Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 5

= March 5 =

Lookin for American Merchants Syndicate of Chicago around the time of 1917 AD
Found grandfathers old stock and wonder about the history of this company. Scripopoly.com does not show any of these shares and am interested in knowing if this became the Chicago Board of Trade or the like.

TNX,

[email redacted]

Do not understand your instructions an inquiries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.79.153 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to consult the CCH Capital Changes Reporter to see if this company is listed. You should be able to find it in a good financial library.  John M Baker (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Akrasia in ethics
Hi!

I'm studying akrasia right now, and understand the problems it raises in philosophy of action (e.g. the difficulty in explaining one's doing B if one thinks A is preferable to it), but need to know more about it in strict relation to ethics. That is, is there a philosophical problem with, say 'I know it's wrong, but I'll do it anyway'? The Wiki page doesn't give much advice here. Thanks 129.67.127.65 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure there's a philosophical problem with it. I'm also not sure what you're asking. I mean, is it an ethical failure to say, for example, "I know it's wrong of me to eat the last piece of cake 'cause 129.67.127.65 didn't get any yet, and I know he'll get mad at me afterwards if he finds out, but I really want it"? Sure it is. People violate their ethics all the time, and often rationalize it before, during and afterwards. (In this instance, it might go like this: "he won't know I took it, he won't get  that mad, extra calories aren't good for him so I'm really doing him a favor, it's just a piece of cake, it wouldn't be as good tomorrow anyway.") -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotation from Plato?
In various books about Risk Management (eg Effective Opportunity Management for Projects by David Hillson) I have seen the following quotation attributed to Plato: 'The problem with the future is that more things might happen than will happen'. Can anyone give me chapter and verse for this? Maid Marion (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry no idea, but that's a strange thing to say. My feeling is that the future becomes more and more certain whereas the past becomes less and less so. There's an enormous number of things that might have happened for all we know compared to what has happened and it gets worse all the time. Dmcq (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with the statement, I'm afraid it's almost certainly misquoted, because if you put it into Google, you will find that the above book comes out at nunber 10 with no other meaningful hits, which you'd expect if it were a real quotation. I've looked through normal quotation sites to no avail. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for trying. Like Jarry, I am very sceptical of the attribution to Plato. Looks like one of those things that get repeated at 10th hand, and suffer changes at each stage until they bear little relation to the original.Maid Marion (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quantitative easing

 * Moved from Miscellaneous desk

What is the opposite of quantitative easing? What are its consequences? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But presumably it is decreasing the money supply by the action of a central bank selling assets; the effect would be deflationary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be called "quantitative tightening" or "monetary tightening". Remember, a reduction in the rate of easing might also be referred to as "tightening". The central bank could sell assets in the market or require larger reserves (or more conservative capital requirements) from private banks to achieve this. The effect would be to increase interest rates, appreciate the currency, reduce consumer spending and reduce the rate of inflation. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The opposite of "quantitative easing" would be to describe it in plain English terms rather than in a deliberately obscure jargon. The common language term is "printing money", which is readily understood to mean incresaing the money supply. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your point? The term "tightening" is widely used in media and not obscure. Also, there are other measures of money supply and easing usually refers to increasing one of those (as explained in the article you linked). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

did the jews think their God directed them to commit genocide, and then proceed to do so?
I heard that according to Jewish history at one point their God directed them to commit genocide, which they then proceeded to do. Is this true? --85.181.151.106 (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. specifically the Amalekites or Midianites... Thanks!


 * See, Amalekites, particularly this passage from Exodus:


 * "14 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” 15 And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The Lord is my banner, 16 saying, “A hand upon the throne of the Lord! The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." (Exodus 17)


 * and Midianites, specifically this sentence: "For this reason, according to the Torah, Moses was ordered by God to punish the Midianites."


 * See? that wasn't so hard. Tomdobb (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't bite. They did say thanks. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some more Biblical genocide quotes:


 * Deuteronomy 7:2, "And when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."


 * Joshua 10:40, "So Joshua smote the whole land; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."


 * Leviticus 26:7-9, "You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new."


 * Exodus 34:11-14, "Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)"


 * 1 Samuel 15:2-3, "Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."


 * Psalm 21:10 "Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men."


 * Psalm 136:10, "To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever." (Here God committed the genocide directly.)


 * How is this different from, say, Spartacus, who led a slave revolt? Nobody every complains about him. Wrad (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Psalm 137:9, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (I believe this was talking about taking revenge against the Babylonians.)


 * This one is a bit misleading. The psalm doesn't make it clear how the author feels about the destruction, it just states how the people who destroy Babylon will feel. Incidentally, those people were the Persians, not the Jews. Wrad (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a site which lists more: . StuRat (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You will I hope note that many of these quotes are not about Israel killing people but about God killing people. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * do you mean some of these quotes are from non-Jewish sources? (external observations of what God does, not Jewish understanding thereof). --92.230.67.1 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly the passages are God telling the armies of Israel to kill, not God saying he would kill, or he would send an angel or a plague to kill. Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy - 020:017 - But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Numbers 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. Numbers 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. Numbers 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. This genocidal conquest was cited by later perpetrators, such as the Europeans against the natives of the Americas "An introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Gravett, page 216. Edison (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- could you answer the question below as well? At what point did the ability to cite this part of the Bible cease forever, in Jewish thinking.  Thanks.

what guarantee do we have it won't repeat?
How do we know practicing, religious jews worldwide won't one day suddenly believe their god wants a modern-day people genocided? Or, for that matter, that just this hasn't recently happened? 85.181.151.106 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we know that members of any religion won't one day suddenly believe their god wants a modern genocide? or for that matter, how do we know an atheist won't initiate a genocide for some other reason? Answer: We don't. In all likelihood, someone will commit genocide, as it happens disturbingly often. Tomdobb (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd just point out that many Christians also believe in "old Testament 'justice'", so this issue isn't unique to Jews. However, Israel really isn't in a position where it could commit a large-scale genocide and survive as a nation, even if it wanted to, as it would then lose support from the US. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I was really looking for an answer on religious grounds. I believe that people of Jewish faith follow not only the bible but also something else that is commentary.  So does that commentary tell them not to genocide anymore, ie that their God would not want them to in the future?  I think that is a reasonable thing for their commentary to say (however they justify it) and am looking for the citation.  Please don't remove this question as a troll since I ask it in good faith.  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.151.106 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your question has a rather unpleasant air to it, since it assumes that a faith needs to have a previous exhortation (however ridiculous or unpleasant) nullified by some higher authority, otherwise there remains a risk that the faith will continue to follow that exhortation. This is an entirely unwarranted assumption.  And for some reason, you are focusing on Judaism.  I wonder why? --Richardrj talkemail 17:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am currently interested in Israels actions as possibly explained by Jewish religous understanding, thats why. Specifically, I think they may believe they have received instructions to genocide Palestinians, hence not open to a Palestinian state.  However, I may be wrong and this is not a troll.  You asked why I was interested.--92.230.67.1 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, the above line includes a logical addition that may not be obvious to you. When I say I am interested in whether they might believe they have received instructions to genocide a modern people I really mean perhaps they might believe that God wants a people to die out.  To you the two sentences might not be as equivalent as to me.  Again this is just a hypothesis I am interested in exploring, not a troll, so if you know of any religious grounds (as in the Torah or the other work that is the interpretation of the Torah) I am interested in hearing it.  Thanks, and I know this is a difficult topic to keep cool under.  I am just interested in facts not in starting an argument, this is why I only just post my question and not my understanding or what I am investigating.  Thanks for your patience and understanding.--92.230.67.1 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the first place, what do you mean by "a people" and "they"?  Things don't come about through the actions of some unspecified mass of people, you know.  There are millions of individuals, each with their own views. Then there is the government, of course, who are the ones with political authority.  Most importantly, the very idea that any mass group of people "might believe that God wants a people to die out" is, as I have said, a completely ludicrous and unfounded suspicion, utterly unworthy of serious consideration.  --Richardrj talkemail 20:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your question deserves comment from an actual rabbi or torah scholar who is more representative of jewish views. As you may be aware for example, biblical translations vary from religion to religion, even within the same religion there's controversy over Hebrew-to-English translations (for example it's hard to decide if Jonah was swallowed by a big fish or if it was a whale). There are in fact many examples where the Jewish elders and sages throughout history have given different rulings and interpretations on parts of the Torah and Jewish law (in some cases over how a commandment is to be applied, e.g. not mixing milk with meat). It is also worth adding that although mainstream Judaism is non-extremist, there are small sects within Judaism, mainly within Israel itself, that could be considered extremist such as believing in the execution of homosexuals or being zionist extremists that take it even further and believe in the destruction of the Palestinian peoples. The Jews I interact with regularly are not in any way involved in this line of extremist thought - while almost all seem to be pro-zionist, they do not seem to believe in the ahnialation of the Palestinian peoples, in fact many wanted peace in Gaza and were alarmed at the bloodsheed recently there. Frankly speaking, when it comes to extremists I'm more prone to think of the Muslim religion (which has numerous extremist groups). Rfwoolf (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Put yourself in Israel's shoes. They just escaped a brutal slavery by the skin of their teeth. They have no country. They have to find one or die. This wasn't a case of a powerful, established country beating up on a minority, this was a wandering minority fighting for its own survival. That isn't the usual idea of genocide. Wrad (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know what youre really arguing but genocide is a cowardly act so it follows that weak countries would carry it out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.67.1 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying this was about survival, not hatred or killing for sport. Most people are willing to defend a person's right to fight and kill for their own survival. I can't think of a case of genocide in history where the offending people didn't have a country of their own and were truly fighting for their survival. Wrad (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The holocaust is an obvious example to the contrary. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The holocaust is the ultimate proof. It was the world's most powerful military nation trouncing minority. That was definitely not a case of Germany either a) not having a country, or b) fighting for their survival. My statement stands. Wrad (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I bet Germans thought they were fighting for their survival faced with the "Jewish Problem". Can anyone confirm whether this victim mentality was really part of Germans' thinking? this very early NAZI article (which rejects extermination)  says "cleansing actions that adroitly respond to Judah's declaration of war".  So it seems they thought Jews had declared war on them?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.67.1 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no matter how you twist it you still won't be able to show that the Germans didn't have a country. Wrad (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This query seems based on a set of peculiar and misinformed beliefs by the OP. Practicing-religiously observant Jews are a minority in Israel as in all countries, fundamentalists (literal believers of the Bible) even fewer. They do not run the government or its policies, though the laws of halachah are accomodated in quite a few aspects of daily life, e.g. marriage and burial, some Jewish holidays as national holidays, kosher food in the IDF, public transportation limited and El Al planes don't take off and land on the Sabbath (though those of foreign airlines do) at Israel's main international airport, etc. Foreign policy is not set by either the Old Testament or the Talmud (the rabbinic commentary relating to religious practice). Why is Judaism seen as particularly obedient to the word of God, compared with other major religions (Christianity and Islam, if I'm not mistaken)? These far-fetched fears of Jews being spurred to commit genocide by something in the Jewish religion can be laid aside, or is there something here that doesn't convince you? How about looking at what other peoples might be moved by their gods or demagogues to commit genocide? And hey, let's think: what guarantees do the Jews have that the genocides against them won't repeat? -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * as for your last question, education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.67.1 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me?  So the Jews can't be educated in the same way, is that what you're saying? --Richardrj talkemail 22:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * your last question was "what guarantees do the Jews have that the genocides against them won't repeat" and my answer is "education". ie the school system.  I can spell it out further if you're still not seeing the connection between education and a reduction in genociding of jews (not by jews).--92.230.67.1 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because I'm Chinese -- but I really don't understand why people get so much more worked up when a question touches and concerns the Jews compared to most other ethnicities. Sure, the OP is probably a little misguided/confused, but is there really the need to assume bad faith/bite/wear one's religion on one's sleeve (the last comment refering to some of the unconstructive comments further above)? The question can be answered rationally from a purely theological perspective, whatever the subjective motivations of the OP, and not involve modern politics. Deborahjay's answer about how few religious fundamentalists there are in Israel (and, I might add, by percentage fewer than those participating in this thread) is probably the most helpful.
 * One comment I might add is that, from a non-US, non-Israeli perspective, both the US and Israel are much, much less secular than most other countries. When reading judgments by the Israeli Supreme Court, I am often struck by how often religious texts are invoked - not as a part of the legal reasoning, of course, but obviously these religious texts have a much stronger cultural role than, say, the Bible in contemporary (non-US) Anglophone cultures.
 * Given this, I am not particularly surprised that the OP would feel that Jews are more likely to be influenced in their political decisions by a holy book; no doubt there would be many out there who believe the same about muslim nations, even though in most of those nations, too, fundamentalists are only a small minority. In such situations, it is really not the role of the reference desk to attack people because of their (perhaps misguided) beliefs. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More likely than whom? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More secular nations; other states - that, at least, is the assumption that seems to underlie the OP's question. I am not qualified to assess whether that is true. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm....I'm surprised that no one's brought this up (either that or I missed it). Isn't the question "what guarantee do we have it won't repeat?" based on the assumption that a genocide had occurred?  How much historical evidence is there that these Biblical stories are actually true?  You can't repeat something if it never happened in the first place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Amalekites article does say they were exterminated... but I don't know how useful it is to draw parallels between the modern concept of a genocide with something that happened many millenia ago. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And where are the citations for other peoples at that time (and since) behaving in that way towards the Jews and others? The ancient history of the Jews, as recorded in the Old Testament, is being singled out with cherry-picked biblical quotes as "evidence:" but are no questions asked about whether those other peoples can be trusted not to rise up and slay their neighbors, let alone plan and execute a mass extermination? That is the definition of genocide, unless people misuse that word when referring to any killings of one people by another. What about the fact that in the intervening millenia, the Jews have been the victims of History's instance of genocide of unprecedented scope and proportions, and not done the same to anyone since those biblical times -- but others have, to them and others? -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we go with the sensitivities. Would you get so worked up about it if the question was "the Chinese exterminated the [insert ancient ethnic group]. Is this because of their religious beliefs? And do such beliefs have any current influence?" I believe the OP has a right to ask such a question - which can be analysed rationally - about any or all religions, regardless of their private motivations. And - no. A genocide is not the same as a "mass extermination". See genocide. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in Israel's policy-making we must have dozens and dozens of articles on that. I don't think that most religious Jews in Israel believe that the Amalekites precedent requires that they commit genocide against Palestinians and even if some do, they aren't decisive. If you are bothered by Israel's policies and are curious about them, we do have plenty of articles. I'd suggest you start with Israeli–Palestinian conflict and work your way out from there. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

karl marx's influences on america
what are the Marxist ideas that have directly influenced The american society and government today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lego872 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you. See further our articles on Marxism, American Government and Western Marxism. Livewireo (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been American Communists (and I assume non-Communist followers of Marx), and Communism was the biggest US foreign policy concern, so I'd say pretty much all of them influenced the country. Can't say as to anything being more "direct" than anything else.  Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been American Communists (and I assume non-Communist followers of Marx), and Communism was the biggest US foreign policy concern, so I'd say pretty much all of them influenced the country. Can't say as to anything being more "direct" than anything else.  Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You could look up Werner Sombart's classic explanation of why Marx's ideas haven't had as much influence as some expected. AnonMoos (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The ten planks of the Communist manifesto call for the abolition of child labor, the introduction of a graduated income tax and Free education for children in public schools.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation
Moved to language desk

Ershad's reaction to Benazir's death
What was Ershad's reaction to the death of Benazir Bhutto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.46 (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This Ershad? I've not found a quote yet, but you could dig further using a news search. For example, Google News advanced search allows you to search by date so you could check for any comments he made to the press in the days/months after her assassination (Dec 27, 2007). The official Bangladesh government reaction is at International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Economics: Self-Fulfilling crisis (e.g. Global recession, Food shortages, etc)
What is the name of the phenomenon where, for example, in a food shortage, consumers rush to the shops and stock up on all the food, thereby purpetuating or even causing the food crisis?

Similarly, in a global economic meltdown, people stop spending and start saving, thereby shrinking the economy and purpetuating the global economic meltdown?

Also, can you think of any more examples? Rfwoolf (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, it just seems to be called a Self-fulfilling prophecy, or at least a google search turns up a couple of academic papers which call it that. Another example would be a respected economist predicting a fall in the value of a particular commodity or the shares of a company, or predictions of a bank collapsing causing customers to close their accounts. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice examples. I'd be interested to see if anyone else that knows economics might be able to identify any economic definitions for this. Rfwoolf (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bank run has some good information on this topic. Livewireo (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Panic buying calls it a self-fulfilling prophecy. --Tango (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was introduced to us as "self-fulfilling expectations" in economics/finance class. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling to think of examples (involving participants who are free to act on their beliefs) where this doesn't work. In the stock market, if everyone believed that a certain share was undervalued, they'd buy it and drive its price up with the result that the share was, in a sense, undervalued. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think that's why technical analysis tends to work in the short term (or, at least, looks like it does) - everyone uses the same systems so they all buy at the same time so the price does, indeed, go up. Of course, it goes straight back down again when they sell their shares to realise the profits, so you need to be among the first to buy and the first to sell in order to make any money. --Tango (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My A-level Economics teacher used to call this the Oedipan theory - although I'm not sure if that was his coinage since I've never seen the useage elsewhere. It's nothing to do with the Oedipus Complex, it relates to another aspect of the same story: it was prophesied that Oedipus would kill his father and bed his mother, as a result of which he was abandoned as a baby. However he survived into adulthood and - not knowing his father and mother - he killed the one in a quarrel and took the other as his mistress. The prophecy led to its own fulfillment since if it had not been made he would not have been abandoned, and would have known his own parents. 79.66.184.171 (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

LDS temples
Having run across Draper Utah Temple just now, I was curious: why are there so many temples in such a small area of northern Utah? Of course there are far more Latter-day Saints there than anywhere else, and the older temples were built when there wasn't the best transportation; but I don't understand the reason for needing another one in today's world — why couldn't locals go up to Salt Lake City or Jordan River? Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They are all too crowded. More people want to go than there is room available. Wrad (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As a non-LDS, I'm really not that familiar even with what types of events are held at a temple, although I remember that marriages and baptisms are done there; can't they (forgive the words; I don't know how otherwise to say it!) just stay open longer hours? Or is there something in D&C that says that they can only be conducted at certain times, etc.?  I read D&C some time ago, but I don't remember encountering anything of this sort.  Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just read Temple (LDS Church), so now I understand what is conducted there, but I'm still confused otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They actually do extend the hours, but they can only do so much before the seams start bursting. Wrad (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Extending the hours beyond a certain point won't help much.  Most people would rather go either in the morning or in the early evening.  If they had sessions at 3am, you wouldn't have very many attend, so really extending the hours wouldn't help much.  Also, since just about everyone who works in a Temple is a volunteer, it's hard to find too many people who'll work an overnight shift.Tobyc75 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that the workers were volunteers; I had in mind doing things like baptisms for the dead with third-shift workers. [Again, please pardon my wording; I don't mean to be disrespectful] No more confusion now; thanks for the answers!  Nyttend (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

meaning of passage
what does this mean: "No one who understands the situation will be able to deny that the cause of these defensive measures lies primarily in the Jewish people itself. Even with the greatest degree of impartiality, one will conclude that one is dealing with a group of people that is on average highly unpleasant. That may not stop one from looking at the question clearly." This is from this link. It's from very early Nazi germany, when they're deciding what to do about the "Jewish Question". My question is what in the world did this guy have in mind when writing the part I put in bold?? To put my cards on the table, I am Jewish and surely do not share any of the opinions that the writer has. 92.230.67.1 (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He is implying that no matter how one looks at the Jewish people as a whole, they are "highly unpleasant." Livewireo (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, ("on average"). But my question is, what is "highly unpleasant" about them?  I'm guessing he doesn't mean that they're smart and hotter than non-jews, which is my opinion of them.  (Though maybe it's because I'm Jewish :) ).  What could he mean? 92.230.67.1 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Trying to find a logical basis for the beliefs of bigots is a futile exercise. Asking it of those who don't share the view is embarrasing, and of those who do, unpleasantly revealing. People have believed, and far too many still do believe, all sorts of nonsense through the years, from the inherent superiority of the "white race" to the inherent superiority of the male of any race. Please do not come to the Ref Desk looking for "justification" of deliberate ignorance. There is none. See Nazi propaganda for some of the ostensible rationales. // BL \\ (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The author is probably referring to the various stereotypes and prejudices that underlay antisemitism. See racism in general. If you are looking for specific antisemitic rants, Google might be a good place to start (or not). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The author is using a logical fallacy we have an article on: proof by assertion. Proving that a huge and diverse group of people is, on the whole, unpleasant is completely impossible, especially given that "unpleasant" is a completely subjective term. But if one writes with confidence that something is true, unwitting readers will accept the statement as fact, or at least consider it plausible. The majority of people subconsciously assume that anyone who seems well-spoken, well-written, or logical must know what they're talking about, and they don't feel compelled to ask for references for every allegation (and no, I don't have a reference for that allegation). So when someone says that "even an uneducated preschooler could not deny that the information on Wikipedia is biased," we say, "Geez, how freakin' biased must that website be?" Or, to use an actual example, consider the fact that the vast majority of people college-age and older believe that Wikipedia is unreliable and useless as a source, despite the fact that, used properly, it can be invaluable as a starting point for research. There has been many a thorough examination of Wikipedia's merits in the past decade, but a great many of the site's detractors simply heard the words "Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and it is therefore unreliable," and took this as fact. Every instance of vandalism or inaccuracy those people encountered on Wikipedia was then taken as further proof of that fact (see: confirmation bias). As rhetorical devices, allegations like this work best when they're presented in passing, as the basis for a more fully developed argument. A popular formula is: "We all know that a and b are true, so let's start talking about c, and how a + b + c = the end of the world as we know it." If you spend some time with the more blustery tv and radio personalities (Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage are among the best), you'll find that they sometimes speak in these types of statements exclusively, for minutes at a time. It can be fun to watch a skilled talker develop a compelling argument without providing any substance; a politician with a good speechwriter can be like a handbook on rhetoric. It's less fun to reflect on how genocides have so often been instigated by clever language and willful ignorance. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The author doesn't specifically state what is "unpleasant" about Jews. As PalaceGuard008 and Bielle have already said, he's probably referring to the various stereotypes and prejudices found in antisemitism and Nazi propaganda.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

US colonies during the interregnum
I am looking for information on how English colonies in North America changed during the Commonwealth period (1640-1660)Dpeifer (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that English Revolution in the Colonies is the most relevant article. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You might also start with Colonial history of the United States and then click on the links to the histories of each individual colony. Unless you're interested in general British policies toward colonization, I think you'll find it necessary to research the colonies independently of one another, since they were all still very much in their infancy during this period and were fairly autonomous of one another. --Fullobeans (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the article fascinating. One thing is not clear to me from readng the article. What were the reasons most of the colonies supported Charles II? Were there economic concerns? 75Janice (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)75Janice
 * It is not clear that most of the colonies did. Only 6 are mentioned in the English Revolution in the Colonies article (out ohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&action=edit&section=28f 18 or 20 New World colonies at the time) as declaring for Charles although that list is likely incomplete. The colonies were based on royal charters (or commercial ones still proceeding from the king), the great and good got their land grants based on the charters and controlled the local legislatures. Except for the Puritans, mainly in Massachusetts, colonists in general didn't have much reason to support Cromwell. For instance, Massachusetts and Connecticut provided safe haven for two of the regicides even after the Restoration. (See Edward_Whalley) Rmhermen (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some interesting connections between the Commonwealth and Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 Virginia. The WP page on Bacon's Rebellion is rather lacking, but a google search on it and terms like "new model army" turns up lots of stuff. There's a book called 1676: The End of American Independence that makes a case for Bacon's Rebellion being a kind of echo of the English Civil War. I won't get into details, but there are curious connections between Bacon's army of rebellion in Virginia and the New Model Army. See also the book The Many-headed Hydra, especially the section starting on page 135, "Virginia 1663-1676", which mentions connections between unrest in Virginia in the late 17th century and the Commonwealth, New Model Army, persecution of non-conformists, etc. And as an aside, a couple interesting things that have roots in Bacon's Rebellion are the Right to keep and bear arms as later enshrined in the US Constitution, and the increasing trend of importing African slaves for hard labor rather than poor and/or lower class people from England as indentured servants. Pfly (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)