Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 8

Different Types of Karma in Buddhism

I know that according to Buddhism, there are four types of karma (kamma is the pali term) one of which is karma that leads toward nirvana (nibbana is the pali term). But how does one produce the karma that leads toward nirvana? Is merit the same thing? What about stupa veneration or Buddha statues? It would be much apreciated if answers could be from a Theravada perspectives. And if it is at all possible, could someone lead me to some related Suttas? RBTruthSeeker (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I searched for info on "four types of karma" in Buddhism and found there to be many different ways of describing karma, some of which use four types, but I couldn't figure out which system involves "karma that leads toward nirvana". Most seem to focus on the stopping of karma as leading toward nirvana. Could you be more specific about where your four karma system comes from? Some pages that may or may not be relevant: Jhana in Theravada, Dhyāna, Arūpajhāna, and Four stages of enlightenment. Also, this book describes four types of karma on pages 19-20, and 8, but none seem to be specifically leading to nirvana. Pfly (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, merit is not quite the same thing. See merit (Buddhism). I'm surprised Plfy didn't mention our article on Karma in Buddhism, although no fourfold analysis is mentioned there either. Some branches of Buddhism delight in breaking down various concepts into constituent types (mostly as an aide-memoire) and karma is no exception. Among the fourfold divisions (I've taken these from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary) are an analysis with regard to function: regenerative karma (janaka-kamma), supportive karma (upatthambhaka-kamma), counteractive karma (upapitaka-kamma), and destructive karma (upaghataka-kamma). Then there is a breakdown with regard to their result: weighty karma (garuka-kamma), habitual karma (acinnaka-kamma), death-proximate karma (maranasanna-kamma), and stored-up karma (katatta-kamma). Most of this sort of stuff is found in the commentaries rather than the suttas themselves, especially the Visuddhimagga. The only reference to nirvana I can think of in this context is that wholesome karma (kusala-kamma) leads to nirvana and unwholesome karma (akusala-kamma) does not. Both these types of karma are broken down into lists of ten (the ten precepts), which are mentioned many times in the suttas, especially in the Sevitabbasevitabba Sutta (Majjhima-Nikaya 114). For more information you might be interested in Nagapriya's Exploring Karma and Rebirth (ISBN 1-899579-61-3).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Colonies: why did Europeans discover and colonise?

Deleted repeated of question already above.៛ Bielle (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-inserted question moved here from Ref Desk. Misc.. I deleted it in error, being confused by the title.

Why did european countries colonize and discover america, asia and africa? What gave them the advantage of developing sea faring ships and the desire where as africa for instance did nothing of the sort. Why was one more dominant than the other. 193.115.175.247 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Zionist

There are probably as many answers as there are historians. You might find it useful to move this question to the Humanities desk. --68.144.73.245 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet is probably to start at our Colonialism article, which discusses the concept of creating colonies and branches off into the history of colonialism as well as many other areas. It looks like a pretty solid starting point. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For one explanation as to Europe's lead in such matters, read the book Guns, Germs and Steel. Corvus cornixtalk 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And you might check out Age of Discovery to think about the specific context of Europe's deciding to go explore and take over the world at that moment. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008

193.115, it's a fairly safe assumption Europe was aware of the existence of Africa and Asia, when Africans and Asians were in the imperial business, not the Europeans! Otherwise, as others have suggested, you should look at the Age of Discovery, Spanish colonization of the Americas along with the History of colonialism and other related articles for a full answer to your question. In terms of technological advancement, military organisation, ship-building and trade Europe was beginning to develop a commanding lead over other parts of the Atlantic sea-world world by the early sixteenth century. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Polynesians colonised Polynesia including New Zealand as late as AD 500. However, they colonised uninhabited islands.
Sleigh (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is wrong. It wasnt just Europeans who discovered and colonised. For example the Chinese went exploring. Its just that european cultural imperialism means that non-european ventures are not transmitted through history and through the media of the time. 80.2.200.28 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

European intervention: why so little, in American Civil War?

Why wasn't there a greater European prescence in the American Civil War, given the stakes? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

GeeJo, insofar as I understand the terms of your question, there was certainly sympathy for the Confederate cause among ruling circles in both Britain and France at the outset of the American Civil War. In October 1862, William Ewart Gladstone, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, went so far as to say that "...there is no doubt that Jefferson Davis and the other leaders of the South have made an army; they are making...a navy; and they have made what is more than either, they have made a nation." It was at this time that there was a strong possibility of Britain and France joining in an offer of mediation, as you will see if you look at Great Britain in the American Civil War. However, after the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam and the subsequent Emancipation Proclamation, the possibility of intervention all but vanished. Besides, France was too heavily involved in trying to prop up Maximilian Habsburg in Mexico to risk alienating Washington any further. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's an article on that subject in the little essay-collection book "Why the North Won the Civil War" (which can often be found cheap in used bookstores in the U.S.). The briefest answer is that there was little likelihood of a strong direct European intervention without some consensus among the major European powers, which never materialized. Russia was always against it, France was usually for it, and Britain wavered according to military fluctuations and various diplomatic incidents, but never publicly committed itself to taking action as a matter of formal policy. It was probably a good thing for the Union that the first transatlantic telegraph cable had failed before the war, so that North American news was delayed several weeks before arriving in Europe. AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is "Lady Ann Byron"?

I've been reading some of my grandfathers genealogical research and there is one section that refers to:

"Ann (Maunder) GREGORY (1828-1903), believed to be Lady Ann Byron"

I assumed that Lady Ann Byron was famous in some way, so I did a google search, and Wikipedia check, and have come up completely empty! My grandfather died a few years ago. Can anyone shed any light on it? -- Chuq (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been some people who might correspond to that name, but not to those dates. For example, Anne Isabella "Annabella" Milbanke was the wife of the poet (George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, best known as "Lord Byron"). But her dates are 1792-1860. Anna Ismay Ethel Fitzroy (1884-1966) was the wife of Frederick Ernest Charles Byron, 10th Lord Byron. There was an Anne Molyneux whose husband was John Byron, but he died in 1625. So it's hard to say who, precisely, it was who "believed Ann Maunder Gregory to be Lady Ann Byron", or why. I'm assuming there is some romantic story of faking a death or substituting a birth to go with the supposition; you may want to have a look at Lady Anne Blunt, granddaughter of the poet, whose life might have inspired such a story. Perhaps you can provide more information to go on, or someone else can suggest a likelier possibility. - Nunh-huh 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found the sames names that you found, but as you said, the dates don't line up. The details I have are "Oliver Gregory (1825 - 24 Jan 1902) married Ann Maunder (1828 - 9 Feb 1903)." and the line above "believed to be Lady Ann Byron". They had 16 children between 1847 and 1871. I have found another source online which shows her name as Anne (but no mention of the Lady Byron). -- Chuq (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I can be of any real help to you, but you should also tell us what country or location they were in. Your best approach is probably just to try and track down Oliver Gregory and Ann/Anne Maunder, and see if the notation about Byron makes any sense, rather than to try and track down Lady Ann Byron. You could also drop a note to the e-mail of the webmaster of the site you found them on. - Nunh-huh 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tabligh Jamaat

I know that Tabligh Jamaat was formed in Indian Sub-continent and it is practiced by people of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh but nowadays I see people from Somalia and some Arab countries follow this. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at the article Tablighi Jamaat you'll find it's a Muslim missionary movement aiming to bring spiritual revival to the world's muslims. First founded in India it spread throughout other muslim countries in the second half of last century and has political and celebrity links though it is not considered a political movement in itself. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mixed black/white Arab

You know how a kid whose parent is white and the other is black is called a Mulatto, which is a Spanish term because of the Spaniards. What about the Arabic term for a kid whose parent is a white and the other is black? and I am asking this because Arab nations of Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and if possible Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen, have not only the white population, but also have the black population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the Arab term for that, but there's the "Mixed race" article with lots of links here [1] you might like to scan for yourself. This link [2] to this section of an article called Social interpretations of race that tells you about mulatto. There's another article Moors that gives some Arab-African history before the words "muslim" and "Islam" came along. Hope this helps, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea of dividing people up into distinct races based on skin color is really unique to European and European-derived cultures. This idea had its origins in the Atlantic slave trade. In the Arab countries, slaves could come in any number of different colors and from many different ethnic backgrounds, including European. In these countries, religion and ethnicity are the key features of identity, and skin color is fairly trivial. Since the idea of race is alien to many non-European cultures, a term comparable to "mulatto" is unlikely to exist, since its basic meaning is a person whose parents are of different races. To the extent that these cultures would see any point in labeling such a person (and they might not), they might describe the person's skin color as tan or light brown, or they might say that one parent had darker skin than the other, though again, lacking the concept of race, people in these cultures might see no reason to compare the skin colors of a person's parents. Marco polo (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny fact: in Turkey, black people are colloquially called "Arabs".  --Lambiam 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of Bedouins who descend from Sudanese slaves, but they aren't classified separately and they have the exact same position and rights as anyone else. AllenHansen (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Structure of Roman Army

Looking at Roman army, I see: 8 soldiers = 1 contubernium, 10 contubernium (contubernia/contuberniae?) = 1 century; X centuries = 1 maniple; Either 10 or 6 contubernium = 1 cohort; 10 cohorts (1*10 + 9*6 centuries) = 1 legion. So How big is a maniple and what place does it have in the structure since it appears bypassed between centuries and cohorts. -- SGBailey (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Where have all the legionnaires gone just when you need them? Never mind, try this article: Maniple (military unit) and get back to us if there's more to it. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The maniple continued to exist after the Marian reforms. It was a pair of (on paper) 80 or 100 man centuries. There is some reason to suppose that these pairings were permanent. In the first cohort of a legion at least, each maniple had its own commander, an officer called an ordinarius, of whom there were five, one for each pair of centuries. How long this state of affairs continued is unknown to me.

Vegetius has ordinarii in his description of a legion, coming immediately after the commander in his list, but from Caesar to Vegetius is four centuries and words do change in meaning. You should bear in mind that paper figures for the strength of military forces are rarely a reliable guide to their actual strength. For the Roman army, where soldiers were always detached to guard governors and tax collectors and imperial this-and-that and to serve as messengers and who knows what else, it is very unlikely that units were ever anywhere close to their paper strength when they marched out of the gate on campaign. The word legion covers Roman formations over 1000 years I suppose. What little evidence there is for the strength of legions - Egyptian papyri of around 300AD which give monetary values for the payrolls of Legio II Traiana and Legio III Diocletiana - suggest legions of around 1000 men, but this probably not something that should be applied to significantly earlier dates.

Southern & Dixon's The Late Roman Army doesn't really go into much depth on internal organisation, although that's largely because not much is known. Webster's The Roman Imperial Army does, or so I recall. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of Human Bondage

I've not long finished Of Human Bondage, Somerset Maugham's masterpiece. What I would like to know is how likely it is that a person of talent and education could fall in love with a social and intellectual inferior, a love that comes close to destroying him, the central theme of the novel? Has this happened in real life? What I mean is has any leading English writer even been in the same position as the fictitious Philip Carey? Balzac's Ghost (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the refdesk Balzac's Ghost – Maugham's own life must have some of this content since the book was based on his personal experiences, for example Philip's club foot is analolgous to Maugham's stutter. Being passed around the family, being shunned, studying medicine, being happiest in Europe were all very real material of his own life. I can't think of another writer off the top of my head, but if you're interested in the interpersonal dynamics of the novel, you could look at martyr complex, codependence, issues of control in unequal relationships and some aspects of the master-slave dialectic in Marxist terms, maybe? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How likely is it that someone of education and talent falls in love with a social inferior? Happens every day. (It used to happen much more, when men had a quasi-monopoly on the professions. Doctors fell for nurses, if not waitresses. Now doctors marry doctors.) Some people are nearly destroyed by by the love affair, some live happily ever after. How likely is it that someone fall in love with their intellectual inferior? See lust. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Bbabe, and all the while I thought it was manipulation. Silly me. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A literary example I can think of is William Henry Davies. From reading his later autobiography, which was kept unplublished before his wife died, he (as far as I recall from reading it) was over fifty and disabled when he married a young woman in her twenties who he had picked up in the street - so I suppose she was a prostitute. A non-literary example is the brief marriage of the elderly billionaire and the former stripper - I forget the names. I've noticed in American films how common it is to have a wrinkly old man with a beautiful young wife - but perhaps that happens for real in US culture? 80.0.101.168 (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure - Anna Nicole Smith. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the extreme age difference is all that common but the more minor age difference—guy in his 50s, woman in her 30s—is quite common, and the trope of that is being played to extremes in the films to connote all sorts of moral or humorous issues. Note though that the reversal of genders in such a situation is almost unheard of (though it does exist). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What man cares about the brains of a woman?Mr.K. (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What woman cares about the brains of a man? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends if they taste of chocolate or not. Nanonic (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I do! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the relationship between James Joyce and Nora Barnacle is worth mentioning here. That, at least, was positive for both, unlike the story of poor George Gissing, a talented, though now sadly neglected English writer, whose novel The Odd Women was considered by George Orwell to be one of the best in the English language. Poor Gissing had not one but two disastrous relationships!

In some ways his story resembles that of Maugham's Philip Cary, though his experience was far, far worse. When he was still a student he had the misfortune to fall in love with Nell Harrison, a woman he met in a Manchester brothel. In pursuit of his infatuation, he stole books and money from his fellow students to feed Nell's taste for booze as well as for her treatment for syphilis. He was finally caught and sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. This was the same kind of treadmill treatment that Oscar Wilde received at Reading Jail, which meant climbing the equivalent of 10,000 feet a day!

After his release, and a temporary exile in the United States, he returned to England and married Nell, syphilitic as she was. Of course it could not last. But even after they separated Gissing continued to send her money, supporting no less than fifteen members of her family at one point from his tiny income. Yet having rid himself of Nell he immediately picked up one Edith Underwood. No syphilis this time; Edith was just mad! Violent and unstable, she made life hell for George, as he did for her. After they separated she spent the last fifteen years of her life in a mental asylum.

With a life like this you may not be surprised to learn that much of Gissing's oeuvre is of a gloomy nature. He blamed himself for his own unhappiness, tracing it to "my own strongly excitable temperament, operated upon by the hideous experience of low life." Yet he produced some superb novels. To Orwell's recommendation I would add Born in Exile, The Nether World and, above all, New Grub Street, with an autobiographical theme to match that Of Human Bondage. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded here, but a particular thanks to Clio the Muse for that fascinating insight to the misfortunes of George Gissing. Twice! There surely have been some masochism here. I have now added New Grub Street to my reading list. Thanks agsin for taking such time and care over this. Balzac's Ghost (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I too enjoyed New Grub Street and The Odd Women and would recommend them to people who are comfortable with Victorian literature. However, in response to the original question, I would highlight that although NGS is largely autobiographical, the central character, Edward Reardon, marries a woman of higher status, and the marriage breaks down because he cannot attain the literary and financial success that she thought he would. As an aside, the two writers at the centre of the novel have been re-invented as a BBC Radio 4 comedy, Ed Reardon's Week. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Versailles and the end of democracy

President Wilson said that America entered the first world war to make the world safe for democracy but the end of empires in Europe did no such thing. Why did the end of the old Europe cause a rush to dictatorshiop? Was it because the Versailles treaty was grossly unjust? Was there any real solution to Europe's nationality problems? Thank you for your answers. Tommy Stout (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as i remember from history class, many felt Versailles was too harsh, specifically reparations and the "war guilt" clause, where Germany had to accept full responsibility for causing the war. The German people also felt betrayed by their own government because they felt the armistice had been signed prematurely. Take a look at wikipedia's Treaty of Versailles article, specifically the reactions to the treaty section. Think outside the box 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems only right that, having just written about George Gissing's fictions, I should mention that he also wrote about politics and contemporary affairs. Writing before the First World War, he placed no hope in the fashionable notions of democracy, which he saw as "full of menace to all the finer hopes of civilization." What is worse when combined with militarism and nationalism "there has but to arise some Lord of Slaughter and the nations will be tearing at each other's throats."

Tommy, the problem with the Versailles settlement -and by this I mean the whole of the post-war settlement- is not so much that it was unfair, but that it created an unstable peace; a peace based on the satisfaction of some national aspirations and the frustration of others. It also, it has to be said, created tensions within the various successor nations that were simply not compatible with democracy. In place of the nationality problems in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire came the nationality problems in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia and Romania, in some ways even more severe that what went before. Most serious of all, it was a peace predicated on the continuing weakness of Germany and Russia, and that could not last forever.

To this mixture of instability there was the added problem of Soviet Russia, where the democratic revolution of February 1917 was effectively destroyed by the Bolshevik counter-revolution in October. And I make no apology here for using the term counter-revolution in this particular context. After the forced dismissal of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918, the only fully democratic body in Russian history to that date, Lenin said that this "means a complete and frank liquidation of the idea of democracy by the idea of dictatorship. It will serve as a good lesson.” It certainly did, in Italy in 1922 and Germany in 1933.

Was there a solution to the nationality problem? Yes, I suppose there was, as the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey demonstrated. But can you imagine that happening across Europe, in nation after nation, across multiple frontiers? Can you imagine the upheaval and misery caused? Now go fast forward to 1945. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Clio's response, is, as usual, dead-on. I think the original questioner might have mixed up two things: The nationality issue and the fragility of democracy in interwar Europe. Czechoslovakia, which had nationality issues as big as any country post-Versailles, was a true democracy all the way up to the cusp of World War II. On the other hand, Hungary never developed a stable democracy, even though it didn't really have any nationality issues inside its borders. (There were, and still are, issues about Hungarians in other countries.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this kind of collar have a name?

[3] --82.169.41.246 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing special about the collar. It is a standard button collar. What makes it look strange is that it is about two inches too small for the guy, so he has the top button unbuttoned. You can see from the creases radiating from the top buttoned button that it is pulled rather tight. -- kainaw™ 19:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In American English: buttoned-down collar. Don't know whether this is also the British English term. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just looks b....y untidy to me what ever it's called!--Artjo (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw is right: the shirt is too small. But I'm not convinced it's a standard button-down collar, but rather a clerical tab collar like this (sorry for the ebay link, best image I could find in a quick search). In which case, the tie is wrong as well. Gwinva (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Actually, after another look at the first photo, I'm not sure; it's pulled so strangely it might be a standard collar. Gwinva (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, the shirt seems just a tight fit on purpose. It seems to be a creative solution to a conservative standard with a definite sense of style about it, a "look". Probably a very recent development. Then again seeing it's from eBay, it could be just someone selling something they have obviously grown out of. I'm with kainaw on this one. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The teenage psycho-killer in the recent novel We Need to Talk about Kevin had a fetish for wearing tight clothes of this sort. His mother, the character writing the letters, explained this by saying he didn't want to grow up, a sort of Peter Pan complex. BrainyBabe (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Canceling an adoption

According to a report in the "Jerusalem Post" in July 1995, the mother of a boy born in England in the late 1950s was an English Catholic and the father a Kuwaiti Moslem, but they were not married. The mother gave the boy over to a Jewish couple for adoption, he was given the name Ian Rosenthal, and he was later converted to Judaism. At a later date he changed his name to Jonathan Bradley and went to the High Court in Britain to have his adoption overturned, but his application was not accepted. According to this newspaper article he intended to bring the case to the House of Lords and, if that failed, to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Does any user know if this case came to these Courts, or that there were any other developments in this matter? Thank you.Simonschaim (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In July 1995, this case had already gone to the Court of Appeal, where it's called 'B (A Minor)' [1995] EWCA Civ 48. It was heard by Sir Thomas Bingham (then Master of the Rolls, later Lord Chief Justice) and by Lords Justices Simon Brown and Swinton Thomas. Bradley was represented by the late Allan Levy QC and lost again. In a Judgement dated 17 March 1995, all three LJJ dismissed his appeal, while expressing deep sympathy with him, and they also refused him leave to appeal to the House of Lords. So it seems the Jerusalem Post somehow had the story wrong, if its report dated two months later suggests that appeals were still pending. For more detail of the case, see the bailii site here. Xn4 19:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Change of names of religions - Mohammedan to Muslim

In a few older books I've read, 19th C & earlier, I see Hindu spelt as Hindoo and Muslims referred to as Mohammedans/Islam as Mohammedanism, etc. I'm just wondering when we changed to the current forms & why? I don't think it could be the influence of adherents of those religions as they've got their own spellings/names in their own languages. Anyone know? AllanHainey (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I charted the data for occurrences of the words "Hindoo" and "Hindu" in the New York Times. "Hindoo" was preferred to "Hindu" from 1851 through the early 1880s. From around 1880 to 1984 they were both used in roughly equal frequencies though "Hindu" really started to be used more. From 1900-1910 the spelling of "Hindoo" dropped off considerably, though was still ocassionally used up through the early 1930s, though nowhere nearly as often as the spelling "Hindu", which really sky-rockets. By the 1950s the word "Hindoo" is only used in weird throw-back ways, or for the names of things like racehorses. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hit "edit" for this question to see my data (below) if you want to graph it yourself. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hindu/Hindoo" is simply a case of transliteration. The change of spelling does not indicate a change of name. "Mohammedanism" is rather a more interesting case. That word fell out of favour -- I don't know when or how -- for the very good reason that it grossly misrepresents the religion. Mohammed was of course the prophet who brought the message to the people, and various spellings/transliterations of his name have been used in English over the centuries. But the religion does not worship him, and it is offensive to its followers to suggest that they do. The word "Islam" is a reasonable written approximation of the Arabic word, rendered into the English writing system. The etymology of "Islam" means "to submit", and those who do are now known as "Muslims", but again other spellings have been used -- still, sometimes, "Moslems", and more anciently "Mosselman" and its variants. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that was odd, that Muslims should find "Mohammedan" offensive: Baptists don't worship John the Baptist, Calvinists don't worship Calvin, and Lutherans don't worship Martin Luther, so how does the term "Mohammedan" imply that Muslims worship Mohammed? In all these cases, the religion is simply named after its founder. If Christians don't understand that the position of Mohammed in Islam isn't equivalent to the position of Jesus in Christianity, that has nothing to do with the name that is used. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Offence about religious matters is quite subjective, and mercurial, and is more often than not learned, not innate. A Muslim who had never been told that "Mohammedism" is considered offensive to Muslims, would be unlikely to be personally offended by it. Same goes for swear words; if someone called you a "c**t", and you'd never heard that word before, you might think they were complimenting you, and thank them. Once, it was perfectly acceptable and not considered demeaning in any way to refer to an African-American as a "negro". Now, that's not so - not because the word is inherently offensive, because no words fall into that category, but because of the negative connotations that came to be placed on it. The thing with "Mohammedanism" is that the word was invented by non-Muslims, so even though there may have been no intent to offend, and even though it seems quite reasonable and useful to outsiders when they juxtapose it with words like Buddhism, Christianity, Calvinism etc, Muslims are within their rights in asking that it not be used, just as African-Americans are within their rights to do the same with "negro" and other words now considered pejorative in meaning, if not necessarily in intent. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's actually an Arabic adjective محمدي muħammadī, but it means "pertaining to Muhammad", and is not a synonym for Muslim. However, in the past the abstract noun form المحمدية al-muħammadiyya was occasionally used to refer to the entire Islamic community, and the related word أحمدي aħmadī (derived from the same root) could be used to mean "Islamic" (and still is in certain specific phrases)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In their rights, of course. I wasn't saying they weren't, just thought it was an odd thing to get offended about. "Negro" is different - that was contaminated by racism. I've never heard of anyone using "Mohammedan" as a slur, though I suppose it may have happened. (I mean, I've heard "they" used as a slur, but hey, that's America.) — kwami (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the history of the use of the term "Christian" versus "infidel" or other pejoritive terms by Moslem writers? And if the word "negro" is offensive, then do I offend people when I contribute to the United Negro College Fund? Edison (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The basic term for "Christian" in Arabic is مسيحي masiħi (where the word masiħ is an Arabic adaptation of the Hebrew word Messiah, while Greek Christos was a translation of Hebrew Messiah). However, Muslims have traditionally more often used the word نصراني nasrani (i.e. "Nazarene"). In Qur'an verse 5:72, Muhammad uses a verbal form closely-related to the noun مشرك mushrik to refer to Christians in relation to the Christian Trinity. Mushrik means "polytheist" (most literally "one who makes a partner" for God). The classic word for "infidel" in Arabic is Kafir كافر. Some would say that the term Kafir should properly be used only for those without any monotheistic beliefs (as opposed to "people of the book" such as Jews and Christians), but its usage has not usually been restricted in that way historically, and again, Muhammad set a certain precedent when he used a related verb form to refer to Christians in the same Qur'an verse 5:72 (see the verb forms yushrik and kafara at http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/5/5_72.htm etc.). Finally, there's "Giaour" (not an Arabic word). AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that in southern Africa, "kaffir" came to be used pejoratively of ... well, negroes. I assume this was derived from the Arabic word "kafir" (all corrections gratefully accepted). Which means a word originally used to describe unbelievers came to be used in a racist way. How interesting. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MP3 law question

If I buy a CD, and lose it or it gets corrupted, is it legal for me to download the mp3's off a file sharing service in the United States? I certainly believe it's ethical. Similarly, if I pay the standard fee for a music file, and it comes in a given format, is it legal to convert it to another format? My example, for the second sentence, was that I bought several files from Yahoo music for 79 cents each, and they came in protected wma, but I hated protected media, so I circumvented it by burning it to a CD then ripping it to mp3. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues for replacing a CD: according to the RIAA, it is never legal. The courts haven't tested it out, though — it might be fair use, though I doubt it. Ethical issues: If you lose or break a CD you are not entitled to a new copy for free any more than you are to a new computer if you lose or break it. If it is a manufacturer's error, then that might be different, but just because you bought something once doesn't mean you're entitled to get another one for free. The only reason you see a difference is because you are assuming there is no lost property in creating a digital version (versus the materials needed for a computer), but that's because you're not putting any value on the intellectual property in this context. I don't think it really has much ethical footing.

Legal issues for converting between files: it probably has to do with whether or not the EULA is enforceable. Read our EULA article and you'll see that sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Ethical issues for converting: depends on whether you value the rights of the producer or the rights of the consumer more. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how merely converting the file to a different format would be unethical.Tuesday42 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Khmer rouge

was precedent in khmer rouge empyting Phmom Penn? why and had happened before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.138 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was. In 1971 Pol Pot expressed concerns at meeting of Angkar's Central Committee that the towns in the 'liberated zones’ were reverting to their bad old ways. Two years later he wrote that the only way to deal with the problem was to send townspeople to work in the fields. Otherwise, "if the result of so many sacrifices was that capitalists remain in control, what was the point of the revolution?" Kratié was evacuated in 1973. Not long after 15,000 people were effectively kidnapped from Kampong Cham, and driven to the 'liberated zones'. Oudong was similarly evacuated in March 1974, a year before the much larger operation in Phnom Penn. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Daeg Faerch

There's been long-term edit warring over when this child actor was born, and no references for how his name is pronounced. Neither is particularly important, but I thought someone here might know. Thanks, — kwami (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Færch is a Danish name. The problem with Danish is that (as with English) its spelling seems to lag behind its pronunciation, so we need a Dane to tell us more. Dæg is the Old English for 'day', and I believe it means something like 'dark' in the Irish language. Xn4 18:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Saladin's wife

The Saladin article mentions that in the year Saladin marched to Damascus to claim the throne from Nur ad-Din (Nureddin), he married Nureddin's widow as a sign of respect. Who was she? It says on Nureddin's page that he married the daughter of Imad ad-Din Unur, but it doesn't list Unur's issue. Who was Saladin's wife? I am writing a book in which Saladin is one of the characters, and I would like to know for that reason.--Scott Greenstone (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe his wife was called Ismat al-Din. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's her name - `Ismat ad-Din Khatun, or at least that was her title, since it means "Lady Purity-of-the-Faith". Her father's name was Mu'in ad-Din Unur (not Imad), and she married Nur ad-Din when the two allied in 1147. Saladin married her in 1176, and she died in 1186; even though it was a politically convenient marriage and she may have been somewhat older than Saladin, they were apparently close, as Saladin continued to write letters to her everyday, and when she died in January 1186, his retinue was afraid to tell him until March. She wasn't his only wife though; as Lyons and Jackson's biography of Saladin says, "apart from references to Nur al-Din's widow `Ismat al-Din Khatun...there are almost no details to be found about his wives or the slave girls who bore him children..." (pg. 135). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(Only somewhat tongue in cheek): "He wrote to her everyday." Did she ever write back? Did he notice when the letters stopped coming? Or did his courtiers make up some excuses, like the server's down, the Pony Express was hijacked, the courier was eaten by wolves, etc? Why did it take him months to notice, and what did he do to the well-meaning liars who had tried to keep the truth from him?BrainyBabe (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hey, he found out she died!" "RUN!" Adam Bishop (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to hunt around some more - the only books at hand are Lyons and Jackson, and the recent translation of Baha ad-Din, who doesn't mention this. I'll try to get to the usual sources for Saladin's life (L&J refer to Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani for example). I was looking at ibn al-Qalanisi for more about `Ismat and Nur ad-Din, but the index is pretty useless so I'll have to dig further. Perhaps an article or two will result! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Voila - the beginnings of an article, Ismat ad-Din Khatun (al-Din works just as well, I tend to prefer the assimilated form though). I found the reference to her in Ibn al-Qalanisi, and I will have to look for Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani and Ibn al-Athir, but otherwise the references given by Lyons and Jackson are probably not going to be accessible by me. I will look at other biographies of Saladin to see what they say as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)