Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 19

= March 19 =

I have a question on how to get a hold of someone
I need to ask a question to someone on Wikidoc. About one of her pages. Her name Swillams. She does not have a talk page. And I cant edit on wikidoc. Because i dont have a wikidoc account. I cant create a wikidoc account do to. I am not college stundent in med school. You to be a doctor or student to edit on wikidoc. So how do I contact her for a question. Please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.186.167 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just in case you don't know, wikidoc has no relationship with wikipedia. Anyway, Swilliams is a him, not a her.  Here is the best suggestion I can give you.  This page shows his contributions on wikidoc, and if you hunt through it, you will see an email address.  I suggest you try it.  I don't know if it will work, but it's the best I can do. Looie496 (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

different photos of Eli Yishai
Is there a website that shows different photos of Eli Yishai, chairman of Shas, meaning young and old, past to present? I am amazed that he can see without glasses today.--Donmust90 (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90
 * Eli Yishai and Shas, for convenience. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You could just try google images. Lots of 50 year olds don't need glasses. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...or wear contact lenses or have had corrective surgery, neither of which is prohibited by Jewish law. The frequent caricatures of Eli Yishai in the mainstream Israeli press depict him without eyeglasses. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Atonement - a Jewish/Christian concept?
Is atonement a Jewish and Christian concept? There is no atonement in Islam even though Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are based on the same biblical family? It is said that that Islam is the descendant of Ishmael, Judaism the descendant of Isaac, and Christianity the descendant of Jesus (the second Adam), or is Islam the descendant of Isaac and Judaism the descendant of Ishmael and Christianity still the descendant of Jesus? Is "at-one-ment" a real etymology, and if so, how did this etymology become "atonement"? In other words, how did "being at one with God" come to mean "receiving God's grace in the name of Jesus Christ"? What were some of the metaphors did theologians use to illustrate atonement? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * On etymology, the OED says "In use a verbal n. < atone n., but apparently of prior formation, due to the earlier n. onement and the phrase ‘to be atone’ or ‘at onement.’ " And the entry for "atone" says "Etymology: < at one". I've heard the term used in Buddhist contexts, for what it's worth. Pfly (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If Islam doesn't believe in the Fall of Man (the story of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden), then it has no need for atonement. Atonement is meant to return mankind to the state of grace that existed before the Fall. Judaism holds that adherence to a set of laws will produce this atonement. Christianity holds that for as in Adam all sinned, through Christ are all men set free. See Hebrews 10 for a fuller exposition of this. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Islam does believe in the Fall of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from paradise, it's in the Quran:
 * "Then Satan whispered to him; he said, 'O Adam, shall I direct you to the tree of eternity and possession that will not deteriorate?' And Adam and his wife ate of it, and their private parts became apparent to them, and they began to fasten over themselves from the leaves of Paradise. And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred. Then his Lord chose him and turned to him in forgiveness and guided [him]. [Allah] said, 'Descend from Paradise - all, [your descendants] being enemies to one another. And if there should come to you guidance from Me - then whoever follows My guidance will neither go astray [in the world] nor suffer [in the Hereafter].' " (Quran 20:120-123, Sahih International translation)
 * They do however interpret the story differently, and the solution from an Islamic perspective is simply Allah guiding the believers and forgiving their sins as he sees fit. I'm no expert on this though, maybe some knowledgeable Muslim can elaborate on this. - Lindert (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Jews have one day of atonement, Muslims 30, and Christians 40, which might tell us something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... It might tell us that Christians have more fun, and so have more to atone for. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * According to our article Sawm, one of the purposes for Muslims of fasting, as during Ramadan, is atonement. Marco polo (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was watching a documentary on BBC Four last night about eating insects. There was an interview with a Thai man who made a lucrative living from collecting weaver ant pupae, which are a delicacy in Thailand. To celebrate start of the ant collecting season, his family have a lavish meal of ant's egg stew, but take some to the local Buddhist monastery for the monks, to atone for the sin of destroying the ants' nests. Alansplodge (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that call for adding a Buddhist version of atonement on Wikipedia? So far, the term appears to be associated to Abrahamic religions, not Dharmic religions. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You would need to find a better source than a bloke on a TV documentary, even if it was on BBC Four. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Hebrew term for "atonement" is kappara, hence "Yom Kippur", ie day [of] atonement. As Judaism is such an ancient religion and the concept of atonement is so intangible, it would be very hard to find conclusive proof of it existing in the pre-Abrahamic world. The precise meaning of kappara is quite difficult to unpick, as it is complex - see for a good starter read. Btw atonement doesn't seem to have much to do with receiving God's grace. It's an internal human process. The forgiveness one may or may not receive for having done atonement is more what you're interested in. --Dweller (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

similarities between Jews and Muslims
Jews and Muslims are known for their memorization of their holy books, and having a term to refer anything that is permissible for them to eat like Kashrut and Halaal. Any similarities between these two religions?--Donmust90 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90


 * Many similarities, as they are both Abrahamic religions. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Islam recognizes major Jewish prophets as early prophets of Islam. See also Islamic-Jewish relations. Marco polo (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And of course male circumcision. Alansplodge (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See also People of the Book. -- Jayron  32  02:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * lunar calendar. Gzuckier (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * However, Judaism actually has a "lunisolar" calendar, which approximates the length of the solar year with an error of less than one day in every 200 years, while Islam has a pure lunar calendar which approximates the length of the solar year with an error of over 11 days every single year. The Hebrew calendar is actually more than 2,000 times more accurate than the Islamic calendar where the Sun is concerned! AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Like Christianity, Islam recognises the Hebrew Bible, albeit as superseded. The religions have some superficial similarities when it comes to having daily routine demands of prayer (3 times for Jews, five for Muslims) facing in a specific direction (the complicated Mizrach and Mecca respectively), the fact that both legislate in areas that many non-Jews/Muslims would perceive as lying outside of "religious" law and many, many other areas, in no small part, as others have said, because of the common origins. --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're going strictly by written texts, then only Judaism and Christianity have anything meaningful in common, since there are no sacred texts held in common between Judaism and Islam, or between Christianity and Islam, and the traditional Muslim attitude has been that if anything in Jewish or Christian scriptures contradicts anything in the Qur'an, that ipso facto means that they are by definition "corrupted". If you're going by pure theology, then both Jewish and Muslim theologians consider the doctrine of the Trinity and the deification of Jesus to be an abomination (however, the Qur'an seems to accuse the Jews of engaging in a similar deification of Ezra, which is of course nonsense)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The words for "Hello" (Salaam, shalom) and "lake" (bir, beer) are basically the same. Seems like "Tomato" versus "Tomahto" to populations far removed from the controversies of the Middle East. Edison (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not really an islam-judaism connection. That's an Arabic language-Hebrew language connection.   They are closely related languages (see Semitic languages).  There are, of course, Jews that don't speak Hebrew and Muslims that don't speak Arabic, at least in their daily activities.  -- Jayron  32  05:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Hebrew and Arabic languages are definitely related, and share a number of structural and etymological similarities, but whether they're "closely" related depends on your definition of "close". They probably haven't been very mutually comprehensible for well over 3,000 years (at least since changes such as the Canaanite shift, which is responsible for the "o" vowel in "Shalom", took place).  It's still easier for an Arabic speaker to learn Hebrew than it would be to learn a non-central Semitic language (the reverse is a little less true), but it definitely takes significant study and learning... AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Both Jews and Muslims have a religion. ☯  Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 09:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

They are also similar in that they both have one or more countries with at least a strong religious foundation historically if not in present day. These countries are still undergoing the process of reading through modern civilization, which is understandably a slow process (it took humanity several thousand years) but obviously of benefit to them and everyone (just as it's better to spend 0.000% of your attention while asleep on making sure a lion is not about to attack you...duh). On a personal note, I very much look forward to when ALL of these countries - including Israel as well as Arab countries - enjoy modern civilization, the rule of philosophy, and so forth. One of the saddest occurrences is that in some sense modern philosophy has been put aside due to having deal with savagery (regardless of source - I am not pointing fingers nor am I interested). All of these countries are highly literate, will enjoy the fruits of modern civilization just as much as anyone. They have this in common. However, they have to go through it all and read and understand/internalize it. So, I would say this is something they very much have in common: they will be a much better place in the future than they are now. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what these generalized pontifications are leading to. It wasn't all that long ago in historical terms that parts of Europe were devastated by religious wars.  And most of the founders of Zionism and early leaders of Israel were highly-Europeanized individuals who were politically "left-wing" in some manner (usually socialists).  If Israel has diverged from Europe recently it's mainly because of 1) militarization forced by threat of extinction and 2) the rising political prominence of Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews whose families had spent many years in close proximity to Muslims or Arabs (the Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews were crucial in throwing the Europeanized socialists out of the government in the 1977 election). AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * yeah I'm pretty surprised at the way things have turned out for the very reason you cite! (but you also cite two explanations). still, it answers the OP's question to some extent.  91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus financial crisis
The proposal to take a portion of bank depositors money in order to pay off the bank's bad investments seems like a very bad idea, causing runs on the banks and lack of confidence in banks in other nations with similar problems. However, this appears to be about the only way to get the money needed to keep the banks from failing.

I wonder if, in order to alleviate the pain, and thus minimize the panic, they've considered this option:


 * Declare these to be loans, not forfeitures. That is, promise to give the money back at some future date (perhaps quite far out), with some rate of interest.  Or would this liability be just as bad as the current debts ?

StuRat (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That would transform short-term liabilities into long-term ones, which might make the banks (temporarily) somewhat stronger but would not repair their balance sheets in the way that confiscating funds to turn liabilities into assets would. Banks would be solvent but zombies without enough assets to provide credit to the real economy, which would contract sharply as a result, likely leading to a worsening of balance sheets and the renewed prospect of bank failure. Also, I'm not sure that an indefinite forced loan would really be perceived by depositors much differently than an expropriation, such that this measure probably wouldn't prevent bank runs and a loss of confidence.


 * What I don't fully understand is why governments, since the ongoing financial crisis began in 2008, have prioritized saving banks over saving their real economies. To me, the clear solution is to let the banks fail, let the overpaid CEOs and other CxOs lose their obscenely overpaid jobs, let the rich investors in the banks lose their riches, and insure depositors worth less than about €100,000, if necessary by printing the money.  The argument that this would be inflationary ignores that 1) the developed world's production is currently well below capacity, making inflation hard to achieve, and 2) more compellingly, inflation can only occur when the money supply is expanding, but the writing off of the assets of high-net-worth depositors would in fact reduce the money supply.  Meanwhile, the government could take over the remnants of the banks or start new banks and then privatize them. These banks would be chartered to increase the money supply (up to a safe point relative to the size of the economy) by issuing loans to creditworthy individuals and businesses. Governments could print money to invest in improvements to the human and physical infrastructure aimed at increasing the economy's productivity (this money creation likewise justified by the drop in the money supply).  Writing off malinvested financial wealth while creating money that goes to salaries and the creation of productive infrastructure would kick-start the real economy.  The only reason for not pursuing a course something like this is that it would sharply disadvantage the currently wealthy relative to the currently not wealthy. Governments seem to prefer safeguarding the wealthy to promoting the welfare of the rest.  Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The situation in Cyprus is a bit different, though, as many of the wealthy depositors are foreign, in particular Russians trying to hide their assets from their own government. So, the people in Cyprus are probably fine with seizing those assets, but not their own.  I'm not quite sure who the actual owners of the banks are, though. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it OK to steal from the Russian, since they are just laundering money? If someone knows that the money is illegal, they shouldn't just take 10% away, but the whole of it. That's a further diplomatic blunder of this plan. I am not surprised it has so many detractors. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * They could respect the minimum limit of 100,000 €, which was the guaranteed deposit, and default 15% on deposits above that. The initial plan was to default only 10% on deposits above 100,000 €.
 * The European financial ministers (the Euro Group) could at least admit their own share of fault. Simply proposing this idea was a terrible mistake, horribly irresponsible, and a huge damage for Cyprus and for other European countries.
 * The Germans could have thought before backing this plan that Cyprus is ethnically Greece, and that this plan heats their disturbed relationships to a higher degree with the Greek.
 * They could default on the stockholders, which should be aware of the risks.
 * They could default on the German lenders (which is pretty unpopular among Germans, for obvious reasons).OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that according to various sources, e.g. the Cypriot government or president did not want to allow a rate above 10% for the deposits over €100k for fear of losing their reputation and business as an offshore financial centre. Regardless of whether or not that was a good idea (which it seems to me is beside the point of this question) or the plan itself was, any of the above responses which assume it's acceptable outcome to those involved besides the Russians seem to be missing the point. Nil Einne (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne: no one above really assumes that the problem would just affect the Russian. I assume that others (not here on the RD) were taking that into account, or, at least passing this message to their respective potential electoral base. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing my point. My point is that some of the above responses appear to be assuming that no one in Cyprus cares about the Russians losing their money. Actually the evidence suggests the Cypriot president and/or government had no desire to lose their reputation and business as an offshore financial centre including among the Russians whatever the questionable nature of their businesses and whatever the majority Cypriot people may think of it. So not it was not just the Russians who didn't want the Russians (and others) losing too much of their money, but the Cypriot goverment which was a key reason why anything about 10% was rejected. It also follows that allowing the banks to collapse, which would seem to destroy their reputation even more is not an acceptable outcome. Just to reaffirm, regardless of the wisdom of such a move (like the long term prospects of such a business compared to other options), which is besides the point of the original question, the evidence as I've said several times now suggests the Cypriot government/president had no desire to lose their reputation and business as an offshore financial centre. I never said anything about people assuming 'the problem would just affect the Russian'. Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, I don't assume that the Cyprian are OK with this. But you seem to think that the whole idea came from the Cypriot part. It came not from them. It was imposed by the Euro Group. Since the outcry from the Cypriot people, including others, was too high, the government backed off. Additionally, no mea culpa could be heard from the Euro Group yet, but it's their fault. I still assume that some players in this mess, not Cyprian, indeed didn't find it too bad if Russians lost their money, which was claimed to be from dubious sources anyway. Angela Merkel has an election soon, and that would be easier for her to screw some Russian gangster than some fellow German housewife. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not deleting any of this, but please note we are not a forum, and not a single respondent has offered a source or link. (BTW, I think this is huge, but let's please have some frigging sources, people.) μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Try this link: . Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Nil Einne DID offer a link to a reuters article. (And as my personal POV, (do indulge me) siezing depositors' savings is warped and stupid. Which loony thought up that idea?). Can I ask a question myself? Wouldn't a Proceeds of Crime Act 2002-style law to freeze and sieze the Russian gangsters' money - ALL of it, wherever proven (through a civil recovery process for unexplained wealth, as the UK and other jurisdictions have) be a far more palatable solution for all concerned? Or would the Russian gangsters (or their government) kick up a diplomatic fuss over Cyprus siezing what the Russians view as "their" money?
 * Alternatively, the Cypriot tax authorities could likely recoup large sums simply by chasing the large depositors and asking "have you paid income tax on this money"? Or have these options already been exhausted? 203.45.183.3 (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a bit idiotic to assume all rich Russians who want to avoid tax are gangsters? I mean most rich Brits use offshore banking to avoid tax and few people accuse them of being mafia? Someone has been seriously brainwashed. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The implication from news articles about the wealth seizure proposal is that only bank deposits would be taken. Was the proposal strictly limited to checking and savings? What about certificates of deposit? What about a bundle of cash in a safety deposit box? Were brokerage accounts to be exempt, including moneymarket accounts with associated debit cards and check writing features? I wonder why there would be very much of anyone's wealth in basically non-interest paying savings accounts (in the US only a small fraction of a percent interest is currently paid). . Is it expected that the average Cypriot will leave his money in a bank when withdrawals are again allowed, once seizure of it has been proposed by the international financial types who control the needed bailout, since they might find ways to ratchet up pressure on the Cypriot government. Once confiscation of savings has been blessed by the authorities as a permissible way for a government to bail itself out, runs on banks would seem likely when rumors are spread of possible such seizures in other countries. The trick is to figure out what savings channels are likely to be exempt. Edison (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its really just an easy way for the EU to force Russia's hand in helping deal with the bailout. They have skin in the game: they shoud be part of the solution.165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Without getting in to the ethics/wisdom/alternatives etc which I again emphasise are largely irrelevant to the question, note that as per our article 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis and most sources discussing the crisis, one of the reasons for the current problems in Cyprus and why they need a bailout is because the banks are having great problems at least partially due to their exposure to the Greek financial crisis and the government needs to support them (this is of course somewhat of a 2 way street). Even opinions opposed to the move mention this e.g. . The government could just let the banks collapse and then try and honour their deposit insurance but as I showed earlier with a reference (you can easily find more which say the same thing but I didn't see the need), the Cypriot government is reluctant to do that at least partially because they want to keep their reputation and business as an offshore financial centre. Also I don't particularly get the relevance of the interest situation in the US to Cyprus. The interest from deposits in Cyprus banks can be up to 13% according to some calculations with an average evidently of 4.45% for deposits less than 2 years, again the high interest rates are usually discussed in sources talking about the situation, e.g.  as they are one of the reasons why there is so much foreign money in them. Of course other countries without problems to the extent of Cyprus but with different financial situations also have significantly higher interest then what you're quoting for the US, e.g. Australia, NZ, Malaysia. Nil Einne (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Meroe
Hello,

in Meroe, did the kings or queens have more power?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We really don't know. The texts that survive from that civilization are so few that it hasn't been possible to decipher its language. So we don't have any internal sources, aside from the monumental art, which shows both male and female rulers as powerful. Neither this art nor the external sources, mainly in Greek, clearly indicate which of these rulers were more powerful.  Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a film that depicts a Groundhog Day-style time-loop with a child protagonist?
So far, I haven't found such a film. I would guess that I would break into untapped literary territory by writing a novel about a child stuck in a time-loop, and if lucky enough, it could be adapted into film.

Otherwise, if there is such a film out there, what film most closely parallels Groundhog Day that involves a child protagonist? Thank you. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * According to TV Tropes, Nickelodeon in the US made such a film, called Last Day of Summer. Check the TV tropes page for more examples - I didn't follow every lead. NB, that shouldn't discourage you from writing the story you'd like to! The way you execute it will be unique to you (and could easily improve on the film). 184.147.116.201 (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And on the top of that: don't be afraid to re-use any trope. As the TV Tropes~site (linked above) shows, tropes keep appearing and re-appearing, are combined and re-combined. Indeed, in most cases, there is nothing new under the sun in the realm of story-telling, it's just a different performance. OsmanRF34 (talk)


 * Absolutely. There's an article in today's Guardian on why Hollywood keeps making the same film. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That article isn't about why Hollywood keeps making the same film. Instead, it's about how, now-and-then, Hollywood releases two similar films at the same time. But the lesson is the same: don't worry too much about whether something similar has been done before. Just try to execute your idea as best you can. Even Groundhog Day was not the only time-loop film released in 1993: there was also 12:01. The writers of 12:01 believed that Groundhog Day was a ripoff of their film, so there's also a caveat to the lesson: avoid making your version of a tale so similar to another that lawyers get involved. —Kevin Myers 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well arguably the more important lesson, and this is perhaps something both sides will agree on, make sure you have the better lawyers if you do do so. Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is an episode of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius titled "Hypno Birthday to You" in which Jimmy makes every day his birthday, and cannot exit the loop.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)