Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 10

= June 10 =

YHWH
Sorry if you're Jewish :) I know that most observant Jews aren't supposed to say the name but would they be offended to hear a Gentile (non-Jew) say it? (in an educational or otherwise non-confrontational context of course, not in a mocking-your-religion context). How does this vary by denomination? thnks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that most orthodox and ultraorthodox people say adonai, which means lord. Others just say God or Yahweh or sometimes El or Elohim. It varies from person to person, but generally the Reform Jews and Conservative Jews have no fear of saying God's name, especially the reform. Reconstructionists, I am not sure, but I think they follow us Reform Jews. In prayer, most people will just say adonai, because that is customary. You're not required to though. The reason for Yahweh being written as YHWH btw is because that is the latinisation of the four Hebrew letters, Yud, hei, vav, hei, (יהוה)that make up God's name. It doesn't have anything to do with respect though, just no vowels except in the form of nikkud. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 02:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To add on, while most Orthodox Jews wouldn't say it themselves, I don't believe they'd really be that upset over a Gentile's use of the name. If anything, I would think they'd have only a slight discomfort with hearing it used in an educational light. And as Petrie said, the more "lenient" denominations wouldn't offer any protests at all. Avic ennasis  @ 08:08, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In regard to "saying His name", is it even known how YHWH is properly pronounced? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not know how the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in ancient times. Yahweh is a modern convention.  Marco polo (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And there is the equally-artificial "Jehovah". In any case, since we don't know how YHWH was pronounced, we can't really "say" His name anyway, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct. I believe in modern days it's more along the lines of gezeirah than anything. Jews have historically implemented additional "safety zones" or "fences" via gezeirah - an example is that the Torah commands us not to work on Shabbos, but a gezeirah takes this a step further and commands us not to even touch our tools on Shabbos, less we forget what day it is and accidentally perform work. By not pronouncing the name, we fulfill at least two mitzvot; we avoid the desecration of His Name, and we sanctify and respect His Name. Avic ennasis  @ 17:33, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * [The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of the brochure "The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever" indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm. Today the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses is http://www.jw.org, but the brochure is not there at this time.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)]

Why are Jews not allowed to say YHWH? --84.62.193.111 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It stems from a particular interpretation of Chillul Hashem, that commands us not to profane the His Name. Allowing it to become a commonplace word used every day was considered by some to be disrespectful, and would not give His Name the reverence it deserves. So, out supreme council (The Great Sanhedrin) got together about this issue, and decided that His Name should never be pronounced. This was added into Jewish law (D'Rabbanan) into what we now know as Sanhedrin 90a, which states that those who pronounce his name have no place in the World to Come. Avic ennasis   @ 20:25, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the Maharetz Chajes, among others, would explain the latter most assertion (that those who do so lose their next-worldly portion) as an exaggeration in common style of the sages of the Talmud, similar to when they say that 'one who get angry is likened to one who worshiped idols' and 'one who embarrasses another is likened to one who killed another' -- these were statement made by the sages to emphasize their message by amplification and magnification of the consequences to obscene extents, but not meant to be taken literally.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Pensions and salaries in occupied France
I am just curious about what happened to public and private sector salaries and pensions - and personal savings after Germany occupied France during WWII. Even a point in the right direction would be appreciated. Thanks 92.4.32.2 (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As our article German occupation of France during World War II points out, the Germans imposed an artificially low exchange rate on the French franc, resulting in a devaluation of the franc. This would have reduced the buying power of the savings, salaries, or pensions of French residents.  Marco polo (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to pursue this topic further, you'll find references at the foot of our article on Otto von Stülpnagel. Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln
I have seen a documentary film shortly ago, about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. It mentioned a detail I did not know, that the assassination was actually a scheme to kill the president, the vicepresident and the secretary of state all at the same time, to make the US fall into anarchy. Fortunately, although Booth was successful, the others were not, and the plan never achieved its real purpose.

But that raises a question: what would have actually happened in such a situation, if all the people in the presidential line were killed or died at the same time? And what would happen today in such a scenario? Surely during the Cold War and the atomic threat, the chance should have been considered Cambalachero (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See United States presidential line of succession, Presidential Succession Act, and Designated survivor. Marco polo (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The short answer, in the case of the Lincoln conspiracy, is that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate would have become acting President. As regards the actual conspiracy, I've seen conspiracy theories that claim Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton was actually behind the assassination conspiracy. No definitive proof can be found, of course. But he and his "radical Republican" pals nearly succeeded in eliminating Johnson from office via impeachment, which would have had the same effect as killing him would have... and in practical terms, it did anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How so, Bugs? Johnson was impeached by the House, but the Senate acquitted him, so he returned to his presidential duties.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Johnson was denied renomination a month or two later. Although he was so unpopular by then anyway I don't know if it would have made a difference. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Johnson had been rendered politically irrelevant, but he did get one last lick in, by pardoning a lot of Confederates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although it wasn't the case for Abraham Lincoln, it's interesting to note that, according to the article Presidential Succession Act there *were* three times in history, summing to about five weeks time total, that assassination of the President would have resulted in there being no clear successor to the office. Note that these were all before the passage of the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, which added the cabinet to the line of succession. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Difference Liberal Party and New Democratic Party
What are the main differences between Liberal Party of Canada and New Democratic Party of Canada, despite being left-wing parties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.215 (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do they have lists of issues, or "position papers"? If so, you could start by lining them up and see where, if anywhere, they differ on issues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Our articles have sections on the current positions. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Traditionally, the Liberal Party is not considered a leftist party but a centrist party. That is a significant difference. --Xuxl (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * During the recent election the Globe and Mail put a comparative party platform tool on their website. It's got the main points at least, for those two parties. [] i.m.canadian (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One BIG difference is that the NDP is now the Official Opposition for the first time ever, with all the perks that entails, after its second place showing in the recent election. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Marx in mainstream economics?
Have any of Marx's theories or writings been accepted by right-of centre economists? 2.97.219.191 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Much of Marxian theories of understanding economics has been included in mainstream academic curriculums. --Soman (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Show some evidence. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... I would not call the typical mainstream academic curriculum "right-of-center" (if anything, academia has a reputation for being left-of-center)... also there is a difference between including a theory in a curriculum (ie discussing it) and accepting it. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think only very sporadically. The mainstream of economics derives from the work of Alfred Marshall, who never read Marx. Marshall himself wasn't on the right though; he supported the co-operative movement. If you do your own digging, especially into particular topics, you can find many places where mainstream and Marxist economics are consistent. The Worldly Philosophers is a great account of the history of economics that brings out all the similarities and differences between the various schools. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a look at the mainstream economics and heterodox economics articles might help you out. Marxian economics is based heavily around the labour theory of value which has, in mainstream economics given way to marginalism (as the above contribution notes by referencing Alfred Marshall Jabberwalkee (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You can read George Reisman's treatise Capitalism and download it from his website in PDF format for free: http://www.capitalism.net/


 * Reisman writes from an Austrian/British and laissez faire/libertarian viewpoint and provides in depth critiques of Marx. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * His article page does not include the words "Marx", Marxism", or "Marxist" and the link above appears to suggest he is anti-marxist. So? 92.24.134.162 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Shimon Peres
From the article: "Peres was elected to the Knesset in November 1959 and, except for a three-month-long hiatus in early 2006, served continuously until 2007, when he became President." What happened in early 2006? --Theurgist (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * He left the sixteenth Knesset in January when he switched from the Israeli Labor Party to Kadima. He was elected again in March of that year for the seventeenth Knesset. Avic ennasis  @ 23:22, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. --Theurgist (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin's wife
Is there a bible scholar here who can tell me the name of the wife of Benjamin (son of Jacob)? I can't find it anywhere. Moriori (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to our article, the name of his wife/wives are not given in the Bible. Are you looking for answer outside of the Bible? Avic ennasis  @ 00:04, 9 Sivan 5771 / 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aaaaarrrggghhhhh. I read that article too, but didn't see that info. Thanks. Moriori (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are no extrabiblical sources currently known with that info afaik (by which I mean there is no info on the Patriarchs currently known that exists outside the Tanach/Bible). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 04:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)