Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 July 9

= July 9 =

Westward ho!
I've downloaded "Westward Ho!" a novel by Charles Kingsley in my Kindle and now am trying to read it. It is a hard going. Paragraphs 3 pages long, etc. I wonder about the "ho" part however. I checked with on-line dictionaries, and also Webster Third International and nothing really fits from what they offered. I personally suspect it was a variant of "go" in Elizabethan time. Am I correct? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Ho!" is an interjection that's been around for over 400 years. See also Westward Ho. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not sure what online dictionaries you're looking at. Beyond BB's source, see wiktionary:ho, Merriam-Webster (first definition, I'm surprised that the print one doesn't have it), Oxford  (second definition), Collins  (first definition), Dictionary.com  (first definition and various other places), Freedictionary.com  (first non capitalised definition), Google at least for me [//www.google.co.nz/search?q=ho+dictionary] (second definition, does require expansion to see it), and Bing also for me  (second definition, again requires expansion, it's coming from Oxford and actually I think Google is using Oxford too). A number of these even specifically mention westward ho. Cambridge is the only one that seemed to lack a definition, probably because it was only found in the business dictionary . Well maybe urbandictionary too, I didn't look through all 5 pages but wouldn't be surprised if it's absent from there . 01:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk)
 * Now added to article. Trivia point: it also inspired the town of Westward Ho! in Devon. Only place in Britain with an explanation mark in its official name. Blythwood (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclamation mark, please! Wymspen (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Artistic license! The subject itself an obvious possible cause of cognitive distortion I'm personally gratefull for those risks the writer's been taking. --Askedonty (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See also Tally-ho!, a hunting cry dating from thew 18th century in English, but said to be derived from the medieval French taille haut meaning "blades up" (according to Wikipedia) or ta ho meaning "goads halt" (according to Wiktionary; see tallyho). Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be on to something there - that the "ho" could be an English transliteration of the French for "up". That word "up" is often used in connection with horses - I'm thinking specifically of "Giddyup!" which is a slurring of "Get ye up!" Tonto used to say, "Get 'em up, Scout!" after the Lone Ranger would say "Hi-yo Silver!" which was originally "Hi-ho Silver!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * On a tangent perhaps, but there is a place in Plymouth called the Hoe, which features heavily in the story of Sir Francis Drake. I wonder if the etymology of the two are related? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably a tangent; Richard Carew wrote "vpon the Hawe at Plymmouth..." in 1602, see The Survey of Cornwall (p. 2) but The place-names of England and Wales by Johnston, James B, 1915 (p. 306) says its from Old English hoh or ho meaning a spur or hill. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "Land ho !" is another usage, by sailors, meaning land has been spotted. It seems that "ho", used this way, pretty much always requires an explanation mark. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you mean exclamation mark? But I'd love it if someone really invented an all-purpose "explanation mark".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * They have. It's called a footnote. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How about a an S on top of an H, meaning "shit happens" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Proof of God's existence is the death of revealed religion
I had argument like this: suppose that science could prove that God exists and that Jesus is God, this would mean the death of revealed religion, replacing it with theology based upon scientific experiments. Are there any WP:SOURCES which made this argument? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look through the ref desk archives, you will probably find a number of variations on this same question. Basically, you can't prove it absolutely, because you can't prove what or who God is. I could say God = Nature. Then it's easy to prove, because Nature exists. But is the original premise absolute and complete? No. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I did not ask if science could prove that God exists, I have asked a different question: what if science could prove it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am fairly sure that our present-day science does not study the supernatural. So, I was not asking about that. However, for science in the future all bets are off. So, suppose for the sake of argument that future science will have proven that God exists. Would that mean the death of revealed religion? I am not even asking if this follows. What I am asking is if there are reliable sources which made this argument before. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sure there are countless references you can find on Google. The search topic would be something like, "what if we can prove god exists". But keep in mind that anything anyone says is going to be speculation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To quote a very smart Catholic person I know: "Of course you can't prove it. That's why it's called faith." Blythwood (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu your abrupt dismissal of the first response by Baseball Bugs suggests that you do not understand its relevance to your question. Your question uses terms "God" and "Jesus" that are absolutes only within the Christian belief system. There are millions of people with different belief systems with different axioms to whom your speculative question is not a Well-posed problem. However within what appears to be your Christian system, the consequence of "science proving God" would be the loss for humanity of the blessing (see Grace in Christianity) expressed by that religion's founder thus: John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." AllBestFaith (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a Christian and I don't think the way science is practiced today could prove that God exists. I only wanted to know if the argument was made before by someone else. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument was made at . Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On a philosophical level, science can never prove anything. Science is empirical and based on inductive reasoning, which is not a sound inference principle. If I see 150 pink penguins in an hour (and no others), I might come to the justified conclusion that all penguins are pink, but I would still be wrong. Science gives us a sequence of (stochastically) better and better descriptions of reality, not absolute truth. That remains in the realm of mathematics and maybe philosophy. See e.g. Simulated reality and Evil demon. If we say "science has proved ...", there is always an implicit understanding that this really means "to a high degree of probability, not absolute certainty", or, as Stephen J. Gould put it": "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I have quoted myself http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10 inside Wikipedia arguments. However, a valid point can still be made using very blunt concepts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Certainly the argument (or something very similar) has been done by someone, see Babel fish (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)--Pacostein (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My argument was: if science could prove that God exists, you would have the scientifically correct religion instead of revealed religion. So it wasn't about God disappearing/ceasing to exist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also coming to mind is the fantasy story Hell Is the Absence of God, wich is set in a world where the existance of God an the afterlife is a proved fact wich results in the concept of faith being quite different. Not exactly what you were arguing either but maybe of your interest.--Pacostein (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * God created the universe ten minutes ago, including Wikipedia and all your false memories of having edited Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The OP is hypothesizing based on Abrahamic religions. But what if it could be proven that all forces of nature actually are caused by conscious entities? Then, all of a sudden, monotheism would be in jeopardy, in favor of polytheism - as if the ancient Greeks and Romans had it right all along. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It was just an example, speaking for myself, I would not bet on Jesus being God (unless we all are God). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bet on anything regarding religion. Although polytheism is often cited, even by monotheists, when they talk about angry clouds or seas, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Polytheism is the wrong word; you mean animism which hold that all animate objects, which usually includes not only people and animals, but also plants, the sun, moon, and other celestial objects, as well as even things like the ocean, volcanoes, and perhaps even gems and swords have spirits. This can develop into or coexist with polytheism, reach refers to a pantheon of personified gods. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Either one, or both, if proven, would either demolish or severely alter the monotheistic religions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, not really. Look at Demiurge.  The notion that a supreme God created divine beings to carry out his will is neither alien to the angels of the Old and New Testaments nor the mythology of the quite orthodox Catholic J.R.R.Tolkien. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hence my argument that Hinduism and Catholicism are not as different as one would think. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me restate it: today's science cannot prove there is a God. If that would be made possible for future science, it would come at a price for religion. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't come at the price of religion, only particular religions, and only if everyone agrees that whatever is discovered is "God." If what is discovered doesn't line up with Brahman, then it would be reasonable for Hindus to claim that the being discovered is (at most) a local manifestation of Ishvara within Maya and not truly God in Its totality.  If the majority of religion's perceptions of God are proven, then Buddhism will regard it as just another being trapped in Samsara (and just as in need of the Buddha's teachings as any other being).
 * If Trinitarian Christianity is somehow scientifically proven, then Christianity is not destroyed: Romans 1:20 lead most Christian theologians for a long time to conclude that this was inevitable (Fideism coming about around the time that people started to realize that science only handles material claims and cannot handle ideal claims, and can't even philosophically "prove" anything within its own matters). Christianity already teaches that simple agreement is not saving faith, and it tries to be one of the less works-based religions.  Many of the more works-based religions wouldn't be affected in the slightest by being scientifically proven.
 * Faith is not so much "belief that cannot exist in the presence of evidence," but "belief that exists despite a possible absence of evidence." For example, a person may have faith that their lover will stay with them for the rest of their lives -- but they won't have proof until they die.  This faith can be proven and doing so does not retroactively invalidate the faith that existed throughout the couple's lives.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The kicker would be if it were proven that all religions are true. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "So this is how logic dies. With thunderous applause...." - with apologies to Natalie Portman. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Article on Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International
To whom it may concern, I was reading the articles mentioned above, for months now and again, and could not fail to notice that two editors apparently strongly associated with the matter are editing in considerable frequency. I understand that Wikipedia has regulations in place when it comes to corporations, but what about religious corporations and its members? As a reader these articles somewhat fail to be objective at all.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonisana2 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC) --Tonisana2 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - This question would be better on the Help Desk, but the relevant guideline is WP:COI. I see you've already mentioned the issue at the article talk page, which is the best place to discuss any changes to the article. Tevildo (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You may wish to open a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You will need to demonstate why you think there is COI, beyond editors having a different point of view than the view you hold. You should also be wary of WP:OUTING any user. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I have no intention to edit the article. I just find the article to be highly biased and somebody might want to take a look at that, which obviously is not the case. Thank you. --Tonisana2 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The normal course of action would be to discuss the alleged biases on the article talk page. Right now you're kinda waving your hands in the air, rather than providing any examples of the said bias. Be clear that the possibility that there is bias on what is, as I vaguely understand it, a fringe religion, is good: clearly those who adhere to or revile the religion will be drawn to it. So it's not that your assertion is being dismissed out of hand. I put it to you that if you, who alleges you know enough about the subject to be able to pronounce on bias, is unwilling to lift a further finger to educate the rest of us, then we will probably find other and more rewarding ways to fill our time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh now that’s a truly nice welcoming which would make even less likely that I should lift a finger. It’s nice to see that when a reader points out that an article basically seems to have a bias issue one is redirected only. What you do fill your time with beats me though. It was my understanding that single purpose accounts go against Wikipedia regulations. I shall leave it there then. --Tonisana2 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , we have over five million articles, many of which are in need of attention. We are edited by thousands of volunteers, who choose what they are going to work on. It is always welcome for somebody to point out a problem or potential problem, but whether it gets anybody else's attention depends on how interested they are in the article and how serious they think the problem is. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Wikipedia is created by volunteers some of whom have niche interests and contribute using single-purpose accounts. Their contributions are welcome given awareness of the policies against undue promotion, advocacy and personal agendas. Anyone tagged as an SPA should not take this as an attack on their editing. The OP has made no article contributions. AllBestFaith (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm frankly baffled by your self-defeating approach, Tonisana2. I think I can speak for most of us on wikipedia when I say that this thread is the first any of us have heard about Soka Gakkai. And along comes Tonisana2 who says "the article is biased" but will not say a word on what the nature of the bias is. And so, presumably, expects that someone is going to gear themselves up to understanding enough of the subject matter to be able to deliberate on the unidentified bias, on the basis of a compaint which amounts to "there is a problem but I'm not going to tell you what it is". And is dismayed and pulls a hissy fit when we react by saying "tell us more". So, really, either put up or shut up: provide some information on the supposed bias so that we have something to work on, or else, as you put it, "leave it there" and drop the whole issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As obscure as the subject seems to be, that alone could explain why it's only had a few editors. Really, this discussion should be moved to the article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well maybe, and just maybe, the reason why you few poor souls have so much work on their hands is that any dumb can write just about anything here on Wikipedia and if it’s just fringe enough it goes unnoticed, unchecked in YOUR name(s). Any information presented here if less mainstream enough turns out to be dubious. The reason for why that is can be only answered by you guys. I was 'warmly' welcomed here and for that reason I do understand media reports on editors leaving Wikipedia better now. For your information I hinted at a Wikipedia guideline on editors with a conflict of interest or one purpose only accounts, both of which to my knowledge are in conflict with current guidelines. You all seem very complacent and yet again huffy at the same time. Ta ra!--Tonisana2 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For starters, pot kettle black me thinks. Anyway, people have already explained to you this is the wrong place. This is actually a significant point since there's a very good chance this discussion is going to be archived, and no one either now or in the future with any interest in the article will ever read it. At least if you raised your concerns in the article talk page there's a chance someone with interest in the articles will read them. This isn't actually that different from most of the world. If I see someone collecting trolleys and I started complaining about my hard disk broke, they may just tell me I'm at the wrong place and to see the customer service centre (or whatever) in store. If I keep ranting, perhaps they'll take me there or perhaps they'll just ignore me. Likewise if I go to the kitchen of a restaurant and start complaining about the quality of the food to the person washing dishes, well.... In the end, if I don't take my complaints to the appropriate place, it will be fairly stupid for me to make a fuss about how my complaints were ignored when I took them to the wrong place and was told that.  Anyway you seem to have answered your own question. There are many many articles with far greater problems then the ones you presented seem to have so it's understandable if these will receive less attention. Appparently unlike others here, I have actually heard of SG and SGI before as I knew some people who belonged. However I'm still not interested enough (nor do I know enough to make it easy without a lot of reading) to get involved in those articles. And incidentally, those articles weren't written in the names of anyone here. You could just as well say they were written in your name since apparently you have been watching them unlike I think anyone here.  If your claims are true, the primary fault is with the people who caused whatever problems you found in those articles. If you really want to find someone else to blame, that would be someone else who apparently is interested enough and can actually see the problem but still not willing to resolve the problems and there's only one person that applies to in this discussion. So yeah, pot, kettle, black.  BTW it sounds like you're confused. WP:SPAs and WP:COIs aren't forbidden. Editors with certain COIs (receiving payment) are require to disclose the COI, but that's all. Editing with a COI, particularly a paid COI is strongly discouraged, but not something sanctionable in and of itself. Editors with SPAs and COIs will generally be monitored and if their editing itself is problematic they may be sanctioned as with editors who aren't SPAs and COIs. The only thing these really do is make it slightly easier to sanction. You're free to read the appropriate guidelines, policies and essays yourself if you don't believe.  Anyone who believes there has been a violation is free to report it in an appropriate place. Still editors belonging to a religion editing the article on that religion is hardly uncommon. Do you really think that Catholics aren't editing articles on the pope or Catholicism? Or Christians and Muslims aren't editing the articles on Jesus Christ? Or people belonging to the LDS aren't editing article the Book of Mormon? Likewise many editors of articles about the US are Americans. Even more so many editors of articles about New Zealand are Kiwis. Not ideal, but difficult to avoid considering differing interests, knowledge etc. (For wider interests there is the advantage that there is generally already a wide variety of views, still nothing is perfect.) So in and of itself you haven't even said something which raises significant concerns except for claims the article is biased etc.  Nil Einne (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This might all be very true, but that means that the less ‘prominent’ an article is the more it is prone to be unreliable? For large parts of the article in question I could just as well turn to the SGI homepage – what is the point then? When I read through the numerous regulations anything goes actually, there is an exemption for almost everything. Yet, at the same time there seem to exist mechanisms to get edits checked. As someone who also knows SGI folks I find that the reservations some have about the group are being downgraded. I know that this discussion is probably useless and unimportant, it’s on the fringe so why bother. At the same time I do get the impression that some fail to put themselves into the position of the ones seeking Wikipedia for information. In the end this means I can only trust Wikipedia if the subject is popular enough?! Right? It would then be fair to introduce some kind of system that shows the reader how popular an article is and to what extent its authors are devoted to a specific article only … and this should be visible at glance without reading through volumes of guidelines, help desks and regulations. I mean this whole project should have a use without defaming anyone who does not want to get lured into the project itself. It might be worthwhile if you allow for some sort of ‘letter to the editor’ section. For now I get the impression as if you were saying ‘how dare you little earthling questioning our work’. --Tonisana2 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Similar time frame for correspondence
A couple/few weeks ago, around the same time frame I wrote to Today (U.S. TV program), CBS This Morning and Good Morning America, I also wrote to Allstate Insurance and Virgin America. How long does it take for the latter two to get back to me?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Same question = same answer. It depends on what you wrote to them about. If you wrote to your insurance company to make a claim following an accident, they will have a set time within which they have to reply. If you wrote to ask for a job, you will never get a response unless they decide to interview you for a position - and if that happens how long it takes will depend on when they have a suitable vacancy. Wymspen (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I wrote to Allstate Insurance about promotional items, and Virgin America about a merchandise catalog.2604:2000:7113:9D00:CDEE:E2C8:B362:33BB (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did they get back to you? And did you literally write a letter, or was it via internet? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they haven't gotten back to me yet. And yes, I literally wrote a letter.2604:2000:7113:9D00:CDEE:E2C8:B362:33BB (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the discussion on the misc page, I don't know that you should count on getting an answer. Maybe a phone call would stand a better chance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)