Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 15

= July 15 =

Cohesiveness of the Roman Catholic Church's stance on the absolute omnipotence of God
There is this thing called the omnipotence paradox. It asks whether an all-powerful being do something that contradicts its own omnipotence. The article on the omnipotence paradox uses the terms "absolutely omnipotent" and "essentially omnipotent". The article states that the Christian God is essentially omnipotent, but it does not say if this is an official position of the Roman Catholic Church. That statement could've been intended to say that essential omnipotence is the official position of the Church. The introduction of theologians offering their own views tells me that the Church doesn't have an official position. How strong is a consensus among both all Christians and the higher ups of the Roman Catholic Church (archbishops, cardinals, the Pope, Vatican scholars) on the absolute omnipotence of God, sweeping the question of the omnipotence paradox under the rug for this question? --Melab±1 &#9742; 01:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't listen to wikipedia if you want Catholic doctrine, it's written by people who believe in the priesthood of all men. Instead search out an authoritative text, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, which says, "Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible." μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Are there any major or well known departures from this other than René Descartes? --Melab±1 &#9742; 11:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Now are that I know what I think the official stance is, how about the views of Christians in general? --Melab±1 &#9742; 20:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol and Christianity
There's an awful lot of references in the Bible to the drinking of wine, usually in positive terms. Jesus is reputed to have turned water into wine. The last supper reads like a boozy party. Altar wine (WITH alcohol) is a fundamental part of worship for many.

So how did Christianity end up with a significant number of its branches absolutely opposed to the consumption of alcohol? How do such groupings reconcile that position with the Biblical enthusiasm for wine? HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wine back then may have had a lower alcohol content, and water was often contaminated, so drinking wine was a bit of a necessity. It's only the distillation processes which later came around to provide high alcohol content (like in vodka, whiskey, and fortified beer) that really made alcohol into the killer it is.  Also, back then people didn't often live long enough to get cirrhosis of the liver (alleged 900 year lifespans notwithstanding).  StuRat (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can understand that. What I don't get is the absolute opposition from some quarters. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose the idea is that Jesus and pals wouldn't have drank wine, either, had they had safe drinking water. So it's like "what would Jesus had done, if he had the choice" ?  StuRat (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh? According to the Bible, he turned water into wine, he walked on water, he made blind people see and lame people walk, he fed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, he raised people from the dead, and he rose from the dead himself.  Turning wine back into drinking water should have been a snap.  Arguing that he did something because he had no choice but we shouldn't, holds no water, theologically speaking.  These religions surely have a more solid basis for their positions than that.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  02:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The attitude would have been "water is dangerous, so you don't want to drink that". As such, turning that dangerous stuff into something safe would be seen as a distinct improvement.  I suppose they could have boiled water back then to make it safe, but may not have know that this made it safe, as prior to the microscope there was no way to tell the microbes were dead, and they didn't even know what microbes were.  They probably did notice that people who drank water all the time often got sick, though. StuRat (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * With the greatest respect to my fellow ref desk regular, this really sounds like you're piling supposition upon supposition and guess upon guess. We need to see an actual reference to an actual site that tells us what these religions say about why they have no truck with alcohol.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  04:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, then, stop complaining about my answers and add your own, with all the references you want. StuRat (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm with Jack on this. My second question was "How do such groupings reconcile that position (absolute opposition to alcohol) with the Biblical enthusiasm for wine?" Speculation about how it began doesn't really answer that question. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We actually know (from women's good books) that from early medieval times plain water was known to be dangerous to drink and to bathe in. (They didn't avoid bathing because they were too stupid to know better - they knew that getting water in your mouth was a Bad Thing.) It's not a stretch that people in ancient times would have known the same thing. As an aside, you can't actually get grape juice to not ferment unless you have refrigeration or sanitizing chemicals - grapes are coated with yeast, and grape juice will begin to ferment within minutes of it being pressed from fresh grapes. --NellieBly (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They drank spring water and well water. Problems of well pollution only really appear with urbanization. People in the Middle East didn't avoid bathing. They may not have had non-alcoholic grape juice, but would they have grown grapes anyway if they weren't intending to make wine? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Christian views on alcohol.—Wavelength (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Protestants are hardly a significant number of branches of Christianity. They are, rather, a subbranch of western, Roman Christianity, with the deepest branches of Christianity being Roman Catholicism and the eastern Orthodox churches, which are not opposed to alcohol. Some of the Protestant churches oppose alcohol for non-theological reasons, given that they believe in the priesthood of all men, and hence, the right to make it up as they go along. Puritanism is a very tempting heresy, and attracts some sects more than does drink. See the writings of G. K. Chesterton. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess I should look more globally. I'm Australian, with a Presbyterian background. Historically, the "big" groups here were the Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists and Presbyterians. Those latter two weren't keen on alcohol. The Adventists and the Salvation Army are also local groups in the opposition camp. For a country where alcohol is such a big part of the culture, it seems significant. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not significant ? Protestantism says "There are about 800 million Protestants worldwide, among approximately 2.1 billion Christians".  That's rather significant.  And, being the majority religion in many powerful nations, like the US, it's influence far outweighs the demographics alone. StuRat (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please pay attention to the actual meaning of words. No one commented on the number of adherents, but on branches.  I am quite unaware of any branches of protestantism that came off of, say, Nestorian, or Coptic orthodoxy. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well then, "Protestants are hardly a significant number of branches of Christianity" seems to be an utterly meaningless sentence. Are you counting the number of Protestant sects divided by the total number of sects of Christianity ?   If so, why ?  StuRat (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There were a number of Catholic temperance societies too: Rmhermen (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even the Roman Catholic rite itself doesn't allow congregants to partake of the liquid species. But abstinence is not a theological position of the church. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @StuRat: according to the article Catholicism in the United States, Protestants are not the dominant group in the US:
 * ''With more than 68.5 million registered members, it (Catholicism) is the largest single religious denomination in the United States, comprising about 22 percent of the population.

''
 * Bielle


 * Catholicism is larger than any single Protestant denomination, in the US, but that's quite irrelevant. It's nowhere near the total percentage of Protestants, which stands at around 51%: . StuRat (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But being Protestant isn't very relevant on its own here. Some Protestant groups such as Anglicans in my country or the Church of England (not sure of their name in the US) have no formal objection to alcohol in moderation and, obviously, in worship. It's some (NOT all) Protestants, and the Salvos, and the Seventh Day Adventists, etc, that I'm puzzled by. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Anglican church in the US is the Episcopal Church (United States); however some Anglicans don't regard themselves as Protestants at all. We don't have agreed opinions on anything much I'm afraid - a curse and a blessing. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The OP is advised to read about Prohibition, which was intended to cure an epidemic social illness (drunkenness) that tended to ruin families. It turned out not to be the answer, but it was an answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Of the two original questions, I don't precisely know the answer to either but can supply some pointers. Methodism is the denomination most closely associated with the temperance movement. It spread as a mass movement, especially among poorer people, at the same time as the Industrial revolution in Britain. At that time workers were paid in pubs, and had often spent their week's wages by the end of the evening of pay day. The gin craze and resulting moral panic had shifted middle class opinion away from hard drink. Coffee and tea were becoming more widely available as alternative beverages. A very interesting account of this period is given by Dorothy George in her classic London Life in the Eighteenth Century (1925). She is sympathetic to the temperance account, so the anti-temperance views need to be sought elsewhere. She identifies temperance as part of a new philanthropy, alongside the beginnings of the police force, prisons, workhouses, etc. Michel Foucault saw this movement as "the great incarceration" if you want a negative view. George cites Francis Place 's diary, when he describes giving up his "old muddling breakfast" of meat and beer, in favour of a breakfast of coffee and bread. Remember that John Wesley instructed followers to "recollect" every half hour of the day - that is difficult enough anyway and impossible if you have been drinking. Of course people who preferred to carry on with their old ways weren't slow to recall the Biblical references to wine. They stayed with Anglicanism, and the two camps talked across each other. George Eliot captures all the nuances of the religious divides of 19th century England - in Felix Holt the Radical you will find funny descriptions of the drinking cultures of both rich and poor. Sorry this only goes a tiny way to addressing your questions; it needs to be supplemented with accounts of religious, social and economic developments in the USA and Australia, as well as how the Quakers fitted in, and the earlier attitudes to drink in the English revolution of the 1640s. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder how much the "wine" differed from ours. Certainly if you read Dioscorides' Materia Medica you'll see that "wine" was a very broad term at the time.  Also wine or "vinegar" (don't know if that's the same as ours) was sometimes taken diluted with water.  I doubt they were falling down drunk; I doubt they were completely unaffected either.  Certainly Jesus is not described as a lifelong ascetic - he didn't miraculously make the food at the table tasteless so that people wouldn't be tempted to the sin of gluttony.  Christianity is presented less as abstention from small things as the willingness to do very difficult and demanding things. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The alcohol content would have been roughly comparable but more variable. Rosé is the original wine. It was frequently mixed with water. One part wine to two water will have a significant sterilising effect (check on the science desk, and use sterilising tablets since they are available these days). Vinegar was made from wine by fermentation with a culture called mother of vinegar. That's something you can do at home. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So are we saying that this is another case where the words of the Bible don't mean what they seem to mean on first reading? No wonder we have so many different interpretations. HiLo48 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not really what I'm saying. I'm interested in the Dioscorides, but from my reading on the history of wine, the 1st century Mediterranean would have plenty of wine, mostly rose, perhaps some white, probably drunk new,if kept perhaps tasting of resin like Greek retsina, alcohol content 8 to 14 per cent. Quite likely they drank like the Italians do now, with wine and water at the table at every meal. But perhaps it was only the middle and upper classes who could afford to do that. The Christians in Britain drank phenomenal quantities of beer until the 1750s when they switched to sweetened tea. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@StuRat above, if you are talking about the diversity of belief in Christianity, focusing on Protestantism, which is a recent, if now diverse development out of and reaction against Roman Catholicism, is like limiting yourself to a discussion of passerines (perching birds) when discussing bird diversity or to the Bantu language family when discussing African languages. Those are large, recent, successful families, but there is much more diversity among the other branches of the Niger-Congo language family than just Bantu or among all the other bird orders such as the ratites, penguins, flamingoes, humming birds, and birds of prey than just the song birds. I am pointing out that historical depth is a useful perspective. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One tack to understand this is perhaps to look to Christian Scriptures for an answer. While different denominations may arrive at different conclusions from the same scriptural basis, the scriptures themselves should at least be considered to understand how a particular demonination or another may actually get to their own conclusions about the propriety of the use of alcohol.  That is, while all denominations don't agree on the use of alcohol, they all seem to feel that their position is based on the scriptures, so the scriptures should make a good starting point.  For me, at least, as but one Christian, I find that 1 Corinthians contains lots of good insight as to the Christian position on many matters such as this.  Significantly, Paul's position in that letter is that there isn't one answer for all people and all situations.  In 1 Corinthians, as elsewhere in the Bible, the answer is not as simple as "it is always right" or "it is always wrong", but that one must understand the context and likely effects of one's actions before deciding their rightness or wrongness.  1 Corinthians raises that point with many issues, not just consumtion of alcohol, but the relevent general principle, stated several times and in several places, is like what is written at Corinthians+8&version=NIV 1 Corinthians 8:9 "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak."  Such a thing mirrors something Jesus himself said at Matthew 15:11 " What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."  That is, whether one consumes alcohol or does not is not the issue unto itself, it is the effect of one's actions on those who are not morally strong.  Some people may see no problem with moderate alcohol consumption, while others may see it as a stumbling block; that is as a bad sign for others.  So, if a Christian, or an entire denomination of Christians, chooses not to drink at all, it may be because they see alcohol as a likely stumbling block for others.  That is, whether I as an individual can safely consume alcohol in good conscience is not the issue, it is whether or not by doing so, I may encourage another to do something which is harmful for them, for example I may encourage an alcoholic to overindulge because I (someone who may only have one drink and be fine) drink in front of them.  Some Christians have come to the conclusion that it is better to not drink at all than to run that risk.  I am not personally one who believes in total abstention from alcohol, but I also understand and respect the position of those who do.  -- Jayron  32  19:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Paul's position that there isn't one answer for all people and all situations is an example of moral relativism. I believe the overall message of the Bible is quite the opposite, that moral absolutism results from God telling us exactly what to do, with the rules the same for all.  However, considering that the Bible seems to support things like slavery and genocide, it really is impossible to read it without applying moral relativism, since we obviously don't believe in such things today.  Applying moral relativism to alcohol, we can say "even though 'wine' didn't appear to cause problems in Biblical days, it does cause problems today, so should be avoided". StuRat (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't an example of moral reltavism, it is an example of moral absolutism. It isn't that there doesn't exist a right or wrong thing to do in all situations, its that there isn't necessarily a way to determine what the right or wrong thing to do from a list of rules.  Paul is asking people to base their understanding of how to behave not on what a list of rules says, but by what a person knows to be right or wrong based on the teachings and life of Christ.  The theme of 1 Corinthians is (and I'm paraphrasing a bit, but Paul says something like this over and over) is that "I am absolutely free to do anything, but I don't choose what to do by what I am allowed to do, but rather by what is good for me to do, insofar as my mission is to bring people to Christ."  Or to quote the letter itself "“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others." Corinthians+10&version=NIV 1 Corinthians 10:23-24.  This is moral absolutism.  There is always one right thing to do.  The standard, however, is not a list of rules "You should never eat this" or "You should only drink that" or whatever.  The moral absolute is clear and unambiguous in Paul: the mission of the Christian is to bring people to Christ, and how one should behave is determined by what will work in that situation.  Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, Paul deals with such "moral" issues of his day (and some of all days), with such issues as circumcision, (i.e. whether a person should be circumcised or not) and Paul's advice is it doesn't matter because being circumcised or not doesn't change how one spreads the word of Christ.  Paul's attitude towards drinking alcohol is thus "If drinking interfers with your ability to follow the mission you have as a Christian, don't do it."  That is, it isn't whether drinking alcohol should be banned or not: The Christian doesn't live his or her life by a list of prescriptions or proscriptions: the consider all actions against the absolute standard of Christ.  That is, the Christian shouldn't think in terms of what is "allowed" or "forbidden", but rather what is "beneficial" or what is "harmful".  These are absolute standards.  They are different standards that those of the Old Testament.  But that they are different is important: it isn't that Christ removed standards, he changed the standards.  -- Jayron  32  03:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If each person is free to decide what is "beneficial" and what is "harmful", then each person will decide differently, and this is moral relativism. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A person is not free to decide that. A person looks to the teachings of Christ to decide that.  Christ set the standards.  We, as Christians, follow those standards absolutely.  You misunderstand Paul's use of the concept of freedom here.  Paul isn't saying "I don't drink alcohol because I am banned from drinking alcohol".  He says "I am free to drink alcohol, but I choose not to because it harms my message".  Life is full of an infinite number of possible actions.  When you get out of bed, do you put the right foot on the ground first or the left?  How do you decide which to put down first?  Are you a moral relativist because you say it doesn't matter?  -- Jayron  32  04:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In your example, Paul has decided that drinking hurts his message. Someone else may disagree.  Others may say it even helps.  Now you have 3 different groups each going their own way.  You may eventually get an ascetic sect which feels that absolutely doing anything other than contemplating the mind of God will distract them from their message, while others go about drinking and perhaps using drugs to better understand the mind of God, so they can then communicate this to others.  So, what the ascetics abhor, the latter group wholeheartedly endorses.  That's moral relativism.  StuRat (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly intrested in convincing you one way or the other on this matter Stu. Wikipedia isn't the place for that, nor do I think it would be a productive matter in any end.  I believe you are being deliberately obtuse, and even if you aren't I don't have the energy any longer to dispossess you of your misconceptions.  I'm perfectly happy to let you contiunue to be wrong.  If you care to know my opinion on the potential of the rest of this debate, read Matthew 13:1-23.  -- Jayron  32  18:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't insult you, so why do you insult me, and violate WP:CIVIL ? StuRat (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not insulting you. I'm allowing you the dignity of a difference of opinion on the matter.  You aren't here to be proselytized to, you aren't here for a religious lecture, and you aren't here to be convinced of anything.  I've laid out my position on the issue, you've laid out yours, and neither of us are going to convince anyone to change that position.  It would be insulting to your dignity to continue the debate.  It would be best to just walk away from it and leave it, rather than to continue the silly "no it isn't -- yes it is" thing we're falling into.  -- Jayron  32  03:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with all that, but find "you are being deliberately obtuse" to be both an insult and a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. StuRat (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize for stating that then. You are quite right; I shouldn't make statements about your state of mind in carrying on your position in the discussion, and I was quite wrong in doing so.  You are right to be insulted, and I unequivocally apologize for that.  I clearly disagree with the veracity of your position, but I hope that isn't the source of contention here.  We don't agree as to who is right or wrong, and we're not going to resolve that.  I'm OK with not agreeing if you are.  However, it is clear that I questioned your earnestness in your position, and that is insulting, I had no right to question your earnestness, and that was particularly nasty.  Again, I am sorry for that, and apologize for having said it.  -- Jayron  32  04:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Apology accepted, and I'm glad I resisted the urge to insult you back.  StuRat (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I hate inserting responses mid-answer, and I don't know how to indent once the responses have cycled through and back again, so: StuRat, thanks for the clarification on total Protestants versus total Roman Catholics in the U.S. I am thinking that the statement in the article I quoted, while technically true, is misleading and should be adjusted. Bielle (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Warner, J. "Temperance, Alcohol, And The American Evangelical: A Reassessment." Addiction 104.7 (2009): 1075-1084. CINAHL with Full Text. Web. 16 July 2012.
 * Sharma, M. "Book Review. Alcohol And Christianity." Journal Of Alcohol & Drug Education 51.2 (2007): 74-75. CINAHL with Full Text. Web. 16 July 2012.
 * Humphreys, Keith. "Review Of 'Alcohol, Addiction And Christian Ethics'." Addiction 102.12 (2007): 1989-1990. PsycINFO. Web. 16 July 2012.
 * Ford, Julie, and Charles Kadushin. "Between Sacral Belief And Moral Community: A Multidimensional Approach To The Relationship Between Religion And Alcohol Among Whites And Blacks." Sociological Forum 17.2 (2002): 255-279. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 July 2012.
 * --some jerk on the Internet   (talk)  16:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Pan-Austronesianism?
Hi. There are many Pan-Dravidian, Pan-African, and Pan-Iranian movements active today. Are there any historical or present day Austronesian equivalents? Thanks. Van Gulik (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what that would mean... Some kind of greater Indonesian empire? AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing some sort of unity between Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines, Madagascar, and all of the Pacific Islands (and maybe even Taiwan, as the ancestral homeland). 109.97.146.146 (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm ethnically Austronesian and as far as I know, nope. There are organizations like ASEAN, but they are geo-political rather than ethnic. The geographical distances (especially extensive given the sailing traditions of Austronesians) and the cultural differences from external contact may already be too large for any real unified "movement", particularly when it comes to religion. The largest number of Austronesians are in the Sundaland archipelago (greater Indonesia and Malaysia) and they are Muslims with strong South Asian cultural influences. The Malagasy remain the largest practitioners of the traditional animism of ancestral Austronesians, while the Austronesians in the Philippines, Micronesia (including Guam and Palau), and Polynesia (including Hawaii and New Zealand) are predominantly Christian with remnants of animism. And the few remaining Austronesians in Taiwan have mostly been assimilated into the Chinese populations in terms of language, culture, and religion.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  07:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironically, judging by some websites there seems to be a Pan-Oceanian movement gaining ground, where people from e.g. Tonga or Fiji (speakers of Austronesian languages) argue that Indonesians (also Austronesian) should get out of West Papua (mostly non-Austronesian), because it "belongs" to Oceania. 109.97.146.146 (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, pan-xenophobic movements seem widespread at least. :P -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  08:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think your right in your assertion that the Austronesian countries are many and far apart, and that this makes it difficult to create some sort of pan-Austronesian movement. Furthermore, I would also say that in addition to different cultures (religion being one factor: Islam, Christianity, Animism), the differences in geography (Cambodia is a mainland country, Madagascar is a single, large island, Malaysia (simplified) consists of two parts - West-Malaysia (peninsular Malaysia) and East-Malaysia (Borneo), as compared to Micronesia and Polynesia which both are archipelagos consisting of relatively small islands) and economic development means that it would be more difficult for these countries and peoples to unite in a significant way.
 * Malaysia is ranked as having a 'high' HDI (no. 61 in the world), Indonesia and Cambodia are 'middle' (no.s 124 and 139, respectively), Madagascar is ranked as 'low' (no. 151). While this certainly doesn't prevent these countries from cooperating with each other, it does mean that the problems facing each country, will be very different. In Africa, the problems of economic development are more similar, as many countries are LDCs, and as such, it's probably easier for these countries to cooperate on these issues.
 * Geography will also create different problems for these different states. Africa is a massive continent, yet it is limited to a single continent, where many issues seem to shared across borders. The Austronesians are likely to have different issues due to their geography: Pacific atolls might sink in the ocean or have limited sweet water supplies, in addition to very limited natural resources and land available for agriculture, while those aren't necessarily the biggest concerns for larger countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Cambodia.
 * Lastly, it seems that Austronesians live in countries that have rather mixed populations, where the Austronesians sometimes are the majority and sometimes the minority, which means that fostering a national identity rather than an ethnic identity is something that is emphasised. In New Zealand the Austronesians are a minority in what is, essentially, a 'Western country'. Similarly, Hawaii and French Polynesia are parts of the USA and France, respectively. Malaysia has an Austronesian majority, but with significant non-Austronesian population, making social cohesion between the three ethnic groups something that the government focuses more on than distant ethnic links to people leading very different lives, far away. (I would also add that the Malaysian definition of 'Malay' isn't ethnic, it's religious: Malays are 'Moslem', so an ethnic Chinese person could become 'Malay' by swapping religion.) Austronesians in NZ might see loyalty to NZ being more beneficial to them, as it gives access to health care, education and jobs in a developed economy. Something that loyalty to small islands far out in the Pacific might not. Similarly, French Polynesia benefits from a transfer of money from metropolitan France (€1.5 billion in 2010, according to French Wikipedia), meaning that severing that link could send the archipelago into poverty. 'Being French' might actually pay better and provide more jobs, than 'being Austronesian'. I.e. for some Austronesians, fostering a national, rather than pan-national ethnic identity, might seem more logical. V85 (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition of Malay is actually more cultural then purely religious based. While it's true to be Malay in Malaysia you need to be Muslim (so anyone who somehow converts is no longer Malay, although the conversion is generally not recognised and the apostate may be sent for 'reeducation' or even caned), being Muslim doesn't automatically make you Malay. You need to be 'a Malaysian citizen born to a Malaysian citizen who professes to be a Muslim, habitually speaks the Malay language, adheres to Malay customs, and is domiciled in Malaysia or Singapore', see Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia. While it's true the other requirements tend to be ignored for those who are Malay by descent (i.e. even if you never speak Malay and don't follow Malay customs you'll still normally be consider Malay), a Chinese convert can't usually become Malay simply by converting (or for that matter there are a small number of Chinese Muslims where one or more generational lines have been Muslim).
 * In any case, despite the technical ability, AFAIK it's actually fairly rare for Chinese Malaysians to become Malay. I've occasionally heard of it for Indian Malaysians and somewhat controversially Indonesians or others who 'look' Malay (even possibly first generation citizens) and perhaps even more controversially other Bumiputra who aren't normally considered Malay (although I think technically it doesn't even apply to those who were born or who's parents were born in Sabah and Sarawak, see the later ref). But in general, I think the reality is the constitutional requirements often tends to be ignored and even though you may fulfill the constitutional requirements, you may have problems if you don't 'look Malay', see for example  no matter what certain politicans may say . (Of course not surprisingly not everyone wants to become Malay even if they may technically qualify.)
 * One exception, if you are of mixed descent even though 'race' generally follows the father in Malaysia I believe it's normal to be considered Malay if one of your parents is Malay (ditto for them, so even if they're are only part Malay descent they may be considered Malay). Theoretically religion doesn't become an issue here since Malaysia still requires non Muslims of either sex to convert if they wish to marry a Muslim and the children are expected to be raised as Muslim. Again, I think the custom and language thing is largely ignored.
 * BTW, in terms of the Indian Muslims vs Chinese Muslims in Malaysia one of the reasons for the difference is probably that although Indians are a smaller percentage of the Malaysian population, the number of them who are Muslim is I believe higher, those called the controversial term 'mamak', suggests 57k for Chinese Muslims and Tamil Muslim suggests 500k for Indian Muslims. Of course with some becoming Malay, that doesn't help the numbers but anyway... Another factor may be the greater population and on average better position in society means there tends to be strong and more successful efforts to preserve Chinese culture including language.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Didn't Israel Capture/Conquer the Gaza Strip in the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War?
Israel captured/conquered half of the proposed Palestinian Arab state during that war, but not the Gaza Strip. Futurist110 (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One consideration may have been that they needed a place to leave the Palestinians, outside of the state of Israel, so they couldn't vote. Otherwise, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. StuRat (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at our Gaza Strip article, it seems that the Strip was in the hands of the Egyptian Army when the cease fire came into effect. So the answer would be - "because they lacked the military strength". However, perhaps someone better acquainted with this issue could comment. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Like other notable Israeli military operations in 1948-1949, Operation Horev was outlined according to Liddell Hart's principle of indirect approach. Yigal Allon and Yitzhak Rabin, who greatly appreciated Liddell Hart's concepts, suggested invading Sinai in order to trap the majority of the Egyptian army and force the Egyptian leadership to enter negotiations for an armistice. A direct effort against the Gaza Strip would have probably resulted in a much greater number of casualties to all sides, as in the battles of Latrun. At best, it would have liberated only a single kibbutz - Kfar Darom - and bring the frontier further away from Yad Mordechai. Incidently, Yad Mordechai junction came under heavy machine gun fire from the Gaza Strip merely six days ago . ליאור • Lior (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As I (may or may not) understand, the Gaza Strip has a long history, dating back to disputes among Alexander's generals (Ptolemy I Soter) about the precise location of the land they'd drawn by lots. See the map in that article.  Battle of Gaza (312 BC) could use expansion.  I would suppose (don't know) if this long historical precedent made the boundary seem more natural to residents in 1948 than it looks to us on a map. Wnt (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, had Israel captured Gaza, most of the Palestinians there would have very likely fled (or been expelled), and thus the worry about having to add a large Arab population to Israel if Gaza was conquered would have been a moot point. I know that there weren't that many Jews in Gaza in 1948-1949, but Gaza could have had important economic and strategic value to Israel by being a good place to build a lot of beach and vacation resorts in the future and by weakening the strategic position of the Egyptians in a future war. Aren't heavy casualties in order to achieve an important military and/or strategic objective during a war often tolerated? I mean, it's not like Israel's army was extremely desperate in 1949. Also, from my (limited) knowledge of this war, I was under the impression that the Jordanian Army/Arab Legion was the only Arab army that was a match for Israel in 1948-1949. Futurist110 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think all the Palestinians would have fled. After all, Israel subsequently gained control over the Gaza Strip, and they didn't all flee then.  Also, back in 1948-49, Israel wasn't that strong, and you should compare their strength not with just one opposing force, but the sum of all actual and potential forces, as attacking Gaza might have brought in more combatants against them. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

1948-1949 and 1967 were very different cases. In 1948, most of the Arabs in territory that Israel captured either fled or were expelled. I don't see why the Gaza Strip would have been a different case, considering that the Arabs there could have fled (or been forced to flee) to Egypt, Jordan, or some other Arab country just like a lot of their Arab companions in other parts of Palestine. Also, I'm pretty sure that every Arab country who wanted to wage a war against Israel already declared war on Israel by the time that the 1948-9 Arab-Israel War was coming to a close. Israel already attacked and conquered a lot of Arab lands, and that didn't bring in more Arab countries to join the fight against Israel. Thus, considering that Gaza held no significant value to the Arabs, I seriously doubt that attacking Gaza would have brought in more Arab countries to fight against Israel. Finally, the strength of each individual country and army does matter, since although the Arab countries cooperated with each other against Israel, each of the armies primarily fought Israel in the territories that were the closest to its borders. Lebanon and Syria fought Israel in the North, Jordan fought Israel in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and Egypt fought Israel in Gaza and on the Mediterranean coast. Also, considering that Israel had the Egyptian Army in Gaza surrounded at the end of the war, it would have been almost impossible for another Arab country or army to send a lot of help or aid to the Egyptians, thus allowing Israel to conquer the Gaza Strip without too much difficulty if it so desired. Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if your enemies each stick to their own front, you still must divide your armies to fight each of them, as Hitler found out in WW2. (If he only had to fight his strongest enemy, Stalin, he might have won.) StuRat (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but the section of the Israeli army fighting the Egyptians was doing pretty well when the war was nearing its end. I haven't heard of that section of the Israeli army being so desperate that they would be unable to sustain a few casualties to capture Gaza. Also, sustaining additional casualties might not have been necessary since Israel already had the Egyptian army surrounded in Gaza and could thus push (perhaps successfully) for Egypt to withdraw from Gaza in the post-war armistice/peace treaty. Futurist110 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Keep in mind we're talking about a newly formed country that was just attacked by over 6 powerful and large countries with many more troops. Also remember this army is relatively new, consists of militias that were put together quickly, and doesn't have such advacned weaponry as it does today. Whatever you get, you're happy about it. As Israeli leader and first prime minister chaim weizmann said, "We'd accept a state the size of a napkin." All they wanted was a country, Gaza or no Gaza. Even East Jerusalem, which had the Old City, wasn't captured. If the war went on, it's possible these places would've been captured, and others would've been lost. But when the ceasefire was declared, it just happened that Egypt had Gaza, and Jordan had Judea and Samaria, which they renamed its thousand year olds name as the West Bank. That's how it was. Gaza isn't that big a deal, I mean you can see that the government unilaterally gave it up in the hopes of peace in 2005, and there was no way of knowing in 1948 that Hamas would rise to power in Gaza either. Jerusalem is a bigger issue, and from 1948-1967, Jordan did not allow Jews to enter the city (and restricted the movement of Christians) and destroyed many Jewish sites, which was why the reunification in 1967 was very emotional for them.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Palestinian Arab state" in your first sentence. Are you referring to the UN Partition Plan, or to the present day? If it's the first one, then please note that Arabs living there weren't referred to as Palestinians, as Jews living there were also Palestinians. Arab Palestinians or Arabs is a better term. The Partition Plan was accepted by Israel but rejected by the Arabs living there, so it had no legal justification or bearance on anything in the future, so it's moot. If you're referring to a Palestinian state today, then realize such a state hopes to encompass Gaza and the West Bank, which is exactly what Israel did not capture.

Hope this helps. -- Activism  1234  05:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

By proposed Palestinian Arab state, I meant the state that the U.N. gave to the Palestinian Arabs in the 1947 Palestine Partition Plan. Initially the Arabs were given about 42% of Palestine, but later only 22% of Palestine was left under Arab (Egyptian and Jordanian) control. In regards to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, as I previously stated, to my knowledge the Jordanian military/Arab Legion was much stronger than the Egyptian military. Thus, any further attempt to capture East Jerusalem and the West Bank would have likely failed and could have possibly diverted Israeli resources from other fronts, thus causing Israel to lose control of the Negev and maybe some other areas in exchange for gaining nothing. Gaza, on the other hand, was a much easier target for Israel to capture if it so desired. I'm sure that the Israelis/Jews would have been happy had the Arabs accepted the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan, but once the Arabs went to war against Israel, one would think that Israel would try capturing all the territory that it can in order to have more defensible borders and to allow more Jewish population expansion within its borders. The Israeli govt. gave up Gaza in 2005 because it had 1.5 million Arabs living there, which was way too large of a number for Israel to try assimilating. In contrast, in 1948 had Israel captured Gaza most of the Arabs there would have either fled or been expelled, so there would not have been a large demographic problem for Israel in capturing Gaza in 1948. Also, in regards to the ceasefire, I think that Israel could have either captured Gaza before the ceasefire or delayed the ceasefire by a week, two weeks, or month if it felt like it really needed to.

As a side question, what do you think will happen to Jerusalem in an Israel-Palestinian peace treaty? Futurist110 (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be split between them, since neither side would be willing to give it up completely and an open city can't exist with the level of hostility those two sides have. StuRat (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't one argue that the Palestinians (or at least Mahmoud Abbas) gave up their claim to Jerusalem with the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement? Futurist110 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I saw a poll last year which stated that more Arabs in East Jerusalem want to stay under Israeli rule than those that wanted to end up under Palestinian rule.

Here it is:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4064783,00.html

If this poll is reliable and accurate, then this will further strengthen Israel's position in peace negotiations that it should keep all of East Jerusalem in a final peace treaty. It's disappointing how many Israelis and Israeli politicians are willing to divide Jerusalem when Yitzhak Rabin himself said that diving Jerusalem in order to establish peace is not a price worth paying for peace. Futurist110 (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't it already divided ? StuRat (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Jerusalem used to be split between 1948-1967.  In that time, West Jerusalem was under Israeli control. East Jerusalem was under Jordanian occupation (it was annexed, but not recognized by the world, which is why many people say it's disputed now, since Israel won it from an occupying country).  East Jerusalem had all the religious sites, and during this time, Jews were not allowed to enter the city, and Chrisitans were severely restricted. Many Jewish tombs and synagogues were destroyed.  In 1967, Israel won back East Jerusalem and reunified the city, which was heartbreaking.
 * It's true that Yitzchak Rabin said they can't give up Jerusalem, and he was the one who started the whole Oslo movement. But then you have people like Ehud Olmert, who used to be in Likud (and then switched to Kadima, but Kadima still isn't a left-wing movement) and yet offered in 2008 to give up certain parts of East Jeruaslem (about 3/4) to the Palestinians AND give them control over the Temple Mount (Judaism's holiest site).
 * If Abbas accepted this (which he didn't), I don't know how Israel would've reacted. The Israeli public would have been infuriated if Jerusalem was given up again.  To many people, Zionism=Jerusalem.  See this short video that says that as well.
 * As for the Palestinians, Jerusalem is the 3rd holiest site in the Arab world, while it's the #1 holiest site in the Jewish world. Still, the Palestinians want it as their capital - whether it's because they don't want a holy site going under another religion's control or because they feel it's duly their land.  The latter part is disputed by many people, since Arabs under the Ottoman Empire and Jordaniain occupation didn't care too much for the Temple Mount and didn't really take good care of it, until after Israel won it back.
 * Let me know if you have any questions. -- Activism  1234  19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rabin started the Oslo peace process, but supporting peace does not automatically equal to supporting re-dividing Jerusalem. Whether or not Rabin would have supported the redivision of Jerusalem in the future had he survived his assassination attempt is an open question, though. As for Olmert, after Barak offered to re-divide Jerusalem in 2000, talk about dividing Jerusalem became less taboo in Israel, which is why Olmert was willing to redivide the city (along with Olmert's desire to save his legacy after his failure in Lebanon in 2006 and his corruption allegations). Also--I just want to clarify--Olmert offered the Palestinians 31% of East Jerusalem, not 75% as you claim. Also, Olmert wanted to put the Temple Mount under international sovereignty, not sole Palestinian sovereignty. I think I've seen some polls that state that about 40-50% of Israelis would be willing to support dividing Jerusalem in a final peace treaty, yet about 40-60% would not, and those Israelis would definitely be very angry and upset if Jerusalem is ever redivided. To be honest, I think a good compromise would be to keep the status quo in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount (Israeli sovereignty, Palestinian administration of the Temple Mount and freedom of worship) and in return give the Palestinians sovereignty in Jewish holy places in Hebron and elsewhere in the West Bank in exchange for allowing Jewish freedom of worship there. Futurist110 (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Napoleon's sexual orientation
Major General Dr. Frank Richardson has published a book titled Napoleon, Bisexual Emperor, which deals with Napoleon's sexual orientation. Our Wikipedia article on Louis Bonaparte claims that Louis' "'poor mental condition' may have been periods of depression caused by trying to hide his homosexuality or bisexuality", citing p.7 of James McMillan's book as our source. What is the current scholarly opinion about Napoleon's sexual orientation? How was bisexuality perceived in 19th Century France? Thanks, ליאור • Lior (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * indicates that Napoleon rescinded criminal laws against homosexuality in 1810. It would not have been unusual for a person in Napolean's position to have experimented with sexuality. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip Dwyer, an Australian historian, deals with Napeoleon Boneparte's psychohistory; he won a gong for it, so I'd suggest ﻿﻿Dwyer, P. 2007, Napoleon, 1769-1799: The Path to Power, London; Bloomsbury. The modern construction of "homosexuality" didn't exist in the late 18th century by the way. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Locating sunk Ships
Hi, I note that someone has added coord missing to some articles on vessels sunk in various naval engagements. Does anyone know if the sinking position for vessels is officially recorded? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there isn't exactly a unified global registry of such things. However, naval vessels usually keep a record of what happened in engagements, which should allow the position of a sinking to be recorded, subject to the inaccuracies of the fog of war and of premodern navigation; and sometimes we can get modern secondary sources (divers, photographers, &c) which also pinpoint the location. So, for many but not all sunken vessels it's possible to get coordinates. Many will be regarded as war graves.
 * Sometimes the location itself can be controversial (cf ) and we should bear that in mind - there may be more than one claimed location.
 * Nowadays we have gadgets like AIS - very soon after the Costa Concordia running aground, you could get an accurate GPS track of its final hours - but military vessels don't necessarily broadcast detailed AIS information in the middle of a warzone. bobrayner (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WRECK Site - the world's largest online wreck database is a very useful tool. I haven't found any gaps yet. It only lists known wreck sites however. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Useful - but it's subscription only for the actual Lat/Long data :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The items are specfically Royal Navy (ie HMS) vessels, this means that the CWGC may hold information as well. Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For ships that are sunk in shallow waters near shipping lanes, there are precise locations recorded so that ships travelling nearby can avoid crashing into them. I'm not sure where those records are, though - probably wherever ones gets shipping charts from. --Tango (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fictional name for medieval kingdom of France ? Suggestions ?
Anyone have a good fictional name for a kingdom very similar to France set in a fictional medieval world ?

They will speak French, and culture and so on will be very similar to that of real world France.

The name doesn't necessarily need to sound very similar to "France" but it does need to sound good when spoken both in French and English. It's the last kingdom of many I need to make. Making up a name have proven quite a challenge for me, and I'm kinda stuck... so maybe there's a few helpful people out there with very creative minds ? I'll be grateful for any suggestions :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.62.59 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe a play on early names of the real-world area or its inhabitants? France was known as Gallia to the Romans for example (French: Gaule), with most of present day France being the Roman province of Gallia Lugdunensis (French: Gaule Lyonnaise), previously Gallia Celtica. Gallicizing some Names of the Celts might also help.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  17:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should suggest Gaul/Gallia. Thing is, even fictional worlds have a history and I have been playing around with that name when creating my own version of Gauls. So i cant be using that name.. thanks anyway :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.62.59 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Some version of Carolia or Charelle or the like which can be Karling in German. See Carolingian  dynasty. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Modern France is called "the hexagon" due to its shape, so you could play on that, maybe call it 'Hectagonia' (or 'l'Hectagonie' in French). If I were writing the book, I'd probably take that one too far and have all sorts of references to the number 6: the King would have six advisors, the army would be divided into 6 regiments, the citizenry would be split into six classes (off the top of my head: peasant, artisan, merchant, (feudal) lord, priest and bureaucrat [since it's France]), there would be six religious sects, etc. V85 (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the modern corners of the Hexagon – Alsace (with Lorraine, Bar and Franche-Comté), Boulogne, Bretagne, Navarre, Rousillon, Nice – were firmly annexed to France until after the medieval period. —Tamfang (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * However, it seems to me that the author is creating a medival France, based on today's France, rather than merely recreating one of the historical duchies or kingdoms which today are part of France. It's a fictional world, not a fictional story set in the real world. V85 (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You might also try (le) Royaume, literally, The Realm, or the variant Reyaume. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One thing to consider is to choose some of the early Frankish subkingdoms. During the early-middle-ages, the lands of the Franks were divided into three or so subkingdoms, being Neustria, Aquitania, and Austrasia.  These three kingdoms, along with the Burgundian Kingdom of Arles roughly correspond to modern France. The nice thing about using a name like Neustria or Austrasia is that it is an historically accurate name for France, which very few casual readers would actually recognize.  I would go with Neustria, as that kingdom contained the seeds of the later Kingdom of France; Paris was located there, as was the Ile de France, which was the nucleus around which the French State would eventually develop.  It was from the land of Ile de France, and the ruler's title as Duke of France that the name of France directly comes from; since Ile de France was part of Neustria it would make a nice historical analogue.  -- Jayron  32  18:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Both Neustria and L'Ile (pronounced "Leel") occurred to me, but I am not sure the former sounds very good. There is also La Marche Mark (territory). μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean using Gaul/Gallia verbatim. Just elements of it. :P The one alternate-reality French culture I can think of, for example, uses it - the EVE Online faction Gallente.

And speaking of alternate history, what are the names of your fictional founders then? Whatever you call them can be the basis of the "contemporary-day name". e.g. if you named their "ancestors" the Redowend, then you can name the country as Révanne (endonym), Rivanny (exonym), Rivannian (demonym) or something similar.

Another way to get place-names is to look at the map of France (down to the village names, Google is good for that). Find interesting place-names, then mix-and-match (careful not to come up with hilarious actual French words of course). e.g. I thought of Tavent, Taventine, Taventish from Tavant; Couronne, Corony, Coronian from Grand-Couronne; Farennia, Farennese, Farennian from Varennes, etc.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  19:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you pull Redowend from the air, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * More or less, LOL. It's an imagined "ancient demonym" from redo- and -wend. In my world being derived from PIE *reudh- ("red [in color]"), though it could be from anything with a similar consonant cluster really, and the ethnonym Wends (probably "clan" or somesuch). Then I applied possible linguistic evolution over the years that would be similar to what modern French went through to get there - dropping the d, the original /w/ becoming /v/, and the -nd cluster becoming -nne (cf. Veneti to Vannes), etc. Hence Révanne.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  04:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cecoubre/Secoubre. Futurist110 (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sacrebleu ? lol Vespine (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ligérie or Liérie, Rodanie or Rodaine, from the ancient forms of Loire and Rhône. Or suppose the Burgundians dominated rather than the Franks: then perhaps Bornie (by analogy with Bornholm from Burgundarholm). —Tamfang (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, the Loire and the Rhone are two other sources I thought of. But I gave up Rodaine as to close to Rodan. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would this site help? ````


 * How about Moreliane? You just want it to be any random name that sounds cool in French and English, right? Futurist110 (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest Malum Odorem. Sounds cool, and it's descriptive of the people. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.62.59 (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cartoon character wanting an apology
Who was the cartoon character whose comic schtick was to go around saying "I think someone owes me an apology?" Edison (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this what made you think of the question? Only links I have found are to Boondocks and Doonesbury--But these are demands the writers apologize to their readers. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Cole Oyl, Olive Oyl's father, repeatedly demands "You owe me an apology" in Robert Altman's film version Popeye, but I don't know whether this was also the case in the original cartoons. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Edison (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation
When, if ever, is it okay to incorporate aspects of foreign cultures? The articles I've read about cultural appropriation either ignore this question entirely or seem to say that using foreign influences is always wrong. --108.225.117.142 (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Saying it's always wrong seems a bit harsh. Hopefully we take the good parts from each other's cultures and not the bad.  For example, it's good we took Arabic numerals from Arab culture, but I certainly hope we don't incorporate their attitudes towards women, and start stoning women suspected of having sex outside of marriage. StuRat (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are aware, as the article indicates, those numbers are of Indian origin and associated with the Brahmi abugida used to write early Buddhist texts? μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well then, it's also good that the Arabs took the digits from India. —Tamfang (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not also that Buddhists don't stone adulteresses? μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was referring more to the use of foreign influences in media, fashion, etc. That's what I've seen people get the most upset about. --108.225.117.142 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the people in the culture from which it was borrowed are mad, or the people into whose culture it was copied ? In the latter case, a bit of cultural borrowing might be fine, but too much makes it look like you are being colonized (a Paris full of McDonalds', for example). StuRat (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Paris is already quite saturated with McDonald's. But they serve beer, so it's OK. V85 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This question is borderline opinion asking. Can you be more specific about what kinds of cultural appropriation you're talking about? If you're talking about raiding countries historic artifacts through colonialism or war, well there's a debate about that, and efforts to repatriate some historic artifacts. So that might be one debate.

But if you're talking about taking cultural ideas, like food, music, art, or even more broadly, scientific and cultural values, most wouldn't find that offensive. I'm sure you can find some extremist positions about how that's awful, but you can find all kinds of wacky ideas like that these days and somebody who's written a book on it.

So maybe it would be good if you could be more specific in your question. We certainly don't need some opinion debate... there are plenty of those on this board already. Shadowjams (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cultures do whatever they do in relation to borrowing or stealing aspects of other cultures. This is what's known as human nature, and it's usually considered a compliment or a mark of respect to the source culture. Who can say this is ever "wrong" or even in any sense "not okay"? Besides, just exactly what is anyone going to do about it? Who can say that the English we speak today is "wrong" just because Shakespeare might not recognise much of it? Who can say that an election result is "wrong" just because some individual is disaffected (assuming the voters voted freely and the results were not manipulated)? Any place or person that says that "using foreign influences is always wrong" is really not worth paying any attention to at all. -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  23:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, it's OK if it's useful to the culture that's incorporating it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the OP is refering to situations where a people adopt a cultural "thing" (whatever that is) from a foreign culture and replace something from their culture with it. Thus, the replaced culture gets slowly eroded and forgotten while the hegemonic culture slowly takes over.  That is, people stop eating their local cuisine and start eating pizza and hamburgers; people stop speaking their local language and take up a global langauge (English, Spanish, etc.); people stop making their historical music and start listening to foreign pop acts, or local musicians that mimic foreign pop acts.  In general, this is seen as a loss of the local culture.  Insofar as people value their own culture, they often see the loss of that culture as something to be disappointed by or upset with.  When one belongs to the culture which is being borrowed from, one often doesn't realize it is even happening, or that the issue is even a problem.  -- Jayron  32  05:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, when tourists go abroad, looking for native culture, and instead find natives playing golf and eating fast food, it's quite a disappointment. StuRat (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless they go to the USA, in which case it's ... par for the course. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If they went to the US hoping to see authentic Native American culture, and instead encounter Mercedes-driving "Indians" running casinos, that might be a disappointment, yes. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure why they'd be disappointed, Stu. Most more-developed nations spend significant amounts of their time and money trying to influence less-developed nations to be more like them.  They used to call it sending out missionaries to convert the heathens.  Nothing's really changed except we now call it foreign aid.  So, having gone to that effort, wouldn't they be more likely to be disappointed if the less-developed nations resisted these influences, rather than adopting them?  You can't set up MacDonalds restaurants in Vubuzu or Kwang-Xin and then complain about the degradation of the local culture.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  12:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Those who want to profit by exporting businesses to other nations and those who want to visit and view their authentic cultures are not the same people. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They are, or may as well be, as far as the natives are concerned. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But not as far as they are concerned, which is relevant to how disappointed they are. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't cultural appropriation normally used in a negative sense from the point of view of the people whose culture is being appropriated? (i.e. rather than purists of the absorbing culture). E.g. Elvis was criticised for appropriating Black musical culture to make money, somewhat unfairly. I once read a discussion on an anti-racist blog which worried in a slightly hand-wringing liberal stereotypy way because not liking Black culture was racist and liking Black culture was appropriation - also racist! 90.214.166.145 (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is also how I've heard it used, and this aspect is covered in Cultural appropriation. Generally, the more sacred the symbol appropriated, or the more core to cultural identity it is, the more inappropriate appropriation is. As you seek opinions, it's best to give most weight to those of the people whose customs are being appropriated, since they are the ones who are potentially disempowered/insulted. First world privilege and White privilege also often apply.174.88.8.241 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cause of misconception of Christianity in Europe
What are the causes of misconception about Christianity in Europe like there is a misconception that Roman Catholics of Europe are usually French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish because their languages are considered Roman-based languages and Roman Catholic means that the denomination was founded by Romans; all Protestants are usually Germanic people (English, Scottish, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Germans, Dutch and Icelandic) because the denomination was founded by a Germanic man (Martin Luther) and Calvinism was founded by a Dutch and Lutheran is commonly practised in Germany, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, and Denmark and Orthodox are all Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Macedonians, Serbians, Bulgarians)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.151 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Haven't you all but answered your own question? --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe Germans are more Protestant than Roman Catholic. If I remember correctly both are about 30% of the population. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the German-speaking Austrians would be surprised to find out that they are supposed to be Lutherans, given that 74% of the population of Austria professes to be Roman Catholic, see Religion in Austria. Likewise, the Irish don't speak a Romance language in any shape or form, a people famously proud of their Roman Catholic heritage.  Neither do the predominantly Catholic countries of Poland and Lithuania speak any Latinate language, rather those are Slavic and Baltic languages respectively.  Also, the Orthodox Greeks would be quite shocked that they are considered "Slavs".  Estonia's biggest Christian denomination is Lutheranism, and they speak a Finno-Urgic language. -- Jayron  32  03:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The OP is already aware there are misconceptions. He isn't asking us to correct them, he wants to know how they arose.  I suggested the reasons he gave in his question are on the money.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  03:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Western European people who study history, languages, culture, literature, art history, etc, tend to focus on the history of the main nations/empires of western Europe (France, Britain, Italy, Germany, Spain, and Hapsburg Austria) and western European languages and culture (especially Italian, English, French, Spanish, German). (Various historians e.g. Norman Davies have lamented this focus.) This means they draw lessons based on the areas they study, rather than thinking about Poland or the other "strange" nations in the east. If you only think about 4 or 5 nations, you're going to start making generalisations.  Germany (and to a lesser extent Britain) is/are conventionally viewed as very different to France/Spain/Italy, and religion is often considered a possible reason: see Weber's Protestant work ethic for a classic example. (And Hapsburg Austria had strong links to Spain and other Catholic kingdoms, so maybe it's honorarily Spanish?) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it has to do with immigration patterns. The OP is apparently in Canada, and Catholic immigration here was for the most part from the Romance countries (and the Philippines, but that's more recent), while Orthodox immigration (at least to the West) was overwhelmingly from Ukraine and Protestant immigration was from Great Britain and northwestern Europe.--NellieBly (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Could the OP provide any examples of this misconception? I haven't encountered it before. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it just stems from a general tendency to split Europe (mentally) into three - north, south and east, which I imagine predated the Reformation. It is after all a generally valid way of looking at Europe. At any event, the idea is strong enough that where the linguistic, ethnic or religious boundaries dont coincide we tend to dismiss those cases as just anomalies (eg, German Catholic areas (in fact almost half the country), Romanians not speaking a Slavonic language, etc, etc) rather than ditching the convenient "Three Europes" mindset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.85.213 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Low Jewish Emigration From Hungary From 1945 to the Present Day
http://www.ushmm.org/cd/holocaust/maps/images/eur77870bg.gif

In this link it says that the Jewish population in Hungary was about 155,000 in 1950. However, if you look at the Aliyah Wikipedia page and look at the aliyah (Jewish immigration to Israel) figures for Hungary, it says that only about 20,000 or so Jews immigrated from Hungary to Israel since 1950. This means that the overwhelming majority of Jews who lived in Hungary in 1950 and their descendants chose to stay there and in many cases, to assimilate. This is in contrast to the very large Jewish immigration as a percentage of the total Jewish population that Israel experienced from other Eastern European countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the U.S.S.R. (especially after 1989). My question is why did most Hungarian Jews and their descendants stay in Hungary rather than move to Israel like most Jews in other Eastern European countries did after 1945-1950? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It could have been that the economy of Hungary was better. From our article: "As a result of the relatively high standard of living, a more liberalised economy, a less oppressed press, and less restricted travel rights than elsewhere in the Eastern Bloc, Hungary was generally considered one of the more liberal countries in which to live in Eastern Europe during the Cold War". So, the Jews in Hungary were less hungry. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the economy of all of Eastern Europe was pretty bad right after WWII and during the Cold War, considering all the wartime damage and the Communist economic systems that these countries had for several decades. You could say that there was still a large Jewish community in Hungary after the Holocaust, but this was true of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the U.S.S.R. as well and most of the Jews these chose to emigrate to Israel after WWII. Also, the new Hungarian Communist leadership was pretty intolerant of Jewish religious practices, and a lot of Hungarian Jews still lost or had their property destroyed during WWII or right afterwards (due to Communist govt. confiscation). Hungary might have sucked a little less than some of the other Eastern European Communist countries, but its standard of living would have probably still been lower than that of Israel, Western Europe, and the United States. Futurist110 (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your logic is flawed: 155.000 Hungarian Jews, 20.000 emigrate to Israel. That doesn't make 135.000 who stayed in Hungary. Jewish people emigrated to many other places. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that the number who emigrated to the West was that large, considering that some Western countries like the U.S. still had tight immigration restrictions back in the 1950s. If you have data on Hungarian Jewish migration to other countries, please let me know and see it. However, it's still an interesting phenomenon that only a small % of Hungary's 1950 Jewish population immigrated to Israel in contrast with other Eastern European countries. Futurist110 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, my point about Hungary retaining a greater percentage of its 1950 Jewish population still stays intact, even if some Hungarian Jews immigrated to countries other than Israel.

Here are the percentages of the core Jewish population by country in 2010 vs. 1950 (in thousands):

Hungary: 49/155 = 31% (Former) Soviet Union: 330/2000 = 17% Poland: 3/45 = 7% Romania: 10/280 = 3%

As evidenced, Hungary has kept a much greater % of its Jewish population in 2010 relative to 1950 versus the other Eastern European countries with large Jewish populations in 1950.

Sources: http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/map/lc/image/eur77870.gif http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Reports/World_Jewish_Population_2010.pdf Futurist110 (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be unhelpful to assume that Jewishness is a strictly conserved and accurately measurable quantity, with every thousand declared "jews" passing on that status to a thousand descendants in the next generation. The proportion of people reporting as Jewish will vary depending on exactly how the data is collected and why; censuses are generally more reliable than some other methods, but censuses in eastern Europe have often tended to nudge people into some slightly unrealistic categories in the past. And, of course, some people gain or lose their religion over the course of their lives. bobrayner (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The same is the case in the US: you get pressed into one category or the other. Ochson (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your data might be wrong. See in History of the Jews in Hungary:

"Most estimates about the number of Jews in Hungary range from 50,000 to 150,000; intermarriage rates are around 60%. (On the other hand, only 12,871 people declared Jewish religion in the census of 2001). " Ochson (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't know anything about Hungary, but in Poland the combination of the Kielce pogrom, the Slánský trial (which had Eastern-Europe-wide effects, though not explained very well in the article), local aftereffects of the mideast 6-day war of 1967, etc., led to the vast majority of Polish Jews deciding that things would be better elsewhere, until in the 1970s the Communist Polish government became somewhat notoriously known for "antisemitism without Jews"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sergio DellaPergola (my source for Jewish population by country in 2010) is an extremely respected and reliable demographer. He is considered to be one of the best in his field when it comes to Jewish demography. AnosMoos, what about Romania and the massive emigration of its Jews after 1950? Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is very interesting, especially when you factor in that Hungary never really expereinced a downfall in anti-Semitism after the Holocaust as did many European countries, and anti-Semitism in Hungary - and in the government - has increased dramatically over the years, and will only increase in the future. Some people might even compare it to Norway.  Anti-Semitic (and neo-Nazi as well against immigrants and Muslims) attacks in Hungary have been increasing and are getting worse.  It is possible many Hungarian Jews moved to other countries, like America, or were assimilated, or just didn't have the means to make aliyah.  It's further possible that the community was just very deep-rooted and didn't want to abandon these roots, and most preferred to stay behind where they had a long culture and deep roots and take care of their communities. But in light of the recent waves, it is rather shocking. -- Activism  1234  05:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it were mainly the Western European countries that experienced a large downfall in anti-Semitism after World War II. I don't think that the Hungarian govt. right now is anti-Semitic (though I could be wrong on this--feel free to correct me). You're right that political anti-Semitism there is stronger than in many other European countries, considering how well the anti-Semitic Jobbik party does in Hungarian elections, even among young people. In regards to Norway, are you talking about the Brevik shootings in the summer of last year? Those shooting were an outlier perpetrated by a lone nutjob. Or are you talking about something else in Norway? Some Hungarian Jews did move to other countries besides Israel, but I'm not sure if their number was that large and I'm not sure if there are any statistics available to check this. A lot of Hungarian Jews probably were assimilated at least to some degree, and in regards to aliyah I know that many dirt-poor Jews (such as from the former U.S.S.R.) made aliyah, so making aliyah wasn't really a problem. Also, the Communists in Hungary probably confiscated all (or most) private property, so it's not like Hungarian Jews had too much to lose by making aliyah. Futurist110 (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As a Norwegian, I was a little surprised to see Norway being linked to extreme anti-Semitism. However, I don't think that what he's referring to are the shootings. From what I have read about Breivik's ideas (I haven't actually read his 'book', but there's been plenty of citations from it and other things he's stated elsewhere) he doesn't seem to be anti-Semitic, since, as many right-wingers, he supports Israel. (This could be turned around, by stating that supporting self-determination is just another form of racism - one country for each group of people, so that they don't interract.)
 * I think that what Activism is referring to is a switch in policy by many political parties, especially on the left, from supporting Israel when it was a new state, (It was a democracy, and a social-democratic welfare state at that) to being more pro-Palestinian (opposed to occupation) more recently. I.e. Israel gets a lot of bad press, perhaps more than what other countries, such as the Moroccan occupation of West-Sahara is getting. Apparently, there has been an increase in expressed anti-Jewish sentiment among certain elements of the population, but this is (presented as being) due to increased Moslem immigration, and Moslem contempt for the Jews. (One example I remember from a newspaper was a Moslem student standing up during a history class and demanding that the teacher stop talking about the holocaust. Another being that Jewish children are more prone to being bullied, and the word 'Jew' being a frequent pejorative.) However, from the media, I have the impression that the situation is less bad in Norway compared to Sweden. I recall a story of a Jewish family from Malmö that decided to do aliyah, becuase they found the situation in Sweden to have become unbearable. V85 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In regards to what I've heard about Brevik, he wasn't an all-out anti-Semite, but there were some Jews that he disliked. However, he saw Muslims as a much greater threat to Norwegian/Western culture than Jews, and was thus willing to work with the Jews and with Israel in order to fight Muslims and Muslim influence.

There's a huge difference between being a critic of Israel and being an anti-Semite, especially when it comes to liberals (the two categories often interlap for conservative Muslims). Many liberals in the West have no problem with Jews themselves. They just strongly dislike Israel's policies (often without understanding all of the details of the Arab-Israeli conflict). In regards to Muslims, Muslims are only 2-3% of the Norwegian population, so there's really not that many of them in comparison to other groups (Norwegians, etc.). I would think that Norway (and Sweden) would try making a very strong effort against anti-Semitism, especially considering that they're very liberal (tolerant) and educated, and considering that the Holocaust also occurred in Norway and still remains a strong memory for many older Norwegians. Also, my dad has a Jewish acquitance at work that lived in Norway before for several years. She said that she didn't fit in there very well (due to the fact that she's Jewish and most people in Norway are Norwegian/Swedish/Danish). However, I don't think that she ever said anything about being harassed by anyone in Norway due to her being Jewish. That said, since you live in Norway, you probably know more about the anti-Semitism there than I do. Futurist110 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about how Jews in Norway feel, but many Israelis clearly remember that almost as soon as the new "Intifada" started in 2000, many in the Norwegian political classes seemed to come out with disproportionately vehement and virulent condemnations of all things Israeli, there was talk of placing yellow stickers on Israeli items in Norwegian supermarkets so that people would know to boycott them, former Nazi nurse Hanna Kvanmo started flapping her gums in a manner which offended millions of people (and caused many to wonder why ex-Nazi nurses are appointed to the Nobel Peace Prize committe in the first place), etc. AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm strongly aware that liberal Europeans are strongly (and often disproportionally) critical of Israel. However, again being critical of Israel does not automatically equal being anti-Semitic. As for ex-Nazis and neo-Nazis, I was under the impression that when they do something bad against Jews (not Israel), then the Norwegian govt. is quick to respond. Am I wrong?

Also, I found some sources for Hungarian Jewish emigration:

http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Hungary/Hungary_since_1945 http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Population_and_Migration/Population_since_World_War_I

Based on these sources, even in the high emigration scenario, 75,000 Jews left Hungary in total after World War II. This means that 90,000 of the 165,000 Jews (55%) that were present in Hungary in 1945 permanently stayed there. In no other Eastern European country with a large Jewish population in 1945 did a majority of Jews refrain from emigrating. Thus my point about Hungary being unique in this regard still stands. Futurist110 (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that there was a discussion concerning what I said about anti-Semitism in Norway. This Wikipedia article is useful for more information. The person who commented that he was a Norwegian listed many true things about anti-Semitism in Norway. Part of the debate over anti-Semitism in Norway is what is considered legitimate criticism of Israel as compared to criticism that should be reserved for its inhabitants to make in the political process as compared to anti-Semitism. Certainly, publishing in a media outlet conspiracy theories that Israelis routinely engage in human trafficking in organs can be seen as anti-Semitism, and a revival of old conspiracies such as blood libels. As one recent point, in June 2011, a survey by the Oslo Municipality found that 33 per cent of Jewish students in Oslo are physically threatened or abused by other high school teens at least two to three times a month (compared to 10% for Buddhists and 5.3% of Muslims) The survey also found that 51% of high school students consider “Jew” a negative expression and 60% had heard other students use the term. Then there's also the mayor of the city of Malmo who is not fond of Jews, and has even given up on attempting to persaude them to vote for him, as his policies have resulted in Jews fleeing the city. -- Activism  1234  04:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)