Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 3

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.

August 3

Would Creating a List of Goldman Sachs Research Papers Article be a Good Idea?

After all, Goldman Sachs produced a lot of research papers over the years, including some notable ones. Futurist110 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

To what end? --Jayron32 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The ref desk isn't the appropriate place to raise this. You should go to WP:AFC or perhaps Talk:Goldman Sachs. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

General questions about editing belong on WP:Help desk. I'd suggest that you start by adding notable research papers to Goldman Sachs, and then if the list gets too long, you can put it on a separate page, but don't create a page that's mostly non-notable papers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I followed your advice and created a list of the notable papers on the Goldman Sachs article. Futurist110 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Hinduism

Why is Brahma worshiped less than the other members of the Hindu trimurti? Since he's the creator god, why isn't he worshiped the most? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about this aspect of Hinduism, but a phenomenon in a number of traditional religions in various parts of the world is that there's a creator god and/or supreme head of the pantheon who's a somewhat shadowy and remote figure, and that less exalted divinities are considered much more involved in day-to-day human concerns... AnonMoos (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that's basically correct. Specifically in Hinduism it's because Brahma created the world long ago. Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer have more influence on people's lives now that the world already exists.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

jesus and figs

is there a causal relationship here between the first part and the last part?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11%3A12-14&version=KJV

reading litrally it sounds to me like he got mad because there weren't any figs so he said, you know what NOBODY gets figs. is there a deeper meaning here? It also puts J in a bad light, like he has an anger management problem - why would the bible writers write it like that (i.e. in that "causal" way as above). Finally was there some historic significance to figs that makes the sentence easier to understand. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Also: do Christians followt his edict, which seems to me extremely direct! (A lot more direct than a lot of other ones they follow.) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This here article-type thing says, "Traditional Christian exegesis regarding these accounts include affirmation of the Divinity of Jesus by demonstrating his authority over nature." It then goes on to give alternative supersessionist interpretations that connect it (for some reason) with the parable of the barren fig tree. Also, that's not a command that no one should eat figs anymore, but simply a statement that the individual tree in question would no longer bear fruit. I recommend a translation in modern English, as the King James is prone to causing all sorts of confusion in areas like that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps it is the translation - in the translation I quoted, as a single individual fig tree is not immortal, the only way anyone can possibly interpret "And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever" is that no one is to eat figs. Otherwise adding "forever" simply does not make sense. I understand that figs may be delicious but this is pretty cut and dried for anyone who can read. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. "Forever" is often used, at least in English, to mean "for as long as it would otherwise be possible". For example, "I'm leaving you forever". StuRat (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus did occasionally have a bit of a tamper tantrum, though, like the overturning of the money-changers tables at the temple. StuRat (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask if this was the reason the medieval Church chose fig leaves (over other potential obstructors) to cover the genitalia of every statue and painting they could get their hands on - "May no one ever eat fruit from you again..." - but apparently not. Oh well. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither sausages nor eggs are classified as fruit. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nuts! μηδείς (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Jesus uses the singular thou is a hint that he is talking to just one tree. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the original Greek make the distinction between singular and plural second person or is that an artifact of the KJV? --Jayron32 18:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Greek (like most European languages) distinguishes between second person singular and plural. - Lindert (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the original Greek text of that passage use the singular you or the plural you? --Jayron32 18:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you trust the KJV translators? The Greek text translated 'of thee' in Mark 11:14 is 'εκ σου', which is indeed a singular (see here for an overview of Greek pronouns). - Lindert (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't that I don't trust them, as though they were acting in bad faith. Different translators will arrive at different good-faith conclusions regarding the appropriate way to translate a passage, given the intricacies of translating in general. I believe that the KJV translators were providing what they felt was, to them, the most accurate translation of the passage. That doesn't mean that there would be universal agreement among every translator. It isn't that they would be untrustworthy, there are many good reasons to ask what the original text was, and "not trusting the translators" isn't necessarily the main reason. --Jayron32 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. Of course these translators made mistakes or had certain interpretations that others may differ in. My point was really that the knowledge of pronouns is such an elementary issue that not even a first-year Greek student would make such a blunder as to translate a plural as a singular. There is no room for such basic errors in a translation by professionals. - Lindert (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

exactly μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't have a personal stake in resolving the question, it does, however, get to the heart of the meaning of the passage to understand what the original text said. It has nothing to do with me, so arguing with me over what I feel about it is completely besides the point. It is quite relevent, when discussing what a passage in an historical text says, to know what the passage in the historical text, you know, actually says. I don't really understand why you spent three responses personalizing this to me regarding my supposed opinion of the KJV translators, of which I have none, and even if I did, it wouldn't change the relevence of knowing what a passage said when discussing what it was a passage said. --Jayron32 18:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly trust the translations in the King James Version. For example, is "Thou shalt not kill" a correct translation ? If taken literally, it not only forbids murder, but also executions, killing in war, and killing animals and plants. (Technically it also forbids the killing of microorganisms, but they can be excused on that count for not knowing of their existence.) I suspect that the original meaning was closer to "Thou shalt not commit murder". StuRat (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It is kind of hard to get translating the second person pronoun συ (cognate with Latin tu, PIE in general) with the English thou wrong. The difficulty in "Thou shalt not kill" (originally from Hebrew) is in the meaning of the verb, not the pronoun. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As with so many things, we have an article You shall not murder. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's even worse than I thought, with the original meaning more like "Thou shalt not destroy", which could mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Fig fruit has a laxative effect, and thus promotes regular bowel movements. Other religious leaders whose teachings have emphasised peace, such as the Dalai Lama, have also been documented as considering regular bowel movements to be important. However, it may be undue synthesis to connect Jesus' annoyance at not finding a readily available supply of fig fruit with such considerations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am not seeing where this question has been personalized. The text with word-for word translation is here, and is quite straightforward:
  καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῇ·
  And answering he-said to-it
  μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰώνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι.
  No-more in the aeon from thee nobody a-fruit shall-eat (optative)
  καὶ ἤκουον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
  and they-heard the disciples [the words] of-him
  And Jesus answered and said unto it
  No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever
  And his disciples heard it. -KJV
  It is also very interesting that thou (i.e., you singular) is one of the most basic of words, one of the most conservative words in linguistic evolution, on the Swadesh list, as well as the third in all roots for stability on the Dolgopolsky list. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to mention, αὐτῇ and σοῦ are both explicitly singular forms here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor point: the Textus Receptus, the basis for the cited (KJV) translation has a slightly different word order and adds 'ο ιησους'. - Lindert (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In 11-13 it says "the indeed season not it was of figs", or as it says in the article, "because it was not the season for figs". So even if only one fig tree was affected by this curse, it still seems a sulky and gratuitously destructive act. The part further on, where Jesus incites everybody to magically throw mountains in the sea, if they feel like it, seems downright dangerous. Jesus was in his middle thirties at the time, and frankly I would expect more maturity and more responsible actions.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He obviously didn't get enough sleep, pending crucifixion and all, and was cranky.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So Jesus behaved irresponsibly, eh, Card Zero? How about we give him a thorough dressing down, a good thrashing, and send him bed without his supper. Yes, that oughta fix it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, a metaphorical interpretation of the "mountain, sea; sea, mountain" passage greatly mitigates any real danger that would otherwise be involved. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003366#s=15:0-16:414.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The story is a metaphor. The fruit tree heard his words, but did not respond, and was cursed. This is more of an ancient gnostic teaching than a modern ethical one. Heed Jesus' saving message, or the same will happen to you. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a strange passage, but it did inspire the sadly defunct website GodHatesFigs.com. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Eva Braun

In the article, there is a part where I don't understand the purpose of it. "She attempted suicide twice during their early relationship." Obviously it is the relationship between her and Hitler. So why did she attempt to suicide? Was it because of Hitler? Pendragon5 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that she was depressed due to Hilter always being away with work...those untermenschen didn't just erradicate themsevles you know. 101.172.127.247 (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you're saying that word in a serious manner. That's sickening. --Activism1234 18:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The tradition here is that small text is used when not being serious. Besides, the turn of phrase "those X don't Y themselves you know" is much overused in lazy parody, and nazis have been the regular target of parody for over 70 years, The Great Dictator being a notable example. So I think you're feeling sick by mistake.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a fan of Nazi jokes, particularly those relating to genocide, but thanks for the explanation. --Activism1234 21:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not just away with work. Nobody's totally sure why she did it, but she was probably jealous of him seeing other women and not spending time with her. It seemed to work to get Hitler's attention.[1][2][3][4] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In a documentary I saw once, there was an argument that Hitler didn't want to be married, because it would make him more attractive to the female voters. (That's a very simplistic rephrasing of a more complex argument from memory, and it doesn't sound very convincing at all.) However, if Braun saw herself to be the 'secret lover', closeted away, and not being able to be with her man outside, that could lead her to commit suicide. V85 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Halbstadt

Here, at page 186 of this book http://books.google.it/books?id=jdRO9_rsokUC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=hegewald+halbstadt&source=bl&ots=6n5_Fv8cF7&sig=ycYjqmDWZi9AHmY79D2scyTCDhE&hl=it&sa=X&ei=9fsbUM6bMsSL4gT0_4CoAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false, there is a wartime photo of the town sign of the Nazi colony of Halbstadt. It reads: "Halbstadt Deutsche Kolonie - Нім. ҝолонія - Colonia Germana". Apparently, the first and second ones are German and Ukrainian/Russian for "German colony". What I'm wondering are the language and the purpose (that's why I'm asking here and not at the Language Desk) of the third part (Colonia Germana). To me it sounds like Latin, but it doesn't make much sense, does it? --151.41.181.244 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Germanicus/Germanica was the usual Latin word for German (adjective)[5]. (Germania was Germany.) The Nazis liked Latin when they wanted to pretend to rule an empire as mighty as Rome's, as in Hitler's plans for Welthauptstadt Germania. Although i guess it could be a failed attempt to transliterate the Russian, or possibly even Romanian or Ladino language. (I assume it was the Halbstadt in Ukraine? The book isn't visible in all countries.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The middle language is not Russian. There are no i's - dotted or otherwise - in Russian. Dotted i's are a feature of Ukrainian, though. The Russian for "German colony" would be Нeмeтская ҝолония, abbreviated to Нeм. ҝолония. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Though not relevant here, it ought to be specified that Russian has no ‹і› since the spelling reform of 1918. —Tamfang (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Colonia Germana" is Romanian (it could also be Latin but "Germanus/a/um" usually means something else). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

is nationalism collectivism?

I can imagine an "ultra-individualist", perhaps some Ayn-Randian type, making a case that this is so. But then I think about Victorian England and other nations at the time, I mean they were pretty nationalist but also individualist. On the contrary, Eastern Europe was collectivist but also pretty multi-cultural, avant la lettre :) (Eastern Europe's diversity (think Carpathia, Bessarabia, those lands) is sometimes cited as a reason for her delayed adoption of new stuff as compared to the West.) But then in today's world, most ethnic conflicts seem to unfold in traditionalist (as opposed to Post-Modern) societies, that I guess also are collectivist and tribal as hell. Or is tribalism a sign of a failure to instill (healthy) nationalism? Is then tribalism collectivism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Уга-уга12 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationalism is by definition exclusive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No logical reason why someone couldn't be nationalistically loyal to a Night-watchman state... AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that "collectivism" is a term almost entirely derivative of Rand's ideology, I would suggest that you peruse the original texts regarding Rand's opinion of the nation. I deal regularly with colleagues whose work pertains to the "national" and "the national imaginary" and "collectivism" is not a term used or considered pertinent in current scholarship. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Collectivism is a socialist term dating to Bakunin and Kropotkin and used as frequently by Hayek and Marx as by Rand. The fact that modern leftists "academics" avoid it is hardly surprising. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.Уга-уга12 (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It may not be as relevant to current scholarship, but it's a nice intuitive term with a long history. I never regarded it as something made-up by a single person (and I know a made-up term when I see one, "praxiology", for example).Уга-уга12 (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)