and probably the same is true everywhere else in the world), so the answer to your original question is a definite "no". Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there were people whose motivation for writing wasn't religious, which is probably what the OP was getting at. --Tango (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, secular historians concerned with historical accuracy as a top priority. ScienceApe (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White people with Chinese & Japanese ancestry?

The Chinese and the Japanese came to America in the 19th century and started mixing with white people, and then their offsprings also mixed with whites. Many of these Chinese and Japanese descendents would have melted into the white population of North America. How many white people have Chinese and Japanese ancestry in the U.S. and Canada today, that is white people who are 1/4, 1/8 or even 1/16 Chinese or Japanese?

There is a statistic that say there are about 30% of white Americans have black ancestry. Is there any statistic about the percentage of white Americans who have east asian ancestry? 174.114.204.104 (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the premise of your question is correct. Few 19th century Chinese and Japanese immigrants in the U.S. married whites (which was often even illegal). Yung Wing married an American in 1875, but his case was rather unusual... AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, "30% of white Americans have black ancestry" sounds unbelievably high to me. Apparently that number is based on one small-scale genetic survey and is extremely questionable, but it's hard to find much more information on it - all internet trails invariably lead to White Power forums. :) FiggyBee (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why doest it seem so unbelievable? There are, roughly, 10 generations of people in the US, maybe 15 since serious settlement of the colonies. That makes ~2000 to ~60000 potentially black ancestors for every current American. Things are slightly more complex because of on-going immigration, but 1/3rd does not seem that high when in 1790 nearly 20% of Americans were black (or "of very recent African origin"), and when even in Jefferson's time, his (or at least Sally Hemings's) children where white enough to "pass" into white society, so intermarrying was possible without stigma. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your calculations don't seem to take into account large migrations from Europe in the 19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Things are slightly more complex because of on-going immigration, but otherwise... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a "slight complication" to your calculations, but rather something which would demand major revisions. AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't talk off topic. I just want to know how many white people are there, with Chinese and Japanese ancestries. 99.244.236.73 (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know how many white people have pre-20th-century Chinese or Japanese ancestry, then it's hard to come up with any meaningful concrete number (unless some scholar has done serious research on the subject), but the answer is almost certainly less than you seem to be assuming... AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chang and Eng Bunker were Thai. They married American sisters and have a number of descendants in the US. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism and World War 2 inevitable result of German history?

I vaguely remember that anywhen after WW2, some scholars (I think Americans, but I'm not sure) wrote a book holding the thesis that Nazism and the war were the result of centuries-long German history, at least back to Martin Luther, or even further. These memories were not enough to find it with Google - does anybody know this book? --KnightMove (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean The Roots of National Socialism by R. D. Butler? -- role^player 12:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Willing Executioners is another in this genre. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that in public discourse much more hostility exists towards Goldhagen because of his popularisation of the Police Battalion actions, Einsatzgruppen actions, rear area Wehrmacht "partisan" and jew-hunting, and death march elements of the holocaust; indicating a generalised willingness in German society to engage in genocidal murder of central and eastern europeans; rather than to his assignment of this to Germaness. YMMV, not an expert on this. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goldhagen's general thesis was that the Holocaust was a uniquely German outcome and that it was merely the extension of age-old hatreds and factors. This was considered pretty controversial; most historians, I would wager, are more in the Christopher Browning camp which says that while specific cultural/historical factors obviously mattered, the Germans involved were unexceptional. Goldhagen's book was written largely as a response to Browning. Browning's thesis has held up better, in my view. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other famous books that might fit the description are The Authoritarian Personality written just after WW2 by mainly German intellectuals in the USA seeking to explain Nazism, and Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, which traces antisemitism through German history. Not sure if either blames Luther. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Shirer brings this up in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich linking to the Thirty Years War and the German nation's supposed (according to Shirer) blind obedience to authority. Back in those days most people in the world were obedient to the authority of their overlords and not necessarily particular to the German nation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really think such theories are more a lack of willingness to consider the possibility that the harsh treatment of Germany after WWI led to economic and political chaos from which something like the Nazis could arise.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In high school I was close friends with a guy whose parents were both German Jews who survived the Holocaust. He himself blamed the harsh treatment meted out to Germany at end of WWI for the rise of Hitler, anti-Semitism and the Nazi Party.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an unusual assumption of causality. I think the point made in much of the above literature is that there were aspects of German culture from the 18th and 19th centuries that led to the policy of expansion that caused the First World War, and that this in turn caused the second. At least that's what I remember, it's a long time since I read it. -- role^player 16:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as the First World War led by way of horrific poverty and privation to the Second, some scholars will classify both conflicts as two stages in the same multi-decade conflagration. The causes of this entire epoch, then, can perhaps be described from a century or two prior - and the post-WWI analysis serves that function. This page cites a number of philosophers who argued that innate (for want of a better word) German cultural characteristics made war almost inevitable:

"George Santayana wrote scathingly of Germany's 'violation' of Belgium's neutrality in his 1916 work Egotism in German Philosophy; John Dewey indicted Immanuel Kant as an intellectual catalyst for the war in German Philosophy and Politics in 1915 (327)."

The degree to which some of this scholarship is trustworthy is (in my opinion) somewhat questionable in light of e.g. Nietzsche's undeniable anti-Reich, anti-nationalist beliefs (though Nazis still cited him as deep inspiration, so that's moot, huh?), and Kant's dry attempts to lift Christian ethics into a comprehensive system independent of messy theological questions (which are the ones that tend to give rise to crusades, pogroms, the Blood Libel, et al). In other words, I'd say the tides of war rose in spite of, not because of, German intellectual traditions; but of course I'm no John Dewey. There's also the question of whether or not whole cultures (peoples? "races?") can be characterized in this manner at all. But there have been a lot of works that make this general argument and there should be copies available somewhere. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 16:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "messy theological questions" gave rise to interminable intra-Christian schisms and doctrinal disputes (the homoousianist vs. homoiousianist "controversy over a vowel" etc. etc.) far more than it gave rise to any of the things you mentioned (which have more prosaic or folkloric origins)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a lot like Historical determinism, which holds that historical events unfold in the only way they could have; that we are constrained by our history to act in certain ways; saying that Germany had to have Naziism sounds a lot like that. Sadly, the Wikipedia article is in a weak state. --Jayron32 17:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I was going to relate anything to national characteristics, I would mention the Captain of Köpenick (a revealing incident which could have never happened in that particular way in Great Britain or the United States in 1906). AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, excepting that the U.S. had Frank Abagnale. --Jayron32 02:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely missing the point -- there are plenty of sleazeballs in all nations, but the particular model of scam used by the Captain of Köpenick (i.e. one-man led town-hall mini military coup) was carefully attuned to Prussian society, and would have been much less likely to work in many other places... AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get you. I thought you were just implying that only Germany could produce a con-man folk-hero. Yes, the very specific details of that story seem unlikely in other cultures. --Jayron32 04:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The treatment of Germany following WWI made it possible for a Hitler to arise, but not inevitable. There's very little in history that was inevitable. Had the U.S. been as strong after WWI as we were after WWII, maybe we could have imposed our will and seen to it that Germany wasn't crushed. But we couldn't or didn't, and it was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One book not so far mentioned that matches the description almost exactly is The Course of German History by A. J. P. Taylor published in 1945. Although the focus is 1815-1945, he identifies Luther as one of the key influences - good quotes are "This [1519-1520] was the decisive moment of German history" and "No man has ever been so representative of the German spirit, and no man has had such a deep and lasting effect on German history. Germany is the Germany of Luther to this day." Timrollpickering (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japan and Korea

Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture talks of many Korean influences on Japan but were there any Japanese influences on Korea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clover345 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Korea under Japanese rule. Also see this and a quick search 'could answer more..Some sources seem to indicate the militarisic legacy hat caused the korean way and current disputes. Interesting to note the Korean conflict shows up there with most ethnic koreans in japan supporting the northLihaas (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, former President Park Chung-hee studied at the Manchukuo Imperial [Japanese] Army Academy, and the Army Staff College in Japan. Kim Chang-ryong, President Syngman Rhee’s enforcer, was a Japanese Military Policeman and spy. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Legal in the United States to Order Medicine Online From Other Countries?

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is what is stated in the title, it doesn't violate RD restrictions, since it's not asking for advice or recommendations. See Online pharmacy#Overseas online pharmacies and U.S. law. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesnt seem in violation by more than 1 editor. If there is doubt (and thats subjective) then put a caveat:Lihaas (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the Internet, it is now possible to order medicine online from other countries without a prescription. This includes "scheduled" drugs considered to be potentially addictive (e.g., Xanax, Ritalin, etc.), as well as other favorites such as Viagra, Cialis, etc. Many of these drugs are not "off patent" yet, while others claim to be "generic and approved by the FDA".
My question: Is it legal in the United States to purchase drugs in this way? Does some government agency such as US Customs check whether the person who placed the order had a valid prescription? Are some drugs allowed in and others not? How do they know what is in every package? What are the criminal or civil penalties for violating whatever the law is?Phidias007 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that whether it's legal is entirely separate from whether customs checks the order. "Is something against the law?" does not mean "Will I get caught?" --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [importation of prescription drugs] and this FDA site came up.[2] Keep in mind that anything coming into the US is subject to inspection. That doesn't necessarily mean it will be inspected, but in this day and age you can't make any assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beware some sources, because what you receive may not be what you ordered, or even what is printed on the pack! Dbfirs 06:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point the FDA is making. If you get it from your registered pharmacist, you've got a strong likelihood of getting the right stuff. If you order over the internet, all bets are off. It's the electronic equivalent of buying a "Rolex" watch from a guy operating out of an old van in some alley - only it's much more hazardous to your health. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why no one is answering the question. No, it is no legal to get drugs from another country in the US - ever. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, but a citation for that would be good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought my Depekote for my bipolar online with a prescription and I live in Fort Worth Texas USA --[[User:A915|A915]] a (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long piece of fiction, written by reclusive author and only discovered and published after his death?

I'm trying to think of the title. It either had a very long title and itself was very long, or just a very long title. In any case, I'm sure it was published posthumously, and I'm sure the author was male. Does anyone know of the novel I could be speaking of? --Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Confederacy of Dunces? It was neither long nor had a long title, but it was posthumously published, and written by a reclusive author. --Jayron32 17:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked our long list of works published posthumously?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not posthumously published, but posthumously discovered, and at 15,145 pages, certainly long. Are you thinking of Henry Darger's The Story of the Vivian Girls, in What is Known as the Realms of the Unreal, of the Glandeco-Angelinian War Storm Caused by the Child Slave Rebellion? --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be the one. Thanks, sir. --Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 08:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumously discovered kinda implies that it was posthumously published... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it hasn't been published at all. FiggyBee (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

NHRKC report on North Korean camps

Hi,

I didn't manage to find the "381-page report from the National Human Rights Commission of Korea" mentioned here. Any idea?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You checked the "Publications" section [3]? There's a whole list of annual reports. Also lots of stuff in "Information --> Documents" [4]. But you'd have to download one by one to see if they have 381 pages... 184.147.120.184 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

vista

Who invented Iron,Gold,fire,silver? (it is Question with out answer then what should we call) Answer Good... Every Question should have answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajeedakbar (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to iron,gold,fire, and silver. Iron, gold, and silver are elements, so they are discovered instead of invented. Anonymous.translator (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One could say "God invented them", if "God" is taken to mean "the creative forces in the universe". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More scientifically, you could say that nearly all gold and silver were created through reactions inside exploding stars. A lot of iron is created that way, too, though the majority is created through separate fusion reactions inside stars. There is far more iron in the universe than gold and silver. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fire was used by primitive man (e.g. homo erectus) more than 100,000 years ago, maybe over a million years ago, as Control of fire by early humans says, but experts differ very widely about when and where it was first used or controlled. Since we don't know the name of anybody from that long ago, or know any of their language, or know if people had names or used language, and they had no writing, it's impossible to identify the individual who first used it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever their name was, it probably wasn't Mmm --Dweller (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For natural things like those, we say they were "discovered", rather than "invented". In the case of fire, people learned how to control it, by starting fires and extinguishing them as needed, while in the case of those metals, people learned how to mine and refine them. StuRat (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry William Pitcher VC

I note that whilst reading about the above the said person served in the army. If this is so, why does the picture show him wearing naval uniform? It should also be noted that it is a ratings and not an officers dress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.95.246 (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take a punt on "because that's not him". Compare [5]. Looking at the talk page for the article, it looks like you're not the first person to doubt the accuracy of the photo. FiggyBee (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]