Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 February 12

=February 12=

Treason Trials
I am having trouble finding out how treason trials are judged, are they headed up by a three judge panel or do they have a jury? I've already reveiwed evreything I could find on Hanson but he pled out. Any help would be deeply appriciated. PRO.


 * From Treason: On October 11, 2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he spoke supportively of al-Qaeda. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Treason trial in what country and under what set of laws? A military law treason trial will differ from a civilian one. Rmhermen 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Corinthian column in wood
Does anyone know of a model which shows a SIMPLIFIED model of a Corinthian capitel in wood? I am trying to make a model where the capitel is about 5cm (2") high, and really need help on this matter. Thanks in advance! 213.161.190.228 08:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you just need a picture, a quick Google search turns up this likely candidate . If you need carving patterns, I'm sure you could dig one up with a trip to a good library that has a subscription to one of the many woodcarving magazines. They'd probably be intended to be carved in a larger scale than 2" but it would be somewhere to start. And as a last resort, you might try hiring a cabinetmaker with a CNC machine to make them for you, but that's going to be expensive. Lowerarchy 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Perception of money...?
Is there a religion that believes that money is like blood, i.e., that an absolute minimal is necessary to support life but an excess must be shared with others and made available to anyone who may suffer a loss of any amount sufficient to sustain their existence? -- Barringa 02:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a religion, but socialism? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not referring to State beliefs which operate upon the basis of the physical and practical rather than on the basis of morals and the spiritual. -- Barringa 02:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe you are simply masking this question, which I find despicable. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If that were true then your comment would merely validate a wrong conclusion. Both questions are legitimate and distinct and have nothing to do with your wrongful interpretation or connotation. What is despicable, if anything is your inability to be truthful and honest rather than deceptive and rude. -- Barringa 03:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ...not to mention your Stalking. -- Barringa 17:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Invitations to debate are best published at one of the Internet's numerous bulletin boards. --Wetman 03:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not the case on my part. I'm merely seeking an answer to the above question and may have found one outside the Wikipedia. Namely the Hutterites appear to enjoy this perspective although not a distinct and separate religion unto itself but rather a socialized form of Protestant Christian Anabaptist. What I am seeking though is knowledge of a separate and distinct religion which is founded on such principles. -- Barringa 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Despicable indeed, Twas. However this time it's phrased as a "legitimate" question, and, ostensibly at least, doesn't seem to violate any "Wikipedia is Not a Soapbox" rule. I'm truly anxious to see how it'll be dealt with this time. Loomis 04:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The questions are unrelated except in the broad context and only by exclusion (along with many other religions I might add) when considered as an answer at all. However, the topic is very much legitimate and only intellectual cowards would say or hint that it is not. Sorry Loomis. -- Barringa 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite the bait. However, I must point out that religion is not what you think it is if you exclude socialism. Religion is what its adherents claim it to be. In some places, such as the US, but also most of the Westernised world, the right to religion, as distinct from state, is constitutional. This expresses itself in many claiming dispensation for what might not be religious, on religious grounds. Some activities (that have been disputed) include money collecting to terrorist activity.

If you want to relate money to religion, you want a modern religion. Sheep and horse trading, underlying the word pecuniary, are not, strictly speaking, cash. So if we agree to exclude barter and trade, we must ignore religions predating Greco Roman times. This would exclude traditional Judaism and early Christianity.

Later expressions of religion that include money would be Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Modern Judaism, Jehova's Witness, Mormonism and any of many offshoots. Eastern religions don't tend to Westernised cash politics, although recent expressions have become Westernised, eg Moonies.

So how does one dissociate the issue of religion existing to siphon state funding? Such a question depends on the asker’s agenda.

Perhaps the asker wants to criticise the Catholic church for Hypocrisy. Of course, the Catholic church spends every cent it gets on community works, so the point might shrivel. Similarly, many Protestant churchs eschew temporal in favor of spiritual, although some are known money grabbers. There are fantacists who blame jews for everything, even quoting Shakespeare in their heroic effort to reconcile fantasy and reality.

The truth is, acquisition of funds is not religious, but a state corporate activity. One does not serve both Manna and Heaven.DDB 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not aware of any religions fitting the criteria you speak of, but I'm absolutely confused by your premise; that is that to have any sort of excess of money is equatable with "worshipping money" or the "love or lust of money" and detracts in any way from one's relationship with God. Over the years I've lived a rather frugal lifestyle, enabling myself to build up a nice little nest-egg, if I may say so myself, not out of any sort of "lust or love of money" but simply as a matter of financial responsibility. To "save up for a rainy day", or perhaps, dare I say, to better enjoy some of the material comforts life has to offer at some future date. But do I "worship" my mutual funds? How on Earth does it in any way affect my relationship and love for the one true God (i.e., "the guy upstairs")? Loomis 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Socialism is a religion, although it's possibly a faith. (The same thing could probably be claimed about capitalism, however.) 惑乱 分からん 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Judaism, the religion explicitly does not say this. In fact, a traditional reading of Jewish texts is at violent odds with much of what you write. There is no such thing as an excess of money that must be shared. Jews are commanded to donate a minimum of 10% of their income to charity. Most halachic sources stipulate an upper limit too, on the grounds that one cannot impoverish oneself to the extent that one will become an additional burden on others' donations. (I need to check my sources, but think Maimonides fixes this at 50%). So if you're poor, you still have to give. And if you're rich, you can't give away all of your excess. So, if there is an answer of "yes" to your question, it doesn't apply to Judaism. --Dweller 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found the ref online at . I'm tired and not an expert translator, but my rendering of this excerpt from Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor, 7:4(5 according to some numbering systems) would be as follows: (In response to how much should you give?) "...up to a fifth of your possessions is an outstanding mitzvah. One tenth is average." Using the normal halachic techniques of logic, the implication must be taken that either <10% or >20% is unacceptable. Maimonides concludes the paragraph "even a poor person, whose income is from charity is obligated to give charity to another". Later in the chapter (9/10) Maimonides stipulates that people who refuse to give charity are forced by the courts. For more information about the Jewish view of charity, which differs somewhat from a standard understanding of philanthropic giving, see Tzedakah. --Dweller 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In christian religions giving alms(which see) is considered part of the whole 'thing' - as it is in many other religions. I think this is pretty similar to what you are describing - however I think giving alms does not extend necessarily to giving away all the excess money that a person has - it all of course depends on what you think is surplus to your needs.83.100.255.117 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit of clarification here... What I am asking is whether there is a religion which forbids lust or love of money through restriction on its possession beyond that necessary for survival or existence. In the case of the Hutterites they are allowed essential possessions including many personal possessions including furniture and even cell phones in some cases. The idea is to eliminate money (or possessions) as an item of worship thus clarifying one’s relationship with God as opposed to sponsoring its confusion. -- Barringa 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're being very specific about the rationales for it, that may exclude any and all answers, but in terms of religions that teach abhorrance of material possesion, I've read of cults who've had similar philosophies, but have no sources. Anyone? Also, I believe that the Perfecti of the Cathars, in common with many other strands of Gnosticism were heavily ascetic. Of course, you'd also want to look at mainstream orders of monks. --Dweller 17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, ascetic does in fact appear to be the basis of the religion I am seeking. -- Barringa 18:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is what the questioner is getting at, but as a personal anecdote, my father's family immigrated to Canada dirt poor, as is typical for so many immigrants to the "new world". Basically yet another situation of a family arriving in a new country with only the clothes on their backs and some $7 in their pockets. Fortunately, the Jewish community has a magnificent organization known as Chabad, an organization essentially funded through donations by more fortunate Jews. With their help, their was never any worry about food being on the table, the rent for their tiny apartment being paid, and my father getting a decent education, eventually leading to a university degree. In short, we owe Chabad, and their patrons, the more well off in the Jewish Community, for the comfort we received when we had nothing, and for the modest yet comfortable life we're now able to enjoy in the new adopted country we now call home. Knowing what it's like to be poor, today our family regularly donates to Chabad and similar organizations (there are actually many more; too numerous to list) in order to help them continue with their noble work. The OP recently stated here that "current day Jews draw a line between those who have money and those who do not, i.e., between the rich and the poor". Given my family's experience, I couldn't imagine a more ignorant statement. Loomis 17:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Loomis, perhaps I should have waited a week or so before asking this question and going by the timing of your response you apparently did not read the above clarification. I know both rich and poor Jews and non-Jews and I can say that in most cases I find the influence of Judaism by comparison to be of charitable benefit to other Jews. But again this is not what I am asking. Hope the above clarifies that. -- Barringa 17:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I see you've nicely clarified your question. Should I take it then that your previous remarks, quoted below, no longer have any relevance to this "new", "clarified" question?


 * "[T]he true God of the Jews is money - but delete it so as to hide this fact from everyone". - Barringa
 * "Wikipedia is controlled by Jews who believe that God is money". - Barringa


 * Loomis 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My dad went to NY in the early sixties and asked cab drivers questions. He noticed many Jewish cabbies who proudly displayed pictures of their children, often studying to be doctors and lawyers. Other minority peoples he saw bemoaned their being similarly poor. When my dad pointed out that they could drive cabs, and their children could go to school, the response he often got was "It's a free country, they can study if they want. Why should I work a demeaning job for them?" The point being that cultural issues exceed religious values in pride. There is such a thing as wealth creation. The idea that wealthy people became so by making others poor is counter to modern experience. In modern times, wealthy people attract affluence, and those who restrict wealth tend to condemn many to poverty. Excuse my lack of referencing here, this is a point of view. DDB 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Some forms of Buddhism and Taoism seem to advocate living simply and giving whatever you can, be it money or time, to those in need. Perhaps this is mainly in the monastic traditions -- not only Buddhist monasticism but also Christian monasticism, both of which often involve vows of poverty and giving.  Jainism might fit the bill too. Pfly 09:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody have gender demographics of Wikipedia?
I know getting any kind of demographics about Wikipedia is hard, but can anybody find data on the gender demographics of Wikipedia, either editors or users?

--FunnyMan 07:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you could get some estimates but calculating
 * 1. The number of registered users
 * 2. People who have chosen to include a userbox indicating gender
 * No conclusive proof, though, since the evidence is insufficient in so many variables.

惑乱 分からん 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is wildly unscientific, but if you count how many people link to the most popular male and female userboxes here: (the "MiraLuka" variants), you'll get 4363 men and 629 women (87% vs. 13%). --TotoBaggins 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Scary statistics. Young computer-oriented guys, old unemployed or retired guys, and the gals who like to hang out with them. Edison 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on the perception, see also sexual fetishism. @_@ 惑乱 分からん 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

invictus
what does this word literally mean? It's actually a title of a poem.

Read the article Invictus: "The title is Latin for "unconquered" ". Flamarande 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Please sign your statements!

Question about Hungarian/Magyar presence
Hello, I have a few really simple questions about Hungarian/Magyar presence in Europe :

1. Is it true that Belgrade used to be predominantly Magyarspeaking at one time? (or at least having a majority speaking a related language)

2. Is it true that during the last centuries, Serbs have been moving northwards, away from Kosovo and to the north of current Serbia, where many Hungarians lived. If so, why don't I ever hear anything about Hungarians claims on that land, just like Serbia claims Kosovo as theirs?

3. Hungary and Romania were on the same side during the Second World War. Isn't this a bit weird, since it seems very likely to me that Hungary was still quite pissed about the Hungarian minority left behind in western Romania (and still there btw).

Please enlighten me and thanks, Evilbu 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding No. 3, Hungary allied itself to the Nazis in the Sudetenland crisis to get a chunk of Czechoslovakia. Romania didn't join the Axis powers until a couple of years later, when the Soviet Union wanted Bessarabia (Moldova). The Germans sent military assistance; in exchange, Romania had to give Transylvania to Hungary. Of course, the Soviet Union defeated Germany on the Eastern Front and annexed Bessarabia, merging it with Transnistria to create the Moldovian Soviet Republic. The Soviets also made Hungary give Transylvania back to Romania. -- Mwalcoff 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first two questions -- It's possible there were a lot of Hungarians in Belgrade in the Middle Ages, when the Hungarian kingdom fortified the city against the Ottomans. But unlike the Vojvodina, Belgrade hasn't been under Hungarian rule since the Ottomans took it in the 16th century. The city remained in Ottoman hands until Serbian independence in 1878. By that time, I can't imagine there were too many Hungarians in the city -- not with Hungary just across the river for more than 100 years. The Historical Atlas of East Central Europe's page on ethnolinguistic distrubution in 1900 doesn't list any figure for Magyars in Serbia.


 * Finally, you are correct to some extent about a northern migration of Serbs. Some Serbs and Croats settled in southern Hungary after the expulsion of the Ottomans in the 17th century. After World War I, that part of Hungary was given to Yugoslavia. Eventually, it became the the autonomous province of Vojvodina within Serbia within Yugoslavia. A substantial minority of Hungarians still live there, and the degree of autonomy the area should have remains an issue. Extreme right-wingers in Hungary sometimes try to score political points by saying Hungary should try to regain the Vojvodina, Transylvania and presumably all or part of Slovakia, each of which has a Hungarian population. But when you fight on the wrong side of two world wars, you don't get to choose the extent of your territory. -- Mwalcoff 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, during recent wars imigrants were also moving into Vojvodina and Serbia, from Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbian republic (or whatever is its name in English). Dont know about numbers but Im pretty sure there were more Serbian/Bosnian speaking imigrants that came than Hungarian speaking imigrants (if there are any). Shinhan 14:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)