Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 22

= July 22 =

Libertarian socialism and left libertarianism
What is the difference between libertarian socialism and left libertarianism? If there is no difference, then why two separate terms are used? --AquaticMonkey (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As described in the articles, left libertarianism specifies common ownership of natural resources and nothing else, while libertarian socialism is far more prescriptivist as to the structures of economic activity. —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"the good doctor"
This phrase is puzzlingly loved by composers of blurbs, who apply it to anyone known as Dr., good or (oh, irony! how original lol!) otherwise. As one isn't nearly as likely to encounter "the good professor" or "the good captain", it appears to be allusive, but to what? —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See The Good Doctor for some possibilities.   70.90.174.101 (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not terribly satisfying, but thanks anyway. —Tamfang (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Moken Sea Gypsies of Thailand
Hi I need to do a essay on indigenous people are the Moken sea gypsies indigenous to their area —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrob (talk • contribs) 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gypsies aren't usually ingigenous (by definition), the moken according to the article are austronesian which suggests a more eastern origin, more pacific in origin, but they live around the west of SE asian penisular Indochina. So on the surface it looks like they are not.83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Visigothic establishment in Hispania
When did the Visigothic kings came to rule Hispania? Who was the first king of Hispania? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read Visigothic Kingdom? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Scandalous Saints
What Saints would be likely to appear in the tabloids today. Which ones might have had a turbulent or scandelous enough life to be in the likes of TMZ? Between halucinations and revelations there's bound to have been some desolute lives out there. Which Saints are the most popular and would end up in the press? Thank you. 190.229.67.201 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an interesting article : Cecil Adams Who Was the Worst Catholic Saint. APL (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That is interesting. And I thought Mother Teresa was bad.--Shantavira|feed me 16:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The New Orleans Saints perhaps? Googlemeister (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure how scandalous it'd be but there was a saint who had his balls bitten off by a dog. Don't know his name but there's a statue of him in a church in Salvador, Brazil. AllanHainey (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical Jesus question
Do scholars of historical Jesus believe the man in quesion actually was crucified and died on the cross? If so, why was the man crucified? (from a hisorical not religious perspectve) --193.253.141.64 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Historicity of Jesus says that "scholars ...agree..." that Jesus "on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion", so that should answer the first part of your question. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ok. And their opinion of whether he died on the cross? To me, if he was seen again later occams razer implies that he didn't die, but Im interested in what historians believe... --193.253.141.65 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about "historical Jesus" arguments, but premature burials were uncommon but not unheard of throughout most of history until modern medical technology was invented. Even if he was crucified and the Romans declared him dead, unless they did an EKG it's not completely impossible for him to be up and about a couple of days later. (Improbable, though, but that's why we're still talking about it twenty centuries later.)  72.10.110.109 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

also what about why? (from historical not religious perspective)...--193.253.141.64 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Although there is no consensus as to the reason for his crucifixion, it followed closely (in the chronology used in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) on his overturning the tables at the Temple, so many scholars think this was at least the trigger for his being turned over to the Romans.


 * The crucifixion itself is considered one of the best-attested events of the first century, since there are multiple sources confirming it occurred and it would at least initially have been difficult for the Christians to overcome the fact that their god had been crucified (i.e., for Christians to say it happened was a statement against their own interests). There is no serious suggestion that Jesus did not die on the cross.  The historicity of the resurrection is quite a different matter; its evidence consists of a much smaller number of reports that his tomb was found empty and that a small number of followers saw him or had visions of him.  As our article on Historical Jesus puts it, "Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection non-historical but instead a philosophical or theological question."  John M Baker (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a little puzzled by some of John M Baker's assertions.
 * • " . . . one of the best-attested events of the first century, since there are multiple sources confirming it occurred . . ." What sources exist at all that are independent of the Gospels and Acts - which are several decades post facto and which collectively derive from only a couple or so earlier accounts? I was under the impression that the very few supposed non-canonical near-contemporary references (e.g. in Josephus' writings) were either references only to what early Christians themselves believed (i.e. not independent of the aforementioned), or are now generally acknowledged to be later interpolations, the sole disputed exception being the (possibly doctored) mention by Tacitus dated to around 116AD.
 * • ". . . it would . . . have been difficult for the Christians to overcome the fact that their god had been crucified . . ." The re-interpretation of Jesus from failed candidate for Jewish Messiah-hood to sacrificed and resurrected God is surely what enabled the transformation of a Jewish socio-political faction into a new religion, changing the drawback into an asset. It could be, however, that the proto-Christians' belief that Jesus had genuinely died was sincere but mistaken, leading on to . ..
 * • "There is no serious suggestion that Jesus did not die on the cross." I thought his suspiciously quick death - around 9 hours as opposed to the usual 2 or 3 days (if at all: at least one Jewish man of the period is archaologically proven to have survived crucifixion), his 'corpse's' apparent disappearance, and various traditions of a subsequent terrestrial career quite aside from the canonical resurrection apparitions, had given rise to entertainable arguments for his possible survival (though I myself think it more likely that he did die and that the authorities removed his body to a common grave at the earliest (post-Sabbath) opportunity, in full accordance with prevailing local laws pertaining to those executed for (alleged) crimes such as his).


 * Enlarging on .109's answer above: yes, premature burial and/or recovery from an appearance of death were far from unknown, which is why Jewish law of the time stipulated that a person could only be declared dead after 3 days of lifelessness or when their body had demonstrably (by its smell) begun to decay. This is alluded to in the account of Jesus resurrecting Lazarus miraculously, when the bystanders gainsaid Jesus's assertion that Lazarus was merely sleeping by telling him "He stinketh."


 * And enlarging on John M Baker's reference to the reasons for Jesus's execution: he seems to have been embedded in a power struggle between Jewish socio-religio-political factions; collaborationist establishment Sadducees, populist liberal Pharisees, isolationist Essenes, freedom-fighting/terrorist Zealots and Sicarii, ascetic Nazarites, and doubtless others we know little or nothing of, all with different approaches to the basic problem of the Roman occupation. Jesus was probably a member of and/or aligned with one or more of these groups, while others probably wanted him dead because he was rocking the political boat and because they either genuinely thought he was a serious blasphemer (a capital offense in Jewish law) or were willing to pretend so as an excuse for his judicial elimination.


 * However, the Roman authorities probably reserved to themselves the power of execution, certainly by crucifixion and possibly by any means, and would have required reasons valid to themselves for it; mere blasphemy (in terms of Judaism) would not have sufficed of itself (near-contemporary Jewish executions such as the stoning of Stephen for blasphemy may well have been unsanctioned mob actions). They (in the person of Pontius Pilate) may, as John M Baker implies, have viewed Jesus's disruptive behaviour in the Temple (and elsewhere?) as sufficiently dangerous to warrant execution, or may have been willing to accommodate such a request from their Sadducean allies on the basis of the latters' (apparently irregular) religious trial of Jesus, or may have actually believed what seems to have been their official grounds, that he had proclaimed himself "King of the Jews", which would have been a treasonous challenge to the authority of Rome and the Emperor. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And, as The Jesus Mysteries goes into great depth to explain, the crucifixion is probably the least likely of historical aspects. While virtually all the major aspects of the story told in the gospels have antecedents in earlier myths, the death-rebirth trope is the one most clearly defined - in Dionysus, Osiris, etc. - see Life-death-rebirth deity for more information. Matt Deres (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The crucifixion was acknowledged as a fact by all early Christian factions. In addition to the gospels and Acts, there are numerous references to it in the letters of Paul, which actually are the earliest surviving documents that refer to Jesus.  Although Paul did not become a Christian until after the crucifixion, he knew many early Christians who would have witnessed these events.
 * Most historians consider that crucifixion would have been seen as a shameful death, undercutting any claim of divinity. As it turned out, of course, it was a factor supporting the growth of Christianity, but it probably would not have been seen that way at the time.
 * In the account by Mark, which is probably the earliest, death took about six hours. That's at least consistent with what we know - Jesus had already been flogged and was too tired to carry the cross, so fatigue and loss of blood probably made it more difficult for him to continue to fight asphyxiation.  Crucifixion could take anywhere from minutes to days, and we don't have full details of the technique used.  In the one known case of a survivor of crucifixion, the victim was removed from the cross while still alive.  Premature burial may have happened on occasion, but it was quite uncommon, and there are few if any historians who argue that it was what happened here.
 * I haven't read The Jesus Mysteries, but our article suggests that it has come under quite a bit of criticism. John M Baker (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My main problem is not with the actuality of the crucifixion's occurrence (though I'm willing to consider evidence to the contrary, as should any disinterested seeker of knowledge), but with your bold assertion that it is " . . . one of the best-attested events of the first century:" I'm sure there are many, many events of this era that are more widely and more reliably attested and documented.


 * Agreed on Paul's (genuine) letters, I was lazily and wrongly conflating them with Acts, but I understood the OP's questions to be implicitly asking for evidence independent of Christian scriptures, which rest on a slender base of originally oral anecdotes that obviously were not dispassionate. Whether one regards Paul as a reliable transmitter of whatever hearsay he chose to record depends on how accepting one is of the supernatural elements of the context - by his own account he committed and fomented lethal violence against ideological opponents, had his coat completely turned by experiencing an incapacitating vision, and even so pursued policies contrary to the consensus of his new allies, some of whom, as you say, had been Jesus's close associates and even relatives. Since one revisionist book has already been cited, may I recommend for a different POV on Saint Paul the work of Hyam Maccoby, particularly his The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity.


 * Where have we got to so far on the OP's questions, then? Historically speaking:
 * • Was Jesus crucified? - We all think yes (or at the least very likely), but differ as to the quality of the evidence.
 * • Why? - We've addressed various aspects but are I think in general agreement.
 * • Did he die on the cross? - Undecided. According to the religious scriptures supposedly derived ultimately from eyewitness accounts: his apparent death was faster than usual; his body (dead or alive) vanished a few hours later; he subsequently appeared, scarred but seemingly alive and material, to various people who knew him well. There are no reliably authentic contemporary non-religious records of his death (or for that matter his existence in the first place). There are some non-Christian traditions (Jewish and Hindu?) of disputable authenticity of his having had a post-crucifixion earthly career - these need more research. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that there are hardly any well-attested events from the first century, and those few almost entirely relate to the high points of imperial Rome and imperial China. As for Paul, he was writing within about 20 - 30 years after the crucifixion, to an audience that would have had other sources of information about it.  It's hard to see how he could have been just making the crucifixion up out of whole cloth.  As for the possibility that Jesus didn't die on the cross, while we're not going to get any definitive answer, the question was what historians think, and I believe there are few if any secular historians who take this view, though as you point out there are non-Christian religious traditions to that effect.  None of these, however, date to the first century.  John M Baker (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It remains striking that the authorities did not smash his bones after taking him from the cross - I heard this was usually done, it remains striking, two, that his followers had procured a safe hiding place before the event. Occam's razor could add up to a number of possibilities: the Romans did not want him dead (at least Pilatus was washing his hands off this crime), Jusu followers wanted him alive - may be the Romans had made a deal to let him survive if his followers ensured he would leave the region and cause no further trouble. He most certainly left, yet the trouble was even worse with all the news that he did not die --Olaf Simons (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * John M Baker: I think we differ not on the probable and possible facts but merely on our direction of approach to them; you are quite correctly explaining why some purported details are unproven but possible, while I am suggesting why, though possible, they are unproven! To reiterate, all here seem to agree that (assuming the scriptural accounts are not wholly pious fictions/misunderstood parables/conspiratorial inventions/whatever, which remain possible but pretty unlikely), Jesus was almost certainly crucified; whether or not he died of it is rather less certain.


 * Olaf Simons: I was given to understand that it was common practice to break the live crucifixee's legs to hasten death, and that Jesus' unusually quick death anticipated the need for this. I hadn't heard of any similar post-death procedure, but if it were so it is, as you suggest, suggestive though completely unverifiable. As to your closing point, the Law of Unintended Consequences bites again! 87. . . . .195 posting from 87.194.161.147 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

United States Special Operations Forces
Which of the United States Special Operations Forces is most elite? Can you just apply to be one? My friend is bragging that his bro is in special forces but I would think that their protocol wouldn't allow them to advertise that info in public. BTW, do they live in the public? If so, are they incognito where that they have a home front or a job front? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinions will vary. In my experience, the particular special forces branch with which one is affiliated is "most elite".  Cross-application is generally restricted by the branch of service: for instance, the SEALs are open only to members of the Navy or Coast Guard; however, there appears no restriction within branch of service (for instance, an Army soldier could attempt to join both the Rangers and the Green Berets).  There is no particular secrecy associated with much of the special forces.  On the other hand, how would we know about the secret ones?  That said, members of special forces live much like any other members of the military -- often off-post, with the military as a day job.  They should not be confused with intelligence operatives who work under cover. &mdash; Lomn 19:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is "most elite" is a matter of opinion; I'm sure all the members of each will contend it's them. They're all divisions of regular military forces, so you're recruited from the normal ranks of the army etc. - you don't just join Delta Force or the Seals straight from the street. So, to the extent that it's secret, they'd just say they're in the army or whatever.  Anyone who is bragging they're in the SAS or whatever is, in my experience, generally in the catering corp. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 19:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is probably not a way to determine which SOP unit would be more elite then another that would be be without controversy. To become a member of such a unit, you would need to be a member of one of the branches of the US military first.  From there, you can probably volunteer to apply for a SOP unit, and take the required training for it.  Such training is pretty hardcore, and they generally fail a good portion of those who take it.  They are usually as public as most others who are in the military, although most likely they will be involved in missions with higher levels of classification, though it is not always the case.  There is not any real reason why they should be incognito at home about them being part of a special ops unit, and it is certainly a matter of pride to most of them.  Googlemeister (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't at all speak for US special forces, but members of the UK's SAS, including its two territorial units, don't publicise their membership, and (even when they've left) their appearance on TV often shows them with their faces obscured. The rationale for this is that the SAS was heavily involved in operations against the PIRA and INLA, and they don't want current or former SAS members to face retaliation from said groups. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would second Finlay McWalter's comments about secrecy. The US might be different, but Commonwealth SAS units keep their membership details private, and SAS members will not boast of their role. While they don't hide physically from the public, they might just refer to "being in the army". Personal details can also be kept under the radar by ex-directory listings, closed electoral roll listings and so forth. See for example, Willie Apiata, recent NZ recipient of the Victoria Cross; since it is unusual for a serving SAS member to be so identified, this was a significant award.  Note that in his citation his team members' identities are hidden.  See this Australian article for a similar story. Gwinva (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any statistics to the female popluation of the United States Special Operations Forces? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, 100% male, 0% female. Googlemeister (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * False. The 160th SOAR, for example, "recruits women, though only for staff positions." I don't know the full breakdown, but it is not 100/0%. &mdash; Lomn 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why so? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in our article on women in the military, which has a large section on the specifics of women in the US military. &mdash; Lomn 20:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In that article, it says that "stated justification include both social and physiological issues" as reasons why women are not allowed to serve in SOP or drive a sub. What exactly are the details of these reasons? --Reticuli88 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The article on submarines can help with that Submarine. Fraternization in close quarters would be a concern in special ops forces as well, given that they work in small teams. As much as it's a generalization to say that would happen, it would appear to be a situation they would rather just avoid entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.9.130 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to the fraternization issue, I believe that the US military still has a "no women in combat roles" rule. That's not to say that women do not participate in combat, but they are not assigned to roles where their primary duty would be active combat. (e.g. a guard may in the course of her duties fire on enemies, but active combat is not the *primary* role of a guard.) As the whole *point* of special forces is forward deployed active combat, females would be excluded based on that criteria. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am pretty sure that this is a "paper rule" which in practice is falling out of use, and only applies now to very limited circumstances where women aren't assigned directly to infantry units. I recently heard a story about a woman Marine who asked for, and was assigned, a role as a door gunner on an Apache helicopter.  Based on her descriptions of her role, it was certainly a combat role... -- Jayron  32  04:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the question is, will this 'paper rule' (presuming it isn't removed) remain a paper rule? As I understand it, there's some evidence that the enforcement of US military's policy on gays has varied depending on their needs. This is mentioned in Don't ask, don't tell albeit with tags. I have the idea I saw some source once showing the number of discharges albeit it may have been a personal website so not a RS. It seems to me part of the reason for the rule being 'paper' may be because of the high demand at the moment and if this were to change the enforcement of the rule may be more strict again. Of course, the rule may change itself, I believe Obama wants to allow gays to openly serve so perhaps he'll also consider removing the paper rule on women on combat positions. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It ends up being complicated even in fully integrated armed forces, like the Israelis have. I read that the Israelis found that when men and women served side by side, if the men perceived the women were in danger they would act far more violently than otherwise, which proved to be a liability (you don't always want your soldiers shooting up everything in sight). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Omar Bongo's death
How many national leaders attend Omar Bongo's funeral. Did John Kufuor go to his funeral Did he even hear about it. Omar Bongo die from a colon cancer, I was shock to hear Levy Patrick Mwanawasa die last year when is just a month till his 60th birthday. Did all African leaders attend his funeral or is only few people. Did Abdoulaye Wade and Paul Biya hear about it? Alot of people is sad Levy Patrick pass away. John Kufuor went to his funeral though. What about the leaders in West Africa?--69.228.145.50 (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles you linked to mention the leaders present at the funerals. Rmhermen (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)