Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 11

= November 11 =

Quotation marks in the Bible
Most translations of the Bible don't use quotation marks; it isn't just the King James Version. Even modern translations of the last 50 years don't use quotation marks. Why?--Psuit (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See . Wrad (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know why the Bible in Basic English doesn't use quotation marks whereas the NIV does.--Psuit (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's because there are no quotation marks in the original languages in which the Bible was written. This is only occasionally confusing, as in John 3, when no one is able to discern where Jesus finishes talking and John picks up. MelancholyDanish (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish


 * Why, you just look at a Red letter edition and all is made clear, as to which words were, in the opinion of the scholars advising the publisher, spoken by Jesus. The first of these was published in 1900. Edison (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Orwellian Rhetorical Devices
I've just written an article for my campus newspaper on the contentious issue of freedom of speech, suggesting that as we can trust President Obama not to misuse his authority as president, his second act (after the passage of the delightfully named Freedom of Choice Act) needs to be jailing political extremists. I explained that he needs to frame the matter as one of protecting our First Amendment rights. "Obama needs to go before the nation and explain that radical extremists threaten the integrity of our First Amendment rights by corrupting the purity of our freedom of speech... In any society where subversion and radicalism are tolerated for any great length of time, the end result is a loss of civil liberties, as the ruling authority swoops in like an eagle to crush the radicals. This simply cannot happen in America, and we will not let it happen, not while we are free. Ring the alarum-bells throughout our mighty land, and let the people know this for a fact: if freedom of speech does not remain pure, it cannot remain free. Remember that. You remember that."

So in the process of writing the article I realized that I'm really fond of these Orwellian rhetorical devices. President Bush (or President Bush's friends) were really fond of using them as well, I've noted, and Sarah Palin had a fun time during the election trying to convince her audiences that the media was violating her "first amendment rights" by asking her questions. See the brilliance of it? My question is, can you tell me the writers who have used these devices the most? George Orwell of course is the first who comes to mind, but Jonathan Swift is his accomplice in crime in this respect.

Oddly, the place where I've seen them employed the most, if you can ignore the political distortions of the last eight years, is Christian end-times fiction. There's a series of books called the Christ Clone Trilogy, which was never as popular as Left Behind, alas, whose Antichrist is such a clever rhetorician that all of my friends who have read the novels have complained to me that Christopher Goodman almost made them want to follow him. He manages the massacre of 14,000,000 religious extremists, and while this would be a wildly implausible circumstance in almost any other novel, and while I probably number among the people who would be killed if this ever actually happened, in the course of the third novel I found myself half-cheering for their swift demise. The author is a political science professor (who ran against Al Gore for the Senate in 1980 and lost), and who's worked with the CIA, so he understands propaganda and knows how people can be manipulated into doing things.

Lastly, I remember a little movie we had to watch in elementary school, that was based on a short story by James Clavell]. It was called [[The Children's Story and, along with The Wave, it demonstrates the power inherent in the manipulation of language better than almost anything else I've seen or read.

So, any others? All recommendations are appreciated! MelancholyDanish (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish


 * This is not a question. It is political soapboxing, and as such should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. What political point, exactly, am I trying to make? That political dissidents should be rounded up and jailed? That all Christians should be executed? You've done a very fine job of missing the point.MelancholyDanish (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish


 * There is no real soapboxing going on here; one should assume good faith. :) Even easier when there is a real question apparent, although the question (or call for examples) is difficult. 80.202.246.253 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. In the words of T. S. Eliot, "It is impossible to say just what I mean." I'm sorry if my examples only obfuscate the question.


 * Oh, and incidentally, if it's really that hard to see the sarcasm in my "opinions," then I may be in more trouble than I know. MelancholyDanish (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanishMelancholyDanish (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish


 * Your entire first paragraph is just an excuse to reproduce the polemic from your high-school magazine. Similarly, the section about the Christ Clone Trilogy seems to be rather more about sharing your various opinions with us than it is about asking a question. In fact, I'm at a loss to see how you can deny that you are using the Ref Desk as a soapbox. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I can't answer the question, nice writing and tip on the Christ Clone Trilogy. Do you have a blog? :D You should get one if you don't. Leave a message on my talk page if you do. Also, read The Library of Babel and you do not have to sign your comment more than once. Just put a space and then four tildes ( ~ ). Any successive edits do not require extra signings. Mac Davis (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Youth violence
Duplicate thread deleted—see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk -- BenRG (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

prominent leader for Sunni and Shi'a community in Lebanon
Who are the prominent leaders for Sunni and Shi'a Muslims community in Lebanon, like Druze prominent leader is Walid Jumblatt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.110 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fazlullah is the prominent leader of Lebanese Shiites; and Saad Hariri is the Sunnis' prominent leader -- though there are some others too who claim these titles. --Omidinist (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nabih Berry leader of the Amal party and Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah are both considered the political leaders of the Shi'a community. Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah is considered as their religious leader. Eklipse (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Royal British Legion - inappropriate photo?
I do not want to make a political comment. However, I'm sure that a vast majority would be astonished to find a photo of former Prime Minister Tony Blair wearing a red poppy the least appropriate person to appear on the Royal British Legion page.

Comments please.

My suggestion is one of the elderly WWI veterans or a Chelsea Pensioner wearing a poppy. I don't yet know how to go about this and if anyone would like to take it over, please do so, otherwise I will attempt a change - if this permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Segilla (talk • contribs) 16:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The correct place to ask questions about the The Royal British Legion article is that article's talk page : talk:The Royal British Legion. The use of Tony Blair's photograph was probably to illustrate the success and high profile of the 'poppy appeal' fund drive. It is not intended to illustrate the Royal British Legion as a whole.  Feel free to change it if you feel some other picture illustrates the "Poppy Appeal" better. APL (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What does the captain of a carrier get paid?
I have been trying to find out what captains of aircraft carriers are paid, but have had little luck. I know that the American Nimitz class is (or sometimes) commandeered by Rear Admirals. I found out that these made $660 a month in 1943, but I do not know if I can simply turn those dollars into present dollars, and retain some sense of validity. Any help is greatly appreciated! 80.202.246.253 (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Aircraft carriers may be commanded by Rear Admirals, however if he commandeered one, he would likely stand trial for mutiny!!! However, the info you are looking for can be found here: U.S. uniformed services pay grades, which states that a Rear Admiral, who is pay grade O7 or O8 (depending on which "half" of the rank he is), gets paid anywhere from $7234.50/month (for an O7 Rear Admiral with less than 2 years service) to $12,551.40 per month (for an O8 Rear Admiral with over 38 years of experience).  Cheers.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The battle group is commanded by a Rear Admiral. The captain (CO) of the carrier is a separate position.  Captain on the USS Ronald Reagan (an actual O-6 Captain), and separately the commander of Carrier Strike Group Seven which includes the Reagan (a Rear Admiral as above).  SDY (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How Much things cost in 1943:


 * Average Cost of new house $3,600.00
 * Average wages per year $2,000.00
 * Cost of a gallon of Gas 15 cents
 * Average Cost for house rent $40.00 per month
 * Bottle Coca Cola 5 cents
 * Average Price for a new car $900.00 Mieciu K (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hunting down nazis: priceless Belisarius (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's rather interesting although not surprising (to me at least). The average cost of a new house is 180% of the average yearly wage (I guess that's before tax?). I'm pretty sure the gap is a lot wider now. (And even worse here in NZ but I digress.) Incidentally, are those averages the mean or the median? Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

post-election campaign funds
Hello, now that the US presidential election is over, I wonder what generally happens to whatever money each campaign has left. Surely there must be some money left over. Is it generally turned over to the political party, or donated to charity, or what? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This says you can donate it to a charity or a political party. Just no personal use (this means you, Sarah). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the Obama team has a huge job ahead of them before he takes office. He's got something like 2,500 positions to fill in government, and he has to find the right people for them, and for the senate-confirmable ones, he has to vet them. I hear he's got something like 450 people on staff doing this, and other things he needs to do to prepare (like, you know, come up with actual policy and stuff). Congress kicks in a few bucks for this, but a lot of the money comes from donations and the campaign(which is why people still get email begging them for cash). Belisarius (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the Latin tag?
A friend recalls, on a university bookstore t-shirt, a Latin tag to the effect "In all the world [there is] nothing like a book". Does anyone recognize the tag? Does is sound like Erasmus?--Wetman 19:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

in toto orbe nihil simile libro, maybe? never heard :( --PMajer (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know it either but while searching for Erasmus quotes I found one page that claimed he said "women: can't live with them, can't live without them." Stupid Internet! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it Isaac Newton who said, "Women: can live without them"? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)