Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 April 1

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.

April 1

Possibly dumb etymology:hersh and cyrus.

Hi are the Jewish names Hersh and Kurosh derived from the name Cyrus, as in Cyrus the Great? Thanks.107.77.229.107 (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hersh (Hersch, Hirsch, Hirsh, Herschel …) is a Yiddish (German) loan translation of Hebrew Zvi. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 01:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And Kurosh is a Persian name, which has become Cyrus in Classic literature. Omidinist (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Despite being Jewish myself, I've never met or heard of a Jew named Kurosh. That said, I haven't met many Jews of Persian decent, so I couldn't tell you if they would use the name. OTOH, I have heard of many Jews named Hersh or its derivatives. Eliyohub (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

With regard to 'many Jews of Persian de(s)cent', please read this entry. Omidinist (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Kurosh was a renowned Russian-Jewish mathematician. I was told once that Kurosh corresponds to Hirsch as a name. Neglecting all the transliteration issues, there is some similarity to the original Persian form of English Cyrus.107.77.231.202 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparent similarities can be misleading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

”apparent similarities”are not the only thing I’m relying on, obviously, since I came to reference desk to ask about it.75.148.101.22 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

'Cyrus the Great (Kuruš) figures in the Hebrew Bible as the patron and deliverer of the Jews.' See here and here. Connection is obvious. Omidinist (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I’ll spell out the part that’s obvious to me(I was trying to do starting to do so before, but got interrupted):When or even before Cyrus allowed the Jews to return and rebuild Temple, it’s possible that some Jews named their offspring after Cyrus. There are other possibilities too.75.148.101.22 (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Omidinist -- The ancient Persian (Achaemenid) empire is the only empire that the Jews have overall very positive historical memories of (as opposed to their distinctly negative historical memories of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Seleucid, Roman, and Byzantine empires, and more complicated experiences with some of the others), and Cyrus is referred to using the word for "Messiah" משיח in the Bible verse Isaiah 45:1 (though this word has a slightly different meaning in the Old Testament), but I never heard of any large number of Jews naming their sons Kurosh or (more authentically Hebrew) Koresh כורש. The most prominent people named "Koresh" in English are a 19th-century hollow-earther (even weirder than a flat-earther), and of course the Waco dude... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Although I do not know about Jewish names derived from Cyrus, I have a friend who is an Iranian Jewish woman living in the United States. She named one of her sons Darioush, after the Achaemenid king Darius I. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reincarnation in the New Testament

Are there any verses in the New Testament that can be interpreted as referring to reincarnation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.82.188 (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Verily, verily, I say unto thee. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Though whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Basically (on the authority of my degree in theology), No! Neither of those quotes has ever been interpreted in orthodox theology as a reference to reincarnation. There is a lot about resurrection, about immortal life, about being born again (which has a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning) - but nothing that suggests returning to a mortal life as a different person, or creature. The teaching that the soul is immortal, and either goes to heaven or hell after death, rather contradicts any concept on reincarnation. The concept of resurrection has always been understood as meaning the restoration of the same body as before - to the extent that cremation was banned for a long time in case it meant that the old body would no longer be available. Wymspen (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Except for the teachings of Father Guido Sarducci. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

To take your question literally, I suppose we must admit that several verses in the Gospels can be interpreted as referring to reincarnation since a few people do interpret them as meaning that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah ([1][2]), but this is very much fringe stuff. That interpretation is answered here. --Antiquary (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And on that note, remember that Nicodemus kind-of interprets "You must be born again" literally: Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?", John 3:4. The fact that it's completely different from Jesus' meaning doesn't affect whether it can be so interpreted, just whether it should be. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

In what article can I get information about the history of cutlery using ?

In what article can I get information about the history of using, it says in what places this culture began (Europe, Arab countries etc.). As far a I know in the past all over the world it was customary to use hands directly (without cutlery) while eating. I'm looking for an organized information about this topic. Thank you. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Table knife, Fork and Spoon all have history sections. You might also find Cutlery and List of eating utensils useful for suggesting further reading. Rojomoke (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

See table manners and the links therein. Matt Deres (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Eurotunnel capacity

London to Amsterdam via the Channel Tunnel will start on April 4. I would like to know how many trains a day the Chunnel can manage. This says "Up to 400 trains pass through the tunnel each day, carrying an average of 50,000 passengers, 6,000 cars, 180 coaches and 54,000 tonnes of freight." Assuming that's 200 trains (a suspiciously round number) in each direction it means one train every 7.2 minutes, which impresses me, as they must have to get to the portals at the right time and all go through the tunnel at about the same speed (which would also impress me). I once read a document related to Deutsche Bahn's ambition to run Germany to London, and I think it mentioned the Chunnel capacity, but I can't find it now. So, is the Chunnel full? Hayttom (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know about the chunnel specifically, but in internet routing, you don't need to strictly synchronize arrivals if you can queue lower-priority traffic. If there are holding yards for freight trains and if they make up more than about half the trains, the passenger trains can be almost totally unsynchronized and can still get through with almost no delay. Of course, the total cannot exceed 100% of the capacity or the queues will grow too large for the holding yards. -Arch dude (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'm fairly sure it can also get more complicated than that. This discussion, while fairly speculative or based on hazy 'memories' in many cases [3] has some discussion on the complexities including flighting trains to help with differing speeds of freight and passenger trains (although it's unclear whether this still happens in practice). If you're not aware of the term, this source on page 345 (13 of the PDF) [4] has an explanation, it basically means putting trains of similar speeds in groups to improve capacity. That source, although old, gives you some idea of the complexity of managing capacity. This source is from a real world example [5]. Of course part of this complexity arises from trains on different railway lines intersecting at some stage.

This source [6] suggests a capacity of "30 train movements per hour in each direction", although that was from around the opening so things may have changed since then. Notably a comment in the non RS suggests the signalling headway may be 3 minutes now suggesting up to 20 trains per hour, not 30. BTW, that discussion and the other link and this [7] gives some idea of the additional complexities face by the channel tunnel not common with general rail capacity management.

The European Commission has in the past been concerned that the tunnel was being used to capacity for reasons they considered problematic. This ref [8], suggests at the time in 2013, 43% of the capacity was unused. It also includes info on the total number of freight trains at the time, although doesn't really include info on passenger trains. And the number of freight trains is so low that it doesn't seem that significant. (Well the info it has is on passenger numbers not on trains.)

Probably the biggest omission are the Eurotunnel Shuttle service (I presume because they're not covered by EU rules), as it sounds to me like those may represent the biggest current usage of the capacity by far, up to 6 an hour or more. [9] [10] [11] BTW, the commission's concerns seem to have been at least partly address by this move [12], meaning the number of trains may have gone up.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The phrase to search on is "paths per hour". The 1994 book Channel Tunnel Trains published by Eurotunnel (ISBN 1-872009-33-6), by Peter Semmens and Yves Machefert-Tassin, states on page 128 that "The Treaty of Canterbury... requires Eurotunnel to install signalling equipment that will permit twenty paths per hour in each direction". This 2001 article by John Noulton from Japan Railway & Transport Review states that "The presently available number of standard paths in each direction is 20 per hour, and about two-thirds of this capacity is already being used. Improved operating techniques will stretch the available capacity to about 24 standard paths per hour. The ultimate capacity, which would require moving block signalling, is 30 standard paths per hour. Under a usage contract signed by Britain and France, up to 50% of tunnel capacity is available for international passenger and freight trains." Similarly Channel Tunnel Transport System conference proceedings from 1996 (I think; this was a Google Books hit and I see different dates in different places), P.M. Robins writes that the initial 20 paths per hour "can be expanded to 24 paths per hour with the current system but the ultimate target of 30 paths per hour will probably only be achieved by a new system".

It must be noted that the paths per hour are calculated based on all trains going the same speed. If the speed varies, one train can occupy multiple paths. In the early days of the tunnel it was expected that the shuttles would go 140 km/h (and the last two books I cited both say that the paths were intended for that speed) while the Eurostars would go at 160, so that slowing the Eurostars to 140 would save paths. I don't know what speeds the different trains go at now. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What is social media anyway?

This is motivated by the question further up about social media disclosure requests/requirements at border crossings. What is social media anyway? Facebook is a well known example, so it's definitely social media. I don't use Facebook but I do sometimes post to a few web forums related to niche technical subjects. Are those social media? If not, what about Reddit, which is basically a collection of similar specialty forums? Not looking for legal advice but just wondering if there is any established classification scheme for this stuff.

The whole concept seems horrible, since there are many forums for discussing things like health issues, where the info is unremarkable when anonymous (some unknown forum poster is discussing their medical treatment) but very private when tied to specific people. Are the usual organizations like the ACLU raising a stink? Maybe they are but I haven't noticed anything. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Social media can help explain it to you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have looked there earlier of course. The article is helpful though it tries to "cover all bases", making it hard to exclude anything. It even lists youtube and skype as social media sites. Maybe they are under some conception of the term, but they wouldn't have occurred to me as examples. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe YouTube qualifies as social media. It allows comments on most videos. These comments sometimes become quite intense and heated discussions. Here is a topical example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZpvlY6miFM (Scroll down below the video, and give it a few seconds to load the discussion.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

EO dates the term "social media" to 2008.[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Youtube also allows liking videos, adding them to public watch lists etc. (There is also the history component if you don't clear it and give password access although since we're talking about US visa requirements, that isn't one.) And of course Youtube is also part of the web 2.0. Remember while most people are simply looking at other people's videos it is a user video sharing site. Some people do have their own public videos, e.g. of them speaking, sometimes of events etc; more rarely holiday videos etc may be there. (Mostly of course of their cats.) Considering one of the reasons that the US is interested in this info is the typical 'terrorism' concerns, it's quite likely the US would be interested in someone's Youtube profile. And this source [14] claims Youtube is one of the one's they specifically list as an option. A quick search for images finds [15] which seems to confirm Youtube. Interesting enough GitHub and JustPaste.it are also there. (The later, our article provides good hints why if you don't already know.)

Skype and other messaging services like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger (which our article also lists as an example of social media) are different part of social media. They can and particularly for the later frequently are used for sharing stuff including with groups. (I've seen it suggested that in some places a lot of non personal news info is obtained at least in part from such services.) While the structure is different and there's no real 'public' option, there's no real reason to say it's distinct from Facebook or Twitter which I assume you are accepting as social media.

It's true that as messaging apps, these are also used in ways that isn't perhaps typically considered social media e.g. regular chatting and which probably few people will do on Facebook or Twitter but the lines are always going to blurry between these activities at times. E.g. if someone posts to Facebook 'any good movies to see?' is it somehow more social media than if they post to some group they're part of on WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger the same thing? Maybe if you just ask one or two people individually it's not really 'social media'. In any case unless you put the border so far as to exclude anything happening on these services, the fact that both happen means these no reason to exclude them.

I know also that for a time at least, Microsoft was trying to make Windows Live Messenger very social media -esque. This wasn't particularly successful, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of it made it over to Skype even if it also probably didn't have much success but it may be that Skype also has a number of distinctly social media like features that are rarely used.

BTW, I excluded Snapchat; although it has some similarities with other messaging apps, it also has stuff like the Snapchat stories which I guess make it even clearer as social media. When it comes to the question, although Skype, Facebook Messenger, Whatsapp etc may be social media; the fact that it's all private and the US isn't demanding passwords means it's probably of little interest hence why none of these are on the earlier list. Well Facebook Messenger account is not distinct from Facebook, and Whatsapp is tied to some phone number so to some extent they could easily have these without specifically asking. I doubt that's the main reason though and you'd note they also don't ask for Snapchat. (Although it doesn't have to be just what is public. I would image the US also has a list of 'profiles' which are concerning. So if you joined a 'killing Obama' group chat at some stage, this may be known even if it isn't public. OTOH, the fleeting nature of most Snapchat content means even with your password, there's no guarantee they'll find the stuff of interest. Perhaps you once had a story which included photos of you in Syria or with some preacher of concern. But even without effort on your part, it may be long gone.)

There are of course limits. While news stories on traditional sites may be frequently shared on social media, and some of these sites even have social media aspects like commenting on the story etc, these probably often aren't going to be called social media.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Re opposition: There is [16] from before it was proposed to expand it to all visitors. I suspect you'll find similar for the recent proposals either already or soon.

In terms of privacy, it's worth remembering that if you are not a US citizen the US can, and does sometimes, demand access to all your devices including any encryption passwords [17] [18]. They obviously generally can't force you to do so, but failure to comply can mean you're turned away. If you think that is bad, remember that while the UK may do it less often, they actually can do it [19] [20] and Key disclosure laws mean that there even citizens may not be protected (and apparently they may arrest you for not complying). NZ has or had policies and laws which likewise allowed them to demand passwords and also I think not just of visitors [21].

It was claimed this may also apply to Canada and Australia (in addition to UK and US) although since this was from NZ customs maybe not the best source especially since it wasn't a definite claim [22]. But if you look at the comments there is mention of this case [23] [24]. A quick search suggest nothing much came from it since the person pled guilty [25]. I didn't find any discussion of Australia although this is good for a sad laugh. [26] Considering this is the same country which is locking up migrants including a number of refugees traveling to Australia by boat in atrocious conditions in various places, and also the country who've started deporting many people who've lived most or in some cases all of their lives in Australia back after all sorts of crimes; well, does would anyone really be surprised if they were like Canada, NZ, UK and the US and could demand your keys at the border for non citizens (particularly visitors)?

My impression from all I've read that many other countries also have this possibility. While citizens and perhaps some other long term residents (and of course within the EU, any EU citizen in any EU country) may be protected (at least requiring probable cause), the idea is often that visitors either have the choice to comply or leave. Entry is generally held at complete will of the government so if government decides the border protection agency should have the power, they may not even need a law change. I'd note that both the UK and Canadian controversial cases seem to be long term residents or citizens. While this is likely in part because visitors who refuse to comply are simply sent back and have no interest in challenging their case even if they could, it's probably also at least in part reflective of the fact they have little opportunity to challenge their case if they wanted to. (A number of the sources I provided also mention the catch-22. If you encrypt stuff and refuse to hand over passwords, this may be taken as probable cause of the need to search you!)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Device searches at borders are simple to avoid, by the crude tactic of not bringing any devices (or only bring a completely empty one, and download any data you need from your encrypted storage at the other end). It's much harder to leave your online footprint at home, so this is in some ways more troubling than device searches. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree it's simple. See my comments above regarding the suggesting to make fake profiles by Basemetal. Even most people who provide advice like the EFF agree that doing a lot of that runs a strong risk of getting a lot of scrutiny or simply being turned away. (One of them, the Conversation suggests you make a big deal about trade secrets etc beforehand. That may work okay if you're job where this makes sense. If you're simply a checkout operator at Pak'n'Save, well good luck with that....)

Of course as I think all of them including the Conversation touch on a big issue is 'lying' to border agents. You don't bring a a phone and the border agents seemingly innocuously asks you why you don't have one. Sure you could answer you didn't think it was compatible or something. Most of the time that isn't going to be picked up. However assuming the main reason is actually because you didn't want them to search it, you've effectively lied to a border agent so if this is ever found out, it could create significant hassle for you. The alternative is to say 'because I didn't want border agents to search it' and raise a big red flag. Even if you are also traveling to some country run by a despot, you could still easily expect a lot of added scrutiny or to be simply turned away for that answer.

BTW in case there is any confusion, as many of those emphasise since handing over passwords is part of the issue, you cannot simply rely on putting the data in cloud storage. You need to ensure you don't know the password and the person who knows it will not provide it to the border agent or to you when you are with the border agent; yet somehow develop a strategy where they will let you in despite that. The only thing you've likely achieved if you put all the data in cloud storage but you know the password is ensured more wasted time while they access it from cloud storage provider. Of course if your device is very slow, it could be faster, but then again they're also probably going to scrutinise it more carefully so still a lose-lose situation.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. In case it's not clear, if anyone is actually planning to do anything to hide data from border agents I strongly recommend they read one or more informed guides beforehand. Getting into this uninformed risks causing more problems. For example, at a minimum you probably should delete anything which could be seen as illegal. Copyvios may be the only exception. Yet ideally you should wipe this stuff, however on Windows at least since there's no default software to easily do this you may have to download something. However now you have this software or probably signs of it on your computer. If you have an SSD, TRIM may or may not be enough to cover you. The kerfuffle by some random Australian MP partly emphasises the problem. The Australian government themselves told people 'delete illegal stuff on your devices' before trying to cross the border. Some Muslim group repeats this advice and suddenly they're evil. Also make sure you pay attention to the distinction between citizens (and maybe some long term residents or other special cases) who may have added protections and generally cannot simply be turned away; and tourists and other very limited purpose entry attempts who can simply be turned away at the border often without needing much reason, the later AFAIK is what we're talking about here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

P.P.S. Although I'm not saying things are perfect for a citizen either. As the Canadian and UK case illustrate, the risk for a citizen, especially for a change outside the US where there tends to be fewer protections, is that they will find their refusal to cooperate by handing over their password interpreted as an offence. Even if it's not, the cost (in time, money, etc) associated with mounting a legal challenge to that is likely to be significant probably partly why both cases don't seem to have amounted to much. Nil Einne (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Until recently I resisted having a smartphone at all (finally broke down and got a cheap Android because I needed it for work). So I've only travelled with dumbphones and there's not much private data in them (my contact numbers, ok, but they can also figure those out from my phone records). I'd hope that travelling with just a dumbphone isn't too suspicious. Among other things it avoids getting the more expensive smartphone stolen. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Btw, thanks in particular for the engadget link from further up, which is the only place I see the DHS's list of specifically named sites. Of course it's still open ended since there's a selection for "other". Sigh. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be open ended, but the DHS proposal is only to make the listed sites compulsory at this time per the sources I provided to the original question. Considering one of the sites is a pastebin site (with a reason but still), I think it would be very difficult to enforce a compulsory open ended question. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As I note below, my info above is a little wrong. The engadget link is for the ESTA and AFAIK it will still be optional i.e. probably for many on this board they won't have to provide social media info to the US if they want to go there as a tourist even if the proposal passes. The current list seems to be the same as in the Engadget link. The list of sites which will be on the forms for most people who do need a visa is different. According to all info I can find the listed sites are compulsory (despite 209 continuously claiming they won't be). They can be seen here [27] (page 2) [28] (page 5). Also the optional sites defines social media: "any other websites or applications you have used within the last five years to create or share content (photos, videos, status updates, etc.), please list the platform and associated unique social media identifier (username or handle) below." Personally I would say wikipedia does fall within that definition, although I wouldn't say Nil Einne is a unique social media identifier under normal circumstances. Of course, so does Google Docs if you've ever used it to 'create and share content'. BTW, to be clear, it is optional both ways. If you answer yes, you still get to choose what you want to list, aren't then required to fill out every site. Although one thing which is unclear to me is whether you have to fill out all handles if you do list a platform. To me this part is ambiguous. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, some of my older answers may have been a bit wrong. When I wrote them I was under the impression that the previous optional social media question was part of DHS-160. It was not. It is part of Electronic System for Travel Authorization used by people who don't need a visa (or those who think they don't need one). As far as I'm aware, there are no current proposal to make social media info required info for the ESTA. Social media questions was asked for certain visa applicants who needed further vetting, I don't think it was optional there either but I didn't investigate this a great deal since it's not of significant interest to me. It's possible social media could have come up in the interview or maybe there is some other form which asked about it, but generally, I don't think most visa applicants have even been asked about social media until now unless they tried for ESTA first. What this means is if you are from the UK, NZ, Australia, Germany etc i.e. countries that are part of the Visa Waiver Program this isn't going to affect you at the moment if you are just an ordinary tourist without anything that is going to bar you (e.g. many convictions). Also other countries with special programmes e.g. Canada. It is only mostly those from developed countries, and those who do have a bar, as well as those going for more than ordinary tourism or short term business (e.g. journalists, students) who will be affected. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)