Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 8

= March 8 =

Tower of London medieval escape
In the article Dafydd ap Llywelyn it says Gruffydd died trying to escape from the Tower of London by climbing down a knotted sheet, and fell to his death in March 1244. Was this a common type of escape in this time period from the Tower of London? Is there other details in a reference on how Dafydd fell to his death? Did the sheets untie? Did he lose his grip? Did others knock him off the sheets? Was he speared? Or some other reason?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It was his brother Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr actually. There is some more info there, including an amusing manuscript illustration. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Take all colourful medieval,stories with a ton of salt. I found out here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sXBdNsDxJ_cC&pg=PA217&dq=gruffydd+tower+london+death&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OZs5UanqLYLfOpCmgegL&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=gruffydd%20tower%20london%20death&f=false that the story comes from the Chronica Majora of Matthew Paris. Our article on Paris says that he is "not always reliable". Having said that, the incident would have occurred in Paris's lifetime and it isn't a impossibility. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I see I made an error and it is actually Gruffydd that fell from the Tower. The book has Matthew showing how the sheet rope broke due to the tremendous weight of Gruffydd. He then broke his neck in the fall and was killed. The Tower looks like a cylinder with a crown on top. Is it likely that there would have been other prisioners held at the same time as Gruffydd?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wealthy prisoners could afford to pay for a reasonably comfortable apartment, rather than the pokey cells that you see in films. That explains the presence of bedsheets. I would be surprised if records exist to show which tower he was held in and who else was there at the time. The inner curtain wall, built by Henry III and Edward I is punctuated by cylindrical or semi-cylindrical towers, 12 by my count. The tops of many towers were demolished so that they could mount guns during the invasion scare of 1804-5 and the Victorians rebuilt them in the way that they thought looked authentic. Note that whoever drew the medieval picture may well have never seen the Tower of London, probably a monk in a remote abbey somewhere, so it's probably not accurate. Alansplodge (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently it was the White Tower. By the way, Ranulf Flambard also escaped from there with a rope, in 1100 (although he survived). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So take the round tower pictures with a "ton of salt". Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for info. If one were to guess, how many towers would there have been in the complex after Henry III's enhancements in the 13th century?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Henry III is responsible for building (but not completing) the inner curtain wall,, the second wall from the outside on the model shown right. So it looks like 12 towers, plus the big central keep, the White Tower, which was started by William I. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alansplodge.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation prevalence rates over time in a graph?
Hi. I need a graph of the overall world-wide combined incidence rate of all types of female genital mutilation. Preferably over the past decades, but I'm not sure how feasible that is because I found some tables which might have part of that information in the back of http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf but they are very hard to interpret (e.g. three different years from each country, but not the same years and the rates vary widely by country). Any graph is better than nothing at this point, just to get some idea of the general overall trend. Thanks. 71.212.255.94 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I found some charts that compare the incidence between women of different ages, would that help? WHO: Trends in female genital mutilation, Prevalence of FGM/C Among Younger and Older Women (page 3), Younger women are less likely to have undergone any form of FGM/C than women in older age groups. See also this statement by Ethiopian organization KMG: "KMG’s interventions have contributed to changes in attitude on FGM... more and more parents and girls are rejecting the practice – which has contributed to a phenomenal reduction in prevalence levels.  According to a survey conducted by UNICEF in 2008; the % levels of those practicing FGM in Kembatta Zone had reduced from 97% in 1999 to 4.7% in 2008 and could have reduced even further as of May 2012." You might also check out Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country which appears to have a lot of references linked from it. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So far http://www.prb.org/images08/TrendsInFGMC.gif is the closest I've found, but I wish it had a single time scale. 71.212.255.94 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can the U.S. President order an ordinary person to do something?
Our son asked: "What if the President came in and told you that you have to eat salads?" This raised an interesting question: can the President in fact order a person that doesn't report to him to do something (or rather, does the person have to obey, like they generally would have to obey a policeman that asks to, say, move from a particular spot)? This question assumes that no law or executive order has been at point issued to any particular effect. Obviously, there are things a President can do that will affect you, e.g., by coming to your house, he'll subject you to high-level security perhaps without your permission, but the question is about a more direct type of communication, e.g., "Mr. Wales, I order you to eat this cupcake!".Knyazhna (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the President can't order a particular person to do something. The extent to which he can compel all Americans to do something is questionable.  There are some things which can be done by executive order, but they are generally quite limited.  Most actions would require the approval of Congress, and perhaps the Supremes. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, he cannot. The President doesn't rule or reign in the U.S., he presides.  He does not set law, he cannot enforce his will upon you.  That's what having a citizen president means.  As John Adams once famously put it, the U.S. has a "government of laws and not of men".  The President's duties and obligations are outlined in the U.S. constitution, specifically Article Two of the United States Constitution which does not contain the right to order other citizens around at his whim.  Additional commentary by the writers of the Constituion on the scope of the President's powers and duties are in the Federalist Papers, specifically #41-43 which covers the powers of the Federal Government in general, and #67-77 which covers the executive branch and its powers in specific details.  -- Jayron  32  05:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "whim" is the wrong word. The president may have what appears to be a good reason to him (e.g. national security). Would he still not be able to order? I am sure the founding fathers thought he couldn't, but nowadays is that really true? Ornil (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even in some national security crisis, I don't think the president would have the constitutional backing to order civilians around without the backing of congress. The president can do some things with executive orders, but he cant just walk up to you and start ordering you around. Hope that helps  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  10:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not so simple. At the moment, the President could not force you to eat your vegetables... but if Congress passes a law that said "Americans must eat their vegetables"... then the Executive branch could create a "Vegetable Enforcement Agency" to enforce that law.  The Constitutionality of that law (or the method of enforcement) would no doubt be challenged, but that is another issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you happened to live in an area that was in rebellion against the United States, the president might be considered to have authority to give orders, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, if he could make the case that it was of military value against the rebellion. That was apparently the theory behind the Emancipation Proclamation anyway.
 * In my view, that's a "hard cases make bad law" sort of situation. The Proclamation was obviously correct morally, whether it was legal or not.  But I wish the take on it were (by coincidence the same as mine), something like of course, slavery is against natural law, so the Proclamation was morally correct, but it was illegal.  Good thing it happened, but it's not a precedent.  Instead it seems that commentators have been swayed by the fact that it was the right thing to do, into giving assent to the highly dubious constitutional reasoning behind it.  That could come back to bite us.
 * Anyway, short answer is no, the president cannot give orders to individuals not serving in the Armed Forces, under ordinary circumstances. --Trovatore (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer could also be maybe, since all U.S. males 17-44 are members of the "unorganized militia" (except mariners, postmen, shipyard workers, some government employees). If the President could "call up" the unorganized militia to active duty, then as Commander-in-chief he could give them orders. But the unorganized militia would probably need to be called up by a new law from Congress activated a new draft (probably). Some states also make the same people members of the state militia and might perhaps be called up by the state governor and then into federal service, if the state laws allowed. Ex-military members are militia members until 65. Rmhermen (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In my state (Michigan) the governor could theoretically call up any male age 17-60 for "in case of riot, tumult, breach of the peace, resistance of process, or for service in aid of civil authority, whether state or federal, or in time of public danger, disaster, crisis, catastrophe or other public emergency within this state." But whether anyone has ever actually been required to do so, I can't say. Rmhermen (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

How many teachers of English as a foreign language are there?
Implicit in my question: all varieties of the English language; in the world, not just wherever I'm from or wherever you are from; people who would self-identify as teachers but not necessarily professional. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.43.33.86 (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This guy claims (without a reference, unfortunately) that there are 1 billion ESL learners - divide by average class size to give yourself a rough estimate? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The figure sounds kind of too high, even if you take into account that many school systems have English as a foreign language. 14:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's probably on the low side if you just consider all the countries that have English as an offical language - India alone would easily fill a large chunk of the "1 billion". Outside of the Anglosphere itself most European countries have English as a second language at least at high school level and it's also popular in China and Japan. Roger (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the notion that only the upper class in India speaks English to any significant extent. Most of them do speak it rather fluently, though almost always as a second language (the figure I've heard for first-language speakers in India is about a quarter mil).  Anyway "a large chunk of the 1 billion" seems unlikely to me, but I have no real data. --Trovatore (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Trovatore, your notion is not far from the truth, though I think English language knowledge extends somewhat beyond the upper class to include much of the upper middle class, particularly those working in export-oriented sectors and tourism. [OR alert for the following:] Still, I doubt that more than 10% of Indians can carry on a conversation in English. Many lower middle class Indians have a rudimentary knowledge of English, based on my experience traveling independently in southern India. That is, many Indians can manage simple exchanges, like stating numbers in response to "How much?", but probably not much of a real conversation.  Marco polo (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think 1 billion active learners is too high. I believe that there are something like 1 billion non-native speakers of English.  (You will find higher numbers in some sources, but those numbers probably include people whose ability to speak English doesn't go much beyond "Hello" "How are you?" "Thank you" and "My name is...".) Not all of them are active learners.  That is, many of them use the language without actively studying it any longer. The estimate of 1 billion learners was made by the British Council, part of whose mission is to encourage English language learning.  It is clearly in their interest to overestimate the number of learners to justify their budget to the British government. A more realistic figure for active learners would be in the hundreds of millions. Let's say that there are 700 million people currently learning English (maybe 400 million just in China and India).  Now, let's say the average English teacher teaches 35 students (in an average of more than one class session, since many teachers would teach multiple classes).  That would suggest around 20 million English teachers.  Note that many teachers of English in China and perhaps elsewhere themselves have limited speaking ability, so the quality of teaching may not be high.  Marco polo (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised just how many of the lower classes in India and Nepal and other countries of that area speak English - even children who have no access to schooling or any form of education. When I was trekking in the Himalayas ten years ago, I met a ten year-old boy in ragged clothing who came up to me and my wife and asked me where I was from. I told him I was from England, and he said, "Oh, wow! I've always wanted to go to England!" Looking out across the mountains, he asked me to show him where it was. He spoke perfect English, but had no idea that the country itself was so far away that it was impossible to see from where we were. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Korean Armistice Agreement
I decided to ask this here because I do not believe people will view the talk page for the article. Multiple news sources say that North Korea won't fulfill it's peace treaties and non-agression pact anymore. I also included a report from two days ago that speculated about them canceling the armistice. My question is if the armistice is one of the treaties cancelled and if it is, can that be conveyed in the article properly? --Thebirdlover (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is already language in the article about North Korea's rejection of the treaty. That language seems appropriate to the current situation, in which North Korea has rejected the treaty but not yet abrogated it in a sustained way.  If a full-fledged war broke out, then the article would need editing to indicate that the treaty was fully defunct.  Marco polo (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Shooting ended in the Korean Conflict when the Armistice was signed in 1953. If the North says they now repudiate the Armistice, then the Conflict is back on isn't it? Would bombings, shelling, sinking their ships, amphibious landings and other acts of war against the North be in accord with all customs of war? Such actions are presumably not going to happen against the North without military action on their part since Russia and China have UN veto power, but if the North attacked the South, or attacked US bases somewhere with missiles, would retaliation be subject to Russian or Chinese veto, or is there some continuing UN resolution such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 83 from 1950 which would authorize warfare against North Korea? Did Resolution 83 become defunct when the 1953 Armistice was signed? Edison (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Adam Smith
Hi! I was reading our article on Adam Smith, but i'm still not too sure on his political ideals, could anyone here state what his political ideas were or if he came up with any? All I can find as of now is some things about Political Economy, am I missing anything? Thanks  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  10:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He wrote a whole book on morality, which contains ideas relevant to politics, and a multi-volume book on political economy, which contains a great many opinions on political issues. If you start reading The Wealth of Nations you will see how he has a view on many social issues of his time. In fact the book is largely about social policy. He critiques what he calls "the policy of Europe", especially England, where restrictive government legislation interfered with business, and he thinks, also interfered with people's freedom and ability to find work. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

what are the causes of the rebellion?
what are the causes that led to the rebellion and the rebel alliance? what could the empire have done to prevent this? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please clarify - which rebellion or empire are you referring to? Please don't tell me you are referring to this. 129.31.212.48 (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about star wars? If so try reading this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Alliance_to_Restore_the_Republic. Staecker (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds like the OP may be referring to the Syrian civil war. If so, then the article should fill you in on the specifics regarding the outbreak of the uprising. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought that at first, but Syria is hardy an empire. I suspect it's an intentionally silly question. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We could take the line espoused by some editors, some even in all seriousness, that all questions are assumed to be about the USA unless there's evidence to the contrary. That would mean we're talking about the American Revolution and the British Empire.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  16:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's a view that seems to exist mainly in the imagination of people objecting to it.
 * In any case, when you put rebel alliance together with the empire, I think it's pretty obvious that the question is about Star Wars. There are lots of rebel alliances in real-world history, but they're hardly ever called by that unqualified name. --Trovatore (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The general answer to all such questions is that "the rebellion" was either caused by the oppression of the people, or by treasonable conspirators bent on the destruction of society. The empire could have prevented this by liberating the people from oppression or by cracking down on subversives. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think those two effects are distinct. That is, there are some people who will rebel no matter how fairly they are treated, but, the more unfairly you treat people, the more will rebel. So, then, the key is to "divide and conquer", by being as fair as possible, but also attacking those who rebel no matter what.  For example, in the case of the Syrian government, they should have allowed demonstrations, and granted democratic reforms, while using military means to deal with Muslim fundamentalists.  But, they didn't do this, they instead attacked everyone, guaranteeing an alliance between those wanting democratic reforms and Muslim fundamentalists, who are now both shared enemies of the government. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've invited the OP via talk page to come back and clarify. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This IP's questions have been getting steadily weirder -- this one just plain looks like trolling. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Slavery history
I am looking for history in slavery for a social studies report. Richard Daly was a slave. I can not find him.74.215.45.218 (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are brief references to him here, here and here. No wikipedia article yet, that I can find. I’d recommend visiting a library and asking for books about the Underground Railroad or a Who’s Who in Kentucky/Encyclopedia of Kentucky. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

How does one maintain one's Christian status?
How does one maintain one's Christian status in order to stay within christendom and not become kicked out of christendom by one's church community? If a particular church rejects a member due to radical difference of beliefs, can that member join a new church? How do church officials recognize the difference between false believers and true believers? If a Christian lacks the ability to guess effectively what the pastor/priest believes in on a particular issue, can this person be excused from becoming banished from the Christian community? Sneazy (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by "become kicked out of christendom" or "becoming banished from the Christian community". Can you explain what's behind your question?  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  16:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Most denominations don't kick people out at all, and those which do typically practice this quite rarely. See excommunication.  One exception is polygamous branches of the Mormon church, which must kick out large numbers of men in order to provide the desired ratio of men to women.  Of course, being kicked out of one denomination leaves you free to join another. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Excommunication is a complicated topic, but in general it does not constitute being "kicked out of the church". In Catholic theory at least (I'm not a Catholic but they have the most elaborated and well-explained law on the subject), excommunication is a discipline intended to bring an erring disciple back to the fold.  It is never hardly ever? irreversible, though for some particularly grave offenses it can be remitted only by the pope, if I remember correctly.  An excommunicate Catholic is not excused from any Catholic obligations, must for example attend Mass, though he is not permitted to take communion. --Trovatore (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just like there are different levels of bankruptcy, there are also different levels of excommunication, up to and including banishment. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For Catholics there is no such thing as "being kicked out of the Church". Even anathema (which I'm not clear on whether it still exists) is reversible.  If I recall correctly, confirmation is considered to make an indelible mark on the soul, which makes you a Catholic forever, even in Hell if it comes to that. --Trovatore (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The last thing sounds rather nonsensical. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why. Sacraments are held to leave a permanent mark on the soul, just as Trovatore says, but are no guarantee of salvation. A Catholic can still end up in Hell, according to Catholic belief. But it's Baptism that makes you a Catholic forever, according to Catholic belief: it tends to be Anglicans that consider Confirmation as the point of irreversibly becoming Catholic ;) 86.128.227.169 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, once in Hell you'll burn till time ends, right? Which is never. Anything else is rather pointless after that. It must be funny to make a distinction between the Catholics and the non-Catholics which are currently roasting on fire in Hell. Also, it always seemed to me that the Sacrament of Confession does guarantee salvation - until you next sin again, and that the Priest is rather unnecessary in the process. Also, question: do confessions done by Priests who abused children count? Wouldn't a "and any sin I may have forgotten, or had been confessed improperly (like to a pedophile priest, which would not be a priest by the time of confession were his crimes known)" clause make sense here? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The just man sins seven times a day, etc". There ain't no such thing as a perfect human being, and that includes priests.  It's the intention of the penitent that matters, not whether the priest is personally maculate.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, there's no such thing as the Christian community, or Christendom. Not really.  What there is, is a bewildering multitude of different sects (let's call them churches), all of whom operate autonomously, most of whom claim to be the only true church, and most of whom do not recognise the legitimacy of any of the others (although there may be some degree of recognition of their sacraments such as baptism).  There's probably more inter-faith dialogue between the Anglicans and the Jews, or the Catholics and the Muslims, than between most pairs of Christian churches.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  16:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a bit of a sweeping statement. See for example Churches Together in England. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So, does that mean Christians from different denominations recognize each other as heretics or false believers? Why can't the sacred book be viewed subjectively like any other literary work? In other words, the implication of a particular passage to support a particular position is subjective, and that one will never know "Truth" but nevertheless enjoys the pursuit of "Truth". Sneazy (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Although there is obviously inter-denominational conflict in some parts of the world, tremendous strides have been made over the last century, and Christians from different churches now routinely work together, respecting each other's differing traditions. See Ecumenism for more details. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) This is heading for something of a debate, but I can help a little with one thing. Do they regard each other as heretics? Well, the Decree on Ecumenism from the Second Vatican Council altered the Catholic Church's position, and made highly conciliatory overtures towards Protestant Christians. Many of the most committed Evangelical Christians I have met regard most Catholics as not being Christians. They will state it explicitly, but acknowledge that some Catholics are Christians.  Liberal Christians will almost certainly differ. Evangelicals don't like the Bible being treated as just another literary work, but it may be explicitly called a "text" in liberal circles. It just depends on the individual. IBE (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) Agree with the two posters above, there are in fact many churches that, while believing others to be mistaken on certain points, nevertheless consider them brothers in faith. Sometimes such recognition can be one-sided, e.g. the protestant reformer John Calvin wrote concerning Martin Luther, (who strongly repudiated Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper): "Even if he should call me a devil, I would accord him the honor of acknowledging him to be an eminent servant of God." - Lindert (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec as well) I think that is a gross exaggeration, Jack. Most churches which believe in infant baptism accept most other church's baptisms as valid while most churches which believe in only adult baptism accept most other churches' adult baptisms as valid. Many churches have intercommunion. Our Full communion article has only partial lists while Open communion discusses churches which do not restrict their celebration of the Lord's Supper/communion/Eucharist. Interchurch dialogue is quite common as are multichurch or parachurch organizations. Which is not to say that most churches do not believe that they are the best, most correct, and or that they believe certain others are very wrong. But it is not as grim as you painted it. Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * All of this discussion has been about what various groups believe or recognize, but many of the groups themselves don't consider their own recognition to be definitive. See church invisible.  From the point of view of Christian theology, the only one who can kick you out of the real Church is God. --Trovatore (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To partially address the questioner's last question: In some usually independent congregations, the pastor/priest/minister may wield such power. In others, he is responsible to or together with a group of local church leaders. In most other churches, the pastor is responsible to a regional council or bishop and sometimes to higher levels (national, international church bodies). In some churches, there is a "Supreme Leader" (Pope, Patriach, etc.) with final authority. Rmhermen (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a friend that I've caught up with after many years. Some years ago, he was banished from his local church because he refused to join in paying the wages of the pastor. That, however, doesn't mean he was thrown out of Christianity, or that he's not now a Christian: he still regards himself as a believer, just not a member of that particular church. Ultimately, whether you are a Christian is between yourself and God, not another human being and you. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Uploading a picture
I found a small picture of Westley Allan Dodd to put in his article but I can't upload it because I am not an administrator accordin to what it said. Can an administrator upload this picture? It's a TV screenshot from the TV show Most Evil. Thank you. It qualifies under rationale since he was hanged like a pig in 1993. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMicronesian (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no special need to be a administrator to upload pictures. The usual issue is with accounts that are too new (a bar set to limit vandalism). However to upload an image you either must prove it is freely licensed or in the public domain or you must own the rights and freely license them. We usually prefer those images to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which makes it easier for all language versions of Wikipedia to use the image. English Wikipedia does allow some "fair use" of copyrighted images but the legalities of this are more complex. TV screenshots are almost never freely licensed but copyrighted by the producers of the programming. Rmhermen (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Relationship between the Holy Spirit and baptism
In Christian theology, what is the relationship between the Holy Spirit and baptism? Is the Holy Spirit present before, during, after, or throughout the whole baptism? Also, how do you differentiate the Holy Spirit from God? Is the Holy Spirit God or is God the Holy Spirit or is the Holy Spirit a part of God? Also, what does "personal lord and savior" mean? How does Jesus fulfill the role of the "personal lord and savior"? Does the person repent to the Holy Spirit or Jesus? 140.254.121.60 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends a LOT on which denomination you belong to as far as the relationship between the Holy Spirit and baptism. There's no widely agreed upon relationship.  In broadest terms, the Holy Spirit is God's presence that exists within people guiding their actions to his will.  Since denominations differ greatly on the practice of and theology surrounding the act of Baptism, it is quite hard to draw any broad commonalities.  I have been, in my life, a practicing Catholic and a practicing Baptist.  The Catholics practice infant baptism  and do so because they believe that Baptism is required for getting into Heaven, and thus unbaptized infants could be condemned without said baptism.  I'm not sure they have any position of the relation of Baptism to the Holy Spirit, that is I can't find any statements to say whether a person can have the "holy spirit" within them prior to Baptism, whether it comes before or after baptism, or whether such spirit is omnipresent.  In the Baptist faith, a person receives the Holy Spirit when they accept Christ as their personal savior (that is, they agree to follow his teachings and recognize him as the son of God and the ultimate sacrifice for their own sins: that's what "personal lord and savior" means: lord as in leader, savior as in one who saves us from hell) and makes a "profession of faith", which is a public statement of the same.  Baptists do this before Baptism, that is they don't allow someone to be Baptized (or don't recognize such prior Baptisms) for which the person has not already received the Holy Spirit in their lives.  Baptists practice believer's baptism which means the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Profession of Faith happen prior to the Baptism itself.  The Holy Spirit is not distinguished from God, it is an aspect of God or a role that God plays.  Nearly all Christians today follow "Trinitarian" theology and hold that the Trinity represents three co-equal aspects of God, being God the Father (the God that created the universe), God the Son (being Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.  See also Holy Spirit (Christian denominational variations) for more reading.  There are a LOT of different perspectives on this, and none is bound to be really universal. -- Jayron  32  20:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Will the Roman Catholic church baptize a deceased infant? What happens if the infant dies at birth? Will that infant still be baptized, or must the infant be alive to be baptized? What if the mother doesn't know that the pregnancy has been spontaneously aborted? Or maybe, the preterm babies don't count as human and therefore do not qualify to be baptized? Also, why is Jesus the son of God? What does "son" mean? Also, the terms "body of Christ" and "bride of Christ" refer to the Church. However, the former term may imply that Christ is the leader of the Church and the latter may imply that Christ is the husband or bridegroom of the Church? Is this husband-wife relationship equal or is one more dominant than the other? Lastly, why do you capitalize "baptism"? 140.254.121.60 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It used to be the case that an unbaptised infant in the RC church was said to go to "Limbo": this concept was abolished quite recently, and now such infants are said to go straight to heaven. As to Jesus being the son of God, you need to read the story of the Annunciation. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the last question, It's because I'm too Lazy to Pay attention to What I am doing and I randomly Capitalize some words Sometimes. Pay it No Mind.  You can read more about various theological interpretations of the phrases you ask about at Bride of Christ and Body of Christ.  -- Jayron  32  21:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * [This website] suggests that even Roman Catholics are "born-again". However, the concept of being "born-again" is different for Catholics than for evangelical Protestants. For Catholics, being born-again happens at baptism. For evangelical Protestants, being born-again happens before baptism, which from the Catholic view, would presumably look like the individual has been "baptized twice". So, an infant baptized in the Catholic church would be considered by the church as "born again". 140.254.121.60 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As our article on Limbo of the Infants made clear last time I looked, that's not really true Tammy. Limbo used to be a more popular theory, and currently "all babies go to Heaven" is a more popular theory, but neither is Church teaching or ever were. The Church actually very clearly says that we cannot know what happens to unbaptised infants, although we can hope and trust. One of the things that publishing the Catechism of the Catholic Church made very easy was checking which things Catholics say are actually Church teaching, and which are not. The big change, therefore, was that it became easier for Catholics to access the information that Limbo was not an actual doctrine, as opposed to a particularly popular pious belief in their region. But even the old Catholic Encyclopedia article, which predates Vatican II by decades, makes it clear that Limbo of the Infants is only a theory, not a doctrine. 81.156.144.160 (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoo 140.254.121.60. Baptism is just a symbolic ritual to suggest that at this point froward, any past sins (“an apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” thing) is in the past and a new start can be had. The Holy sprit in the modern age can be best thought off as sentient awareness blended with life experience and inflection. That only comes when an individual reaches that stage in life when s/he has the intellectual capacity. . . to understand. The disciples ( et. al., of  JC of Naz) were no young chickens when they were filled with it. So no, Baptism and the holy spirit  have no temporal connection.--Aspro (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "a new start can be had"? Do you mean that the follower of Christ would live a new way of life or follow a new way to cope with life, or do you mean that the follower of Christ is now "perfect"? 140.254.121.60 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good question. If you look at a really old baptism font you may see inscribed: Νίψον ἀνομήματα, μὴ μόναν ὄψιν. To day we can take it as meaning: To all present in this community, present at this baptism... etc.,  OK, we all know this kid's dad is well known for doing a bit of poaching and is quick to perform a bit of ducking and diving. But is his child (moms were not included in those days) to be tainted with his fathers reputation? No! (emphatic). Therefore,  by this act of baptism he can be encourages to follow the road to righteousness ( i.e., not do what his dad does). So it means the former to your question; he is being given the chance to live a new way of life.  Americans now (for instance)  often employ a psychoanalyst – they speak in modern language  that is easier to understand. So, even if they ( the analysts) are  are a bit off message (?), their clients get the support, that religion in a bygone age would have given them.--Aspro (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As an aside: For the anoraks and geeks out there, did you notice that that Νίψον ἀνομήματα, μὴ μόναν ὄψιν is a palindrome? Really neat, because it goes both ways,  which in this context is  very fitting. You can't turn it around to suggest anything else.  These medieval people where really very smart IMHO.  They would have not problem in getting a  plumb job in to-days advertising industry.--Aspro (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, so the Bible is all marketing hype. That explains a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Baptism is fairly clearly not "just a symbolic ritual" for many (possibly most) Christians - see Baptism. For Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Lutherans and Anglicans, among others, it is a sacrament. The exact understanding of what a sacrament is varies from denomination to demonination - the article provides more information - but for these groups baptism is not merely symbolic. With regard to the OP's question, there is a fairly explicit link between the Holy Spirit and baptism in Catholicism - see Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit or have a read of the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which deals with baptism and includes, among other statements The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit. and The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. (my emphasis). Valiantis (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the best way to explain Baptism, from the point of view of the Baptists (as I tried to explain above) is that it is the act which makes inner conversion real. It completes the event. It isn't the baptism that brings about salvation, it's the acceptance of Jesus as one's lord and savior that does that, but that doesn't make the subsequent Baptism symbolic or unnecessary.  The spirit of James Chapter 2 explains it well: Man is saved by faith, but faith without works is dead.  So the faith and the works are necessary.  In the case of Baptism, the acceptance of Christ and the Baptism are both necessary, the inner conversion validates the subsequent Baptism, and the Baptism seals the conversion, much as a "signature" seals a "contract".  Again, depending on your denomination YMMV and there are different understandings, but as Valiantis notes nearly all major denominations hold Baptism as a vital sacrament or event, and not symbolic in any way, but meaningful; though different denominations will give different rationales for its importance.  -- Jayron  32  00:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very good way of saying it Jayron32. When I suggested it was 'just' symbolic I meant the it is the formulaic ceremony -is just  that. It is  a structure or ritual that everybody knows. As  Ryan Vesey say's below, you can use tape water, (or you can even bring back a bottle of that open sewer that is still called the Jordan River to use in your babies baptism)(but boil it for 15 minutes). It doesn't matter, as I think you will agree. It is understanding  the meaning behind-the -ritual that carries the purpose. But the act of baptism itself,  is just an  formulaic act. I agree: Train some chimpanzees to follow through with the  same mannerisms  and it would not be a Christen baptism. So, I'm not disagreeing with you, other than wording we are using to  try to sum things up into very few words. It is a "contract" between parents, priest, vicars and the local community of friends and neighbors. It it the parents solemnly "contracting "  before witnesses, to pass over to the church   absolute authority over their child. Perhaps, not what John-the-Baptist originally had in mind - but thats another topic.--Aspro (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not been explicitly mentioned yet, so I'd just like to mention the relevant Dominical statement, John 3:5: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." As we can see from the above discussion, there is no universal interpretation of this passage. Tevildo (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As has been made clear above, baptism is very different depending on the denomination. I was baptised Lutheran, but I don't really know how they treat it, they do take part in infant baptists.  I was raised Methodist.  Methodism, for one, makes it clear that baptism by water is unnecessary.  My pastor makes a point at each baptism of showing that we use tap water, not any special sort of water.  It is generally done to infants, but adults who wish to be baptized by water can do so.  When an infant is baptized in a Methodist church, both the Church and the infant's parents/relatives/godparents agree to raise him or her in Christianity.  Later in life, Methodists go through confirmation.  At the end of confirmation classes, we make a public confession of our faith.  This is essentially analogous to the Baptist conception of baptism. Ryan Vesey 23:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)