Humanities desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 11

God, Mary, and Adultery

I have a genuinely serious question--wouldn't God allegedly impregnating Jesus's mother Mary be considered an alleged example of adultery? Or would it not count due to the fact that there was allegedly no sexual intercourse between them at all? Futurist110 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, it appears from the text that Mary and Joseph were engaged, rather than married, at the time of Jesus' conception. Hence why, in Matthew's Gospel, Joseph is having second thoughts until he has a dream telling him to marry Mary after all. But I also think most people who take this narrative seriously would accept your second suggestion - that as Jesus was incarnate of Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit, rather than by intercourse with a physical person, it wouldn't count as any kind of sexual sin whatever. After all, Mary was supposedly chosen precisely because of her goodness and purity. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the laws of the old Testament, much of the heavy lifting of forming an alliance between two families was done at the time of betrothal, and betrothals were legally binding, and a betrothed woman who had sex with another man was basically regarded as guilty of adultery (not fornication) -- see Deuteronomy 22:23... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that Mary was chosen because of her goodness/purity? - Lindert (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the Catholic tradition, Imaculate conception plays a part in that MChesterMC (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Immaculate Conception is actually sort-of the opposite of Mary being chosen for her purity: it rather says that, because Mary was chosen and said yes, therefore God applied Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross to her at the point of her conception, thus preserving her from being tainted with the stain of Original Sin. So she was pure because she was chosen (and said yes). All very timey-wimey. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Joseph say Yes to this as well, though? Futurist110 (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could just read the first few chapters of Luke, you know. Joseph did not give prior consent, but decided of his own free will (once an angel had explained the matter) to marry Mary anyway, well aware that she was pregnant with a child that he did not conceive. The Gospel tells us he was a "good man" who was otherwise planning to put her quietly aside, without making a public scandal about the adultery. 86.157.148.65 (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- There was a kind of minor medieval motif of Joseph as the "divine cuckold"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming non-physical seeding of an unconsumated fiancee was adultery, consider Mary's choices, given the other Commandments. God is her Lord, and she shall have no other before Him. He is also her Father (in a way), and shall not be dishonoured. If she were to argue, citing the tablets, she'd be bowing to and serving a graven image. If Gabriel told her on the Sabbath, protesting would be work. She did the right thing, by that law. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this intended to be a joke, or are you really under the impression that following the ten commandments counted as bowing down to graven images, and that arguing would count as work? If a joke, perhaps small tags to indicate that it is not actually an answer to the question? 86.157.148.65 (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no theologian, so I guess it's fair to laugh it off if you'd like. But yeah, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them". "They" are Tablets of Stone, engraved/inscribed with a "likeness of any thing that is in heaven above" (the Will of God). Not so much a problem till you place them before the jealous God when the two clash. The toiling on the Sabbath part is more of a stretch, but if arguing isn't work, why do we pay lawyers, politicians, pundits and scholars? Not intended as a joke or an answer, just a consideration. The question was already answered as near as possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the real Mary managed to get pregnant while unmarried, with an intact hymen. Otherwise she would have been stoned to death or whatever they did in such situations then. While it's possible for a woman to become pregnant with an intact hymen (as there's a small hole for menstruation in all but an imperforate hymen), they may not have known about this possibility at the time, so assumed she was impregnated without sex, by God. So, the sexless part of the story is absolutely key. StuRat (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not adultery, it's RAPE. 220.239.51.150 (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far be it from me to interfere where no thought is taking place, but Mary gave clear verbal consent to bearing God's son and no sex is proposed to have taken place. So please take your undermining of the seriousness of rape elsewhere. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Luke 1:38 she says "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word", but Gabriel hasn't offered her any choice in the matter in the preceding verses — e.g. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" (emphasis added) — so it's hard to view it as "consent" in any meaningful sense. But I agree that it's silly to equate magic impregnation in a made-up story with actual rape. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, Mary clearly expresses joy because of what has happened to her in Luke 1:46-49, she considered it a wonderful thing. - Lindert (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." - but more to the point, I don't think the will/shall distinction exists in Koine Greek, the original language of Luke's Gospel. You're arguing semantics in modern English; I think that Greek (like Latin) uses a simple future tense for this kind of purpose, with no particular shade of meaning for things that will definitely happen, probably happen, or are willed to happen. But then the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is a travesty of scholarship, and not a reliable source. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. But even if it meant "must and will happen", omnipotent God knows Mary wants it, so of course it will. It's not so much a demand as a briefing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being as how God invented sex, it's reasonable to expect that far from being rape, it was in fact the best "Big O" Mary ever had. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man shall sow the O, and God shall reap the "Oh, ___". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone complained to me about my comment above. In fact, I got that idea from a female friend who's strongly religious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's some fine buck-passing. In case mine offended anybody, I didn't mean He "knows she wants it" because she was obviously "looking for it". That stuff's not cool for mortals who only think they know. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That friend of mine is more religious than I am. And I see the idea as a positive. As opposed to someone claiming that God "raped" Mary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This part of the discussion was removed here [1] with the claim it was a 'joke'. I have restored it as I see no evidence it's a joke.

While rape is very serious thing, the question of whether someone can genuinely consent to an omnipotent being, and if they can whether a person, under the conditions outlined in the bible can be said to have given consent is a common one [2] [3] [4] and probably discussed as much as whether Mary commited adultery and there is an obvious link between the two. It may be better to avoid the word rape (as a highly emotive word and since the precise application and the difference between sexual assault and other such offences varies) but instead concentrate on issue of consent but otherwise I don't see anything wrong with the 220's statement.

Extended content

To explain more: Such discussions are of course always complicated by the fact that current thinking and practice my differ from historic practice. For example marital rape frequently didn't exist and still doesn't exist in some places. And there were frequently even less limits on what you could do with a slave.

Similarly, there is often less acceptance of sex at a younger age. Particularly when there is a large age or maturity difference. Or one person is in a position of authority over the other. (Both of the things mentioned in this paragraph may be relevant when discussing God and Mary.)

I would note whether or not Mary was happy about it after the fact would be irrelevant under many legal and belief systems if it's clear no consent existed before the act. (Definitely whether or not she enjoyed it would be irrelevant.) And I doubt you'd get agreement on whether or not this changes if we're talking about an omnipotent being who knew this would be the case. (I would further note that her being happy afterwards needs to be specified for this to become relevant. The fact God knows what Mary wants doesn't otherwise automatically mean she wanted it unless we make other assumptions which from other parts of the bible many would disagree with.)

While wikipedia is not the place for such a discussion, under many belief systems, someone who did not genuinely consent generally cannot be considered to have commited adultery as a result of those actions they didn't consent to. So the original comment by 220 would seem sufficiently relevant to this discussion.

For this reason I've also removed the hat. I feel some of the other comments go to far, but I dislike drawing a line and I don't see that this discussion was necessarily much more off topic than the other discussions in this thread. However I will not object to someone rehatting some or all of the discussion except for 220's comment.

And just to re-iterate, I'm not encouraging further discussion. Simply pointing out, as with many things in the bible or other religious beliefs, if you really analyse it's far from simple and depends a lot on your belief system and how you intepret what it says. (Which includes taking care not to read distinctions which wouldn't exist in the original text.) And that glib answers or suggestions that someone is automatically wrong to see it in a certain way doesn't help anything.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford riots against Ahmadis

How come there are no articles about a riot that happened in Bradford in the 1970s against the Ahmadis? Is there a news article about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.114 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many race riots in West Yorkshire over the years; Wikipedia has articles on the 1975 Chapeltown riot; it's a very short article right now. Perhaps that's the one you are thinking of? Otherwise Wikipedia does have a pretty extensive article on the much later 2001 Bradford riots. --Jayron32 01:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although Chapeltown is in Leeds. If anybody can find a reference supporting this, it could be added to our Persecution of Ahmadis article. I could only find MUSLIMS IN BRADFORD, UK: Background Paper for COMPAS, University Of Oxford by Dr Simon Ross Valentine, which says; "The mid 1980s witnessed anti-Ahmadi riots in Bradford which received national press coverage" (p. 21). Apparently this was not a "race riot" but sectarian violence between different traditions within Islam. Alansplodge (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does Mahabharata refer to any advanced technologies?

It seems to be a prominent notion on internet that some weapons in Mahabharata (Brahmastra) refers to nuclear weapon and I am pretty confused.--Peewhite (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something at User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism/Hindutva and pseudoscience... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an idea primarily put forward by Ancient Aliens, which can be easily debunked. People have to make a living somehow - even ex-footballers who are subsequently sacked from their TV job. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. 70.174.141.142 (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no limit to people's imagination, either that of the people in the past who made these stories, or that of the people who are trying to 'decipher' them. I can imagine that in 10,000 years, pseudohistorians will be pointing out passages from Harry Potter, saying, "Look! They MUST have had them in those far off days, too! Cleaning equipment that you can ride in the air with no visible propulsion system, and guided only by the (unmentioned) wi-fi connected chip in your brain - SAME AS US!" KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick search I found [5] - it sounds like this show was just out and out lying, which pisses me off. Even if your chosen field of study is nuclear interpretations of the Mahabharata, there is still an honest way to do it and a dishonest way to do it. We have an article on Brahmastra, incidentally. What's interesting is that "Drona Parva" does seem to be full of battle with various super-weapons. While I highly doubt that these are memories of nukes, it doesn't seem impossible that someone could have been inspired by some sort of meteorite impact or volcanic activity, or by lesser excesses of war technology from ancient times. What is interesting is that they could have had ideas of advanced, fiery weapons and of the moral issues that come with them. Wnt (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thou hast got to be shitting me. You just realized that shows like this are lying? Really? Really? And you realized this because they repeated a claim about the Mahabharata without checking it? It wasn't the claim that aliens built the pyramids, or that ancient people had nuclear weapons, or that Egyptians flew around in airplanes that set off alarm bells? --Bowlhover (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This dates back to Dayananda Sarasvati, who claimed to have found evidence of aircraft, steamships and modern weaponry in the Vedas. Of course, such claims are quite distinct from the real possibility that ancient cultures had technologies that were subsequently lost. That's quite common in human history. Paul B (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any scientific evidences about nukes before human civilisation? I think one of the site I visited says there are some strange crystals, which can be found in nuclear expolsion sites, in an ancient city ruin--though the wording is very vague and I guess meteorite can have similar effects.--Peewhite (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such crystals can be found in places where pottery was made. High temperatures 'melt' the sand into a glass-like texture, that's all. You can find them all over the world. The lack of a crater many miles wide, lack of radioactivity, and no sign of any destruction whatsoever, added to the presence of pottery shards and ancient human habitation are generally good indicators that it was not a site of a nuclear explosion (take a look at Wnt's first link above). Also, the biggest tell-tale sign that none of this happened, is the fact that physical evidence for their existence is 100% lacking. If someone had these bombs in the distant past, where are they now? If they disposed of them, they would still have left traces. If they have hidden them, somebody would know where they were, and then they would have been used sooner or later by some unscrupulous warlord. Helicopters, spaceships, death rays, etc., - WHY is there no physical evidence of any of this stuff? People have had imaginations for as long as they have been people. Just because the ancients said they believed in Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, YHWH, etc., does that MEAN they actually exist(-ed)? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this from a misspent youth of reading crank books :-). The claim is that fused glass in the Sahara (and elsewhere, but mostly the Sahara) is the residue of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, as well as pottery, these can easily be caused by lightning strikes - see fulgurite. These do actually shine a light on mysterious ancient history of the region, but not in the same way; the appearance of lightning-strike effects in areas not currently seeing many thunderstorms tells us something about the ancient climate of those areas, which is summarised in the Paleolightning article. (Long story short: not nuclear weapons, but probably prehistoric monsoons). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential primaries in 1964

Why received incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 only 17 percent of the primary votes and Gov. Pat Brown, who did not challenge the president for the nomination, far more votes? Isn't 17 percent a real bad record for a sitting president? I know that many states did not have primary elections in 1964, but why was LBJ nominated without opposition, despite he didn't win most of the primaries? Thanks. --92.227.81.98 (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first, and most important, thing is that only 16 states had primary elections for the Democratic party. The rest of the states chose their representatives to the Democratic National Convention (where the actual nomination of the party's candidate occurs) via some form of caucus, which in many states amounts to "a bunch of old guys in a smoke filled room". Pat Brown's high popular vote in the primary elections can be explained by noting that a) Pat Brown was from California and b) Johnson was not even on the ballot in the California primary. Texas, the other really large state by population, and Johnson's home state didn't hold a Democratic Party primary election. Look, the easiest way to explain it is this: The modern Presidential Primary system didn't really exist nationwide in 1964, it only existed in a few states and even in those states, it didn't run the same way it does today. States had a mishmash of methods to select delegates to the Democratic National Convention, and most states didn't have widespread, formal primary elections whereby the general party voters got to have a say in who the delegates would be pledged to. I won't say such primaries were entirely meaningless in 1964. Just that they didn't have the formalized place in the election process they do today. --Jayron32 12:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Cavalry

Hey, I have three questions regarding cavalry in the middle ages. The first question I have asked once before here on wiki, two years ago or so, but I didn't get much answers, and despite my attempts I have found very little info about it myself. So I try again, hoping for more response.

1. Cavalry tactics obviously varied a bit depending on the time-period and from region to region, but generally, what we hear or read about is the Wedge-formation and cavalry being used vs infantry - then about how pikemen would counter the threat posed from cavalry. What I'm trying to find out about is Mounted knights vs mounted knights / Cavalry vs Cavalry. What formations would they adopt? If it was heavy vs light cavalry, then the light cav. would probably flee... but in a fair fight, then what? If, say 20 light vs 20 light or 20 heavy vs 20 heavy would clash, then how would they organize themselves, and would they adopt any formation at all? Whether they used a wedge or another tactic, one should think that they would basically cancel each other out, unless one of the sides knew a formation that the other didn't, one that was particularly effective. I guess the main reason why info is hard to come by on this subject is that battles with mounted vs mounted probably didn't occur so often.

2. Can you define the meaning of medium and heavy cavalry? Was it just that a horse was clad in armor and that the rider was also wearing heavy armor that made it 'heavy cavalry', or did it also depend on what type of horse (destrier, courser, rouncey...) it was and how the horse had been bred, trained and fed? As for what the horse was wearing; I occasionally see pictures and drawings of what is supposedly heavy cavalry horses, even when it has no armour. It might simply be dressed in cloth that covers its head and torso. Obviously, light Cavalry is easier to define; light armor, little weight, fast horse used for skirmishes/guerrilla warfare and scouting, or chasing. But where does that leave medium cavalry? Were most mounted units considered medium cavalry? The term 'medium cavalry' is perhaps less used than the other two, but when reading about these things the term is used relatively often anyhow, but it never seem to explain what makes a mounted unit medium cavalry. Same with heavy cavalry, which is why I hope someone can help define it for me?

3. The "cape" or "clothes for horses" that I mentioned above, covering its head and torso, what is it called? I once saw it referred to as a "baucant", but googling it or searching in various search engines provide nothing. All I have learned is that this word means "spotted horse" or something of the like, coming from old French; "bauçant". I'm sure there must be a word for it.

If it makes it easier, let's narrow it down to a shorter period rather than the entire middle ages - 1100 to 1250. Let's also mainly stay in Europe, especially France when it comes to heavy cavalry. France were famous for it. Let's also throw in Saracens and Moors, which were more known for their light cavalry and which were often enemies of Europeans. So that should give you an idea of where in the world I want to focus. Krikkert7 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although trained as a medievalist, I'm more of a literary guy than a military guy, so I don't think I can help much with questions 1 and 2. With regard to number 3, however, see the article Caparison (and see Barding for equine armor). Deor (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The medieval period ended with the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Pikemen were very rare during the medieval period. The Swiss and their allies were the only users of medieval pikemen. Landsknechts adopted the pike in 1487 and the Scots after 1512. The pike and the sword and buckler were weapons of the early modern period.

1. Wedge was a relatively rare tactic as knights were not trained in it. Most knights attacked in line. Knights regarded infantry as beneath them and many knights would charge enemy knights on sight and without orders.

2. Light cavalry fought in loose formation or as skirmishers. Medium cavalry fought in close formation. Medium cavalry could be light cavalry in close formation. Heavy cavalry and knights fought in close formation. Most European cavalry would be heavy cavalry or knights, especially in the second half of the medieval period.
Sleigh (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. No, heavy cavalry wearing barding with knights in full armour are knights. Heavy cavalry is unbarded. Fully armoured knights on unbarded horses are heavy cavalry. The monks who drew the pictures of knights were in their monasteries during battles. The pictures drawn by monks are artist impressions.
Sleigh (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Deor, I'm a medievalist but not a military historian...my area is the crusades, which fall in exactly the period you mentioned, and they always involve a bit of military history of course!

Cavalry vs. cavalry battles did happen, but generally mounted knights were used to break a mass of foot soldiers. My impression is that cavalry would just charge directly at other cavalry in a line, rather than in a specific formation, but I'm not sure. I recall that it was hard to train a horse to do that - the horse wassn't as happy about certain death as a knight was.

Heavy cavalry could be an armoured knight on a horse (armoured or not), but it could also depend on the weapons he was carrying. Also, Byzantine armies had cataphracts, which were super-heavy. (Byzantine tactics were quite different from France, though.) The Turks were famous for their light cavalry, where unarmoured riders harassed heavier and slower cavalry with their bows and arrows. They were very destructive during the crusades. They often tricked western cavalry into charging at them, into abandoning any formation they may have had so that they would charge into an ambush. This is why my impression is that cavalry charges were random and had no particular tactic.

An example of a battle with mixed cavalry and infantry in the period you are asking about is the Battle of Bouvines. it seems evident that there was no real cavalry strategy there, just knights charging at each other. Probably what typically happened.

Fortunately there is some great literature about this subject, better than anything we can give you here:

David Nicolle, European Medieval Tactics: The Fall and Rise of Cavalry, 450-1260 probably has all the answers you're looking for. Nicolle is a military historian and lately he has been involved with writing a series of books aimed at non-professional readers, all published by Osprey.

There are also two books called Medieval Warfare, one by Maurice Keen and the other by Helen Nicholson, which you should also check out. I would also suggest Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades" by John France.

Adam Bishop (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see two of you claim to be 'medievalists', which means you probably have a lot of knowledge about the middle ages, and insight into how certain things worked back then. Which could have proved helpful to me on several subjects. I thought I should try and write to you. I always thought that was possible, using the "talk" link next to a wiki-user's name, but I don't quite figure it out. Never done it before. If at all possible, it doesn't seem to be as straight forward as I thought. Krikkert7 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well leaving a message on a user talk page is basically the same as asking a question here. But if you would rather ask medieval history questions on the Reference Desk, there are always several people here who can help you out. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not for Federal Use" Drivers License and Form I - 9

I am to start a new job tomorrow. I gave my drivers license to the HR person and was told that because my drivers license says "Not for Federal Use" and the I-9 Form was a federal document, I had to either provide my passport (which I don't have) or go to the DMV and pay the fee for a new drivers license that can be used federally. I believe, he was wrong and told him so. He said he was doing this for a long time and what he was telling me was correct. I told him that other forms of state ID were permitted and that his facility was a private company, not a federal building, and that I believe that clause was in reference to flying. How can we get the I-9 for changed to better convey this message to HR for dummies? Or is he totally right? Anxiously awaiting reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.80.103 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a request for legal advice. You should contact someone who knows what the law is in your jurisdiction, and not ask for dubious advice from random strangers on the internet. --Jayron32 19:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot give legal advice. But I can direct you to the information given by the govt here [6], and recommend you look at the form carefully here [7], including List B item 1. Beyond that you'll have to sort it out with your own HR or legal counsel. Good luck, SemanticMantis (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal advice or not, I would like to know what "Not for Federal Use" means here! Maybe you're not allowed to drive a car on Federal property. —Tamfang (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that there's some controversy over how different states and organizations handle undocumented immigrants (dubbed "illegals" by racists). On the one hand, some people find that making sure that all drivers of vehicles are properly trained and certified by the state to be legal drivers is useful for the general welfare and well being of society as a whole, other people want to make sure that anyone who has come to the U.S. because life in their home country is a never-ending spiral of poverty and drug wars are plainly labeled so that we can deny them access to any hope of being integrated into American society. So West Virginia (not heretofore known as a bastion of progressive thinking) has decided that we solve this by clearly labeling the drivers licenses of such people so they know who they can discriminate against, and who they can treat with decency and respect. --Jayron32 11:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I thought that might be it. (I like to describe Those People as having failed to wait politely at the door marked CLOSED.) —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would note Jayron32's claims don't seem to really be supported by the sources provided by DOR below which suggest it's a matter of the federal government introducing REAL ID requirements for ID which they do and will require for various things. The federal government has tried to force states to ensure their ID comply via various means but not all agree. West Virginia appears to have taken a middle ground. They will introduce compliant IDs for those that want them but will keep the non compliant ones for those that don't. This is one of the issues that crosses the spectrum somewhat. In particular I expect there are plenty of genuinely racist anti immigration people who do in fact have 'not for federal use' WV IDs and hate the REAL ID ones with a passion.

I'm not saying WV is "a bastion of progressive thinking". From what I can tell, it will be difficult for an undocumented immigrant to obtain a licence in WV of whichever type despite WV being on the list of evil states from some sites opposed to such ideas. If I understand correctly, it may be possible for a documented WV immigrant to obtain such a licence and keep the non federal variety even after they no longer have proper documentation if they continually renew it. But does seems to be about it.

And there are states with such special licences e.g. [8], it's just that WV is even yet that 'generous'.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See REAL ID Act and this example of how West Virginia explains it: http://www.transportation.wv.gov/dmv/drivers-licenses/Pages/default.aspx. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did King Leonidas really kick a Persian emissary down a well?

As seen in famous "THIS IS SPARTA!" scene from the movie "300". Is this an actuall historical fact? Just wondering, thanks. --146.90.104.103 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. 300 isn't based on history, it's based on Frank Miller's hazy recollection of a movie he saw decades ago that was based on romanticized novels based on legends based on accounts written well after the war. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's the consideration that dropping a body in the well is pretty much poisoning the local water supply. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reportedly. 70.174.141.142 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Safer to kick someone into an abandoned well. Not that I know if they did. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it's true or whether it was Leonidas personally but the Persian emissary down a well is an old claim. See Battle of Thermopylae#Background which references a translation of Herodotus at [9]. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. What I meant was I didn't know whether it was a functional well. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they had experience with how far bodies go within the well's height when kicked off cliffs (to make sure he doesn't hit his head and is too injured do this), they could then throw him the bucket which he could then grab on to prevent drowning or starving to death (I'm not sure if you can sleep in water) and they could then decapitate him outside. Why would they stop using a well? Couldn't a dead body contaminate wells near the dirty well, too? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean by near. Most modern North American places say you can't bury a body within 100 feet of a water supply. The actual safe limit, as with most official rules, is likely much lower. Considering just how routine and widespread dying in drinking water is (especially for fish), it's probably mostly an "eww" and "better safe than sorry" issue. When a woman was recently found rotting in a hotel cistern, a guest called the water taste "horrible" and "disgusting", but also "sweety" and "very funny". Flavour aside, he drank it for a week and didn't get sick. Nobody did, after 19 days. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could always tie the bucket rope to the guy first, if you really don't want him staying there. Seems easier than having him survive and cooperate back up. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that would take all the artisticness out of it... Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, according to the best historical records we have, Persia sent an ambassador demanding submission, which at the time was in the form of "earth and water". (If you give earth and water then you have submitted to the greater power.) The Spartans, according to an Athenian account, said, "ok, we have some of each", and threw the ambassadors down a well. Herodotus does not mention kicks or any shouting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether Harold Godwinson knew that story when he offered Harald Hardrada "seven feet of English soil." —Tamfang (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my recollection from a long-ago school lesson was that the ambassador/s was/were kicked into a ditch, rather than a well. I suspect the story has been repeatedly re-told and reworded. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you get a proper account already? If you can't think of a name, User:The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195 appears to be available. —Tamfang (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons of personal psychology which I explained at length around a year ago when someone else asked me the same thing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the story has been re-told and reworded over the years, because we have a near-contemporaneous source, i.e. Herodotus. Although he wouldn't have been in Sparta at the time, he would have had no difficulty getting in contact with people who had been. The ancient Greeks were quite diligent about keeping note of how different people were done away with, because it could have significant importance for those responsible and their descendants. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with the Herodotus account, which is not unusual for most accounts by Herodotus. At best it tells us that there was a story to that effect doing the rounds in his time. --Dweller (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just note that the picture that comes into most people's head when they think of a "well" is not an accurate picture of most wells in ancient times. Most wells were large structures, perhaps 20 feet across or more, with stairs leading down into them. (That's because the only way to dig a well was to climb down into it and use a pick and shovel.) So getting a body out of a well would have been a pretty straightforward operation. Looie496 (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Sometimes I forget ancient aliens weren't actually lending their tools. Stupid TV. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]