Humanities desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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 24

Name of a novel

I looked through related nuclear-war lists but couldn't find anything that jogged my memory. It is a post-apocalyptic novel that primarily takes place in a relatively unscathed valley. I remember the protagonist missing the sounds of birds. If I recall correctly, the ending is that same character walking out of the valley wearing a hazard suit. 2001:4C28:4000:721:185:26:182:28 (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Z for Zachariah (which I found by googling "novel post apocalyptic valley"; the very first result is the Wikipedia article). --89.0.221.15 (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang by Kate Wilhelm? -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. "the ending is that same character walking out of the valley wearing a hazard suit" - That is the exact ending of Z for Zachariah. --89.0.221.15 (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Z for Zachariah is the name of the novel. Thank you kindly, to both of you! 213.106.130.210 (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cases Where A Monarch's Second-Oldest Son (or Child) Inherited the Throne After the Premature Death of this Monarch's First Son (or Child)

OK--here is a very interesting question which I am trying to make as specific as possible:

Which cases have there been where a monarch's oldest (surviving) son (or child, if this monarchy also allowed females to inherit the throne during this time) reached age 13 or above, but died without having sons (or any children) of his own and before his monarch father (or monarch mother) died, thus causing this monarch's second-oldest son (or child) to become the new monarch after this monarch's own death? To clarify--I am only talking about cases here where the elder son (or child) would have inherited the throne upon a monarch's death had this elder son (or child) lived longer. Elder sons (or children) who were excluded from the line of succession to the throne during/throughout their own lifetimes do not count for this question of mine.

So far, I have found four such cases:

Henry VIII of England inheriting the English throne upon the death of his father Henry VII of England (in 1509) and after the death of his 15-year-old elder brother Arthur, Prince of Wales (in 1502).
Charles I of England inheriting the English and Scottish thrones upon the death of his father James I of England (in 1625) and after the death of his 18-year-old elder brother Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales (in 1612).
Alexander III of Russia inheriting the Russian throne upon the assassination of his father Alexander II of Russia (in 1881) and after the death of his 21-year-old elder brother Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich (in 1865).
George V of the United Kingdom inheriting the British throne upon the death of his father Edward VII (in 1910) and after the death of his 28-year-old elder brother Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale (in 1892).

Which other cases such as the four cases above have there been? In other words, which other such cases am I missing here? Futurist110 (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this counts for your list, there is at least one case where a brother inherited the throne after the premature death of his two older brothers: Richard I of England. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this will count due to the fact that one of Richard I's elder brothers (Henry the Young King) died at age 13 or above (his other brother died at an age much younger than 13, which is the age that I was asking for here). Futurist110 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be hard to find all the instances of this. You'd have to go through all the monarchies systematically. Here's another: King Carlos III of Spain. His eldest son Felipe died, unmarried and childless, at the age of 30, in 1777. King Carlos III died in 1788, and was succeeded by his second born son (and 7th child), Carlos IV. - Nunh-huh 05:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this info. However, I don't think that Felipe would count for this question of mine due to the fact that he was apparently excluded from the line of succession to the Spanish throne due to his intellectual disability (this information is stated on his Wikipedia article; see here -- Infante Philip, Duke of Calabria. Futurist110 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward VI inheriting the English throne upon the death of his father Henry VIII (in 1547) after the death of his elder half-brother Henry, Duke of Cornwall aged one month (53 days) in 1511.
Sleigh (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would have worked had Henry, Duke of Cornwall been 13 years or older when he died (as I stated in my OP here). Since he was less than two months old, this example would not count for my question. Futurist110 (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you're specifically interested in the age of 13? --89.0.221.15 (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is when one becomes a teenager and arguably begins the transition from childhood to adulthood. In this scenario, I want to have cases where the first son (or child) of a monarch dies after his (or her) early childhood, rather than during his (or her) early childhood. Futurist110 (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to have cases - Is it for an academic work, or just your own interest? --89.0.239.80 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is for my own interest--I previously learned about the four cases above, and I was wondering which other cases occurred which were similar to these four. Futurist110 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might also impose such a limit because you're interested in younger sons who had grown some years expecting not to inherit, or because including the very young would make the list inconveniently long. —Tamfang (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly--I was thinking of both of these reasons as well in regards to me setting an age limit of 13 or older for this question. Futurist110 (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XVII of France was actually Louis XVI's second son, as his older brother had died when he was four. His older brother was only 8 when he died, so your criteria of at least 13 is not met. Of course, Louis XVII never actually reigned, although legitimists consider that he was the nominal king from his father's execution in 1793 until his own death in prison two years later. --Xuxl (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Louis XVII wouldn't work because, as you said, his brother died at an age below 13 and because France officially abolished its monarchy in 1792 (when Louis XVI was still alive) and did not restore it until 1814, way after Louis XVII's death. Futurist110 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some other French example:

Robert II's son Hugh Magnus, also co-king, died around age 18 in 1026, so his younger brother Henry succeeded in 1031.

Louis VII of France. He succeeded Louis VI in 1137; his older brother Philip, who was co-king with Louis VI, died at age 15 in 1131.

Saint Louis' son also named Louis died at age 16 in 1260, so his younger brother Philip III succeeded in 1270.

Philip III's own eldest son Louis died at age 12 (almost in your age range), so Philip IV succeeded in 1285.

Charles VI's sons Louis and John both predeceased their father (aged 18 and 19), so Charles was succeeded by Charles VII.

Francis I's son also named Francis died at age 18, so Francis I was succeeded by Henry II.

Adam Bishop (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. At least some, if not all, of these examples should work here. That said, I need to take a closer look at each of these examples. Futurist110 (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to count Richard I of England, then you should count King John of England, who inherited the throne after the death of his father and his 3 older brothers. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think he's asking for cases where a brother inherited the throne from a brother - Richard already inherited the throne before John (and there are many more examples of that from England and France, at least). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Adam Bishop is correct here. I am specifically asking about cases where a son (or a daughter) inherited a throne from his (or her) father (or mother). Futurist110 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick III of Denmark inheriting the Danish and Norwegian thrones upon the death of his father Christian IV of Denmark (in 1648) and after the death of his 44-year-old elder brother Christian, Prince-Elect of Denmark (in 1647). Favonian (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. This example appears to work here. Futurist110 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help finding a specific chart of historical stock market performance

About a year ago, a bank representative showed me a chart of the historical performance of various stocks and indices (unfortunately I don't remember which specific ones). The document was, as I recall, a PDF (the rep showed it to me on a computer); the first page contained a graph of market worth vs. time for the various market indices with a number of historical events (e.g., Black Friday, World War II) marked on the plot. I believe the graph spanned the past century or a similarly extended period of time. Below the graph were a number of statistics, one set of which was (if I recall correctly) the average return of various types of investments.

At the time, the bank rep referred to this as the "AMEX chart" (presumably referring to the American Stock Exchange and not American Express) and said I could find it online if I wished to examine it further. I've recently tried to locate it and have failed completely; I've used a wide variety of descriptive search terms but haven't had any luck.

Is anyone familiar with this document? If so, where can it be obtained? Any information would be appreciated. Thanks! 142.20.20.33 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why don't headhunters pay emploees?

A technical headhunter can get 1.5 months bonus for placing someone. Why don't headhunters sometimes offer to pay employees cash from their bonus, should they successsfully place a candidate? This seems to align incentives as the employee would want additional cash, and the headhunter is more likely to get cooperation and to place them.... thoughts?? --Curiousguy222 (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but recruiting may have an answer. Headhunting (probably) doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I received a signing bonus when accepting an offer (Research Associate) provided by a "headhunter". ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the headhunter though?? (Did the headhunter pay you cash from what the headhunter received or would receive.) Curiousguy222 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good possibility that paying someone in order to earn a commission would be unethical, illegal or a violation of one's employment contract. Companies hire search firms to find the right employee, not to generate commissions for headhunters. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can famine exist in a developed country?

Can famine exist in a developed/"first world" country? 140.254.227.38 (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see for example Dutch famine of 1944, and the Great Famine (Ireland) was not that long ago, also see Famine#Europe under the 20th century subheading.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Famine of Ireland took place in the 19th century, back in the day when Europe was still industrializing but not fully industrialized yet. The Dutch famine seems to be valid, but it's still too old. Any recent one in the 21st century or late 20th century? 140.254.227.38 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a nutritional famine in some parts of America, where only packaged processed foods are available, and fresh fruits and vegetables (for example) are not available - at any price. See: nutrition desert. (food dessert). http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defines-food-deserts 15:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousguy222 (talk • contribs)

I'm skeptical of that frequent claim. I live in Detroit, which is often used as an example of a food desert, but I have two grocery stores each about a mile away, and they are fully stocked with fruits and veggies. Yes, there are closer liquor stores, but a mile isn't too far for those without cars to walk or bike, except perhaps in bad weather (so stock up !). There's also a Wendy's even closer, which has some healthy choices, like apple slices, grilled chicken, salads, and milk. So, if people are eating junk food here, it's by choice. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If you've got a hunger for what you see, you'll take it eventually. You can have anything you want, but you better not take it from me." InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The Famine article gives a pretty good history. I assume that you mean a significant number of folks dying from starvation, as opposed to ill health resulting from too many trips to the fast food joints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a List of famines. However, there comes a point when you need to define "Developed", though the no true Scotsman problem could lead to some issues in defining a "Developed" country. --Jayron32 16:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed; you could even make the point that a "developed" country would have no famine - by definition. Matt Deres (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joining hands vs. intertwined hands vs. palm-kissed hands while saying grace

In which culture do people join hands while they say grace? What about intertwining the fingers? What about palm-kissed hands? By "palm-kissed", I mean to refer to the "palms kissing" act in Romeo and Juliet. I have no other word for this kind of behavior, other than "praying hands", but that's too vague. So, I use Shakespeare. 140.254.227.38 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite unusual in the UK, I had never seen anybody hold hands round the table for grace before I stayed with a family in Toronto. In my experience, even very religious people here don't say grace except at formal dinners or large family gatherings and then we tend to keep our hands to ourselves (how very British!); clasped on your lap is the usual etiquette. That said, I expect that the practice has become more common now, following the spread of American-style evangelical Protestantism. Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of joining hands, intertwining/clasping hands, and palm-kissed hands. 140.254.227.75 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Norman Rockwell shows how it's done on this side of the pond - even in a busy restaurant (without putting elbows on the table): Saying Grace — Relating to your original query, this source:[1] suggests that the clasping hands ("intertwining") dates from Jewish custom and folded hands ("palm-kissed") dates from Hindus and Buddhists. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC) P.s.: Prayer is a much better article than Grace (prayer) [18:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

In an English state infants school we always had to sing grace and place our hands together. Any five year old neglecting to put hands in correct position, close eyes or sing would be smacked, or at least shouted at. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a private (parochial) school or a public (taxpayer-funded) school? What time period is this? 140.254.227.72 (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean. See Public school (United Kingdom); public schools are completely different from state schools in England and the rest of the UK. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was an ordinary local non fee paying school. In the States it would be a public elementary school. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1960s. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Emperor who converted to Buddhism

I know there was one, and I remember reading about it quite recently. A Google search and a search here is turning up nothing, though. Any help?198.86.53.69 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so -- people in the Mediterranean area in classical antiquity generally had extremely vague ideas about Buddhism, if they had even heard of it at all. There was the Greek king "Milinda" and the medieval Christianized fable of Barlaam and Josaphat, but no Roman emperor. The one Roman emperor who famously converted away from Christianity was Julian the Apostate (but not to Buddhism)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, there was a Roman emperor who converted to Christianity. 140.254.227.72 (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How should that be relevant? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several hundred years after he died Trajan was raised from the dead by Pope Gregory I, converted, baptised and then died again instantly, so he could go straight to heaven. Well, so they say, anyway.... Paul B (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) - I was thinking of Milinda/Menander. I had my classical cultures mixed up. :) Thanks, guys. 198.86.53.69 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the (minor) interaction between Roman empire and Buddhism: ´Buddhism and the Roman world OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Roman Emperors were Buddhists. However, it is easy to see from Google that many modern writers on "spirituality" see some parallels to Buddhism in the life and writings of Marcus Aurelius. (Please note that I am not myself drawing such parallels or claiming that Marcus Aurelius was a Buddhist: I'm merely reporting what shows up on Google.) RomanSpa (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were Greeks in Bactria who became Buddhists. See Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, but Buddhism was only very faintly known of in Roman culture. Paul B (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether this might be a mistake concerning Ashoka -- he was by far the most famous emperor who converted to Buddhism, though of course he was not Roman. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has any book on in bible a non-religious origin?

Or were it clear that what is written down there should be considered God's word? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Song of Solomon comes close to having a "non-religious origin," though I'm not sure what the current state of scholarship on it is. It has traditionally been taken allegorically by Christians and Jews alike, and not as the erotic love poem that it, on the surface at least, very much appears to be.

Apart from that, the Old Testament (or "Tanakh", if you're into that sort of thing) is largely composed of texts that quote God extensively, often via a prophet ("Thus saith the LORD," see especially Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and those fellas), or "historical" accounts of God speaking through a prophet (the narrative parts of the Torah/Pentateuch, for example). Notable exceptions are the books often classed as "historical," such as Samuel, Chronicles, and Esther, which, while God plays a part in certain events, do not purport to be divine in origin. Esther is unique in that (in the Masoretic Text, not counting the Septuagint additions that made it into the Roman Catholic Canon), God isn't even mentioned (Song of Solomon has אֲדֹנָי, but in context it means "my master" in the context of marriage, not "my Lord," as it would be translated elsewhere.

The New Testament complicates things, as the notion of "divine inspiration" underwent a major evolution within the burgeoning Christian movement toward the end of the Second Century, when books like 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and the Pastoral Epistles were written. The author of the Petrine epistles (almost certainly not Peter) refers to Paul's letters as "scripture." Paul's genuine writings had been around for perhaps fifty years at this point, and we have no indication that they were given "inspired" status in anyone's mind prior to this point. Authoritative, perhaps, but not "the Word of God" as many Christians would have it today. 198.86.53.69 (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I'd only add that the Septuagint in various forms defines the canon for the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, as well as the Catholic Church, and so the Deuterocanonical content of Esther is considered canonical for all of them. 86.157.148.65 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what you're asking, but the Song of Songs contains love poetry, some other books contain excerpts from historical chronicles, while the Book of Proverbs contains various excerpts from "Wisdom Literature" of a type which had been floating around the middle east in various forms for centuries... AnonMoos (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the Book of Esther, like the Song of Songs, rather famously never mentions God directly. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisdom of Solomon is considered to consist largely of Greek Stoic and Platonic philosophy. I read from it at my sister's funeral for that reason. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the Wisdom of Solomon, unlike the other texts mentioned, isn't universally considered biblical. As noted above, it's considered canonical by the various Orthodox churches (very very very far from being similar to each other; they've had different core theology for more than 1500 years) and Catholics, but Jews and Protestants don't accept it. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is still a book in the Bible, and is so for the majority of Christians. 86.157.148.65 (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a marginal majority world-wide, but it doesn't appear in most Protestant bibles. Dbfirs 09:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have fully established that most (not all) Protestant Bibles exclude it. We are left with about 2/3 of current Christians including it, and all Christians before the Protestant Reformation, so it seems fair to say that it is in the Bible, but that some Bibles exclude it. That the groups who exclude it, are also the groups who produce the widest range of translations and print more Bibles these days than the majority of Christians, may be notable if you're just totting up Bibles. I don't see where the claim that Orthodox Churches are wildly fundamentally different from each other would apply, especially compared to the rest of Christianity. 86.157.148.65 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we must be careful not to think of all Orthodox as being part of the same faith with all the same official doctrines or all the same organisational structure. Just a general reminder. Meanwhile, saying that it's really in the Bible but excluded by some is thoroughly non-neutral, just as it would be to say that the New Testament is really in the Bible but excluded by some. Saying "this book's really part of the Bible" or "that book really isn't" is a contentious matter, so the only way to be neutral is to report the various positions. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they're not part of the same organisational structure, but I think you overstate the differences in belief and practice. They all confess the same faith, as they all believe the Nicene Creed and so on. They are much more similar in beliefs than, for example, a typical Lutheran and a typical Baptist: really very similar indeed. I don't really see what point you were trying to make, unless it was to suggest that they didn't have some consensus about the inclusion of the Book of Wisdom? It absolutely is non-neutral to say that the Book of Wisdom is a Biblical book, and that some Bibles exclude it. I'd say the same about the Deuterocanon that the Ethiopians include and everyone else drops, and that doesn't have the advantage of being included in every Bible in the first 1500 years of Christianity. You might as well say that not all Bibles include the word "agape" isn't Biblical, because it isn't in your modern English translation. I wouldn't, personally, use the term "Bible" to refer to Jewish Scriptures as used by Jews, anyway, because I think that's kind of weird and insulting. "Hey, it's like your version of our book!". If someone had asked about letters in the Bible, and received a reply that the First Corinthians was a letter, and then you replied "but remember that it's contentious, because Jews don't include it in the Bible", I'd think you were being a bit pointy. 86.157.148.65 (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... so we could say that Wisdom of Solomon is included in the bibles used by the majority of Christians, but that the book is excluded from the majority of bibles. Dbfirs 18:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on the narrative regarding the Book of Esther, the Book describes its own origins as a letter unamiguously authored by human beings: Esther 9, verses 26-32 "Therefore, they called these days Purim after the name pur; therefore, because of all the words of this letter, and what they saw concerning this matter, and what happened to them ... Now, Queen Esther, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew wrote down all [the acts of] power, to confirm the second Purim letter. And he sent letters to all the Jews, to one hundred twenty-seven provinces, the realm of Ahasuerus, words of peace and truth ... Now Esther's order confirmed these matters of Purim, and it was inscribed in the book." (my emphasis) --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some Protestants exclude the Wisdom of Solomon, and Luther excludes James from the Second Testament on purely cynical, sectarian, ideological grounds. The fact remains that scholars find the first book largely secular in nature, which is what the OP asked. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Luther tried to exclude the "right strawy epistle," as he referred to the Letter of James, but it didn't quite work out. You won't find any Lutheran Bibles out there missing it.198.86.53.69 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, and what's more, all editions of the Bible published by Luther himself contained the epistle as well. Despite his personal reservations, Luther realized that he couldn't singlehandedly change the universally accepted canon of the New Testament. And the comment about the "strawy epistle", which Luther included in his 1522 preface to the New Testament, was not present in any of the later editions of Luther's Bible. - Lindert (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Epistle of James for Luther, and why he toyed with the idea (though never did so) of excluding it is that a possible interpretation of James is in conflict with Luther's core belief in Sola fide. Luther held, as his basic raison d'etre, that a person would be justified before God through faith alone; his core conflict with the Catholic Church was that the church was teaching that a person could functionally "buy" their way into heaven through plenary indulgences, which to Luther made no sense; that a person could not "earn" their way into heaven merely through action. A core theme of the letter of James is found in James 2:17 which says "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." and expounds on that idea. This seems to conflict with Romans 3:28 which states "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." So, which is it? It should be noted that it is not required that a person cannot find a way to work both statements together (for example, a person is justified by their faith apart from their actions, but the evidence of the reality of their (living) faith is their works. So a person, who wants to know if their faith is genuine, could look to see if they are doing things (works) that a genuine faith would cause them to do. If they aren't doing those things, their "faith" is "dead" (not genuine). But that is only one way to read this, you may find other interpretations, YMMV). Still, Luther must have ultimately concluded, despite his misgivings over that issue, that James's letter was still counted as canonical for Luther. --Jayron32 02:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It should be noted that the selling of indulgences was an abuse of the concept of almsgiving as penance, and was in fact condemned by the Church. As a result of these abuses, the almsgiving indulgences were forbidden. And, since a plenary indulgence has always required that the person acquiring it have no attachment to sin at the time they carry it out, it wasn't ever taught that one could simply buy ones way to Heaven. Our article suggests that even those who were wildly abusing and misrepresenting the teaching, only suggested that the money alone was enough for souls in Purgatory, not for souls here on Earth doing the buying. Which is not to say that Luther would have agreed with the actual teaching: he was so sure of sola fide that he added "alone" to his translation of Romans, to make sure his Bible actual vouched for "faith alone". But didn't he also still recommend forms of Confession? And liturgical Eucharistic services? 86.157.148.65 (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Knife

The information provided on this subject states that the design of the original bowie knife was by Jim Bowie himself. The papers of Mr. Bowie notes that the design was taken from a Cherokee knife given Jim Bowie by a Cherokee Chief. How could any researcher miss this fact? There are still examples of the Cherokee flint knife available for one to see that the original design was created by Cherokee craftsmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.25.103 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable published source for the inforamtion, you are welcome to edit Bowie knife, referencing your source. Alternatively, you could open a discussion on the talk page Talk:Bowie knife. --ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea Being Given to the Ukranian SSR in 1954 as Part of Land Swap?

Recently, my dad saw a post which someone apparently wrote on some forum where this individual stated that Crimea was given to the Ukrainian SSR (now Ukraine) in 1954 as part of a land swap, where some territory in the eastern Ukrainian SSR was given to the Russian SSR (now Russia) as compensation for the Russian SSR's loss of Crimea. Since neither I nor my dad ever heard about this alleged land swap before, I am wondering if there was indeed a land swap in 1954 where the Russian SSR got some territory in the eastern Ukrainian SSR in exchange for giving Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR, or if this is simply false/incorrect information. I and my dad are both speculating that this is simply a case of false information, but I would like to know for sure whether or not this information is true. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the topic, 1954 transfer of Crimea, makes no mention of a land swap. For obvious reasons, all of our articles relating to the Crimean Peninsula have been under a lot of scrutiny by editors of late, so I assume that if there had been an exchange of territory in 1954, someone would have mentioned it in the article. Deor (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this link. Futurist110 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a land gift rather than a land swap. The history of the Soviet Union knows quite a few such "gifts". The transfer of South Siberia from Russia to Kazakhstan merits its own article. No other country has willfully squandered as much territory as Soviet Russia has. --Ghirla^-трёп- 05:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity--when exactly did the transfer of South Siberia from Russia to Kazakhstan occur? I have never heard about this specific "gift" before. Futurist110 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it was all still within the Soviet Union at the time, and they couldn't imagine the Soviet Union breaking up back then, so these "gifts" were a bit like a man giving his wife a big-screen TV (with a subscription to all the sports channels) for her birthday. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The map of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic for 1922 seems to include territory that is (and was last month) part of Russia. Whatever the story is, our articles don't explain it well enough. Wnt (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]