Humanities desk
< July 22	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 24 >

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 23

Conversion to Christianity in the 1700s - Robinson Crusoe

I am currently reading a novel, Robinson Crusoe, leisurely. I noticed that Xury could be freed in ten years, if he turned Christian. Were there any barriers to religious conversion back then to keep people in servitude? How could one prove oneself to be a convert? Were there consequences for lying? If one did convert, who would be able to solemnize the baptism? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the 1700s, it would depend on the strain of Christianity. Everyone from Anglicans to Roman Catholics to Anabaptists would have had different requirements for conversion to Christianity. --Jayron 32 02:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Narrow it to Daniel Defoe's Presbyterianism then. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterianism#Sacraments indicates that baptism by sprinkling or pouring is all that is required. One cannot prove earnestness, however, as the concept of a mind-reading device had not been invented in the 1700s. I'm not sure one exists today even... --Jayron 32 02:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, Xury will just have to get people to trust him. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends who the people. Testimony of faith comes with religious observance: convert. --Askedonty (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read all about it: a reliable source for the theological background assumed by Daniel Defoe for the several religious conversions recounted in Robinson Crusoe is:

Greif, Martin J. (Summer 1966). "The Conversion of Robinson Crusoe". Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900. 6 (3): 551–574. JSTOR 449560.

"Libraries and institutions offering access".. JSTOR's "Register & Read". offers free read-only access.

Paulscrawl (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are price tags in a store legally binding?

So, say I walk into a supermarket (in the USA), and an item (let's just say a can of corn) is marked with a price of 2 cents. When I go to the cash register, the clerk says: "that can costs 99 cents". Is there any legally binding reason to sell me the can for 2 cents? Does that sign on the item (the price mark) constitute any type of oral/written contract? 2602:252:D13:6D70:21BC:1B64:824C:5D8F (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Canada, according to this [1]. I suspect this powerpoint [2] file says the same thing for the USA. Also not a contract in the UK according to this [3]. Also not a contract in NZ according to here [4]. The key legal concept seems to be that price tag is considered an Invitation to treat, not a binding legal contract. Contract#Invitation_to_treat has a nice short summary. (Don't bother looking at Price_Tag that's entirely unrelated, and I don't see a decent disambiguation page for the concept.) SemanticMantis (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your jurisdiction. What your hypothetical clerk did is explicitly against the law in California per section 12024.2 of the California Business and Professions Code. I have no idea what the law is in other states, or whether investigators actually look into these sorts of violations, or what case law has to say about the limitations of this law's application. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This will depend on the state, or even the municipality. A sale price is typically honored in NY & NJ if it is displayed on the shelf but not rung at the counter. (I.e, this has happened to me dozens of times, and the clerk has always honored the price at the shelf if lower than the price at the register.) The NYC consumer protection guide says "Any PRICE QUOTED in an ad must match the actual purchase price" but it also says "Watch out for FOOTNOTES AND ASTERISKS (“*”). The “fine print” in an advertisement sometimes changes an offer made in the large print." You do see adds with the very fineprint boilerplate that misprinted prices will not be honored, which has happened with lottery tickets, (a recent example from New Mexico). For how NYC law addresses the seeming above contradiction in the guide (which is not a copy of the very confusing law) I will refer you to a lawyer. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A sale price is typically honored in NY & NJ if it is displayed on the shelf but not rung at the counter. Yes, it is often "honored". But are they (the store owners) doing that out of goodwill or legal obligation? 2602:252:D13:6D70:21BC:1B64:824C:5D8F (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New York law is far less clear than the California law, and is not at neatly contained in one section. It sounds like there are civil penalties imposed by state officials if more than 2% of items in the store are incorrectly priced, as far as I can read from the New York Agriculture and Markets law section 197b. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately I did take some time looking into this, but there was nothing outright I could quote that said plainly that they must honor the advertised price. Sorry. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically with collectibles, the fact a comic book has "10 cents" in the corner (for example) does not obligate a seller to honor that price <g>. Collect (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing apples and oranges. If a comic book has the notation "ten cents" on the cover (placed there by the publishers), that is not the "price tag" that has been placed there by the seller of the item. Two very different things. If a seller places a price tag, it is (presumably) the price that they are charging for the item. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of Denmark

Which cities were the capitals of Denmark before Copenhagen? --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roskilde. I think that's pretty much it. Before Roskilde was capital (C11th) there wasn't really a Danish state. Ever since the capital moved to Copenhagen in 1443 (but note our Copenhagen article says 'by about 1416') Copenhagen has been the capital, whether of the Kalmar Union, of Denmark-Norway or of modern Denmark. If you're making a list, though, be sure to add Gainsborough, Lincolnshire to it! - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-21386473 - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wouldn't necessarily add Gainsborough. It is true that it served as tcenter of the administration of Danish-controlled England for a time, and that Sweyn Forkbeard used it as his base of operations, but I don't know that much formal administration of the Danish state occurred there. The North Sea Empire of Sweyn and Cnut really should be thought of as multiple states under the same ruler, each with it's own institutions. Both practically, and officially, England's capital was still Winchester, and Denmark's was Roskilde (after all, Cnut returned to Roskilde to get the crown of Denmark) and laws of Denmark were not in force in England and visa-versa. Likewise, when he took over Norway, Cnut was crowned at Nidaros and Norway, and Norway retained it's institutions as a separate country from there. --Jayron 32 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another to add to the list Jelling was the capital of Gorm the Old, the first historically verifiable King of Denmark, as well as his son Harald Bluetooth. Harald moved the capital to the newly created Roskilde in the 980s, and then it was moved to Copenhagen in 1416, as the seat of Eric of Pomerania, first king of the Kalmar Union. Thus, the Danish capitals can be considered to be:

Jelling c. 936- c. 980
Roskilde c. 980 - 1416
Copenhagen 1416-present

Prior to Gorm the Old, there was no historically verifiable Danish state... --Jayron 32 16:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The List of former national capitals contains only Roskilde. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of the issue is defining when "Denmark" started, what a capital is, etc. etc. There are not universally agreed upon definitions for those ideas. --Jayron 32 16:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider Fredericia ca. 1650 [5] originally intended as a capital city in Jutland by Christian IV due to its strategic location. Unfortunately, the Swedes also considered it to hold a strategic position. Collect (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stylised Dublin map/diagram

I want to represent some areas of County Dublin on a map or diagram. The areas are mainly, but not exclusively, within the M50, and cover all or parts of Dublin City Council, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown. I want to be able to draw areas onto the map to show that, for instance, Tallaght is in one area and Clondalkin in another

I would like the map/diagram to:

Cover the above areas (outlying areas may be covered as well if necessary).
Show the approximate course of the River Liffey and M50. Phoenix Park is an optional extra.
Not have too much (any?) extra information/labels.
Be accurate enough that major areas of the city can be pinpointed (e.g. Tallaght, Finglas, Ballyfermot etc), but not so accurate that viewers can get hung up on exact geography - e.g. is the boundary between areas on this side of the road or the other?
Be a reasonable quality for viewing at 1024x768 and above.
Be available on a free-ish license including for modification and commercial purposes.

I'm ok with Photoshop and Illustrator, so if I had a basic blank map I can fill in the gaps.

Something like this would be perfect, but I don't want the junction blobs and road names, and it doesn't quite cover all the way down to Dun Laoghaire.

I've looked around on the internet but drawn a blank so far. Can anyone help find what I'm looking for? Many thanks - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can extract this kind of thing from OpenStreetMap. There's a basic map here which you can copy under the Creative Commons licence, but if you want to make it more advanced (eg. to chose which roads to show) you'd need to use a tool like QGIS, which has a very steep learning curve. Smurrayinchester 14:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(However, if you click on the "Layers" symbol there are a few pre-set map types you can look at. "Transport" or "MapQuest Open" might be good.) Smurrayinchester 14:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might actually work. I see there's an option to export as SVG. I'm not able to test it at the moment - do you know if I would be able to select roads and other features as elements (I think that's what they're called - shapes/paths) within an image editor? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes. Alternatively, if you want I can try extracting it in QGIS to separate the roads, river and boundary data when I'm back at my desktop. Smurrayinchester 14:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perfect. In that case, I'll have a bash at exporting it and fiddling around at home later and let you know if I get stuck, if that's ok? I've got a few weeks to get it together, so no rush. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Harbor

Is it true that some Americans believe the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami was karma for Pearl Harbor? 62.37.237.16 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That question assumes that Americans believe in karma. Or that most Americans either do not know about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or somehow think that those weren't enough -- Overall the question is inherently flawed.

Of course, if you want to ask "Is it true that some Americans believe (any random idea)," it is possible to find at least one or two who might think that idea is plausible. Are those few Americans representative or even noteworthy? No. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be more than "one or two"; see Earthquake Was “Payback” for Pearl Harbor, Japanese Earthquake, Tsunami reveal American Stupidity, Insensitivity and Facebook Meme: Pearl Harbor Payback is a Bitch!. There's pages of stuff on Google. I'm not sure if it proves that the US has more morons on social media than anybody else, but certainly "some Americans believe". Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not as many morons as the ones who think we didn't land on the Moon.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sites given would fail WP:RS, the first two as blogs, the last as a forum. The first two are engaging the sort of sensationalism that lead a number of news sources to claim that Bagel head was popular in Japan. The last is questioning whether it really is a significant number or just a few random idiots. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the sites above some of the opinions seemed to lead to questioning the influence of Hollywood on the fragile minds of some of the related people. I googled "dire effects of Hollywood" and I found this: The-Effect-of-Hollywood-on-Historical-Perspective. However regarding hate culture itself I see its roots rather in a ( frustrated ) cult of the automobile than in that of the cinema. --Askedonty (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Police asking "You OK? You seem very irritated" when giving out a ticket: purpose?

What could be the purpose of police in the US asking you (or telling you) "you seem very irritated" when giving you a ticket? I assume there is a pattern to the questions police are trained to ask. I mean how they go about giving you that ticket and what they tell you is scripted in advance and part of their training, isn't it? I could see how, for example, some questions could serve the purpose of trying to find out if there's something else going on (e.g. trying to see if there's drugs in the car, if a crime has taken place or is about to take place, etc), for example by getting you to unwittingly spill the beans or incriminate yourself to give them an excuse to dig a bit deeper. But in this particular case, as far as I can tell, there is only one thing that question can achieve, and that is to irritate that person even more. Any clues? If you know anything about how police are trained to act when giving out a ticket maybe you can help with this one. Contact Basemetal here 18:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the size of the town/department, there may be little to no training. Even the most populous county in a state can have inadequate or improper training. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are police departments funded exclusively by local taxes? Contact Basemetal here 18:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I meant to include state police in my question. Contact Basemetal here 18:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Police departments, like schools, are mostly locally funded by the county or state they answer to, with some help from the federal government (like the army handing some small-town departments leftover tanks, machine guns, and grenade launchers; or Obama funding body cameras)

(edit conflict)Even the sixth most populous county in the nation has inadequate training, and many departments that have "adequate" training focus more on dealing with violence encouraged by said training, instead of helping people (perhaps suffering from mental ailments or handicaps) going through terrible crises. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I made my posts as someone who is largely ignored by the police, even when going 20 mph over the speed limit with busted tail lights because I needed Little Debbie cakes and orange soda at 3 am. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTH, if there isn't enough money to properly train police, has anyone seen any proposals to spend some federal, state or local money on educating citizens and disseminating information (especially among the sections of the population that seem to be more "noticed" by police, e.g. those "driving while Black") on how to deal with police and especially poorly trained police? Maybe along the lines of this page or this page. But I mean a large scale effort funded with real money by the authorities. Can something like that ever be politically acceptable? On the one hand it would look like the authorities are warning citizens against their own police, i.e. their own employees. On the other there's been so many people hurt or losing their lives in encounters with law enforcement that it looks this would be a much better way to spend money. Contact Basemetal here 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Educating the populace on how to avoid police brutality and racism instead of educating the police to not engage in said brutality and racism would probably come across as victim blaming and skewed priorities to most Americans (by those who acknowledge the problems, at any rate... The NRA blames shootings on everything but guns and acts as though any shooting that makes the news would have occurred without guns, and yet they still have members; so victim blaming and skewed priorities appears to be normal thinking for an unfortunate number of Americans.) Ian.thomson (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then as long as no one has the common sense of trying something else, people will continue to die in their encounters with police. Sometimes pragmatic solutions look bad but do the job better than "ideal" ones. Warning citizens is such another pragmatic approach. It is just saying "be very very careful when you deal with those guys". In a small way this is already being done, as you can see on the net. But obviously it does not reach everyone. I thought maybe a massive educational campaign, in schools, on mass media, social media, the net, etc would be money well spent. Unfortunately in politics symbolic trumps pragmatic in very many cases, even though to keep doing the same thing and expect different results is the essence of insanity, as people say. Look at the war on drugs. Well, at least some have proposed other approaches to the problem of illegal drugs. But, from what you're saying, I conclude no one has ever even suggested an approach to police brutality like the one I asked about here. Contact Basemetal here 15:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But in this particular case, as far as I can tell, there is only one thing that question can achieve, and that is to irritate that person even more. I'm not sure I agree with that, Basemetal. It may cause the person to reveal why they're irritated, but I can't see how having that feedback would be irritating in itself, thus exacerbating their state. Giving feedback about a person's apparent emotional state is a common technique among counsellors etc, and it's designed to show empathy and create a bit of rapport, a window of trust where the other has the opportunity to open up. Now, if the apprehendee already has a distrust of police, that would admittedly complicate the picture. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Upset" would be a better term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, you see officer... here I was, just driving along, minding my own business... when suddenly this policeman pulls me over... and now i am about to be given a damned ticket... So yeah... I guess you could say I'm a bit upset.

Imagine how the Police would react if civilians were to turn the question back on them... "I'm fine, officer... Are you OK?... you too seem a little irritated. I sure hope it's not something I said or did." Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Jack my thinking may have been influenced by one particular video, that of the arrest of Sandra Bland. I tried to figure out what on earth the state trooper was trying to achieve with that question. That prompted my asking this general question here, just in case this was some kind of general question they were trained to ask for some reason. But you may be right that, in general, such a question may produce different results, depending on circumstances, the way it is asked, etc. However I'm fairly sure that in this particular instance you will agree with me that it only irritated Sandra Bland more. But maybe that was the purpose: listen next to the state trooper "asking" her to put out her cigarette, and especially his tone of voice. Contact Basemetal here 15:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not for nothing, but ... it wasn't going to take "much" to get her "irritated". It was quite obvious that she was "itching for a fight". In my opinion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would partially agree with your statement joseph spadaro. While it seems true that she had an immediate bias against the officer and even if she was 'itching for a (verbal) fight" that still doesn't excuse the fact that the officer is a total buffoon and can't behave appropriately. He went from ASKING (not demanding) that she put out the cigarette (which is dumb to begin with) to blowing up on her 'get out of the car' 'get out of the car' yelling and hollering. Void burn (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but ... (1) the request to put out the cigarette was not "dumb"; it was legal, appropriate, and standard police protocol; and (2) the police stop has absolutely nothing to do with her death, three days later. Everyone may want to armchair quarterback how good/bad the police acted during the traffic stop. And all of that has zero relevance to the jail death. In my opinion. Thirdly, a great way to get respect is to give respect; in other words, it's a two-way street. Some people simply want to be respected (to not be "dissed"), yet feel entitled that they themselves can exhibit all sorts of disrespect to the other party. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The officer may be within his legal authority to demand that she put out the cigarette, but it very much seems when observed in context (and listening to the quality of the officer's tone and emphasis) that the officer issued that order specifically as a result of Ms. Bland's accusatory tone. The emphasis certainly seems to suggest to me that it was a tit-for-tat response to her own short temper. On the other hand, it is not outside the realm of possibility that he simply issued that order because he foresaw the possibility that the stop may become more complicated than it at first seemed, and didn't want it to be a factor, and that the stress he puts on the command is simply a result of his own raised state of tension. Really it is impossible to say with any certainty. Certainly there's a point within a couple of minutes later where he clearly loses any consistency with prescribed protocol; "I will light you up!" is just not something that is supposed to come out of any officer's mouth outside an 80's buddy cop flick. However, as to the specific question of the OP... (see bellow)Snow ^{let's rap} 23:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that he asked the same manner of "You ok?" question of the person he stopped immediately previous. It may very well have been a part of his training or otherwise a standard part of his approach. However, his use of the phrase is slightly contextually different, and the (phonetic) emphasis in the second case strikes me as more confrontational than the first, which is accompanied by a disarming little laugh. It's difficult to parse and to understand what he hoped to gain from asking the question (and the follow-up) if his motivation for asking was that he already could sense that she was irritated. But note that this is not a reaction that is utilized just by people who want to make someone back down from their display of irritation; people of all stripes have a natural inclination to ask that sort of question when the sense unspoken hostility. Most people will be very uncomfortable in the presence of unspoken antipathy and will seek to clarify it, regardless of whether they just want to know the other party's state mind or have already guessed it and want it to be verbally acknowledged so that they can respond to it in a way that assets their control or perspective on the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo green belt

Does Tokyo have a green belt? I can't find a single map showing one. 176.250.110.177 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a direct answer to your question, but This document seems to be useful in determining general urban land-use policies in Japan. --Jayron 32 21:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That very useful link refers to zones called "urbanization control areas" (UCAs), which appear to be broadly comparable with green belts (as the term is understood in the UK - nothing to do with public parks, etc.). There is some more information about what is allowable within urbanization control areas here, here, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and this document may give you the information you need about Tokyo specifically. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A look at Google Maps shows a sprinkling of small isolated parks, nothing comparable, say, to Manhattan's Central Park. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green belt, eh? No answers here, just linking. May as well do Green belt (United Kingdom), too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ueno Park, the largest park in Tokyo, is 54 ha (according to WP). (Central Park is 341 ha). For other parks see Parks and gardens in Tokyo. There's a lot of green around the imperial palace. About the same size as Central Park. But I don't think that is accessible to the public. Not far from there you've got Hibiya Park, about 16 ha. Incidentally, can a park in the middle of the city (like Central Park) really be what is meant by a "green belt"? I thought a green belt was supposed to be something that surrounds a city. Contact Basemetal here 16:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: a "green belt" is a protected rural zone surrounding a conurbation to prevent urban sprawl - see the articles linked by InedibleHulk above. Thus the question is about green space around Tokyo, rather than green space within Tokyo. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NYC does have such parks, as Pelham Bay Park and Van Courtland Park as well as Forest Park (Queens) and Highland Park (Brooklyn). Although they may not necessarily fall on the current outside borders of NYC itself, when parks like Central Park were designed they were indeed on the outskirts of inhabited areas. Unless Mayor DeBlasio bombs Yonkers, a contemporary greenbelt is unlikely. Nevertheless, NYC is much greener than Tokyo. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A greenbelt is not a park or a series of parks, but any rural land (agricultural, forestry etc) which is protected from urban development by planning legislation. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... we do have to be careful with terminology here... it may be helpful to note the subtle distinction between a Green belt and a Greenway... as has already been pointed out, New York City has the Brooklyn–Queens Greenway (a series of interconnected parks)... but that is not a Green Belt. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]