Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 June 24

= June 24 =

Military designation (Royal Navy, 1944)

 * crew member A/B George Allen of Barking ( Text here - bottom of page )
 * What is the meaning of A/B ?
 * en:WP AB doesn't help. Anybody knows? Thx!  GEEZER nil nisi bene 07:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Able seaman (rank). It's usually abbreviated simply AB, but I highly doubt that it refers to anything else in this context. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably referring to "able bodied". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you replying to me? The answer is no, sort of. The able in Able Seaman, at least originally in the Royal Navy, refers to the ability of the seaman. An able seaman had 2 years or more in service, and therefore was deemed to have various abilities, possibly including (from our article) the ability to "steer, use the lead and work aloft, traditionally to “hand, reef, and steer.”" This ability was reflected in their pay.
 * As for able-bodidness, our Able seaman article (note, different article) says that "Some modern references claim that AB stands for able-bodied seaman as well as, or instead of, able seaman. Able seaman was originally entered using the abbreviation AB instead of the more obvious AS in ships' muster books or articles. Such an entry was likely to avoid confusion with ordinary seaman (OS). Later the abbreviation began to be written as A.B., leading to the folk-etymological able-bodied seaman. The "correct" term, able seaman, remains in use in legal documents, in seaman's papers, and aboard ship." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Good enough for me. Case closed.  GEEZER nil nisi bene 14:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust revisionism
Why do some people falsely holocaust revisionists of being antisemitic conspiracy theorists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.177 (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are missing a verb. But if you want to ask a "why" question like this, we need you to cite some specific examples of what you are asking about, otherwise we may not be able to identify just what you mean. --ColinFine (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Falsely accuse199.119.235.177 (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia calls holocaust revisionism holocaust denial which goes against the policy of npov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.177 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read Holocaust denial, specifically "Scholars use the term "denial" to describe the views and methodology of Holocaust deniers in order to distinguish them from legitimate historical revisionists, who challenge orthodox interpretations of history using established historical methodologies. Holocaust deniers generally do not accept the term denial as an appropriate description of their activities, and use the term revisionism instead. The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary." Then come back and tell us which you are. --Viennese Waltz 09:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also click the "6" citation for a list of those scholars and what they say. Not just a vague "according to some" attribution, this time. WP:NPOV only applies to Wikipedians casting their own point of view, not reflecting mainstream academia's point of view. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is so biased. Overwhelming evidence? There is absolutely no scientific proof of nazi gas chambers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.177 (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Righty-ho, so you're a holocaust denier then. You do realize, I hope, that holocaust denial is illegal in many countries, although luckily for you not in Canada where you appear to spring from. --Viennese Waltz 09:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Why did you just insult me? Also, laws against legitamately debating the holocaust should be challenged for violating the right to freedom of expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.177 (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe they were expressing their freedom of expression. One moment you say you support it and next minute you're against it. Dmcq (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Somebody previously closed this question, which shows just how much of a left wing bias Wikipedia has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.54 (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reality has a left-wing bias. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So, Australia and Canada did not develop any new approaches to evangelism?
Approaches to evangelism seems to say that only Europe and the United States developed most of these approaches to evangelism. But what about Australia and Canada or Venezuela or Argentina? Did they have their methods to evangelism? On a related note, would "singing Amazing Grace in a public school play" or "demonstrating the Nativity of Jesus in a school play" count as "evangelism", or is that question much too opinion-based/subjective to make a strong claim? I've heard that some Christian ministries may focus on unchurched youth for conversion by means of providing homework help tutoring services, counseling services, active and healthy lifestyle by teaching young people how to cook and clean, and after-school programs for these people? As far as I am aware, some youth actually convert to Christianity through this means. Where would this type of ministry work fit in "Approaches to Evangelism", or does it deserve its own category? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that all the methods given in that article, aside from basic and ancient ones like open-air preaching and lifestyle/friendship/personal evangelism, are rather new-ish ideas practised and developed by Protestants and outgrowths (e.g. LDS), not primarily by Catholics. As such, heavily Catholic countries like Venezuela and Argentina aren't likely to have seen new approaches.  No ideas on Australia or Canada.  Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Latin American Catholics did develop their own sort of evangelism locally. See Liberation theology.  -- Jayron 32 16:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's not a form of evangelism; it's a theology that gets spread via evangelism. It's not some sort of technique, which is what's given in the Approaches article.  Nyttend (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Liberation theology is not only an approach to theology, it also encompasses a set of evangelical methods. See Christian base communities. Marco polo (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This article says Canada differs from the U.S. I can only assume it says one of the ways is less interest in it, because I stopped reading at the headline. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Or wait, no. Evangelicalism apparently differs from evangelism. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What about the Jesuit missionaries in Canada? I suppose that doesn't count as a "Canadian" approach since there was no sovereign country of Canada at the time. But we do have another approach towards evangelizing the natives: Canadian Indian residential school system. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is... were the Jesuit missionaries in Canada doing anything different from what Jesuit missionaries had been doing in other parts of the world... or what other missionaries had done.  Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * More freezing, probably foremost. Here's poorly formatted text on the matter. Might be useful, I didn't get far. There was a pair called the Bigot brothers, though. I saw that much. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)