Humanities desk
< July 17	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 19 >

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.

July 18

Is the American government listening in on phone calls?

I'm a little confused on the stuff Edward Snowden revealed and to what extent the US government is spying on American citizens. Are they listening in on phone calls without a warrant? Both cellphones and landlines. ScienceApe (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not listening to the actual phone calls. (Though they probably can if you make them over Skype since MS is their best friend) They collect the phone meta-data, so they can find out who you called, when you called and how long for. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 01:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And they have a court order to do so. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Maybe. Although probably not. --Jayron32 01:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, they're only supposed to really spy on foreigners. Which sounds reassuring to Americans, if they don't acknowledge that other US-friendly countries also have spy agencies, and Americans aren't domestic to them. There's absolutely nothing wrong (legally) with a US official asking CSIS, Mossad or the Xbox One to send them Johnny Someone's dossier. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, there's the fact that people in power don't care about breaking rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I have some more news. Governments of all kinds have been spying on basically whoever they like almost forever. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case ScienceApe does not know what the meta data is, they record and keep for up to 5 years:

- Who you have been talking to (they have the receiver and caller's phone numbers).

- Where you were when you talked to them

- How long did you talk to them

They have claimed that they are not storing the content of any phone conversation involving Americans, or people on American land, as this would be a against a supreme court decision about the 4th amendment. --Lgriot (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though if Americans happen to be having a conversation with non-Americans, the NSA can listen to everything the non-American says. Of course, in that case, it's hard not to overhear the American. No matter what your nationality, you have to assume that any international conversation (and perhaps domestic ones) could be tapped and taped by a third party. Marco polo (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, Snowden is seeking asylum in a country (Russia) which routinely spies on its own people, or at least enough to where they knew the Tsarnaev brothers were trouble, and as usual we didn't pay heed to their warnings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian government is intercepting all landline calls in the U.S. using NSA supplied ECHELON hardware to do keyword searches. I don't know if ECHELON has the capability to intercept cell phone calls.
Sleigh (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, the NSA performs a similar "service" on Canadians and shares notes with the Canadian authorities. Marco polo (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to realize... the average internet search engine collects more meta-data on you than the NSA is collecting. The modern world simply does not run without the collection of meta-data. Every time you search for the latest viral you-tube video, you are generating meta-data that someone collects. When you check your e-mail, your e-mail provider collects meta-data on you. Heck... even Wikipedia collects meta-data (what do you think your edit history is). Should people be aware of what meta-data is collected?... yes. Do we need to be paranoid about the fact that meta-data is being collected? Probably not. The NSA probably isn't interested in looking at your data. Unless you are a terrorist... then I sure hope they are looking at it closely. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or a potential terrorist. That is, pretty much anyone, especially activists. Or potential activists. That is, anyone who "liked" or shared an Occupy Wall Street or Idle No More thing (to name just two). Part of me is afraid to Wikilink those. The system works! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the irony of the brouhaha about Snowden. If anything, I trust the US government far more than I trust the rogues of the internet (spammers, virus creators, identity thieves, etc.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bruce Schneier says "We don’t know what is being collected exactly, but a safe assumption is that approximately everything is being collected."[1]. I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the yottabyte capacity of the Utah Data Center is designed to be filled with, uh data. And rather more than the internet search engines and internet rogues have access to. And according to Russ Tice, "It's not just metadata".[2] . On terrorism? - well sse Schneier's Mission Creep: When Everything Is Terrorism & this "special need", to guard against "terrorism", overrides that relic 4th amendment.In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of N.S.A. Jimmy Carter speaking of Snowden & Prism, thus opines that "America has no functioning democracy" [3]. A federal judge's ruling observes "the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws", while describing her own ruling for the government by "The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement".[4]John Z (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, when Skynet wakes up, we can rest assured the first people it will kill after digesting the "yadda-byte" will be the spooks and the bureaucrats? At least the latter will not have been able to introduce it as evidence against us in court. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UN classification of South Sudan

The article on Sub-Saharan Africa states that Sudan is in North Africa by portraying it in light green on that map. It also portrays South Sudan as being in North Africa. I always believed South Sudan was in Sub-Saharan Africa. How does the UN classify it? If the article needs to be changed, how should I change it? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the UNSD, Sudan is in northern Africa, whereas South Sudan is in Eastern Africa. You could change the article by editing the relevant text passages, but you'd also need to correct the map or find someone who could correct it. Maybe other RD editors or someone at the Help Desk could help you find someone able to correct maps. Marco polo (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-introductory book on European history

I'm looking for a book about European history that focuses on the pre-modern period (before the 20th century). It should be less than 500 pages, and geared towards people who have taken a course on the subject but are not history majors. It shouldn't be too dry or technical. Does anyone have a good recommendation? --50.125.67.165 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Europe might be a good place to start; it's shorter than 500 pages and seems to cover most of the basics - and contains lots of links to further reading. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm specifically looking for a physical book to read on the road. --50.125.164.242 (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's specifically about medieval history, but A World Lit Only by Fire is written for non-specialists and is well regarded. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and surgery?

I've recently read the Wikipedia article about why Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions, apparently based on Biblical verses like Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:29--which, for the record, seem to talk more about consuming blood than injecting it. And I now wonder, are there any Biblical verses that could be interpreted to say that surgery, dissection, or organ transplants are immoral/sinful/should not be performed on human bodies? (perhaps due to the fact that we are "God's children and our bodies are gifts that should not be tampered with/mutilated," like with tattoos in Islam?) I've searched with little success. Thanks! 64.229.155.218 (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is an anti-tattoo (in the context of mourning only) verse; it also forbids cutting the body as a form of mourning: Leviticus 19:28. I also found one translation (Weymouth New Testament) inserts the word surgeons in 1 Corinthians 7:18 - although, really all that verse does is remind you that cutting the body for circumcision is fine in the Bible. Also found these collections of quotes, though most sound very tenuous: [5] [6]. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another verse in Leviticus 21:5 forbids cuttings for the Aaronic priesthood. Yet in some verses, ear piercing and nose piercing are mentioned and allowed by the Bible in certain situations. The argument that the Bible forbids surgery is not very common among Bible followers. Also widely overlooked, but relevant to Christians, is the decision of James the brother of Jesus and first Bishop of Jerusalem in Acts 15, where the early Church decided that Christians are no longer required to follow most of the Israelite laws in Leviticus, such as not eating shellfish or having to be circumcised - with the three exceptions being the sexual taboos, not eating meat with the blood, and not eating food known to be sacrificed to false gods. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a full English breakfast with bacon and black pudding is sacreligious? 91.208.124.126 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

It's definitely not kosher. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"not eating food known to be sacrificed to false gods" - What does that actually mean? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 16:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the practice in those days for Romans and other cultures to sacrifice animals and cook their flesh on the altars of their gods (such as Mars or Jupiter, or the lares and penates), and for this meat to be shared around the community. That's what that prohibition means - don't touch meat which has been sacrificed to any god other than the Christian one. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was evidently a major concern when the NT was written. St. Paul even makes a point of saying that if you don't know whether the food was sacrificed to other gods or not, not to worry about it. (1st Corinthians 10:25-28). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about surgery online, accessible via http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200275612.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall it's about being whole & complete when you are resurrected at the rapture, but I'm willing to be corrected on this. JWs are allowed Intraoperative blood salvage if they are bleeding out through an abdominal injury. CS Miller (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Religious views on organ donation which only really covers controversy over the definition of death probably because that's the primary area of controversy. While tattoos weren't really your question, this is covered on tattoo, and plenty of easily searchable pages, e.g. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] many of which discuss it in the context of the bible. There are similarly plenty of easily searchable discussions pages discussing cosmetic surgery again sometimes with reference to the bible. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nunc dimittis at funerals

I didn't see anything in the Nunc dimittis article (except a single literary reference) that mentioned the song being used for requiem purposes. I also tried Google, but didn't get anything much. Does anyone know if it's been used for funerary purposes by liturgical churches, and if not, why not? All I found was something about how it's occasionally sung in Presbyterian funerals. Perhaps I wasn't searching for the right thing? 2001:18E8:2:1020:35A4:D38E:2905:3D45 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a Church of England example, it was sung after the final Blessing at Margaret Thatcher's funeral, and it's listed on this official-looking page under "Canticles for Use at Funeral and Memorial Services". For what it's worth it was also sung at my mother's (Scottish Episcopal) funeral, to a chant that I wrote for the occasion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your "official looking page" is the online version of Common Worship, the current successor to the Book of Common Prayer in the CofE. Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a sentence to our article, using AndrewWTaylor's references. Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity - which translation is the first version on the Common Worship page from? The NEB or something equally repulsive? Tevildo (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common Worship uses a variety of sources including original translations made by CW's own compilers. This page of Psalms includes "the Common Worship translation", "The ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy) translation" and "the CEV (Contemporary English Version of the Bible)". This page shows the Bible translations that the CofE has "judged suitable for reading in church during the course of public worship". It doesn't include the NEB, which if I recall correctly, was a very conservative re-working of the KJV. Note that the BCP translation is not an exact match with the KJV. Alansplodge (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To interpose, you may be thinking of the NKJV. The NEB's main goal was precision in translation, and to hell with the aesthetics, so we had to endure the Word of God expressed in the language of the Circle Report for some years. Life of Brian used the NEB translation of the Sermon on the Mount, to (I'm sure deliberate) humourous effect. [We don't have an article on the Circle Report? Google seems to deny its existence, as well. I'm sure that it's remembered somewhere, though]. Tevildo (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Serpell Report, and we do have an article on it. Excessive indulgence in alcoholic beverages is not consistent with meaningful posts to the reference desks. Root 178*. Time for bed? Tevildo (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I must admit I'm not very familiar with the CEV, but it's not the source of the CW text (the CEV text). Some none-too-fruitful searching is starting to converge on (of all things) the TJB, which is still in copyright, or it may be a CW-specific translation. Not that one should be obsessive about such matters. Tevildo (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the copyrights pages for the relevant volume (i.e. [15], I believe) attributes it to the English Language Liturgical Consultation. Their text is on their website in a pdf of their book/report Praying Together, and does look rather similar. Straightontillmorning (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why when I Googled the exact text, I got lots of results from US Lutheran churches and one blog quoting the Catholic Missal. Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology and anti-realism

It seems to me that the field of sociology is in part filled with people who are anti-realists or irrealists and that the field has a tendency for post-modern buggery. Why is this the case? Is there one person or several people in particular that this can be traced back to? — Melab±1 ☎ 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In effect you have made a very vague assertion about the history of philosophy and a certain (pseudo-)science, asked us why it might be the case that you believe it, and then asked for the names of people who are associated with such ideas. Their names are in the articles you linked to. I suggest, if you can, restate your question with a much more concrete example. It might then be possible to give a more detailed response. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the 1990s. Realism and materialism are back now, big time. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science for a summary of how postmodern buggery had taken over the humanities. Keep in mind, however, that the book was written in the 1990s. Scholars are much more epistemologically conservative now, especially in the humanities and social sciences, so treat the book as a historical document rather than a contemporary one. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More epistemologically sophisticated now, we like to think. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, yup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how expansive this was among the so-called left. How far did this phenomenon reach into politics? — Melab±1 ☎ 02:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If post-modernism interests you, you may want to read Stephen Hick's Explaining Postmodernism, (Amazon, with reviews) which is a very engaging and surprisingly both sympathetic and highly critical work. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I did some undergraduate political science courses in the height of the 1990s, back during the New Times and when post-modern Feminists roamed the internet, the curriculum was entirely traditional as were the research programmes of the scholars. I suspect that due discipline specific characteristics in political science that it did not suffer overly much from post-structuralism. As far as "the left" goes this conversation could readily lead to definitional antics. I haven't seen much hermeneutics being deployed by Naxalites to overcome the epistemological gap through a transvaluation of values or a leap of faith. I've not seen many bodies without organs deterritorialised into lines of flight: I've seen Turkish social protestors running from riot cops. And if Gender is a Performance, then it is the traditional one, played out in households and queer ghettos, in the poverty and fear we've known well since Engels followed up parliamentary papers in the 1840s or Wollstonecraft defended the capacity of women to reason. I'd like to ask a follow-up question: Where's all the buggery? Would post-modernism be less offensive to some people without the suggested, but yet to be delivered, sodomy? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]