Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 16

= March 16 =

Products listing ingredients
Producers of food products are required to list the ingredients in their products. But how come KFC don't have to reveal their '11 secret herbs and spices' (or whatever it is)? --JoeTalkWork 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it doesn't come in a package? --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And if it did, the "secret ingredients" would probably be listed simply as "spices", as such things often are (in the US), which wouldn't tell you much. —Kevin Myers 08:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From a public health point of view, it's the actual chemicals (if any) and nutritional values that matter, rather than which precise "herb" is used. In this corner of the world at least, the nutritional information is fully disclosed on the packaging. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say "fully disclosed", as those spices contain many chemicals, some of which may be harmful, such as by causing allergic reactions. They've judged the importance of preserving trade secrets to outweigh the importance of divulging such info. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the US, restaurants aren't required to provide nutritional info with the food. Many do provide nutritional info on their web sites, but, as previously mentioned, that would only go to the level of listing "spices" as an ingredient, with no details at to which spices are included. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that over here, companies, KFC and fast food joints included, are required to disclose the nutritional information of the food, including any chemical/chemical additives it has. From a public health point of view, that's the important thing. There is no requirement to list the spices from which said chemicals may derive. So you might have to disclose that a significant amount of MSG is in the food, but you would not have to disclose that it came into the food via seaweed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They can't possibly be required to list ALL the chemicals in a food, as there are thousands, since one spice may contain hundreds of chemicals. They may be required to list some specific chemicals, like MSG, to which some people have a negative reaction.  (In the case of MSG, there is also a concern that it causes overeating and leads to obesity.) StuRay (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of KFC and MSG, I once got an email claiming to provide the recipes for KFC products. I probably still have it floating around on my home machine somewhere.  Anyway, I don't recall the details, but at some point it stated that the "11 herbs" thing is just BS; it's basically salt and pepper and MSG. Normally I take that kind of stuff with, er, a grain of salt, though the email did go on to give the recipes for virtually everything KFC had on their menu at the time. Matt Deres (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of MSG, there's no strong evidence anyone actually has a negative reaction to it (not talking about obesity/overeating of course), as the other StuRay linked to points out. Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "The other StuRay" ? Who is the first StuRay ? :-) StuRat (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Er I meant "the article StuRat links to" :-P Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In his book, Big Secrets, William Poundstone claims that a lab did tests on the chicken once and found it was 90% pepper or something like that. (It has been maybe 15 years since I read it, so I'm not quite sure.) As for "spices"—as you can imagine, there are specific regulations as to what you have to name and how you name them. KFC says its "Original chicken recipe" ingredients are "Salt, Sodium Phosphate and Monosodium Glutamate Breaded with: Wheat Flour, Sodium Chloride and Anti-caking agent (Tricalcium Phosphate), Nonfat Milk, Egg Whites, Colonel’s Secret Original Recipe Seasoning". --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Big Secrets lists chicken, oil, skim milk, eggs, flour, salt, black pepper, monosodium glutamate. —Tamfang (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Recreation during Shabbat
Would recreation such as going to the movies be permitted during Shabbat? --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of halachic problems involved with going to the movies on Shabbat. in additiion to it being contrary to the spirit of Shabbat. Even if there was an eiruv in the city where the movies was situated, one would be forbidden to carry money to pay for the ticket, since money is muktsah and may not be handled on Shabbat. Even if one had purchased a ticket before Shabbat, if there was no eiruv in the city, one would not be able to carry it to the movies. Even if one had arranged with the movies prior to Shabbat to enter without a ticket, there could still be the problem of marit ayin, in which someone seeing you enter the movies might think that you were paying then for the ticket, since that is the norm for a person entering a movies. In conclusion, while going to the movies is not permitted on Shabbat, there are numerous recreational activities which are  both within the halachic parameters and the spirit of Shabbat. Simonschaim (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no idea that marit ayin was a concept. We should probably have an article on it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, there's even a source discussing its relevance in business ethics! Sounds like a potential article to me. I'm curious about this movie question, though. Let's take a common-enough scenario: a free Friday night movie on Harvard University's main campus (an eruv), with an all-goy AV squad. Would it be contrary to the spirit of Shabbat for an observant student to walk down to the common room and view this movie? Basically, is it a widely-held notion that the viewing of movies on Shabbat is itself problematic, regardless of the context? --Fullobeans (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

INSURANCE RELATING STRIKES
Do insurers provide insurance protection to either a worker or employers to cover losses resulting from strikes? Explain why or why not. Solit (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You may need to tell us which jurisdiction you are referring to, since industrial relations laws and regulatory regimes for insurers will vary quite wildly. Where I am currently, for example, I can't see a market for such insurance since the probability of a worker losing anything due to strikes seems minuscule. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What are workers likely to lose anywhere due to a strike other than their wages for the time they aren't at work? I don't think you can get insurance for optional losses... --Tango (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought about that: a person certainly cannot buy insurance for the direct consequences of their own deliberate acts. You wouldn't get a pay-out for burning down your house. Similarly, no-one would offer you a policy against lost earnings while you go on strike. It's pure and simple moral hazard.


 * However, I can contemplate a jurisdiction where someone might lose earnings, say, because of others' strike actions. Say Danubia is prone to general strikes. You might be able to buy insurance against your lost earnings because you can't get to work/your factory is closed due to a general strike, the calling of which you have no control over.


 * But that really depends on the economic and regulatory background of the country. I just can't see it happening in most countries with mature labour markets and industrial relations laws. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Even for an employer a strike is something that is under their control. Strikers are usually asking for something, and an employer could end the strike by giving them what they ask for. The employer simply chooses not to do that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, but that requires changing from the status quo, so it's a little different. --Tango (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily - many strikes are precipitated by a proposal from an employer to alter the status quo - for example, to end an existing pay agreement, or to introduce new conditions to a contract. In these cases, the strikers may well be demanding that the status quo is maintained. Warofdreams talk 14:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I guess it depends on your exact definitions. You could consider that the new proposal is the status quo by the time the strike starts. --Tango (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Protection from losses incurred by employees during a strike" is often covered by the union's strike fund, which is money saved up for just such a purpose. This has the twofold effect of helping the strikers and also making strikes more successful, as the strikers aren't forced to break their own picket lines to earn badly needed money.  These strike funds are generally built from union dues, although some extremely powerful unions have, in the past, been able to force the employers to pay into it. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

UK unwanted faxes
I keep getting faxes from misc companies. I have signed up to fax preference services. At the bottom of the fax it says that if I want to receive no more faxes I should visit nofax.co.uk and enter my fax number. What shouild I do? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have signed up to a fax preference service and it isn't working, I suggest you contact them for advice. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming the fax preference service works like the telephone or mail preference service, you have to give companies a reasonable amount of time to clean your details from their lists - a month should be sufficient. If you are still recieving faxes after a month, I would try making a complaint to the fax preference service.  FPS should investigate and if they find the company has not cleaned their list, they can be fined - I've heard of fines of £100,000.  See fps online for more details.
 * As for nofax.co.uk, this sounds like the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of many spam emails. It might work, but it might simply let the fax spammers know there is actually someone there and invite more faxes to be sent.  It might also give them a "they are a customer" excuse to keep faxing you.  Incidentally, nofax.co.uk provide no contact details at all; only boxes for ID and fax number and a button to click.  I would be very suspicious.  Astronaut (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(comment and deindent) Curious, WHOIS gives this information for nofax.co.uk:

Registrant: Firestorm Marketing Solutions ltd

with company number 5181017. Companies House's Webcheck shows it is named "B2 LTD", status active, but "Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/07/2008 (DORMANT)". Firestorm Marketing Solutions ltd is registered at the same postal address but as company number 05011368; Status: Active - Proposal to Strike off; Date of Incorporation: 09/01/2004; Nature of business: 7240 - Data base activities, 7440 - Advertising; Next Accounts Due: 30/11/2008 OVERDUE; Next Return Due: 06/02/2009 OVERDUE. You can get their full address from Webcheck.

84user (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

gives their 0800 telephone number, contact form and "terms & notices". The latter states "B2 Ltd will regularly update the List with any prohibited Recipients provided to it." and "will comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998". 84user (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the 'Society of St. Pius X' named after Pope Pius X?
Why is the Society of St. Pius X named after Pope Pius X? Neither article states why. On darn slim evidence (Bishop Williams' blurb on Benedict XVI's "modernist errors"), I infer it has to do with the latter's anti-"modernist" stance. Is this inference correct? Is that all? -- Fullstop (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be a paucity of information about the naming of the society in the places we might expect that information to be provided. But here are 2 refs that make the connection to Pius X being a "scourge of modernists" or a "fierce opponent of religious modernism" .  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Tournesol.png|20px|]] Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How many people use faith healing?
I'm writing a report on Faith Healing and I would love to start it off by saying something like "Annually X amount of people use Faith Healing" but the problem is I cannot find any numbers.

So, how many people use Faith Healing? I'd prefer a per-year number from a recent year but anything will do.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.219.238 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, according to this site, Newsweek did a survey in 2000 which found that three-quarters of American Catholics and 43% of others have prayed for miracles. The Newsweek article is here. Hundreds of thousands of people attend Lourdes every year in the hope of being cured. Our article is quite detailed, and states that the Roman Catholic church has recognised 67 miracles at Lourdes from approximately 200 million visits, so the chances of having an (officially recognised) miracle seem fairly miraculous in themselves!


 * As for people who actually go to see faith healers, a quick canvass of the first few pages of Google results is less than promising. It may be worthwhile to search Google Scholar for more information; I only have access to paper abstracts here, but this 2000 paper suggests that 10% of people surveyed (in an Irish study) attended faith healers. Interestingly (I think), this 2006 paper says that only 6% of those diagnosed with tuberculosis in a Burkina Faso study attended a faith healer, even though the number of papers suggests that faith healers are more common in Africa than Ireland (although the studies obviously have enough differences that direct comparison would be difficult). -- Kateshort forbob  22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Analytic/Logical Empiricist Philosophy in the Soviet Union
The wikipedia article states "During the 1960s and 1970s Western philosophies including analytical philosophy and logical empiricism began to make a mark in Soviet thought."

And various Western Marxists and Trotskyists have accused Soviet dialectics of being in reality western Analytical and positivist philosophy, and not truly remaining true to Marx or Hegel.

To what extent was Soviet philosophy influenced by logic in the West, and was any attempt made to reformulate dialectical philosophy in a more complex logical framework as opposed to Engel's 3 laws.

I believe in contemporary China, mainstream academic philosophy is more in the Anglo-Saxon analytic tradition than Hegelian or phenomonological. And offical philosophy is orthodox DiaMat with traditional Chinese influence. So if anyone has information about philosophy in modern China, I'd be interested. --Gary123 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How many people actually follow these rules?
This was inspired by above. It seems that the interpretation of these religious rules pretty much brings one's life to a standstill for one day a week. If that is true, then it seems that in a modern urban society life would become very difficult for a lot of people if the rules were followed strictly by a lot of people: I'm thinking doctors, the police, TV staff, etc. So, my questions are: do many people in Israel and also elsewhere strictly follow these rules? Do they follow the rules to the extent that it's practical? Are there special dispensations for people in essential occupations? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure there are special dispensations (the fire department can surely turn on lights if necessary, for example). There are also some technologies that are technically kosher as well—for example, cooks in Israel have timed ovens that can operate without human intervention (no flipping of switches, etc.) which, according to the Rabbis, are allowed under the laws. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bringing one's life to a standstill for one day a week is, as I understand it, sort of the point. But my OR suggests that only a small percentage of modern-day practicing Jews really subscribe to a strict interpretation of Shabbat. Granted, I'm American, but my understanding is that even in Israel this is a contentious issue, due to the varying interpretations of the ancient laws. A moment of Googling brought up this Frommer's guide, which states that most Israelis are not Sabbath observant, but those who are may be outspoken in their views, and may block roads in their communities to prevent travel. Emergency services and hospitals pretty clearly get a free pass, since it's required that the Sabbbath laws be broken when human lives are in danger. There's more on this in our Shabbat article. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I once played quiz bowl against a team from Yeshiva University, and they couldn't use the buzzers because it was a Saturday. They also couldn't ride the bus and had to walk to the tournament building. They eventually decided they shouldn't be doing anything at all and forfeited the rest of their games. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While it's true that it's the point, that doesn't negate the fact that there are entire industries devoted to making "kosher" appliances so that you can just skirt around the laws. If I were an Orthodox Jew, and I'm not, I would probably find that sort of thing playing but the letter but not the law. But opinions differ (oy). There was an article on this not long ago in the New York Times. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We've got articles relevant to that, too, at Shabbat clock, Shabbat lamp, Shabbat module, Shabbat elevator, and Shabbat mode, and a whole mess of stuff at Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law. --Fullobeans (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answers. OR is, of course, of the highest quality here on the reference desk =). I've heard of these kosher-ised contrivances (contrive, geddit?). I wonder how much of a commercial market they have? Or are they more of a novelty item/niche market?
 * Many Wikipedia articles refer to "Shabbat observing Jews", which implies that 1) there are a number of them, and 2) they do not comprise all Jews. But that doesn't really help with building an overall idea of how much of them there are. Apparently, there is also not a one-to-one correlation between being an orthodox Jew and observing these rules (according to the Shabbat article.
 * Are there any official statistics on this? Census? Survey? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a brief discussion on the topic here, with some links. The National Jewish Population Survey, referenced in that discussion, found that about a quarter of American Jews say they light candles on the Sabbath. Now, lighting candles is not at all the same as obeying all the Sabbath proscriptions, so I think we can safely say that the percentage we're looking for is <25. I also stumbled across some website called "Wikipedia" which, in its Religion in Israel article, says: "In 2007, a poll by the Israeli Democracy Institute found that only 27% of Israeli Jews say that they keep the Sabbath, while 53% said they do not keep it at all. The poll also found that 50% of the respondents would give up shopping on the Sabbath as long as public transportation were kept running and leisure activities continued to be permitted; however only 38% believed that such a compromise would reduce the tensions between the secular and religious communities." --Fullobeans (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's very useful! I'll see if I can add the info to the PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

essays
Is there any essays that are against same-sex marriage and perhaps three reasons why it is not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.71 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Any? They're clogging the intertubes. Google "against same-sex marriage"; you'll get millions of results, and it should be readily apparent which side of the issue they're on. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But remember your teacher is probably not as stupid as you think and can Google just as easily. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * gay marriage is wrong we need to restore it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.192.120 (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bigotry is wrong, too.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You outed yourself in just 9 words, but it is traditional to wait until you have a large congregation. --Sean 12:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)