Humanities desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

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.

January 16

Another SDA question

Followup on the section just above...Among meat-eating Seventh-Day Adventists, are cheeseburgers considered a permissible food? I'm seeing lots of webpages, including our Seventh-day Adventist Church article, that say that SDAs are expected to keep kashrut, but I'm not clear whether that involves obeying Talmudic standards (including meat-and-milk, which absolutely forbids cheeseburgers, even though all the components are clean by themselves) or developing their own standards on how to obey the biblical text. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says they keep to the rules of Leviticus 11. The milk-meat prohibition is found in Exodus and Deuteronomy so perhaps not. Rmhermen (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leviticus 11 does not mention the milk-and-meat prohibition, and even there the restriction has been subject to an incredible amount of rule creep. The original rule is not to boil a calf in it's mother's milk. This has come to mean no dairy products and no meat of any kind, to the point that chicken parmesan, ironically, is forbidden, but not egg in one's stuffed poultry. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I learned this by accident a few years ago, while eating at a pizza restaurant with several friends including two Orthodox Jews. I understood why they weren't willing to have a "normal" meat pizza, regardless of the type of meat, but I was visibly confused when they said that they couldn't eat chicken on the pizza; I figured it was safe, since chickens don't produce milk. I feel marginally better, seeing from Milk and meat#The term "halev immo" that a prominent rabbi took the same position! But yes, basically my question was asking whether they follow a specifically SDA interpretation of the text, or whether they follow a Orthodox Jewish interpretation; even if you ignore everything outside of Leviticus 11, there's still plenty of relevant text in the Talmud. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a Jewish point of view, see http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm § "Separation of Meat and Dairy" LongHairedFop (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These sources [1] (blog, but links to better sources like [2]), [3], [4], [5], [6] & [7] suggest it's more complicated than simply following Leviticus 11. It sounds like it's a weird combination of beliefs relating to the health benefits of certain diets, and what the bible says. In particular, it sounds like there's no strict adherence to the dietary laws or Leviticus and Deuteronomy or anything else in the bible. Rather, vegetarianism is seen as the ideal, with pork and other meats discouraged or forbidden for Jewish people in the bible seen as especially bad and unhealthy if you do eat meat (so are rarely, if ever, eaten). There is a suggestion that eating milk and eggs is something that may eventually have to be abandoned, and some Adventists are vegans although it sounds like the current most common message remains that such consumption is currently okay in moderation. I can't find any specific comment on the milk and meat issue, but considering as has been said above, the actual bibilical comment is fairly unclear, it's perhaps not surprising this part is largely ignored. I did find these discussions, [8] & [9], obviously not RS but it does suggest the prohibition may be viewed as a moral issue relating to the connection between a mother and its offspring, rather than a health issue so not perceived the same as eating pork and other 'unclean' animals. Note that the source on Ellen G. White's writings above suggest the unclean animal thing took a while to come about, with an initial concentration on pork (which in itself wasn't initially widely held compared to the vegetarism). Also from some of the sources, it seems Adventists may discourage the combination of milk and refined sugar (as well as a general reduction of refined sugar in general). I did find [10] which recommends against combining milk with anything but I can't find evidence that it's widely held. All in all, it seems to me a cheeseburger isn't something many Adventists will consider good to eat, but they may not view it quite the same as a bacon cheeseburger, although that isn't absolutely forbidden per se anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cities whose borders and administrative divisions remained the same since the 1800s or earlier than the 1800s (all the way up to today)?

As far as I know, both Paris (whose external borders and the borders of its administrative divisions remained unchanged since 1860) and New York City (whose external borders and the borders of its administrative divisions remained unchanged since 1898) both qualify for this.

That said, exactly which other cities, if any, qualify for this/meet this criteria of mine?

Also, to clarify, I am talking about large cities here (I will let you define "large" here); finally, my view on this question is this: the larger the city, the better. Futurist110 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the addition of some landfill on the waterfronts,San Francisco borders appear unchanged from this 1861 map; the border between SF and San Mateo County was established sometime after 1856. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Act of Consolidation, 1854, which helped to make Philadelphia one of the biggest cities in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DC gave it's trans-river land to Virginia pretty early. Now it's a cut-off square. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it became a single municipality in 1871 (previously, Georgetown and Washington itself were two cities within the District.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How far does legal snapping turtle discrimination go?

As I was revisiting an old New England mystery, I stumbled onto another in the sidebar.

In 1971, Connecticut enacted legislation handing over power to regulate trade in basically everything with a face, except snapping turtles. Apparently, everything else went smoothly, but the demand for unregulated snapping turtle meat was just too high. Now someone (not a turtle) demands equality.

This seems like one of those quirky things one state does (the politician's name is Lesser), but does bullshit like this exist in other places? And is anyone outraged? Not here, I mean. In the referenceable world. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it was deliberately worded to counteract previous legislation which outlawed the sale of turtle meat. According to Senator Stanley J. Pac - "The present statute permits the sale and exchange, possession of pelts hides and what have you of wild animals and quadrupeds. If they are legally acquired. However, inadvertently, it forbids the use of snapping turtle as food. So this is the real purpose. This would permit the use of smapping turtles as a commercial food. I urge the passage of this momentous legislation."[11]Hack (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To which the Chair replies: "I was reading in the Book of Solomon, just the other night, The Voice of the Turtle is heard in the land." And then he passes the turtle instead of the law. Did marijuana happen to be legal in 1971 Connecticut? Thanks for finding this! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Connecticut was unaware of the cosmological significance of the turtle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this Lesser guy doesn't pull a Yertle. I found this 1968 prog album which may explain that Chairman. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what this is explaining, but it's pretty good, in a crappy way. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I seem to have been oblivious to the problem in my own backyard. Snapping turtles are considered an endangered species and the only reptile open for hunting in Ontario. At least as of 2012, when Garfield Dunlop noticed "It doesn’t make any sense to me.” InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few months later, the law changed. A little. Now if you catch one, you have to report it. That's almost like protecting them. Which they don't have to do, because it's not technically endangered anymore, just "of special concern". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's good eating according to some very unreliable sources. [12][13] Hack (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in at least one eminently readable one: Terry Pratchett's Small Gods features a deity that through misfortune (i.e. not being believed in much) ends up in the form of a turtle, and repeatedly finds Himself threatened with the cooking-pot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty cool. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's a tortoise! Great A'Tuin is a turtle. Yes, I know that taxonomically tortoises are in the turtle order. But if Pratchett had meant 'turtle' he'd have said 'turtle'. --ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. I should check my sources more carefully. Right you are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But so are most of the "normal" animals. Why do snapping turtles keep getting special laws? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario tried to change the Environmental Bill of Rights in 2010. The Ministry of Natural Resources declared public interest in turtles didn't warrant wasting their time, and damage by postponing to snapping turtles was "relatively low" (despite admitting they don't collect population or harvesting data), but they'd figure something out by September 2014. Such a specific animal to have such a problem with. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"handing over power" to whom? —Tamfang (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "environmental protection commissioner", whoever that is. The one who handles the other quadrupeds. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the original declaration of open season. I wonder if this may have been a factor - "In Connecticut and elsewhere, snapping turtles have a reputation for decimating game fish and waterfowl populations." [14] Hack (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hunters and sport fishers have huge power in some legislative domains. E.g. Ducks_Unlimited wants very badly to conserve their ability to shoot ducks, and groups like the American sportfishing association [15] can also exert pretty strong pressure. So it seems reasonable to me that protecting sport hunting would be a factor in snapping turtle control. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks Unlimited are conservationists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks Unlimited are conservationists who's website contains a great deal of information on how to hunt ducks. [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some subtext in this discussion which would seem to imply that some people believe that hunters cannot be also conservationists. Of course they can. The hobby on the one hand, and the political position on the other hand, have nothing to do with one another. --Jayron 32 20:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Nothing to do with one another'? Really? That seems a strange assertion to make. Particularly after I pointed out that the conservationists website includes information regarding the best way to hunt ducks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be less obfuscatory. The tone and subtext of the conversation showed that some people were expressing incredulity at the notion that a hunter could be a conservationist, or that there was some how a moral contradiction that was introduced that a group which hunts would also advocate for conservation. I was merely pointing out that there is no moral contradiction. One can have a hobby such as hunting, and still be a conservationist and want to protect the natural environment. One could also hunt, and not give a shit. The one fact (that one hunts) neither requires nor denies the other fact. You could be a hunter and support conservation. You could also be a hunter and not support conservation. The two concepts are thus unrelated to each other. One should not be surprised or skeptical about a hunting group that also supports environmental causes. Such people are perfectly capable of being earnest environmentalists and also avid hunters. --Jayron 32 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks Unlimited's "Position on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and Hunting". ---Sluzzelin talk 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether there is a 'moral contradiction' between hunting and conservation seems to be a matter of opinion - and this is a reference desk, where we aren't supposed to be offering our personal opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken no stance one way or the other. I was merely pointing out the problem with people who express opinions by means of tone of writing in the way they ask questions; who cast aspersions by posing questions in an incredulous way, or make statements of an incredulous tone, so as to give themselves plausible deniability in their aspersion-casting. I don't care one way or another about the actual opinions here, I just don't want people to obfuscate their own opinion in subtext. --Jayron 32 04:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their being conservationists is fact, not opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's not just an opinion, but a factual statement that can in principle be referenced, such as by statistics that show how many wetlands actually have been saved by DU. (There's always been more leeway for OR here than in article space.) But what matters more is that this is not the original question. — Sebastian 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a conservation movement and an environmental movement. One group wants animals around for their children to kill and/or eat. One doesn't consider them "resources". But yeah, ducks get special treatment, too. Thanks for reminding me the snapping turtle isn't in the margin by himself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sought: study on a certain group of entries (fiction)

Do you know of any study that deals with Wikipedia's entries on fiction? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you should be waaay more specific. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I meant entries on single items (works) that would belong to Category:Literature (by which I mean fictional literature, e.g. Shakespeare & Co., not what people mean when they say "in the literature"). So this could include poetry, drama, whatever genre, really. Do you know if anyone ever studied how Wikipedia portrays such works? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a directory of various Wikipedia Projects on all types of literature, see WP:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Culture/Language_and_literature. Links should lead you to genre Project pages & thus to Categories useful for narrowing in on specific interests.

Richard Rogers, "Wikipedia as a Cultural Reference", ch. 8 in his Digital Methods (MIT, 2013), while dealing not with the Western canon, but with Wikipedia coverage of the Srebrenica massacre according to Dutch, Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian Wikipedias, looks like a good place to start for an empirical approach that could be applied to most any subject matter.

Thanks, Paulscrawl, will take a look at it. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have in mind? - Paulscrawl (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to know more about what experts say might be considered the prevalent theoretical slant in descriptions of literary works in Wikipedia entries. Can any approach be rated as being the dominant one in entries on literary works of art? E.g., in case NOR is adhered to, from which section of reliable published sources are references taken? And which point of view among the wealth of information about research results is mostly considered to be neutral enough NPOV? Just a single one, and if yes, which one in particular? If no, which approaches to a certain literary work of art are deemed relevant? It is questions like these that I seek experts' answers to. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "fictional literature" would be things like a fictional book, e.g. the Necronomicon or Air Chrysalis. Shakespeare is just "fiction" :) I tried to search google scholar for analysis of WP articles on fiction but couldn't find anything that relevant. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terms and classifications are always interesting, it seems. See my answer to the article pointed out below. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This paper might be relevant - the authors compare English Wikipedia's coverage of topics to that of the corpus of books published in English. About literature, they say: "One of the most marked differences, that in language and literature, is to be expected. An encyclopedia is unlikely to map the publishing industry in every regard, and since nearly 15% of new books published each year are fictional, and fiction is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, there is a discrepancy. In practice, there is actually a substantial number of articles that represent literary criticism on Wikipedia, otherwise the disparity would be even greater. The documentation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for example, or commentary on the Harry Potter series, is voluminous. ... Fans drive the creation and development of articles ... in the fine arts (e.g., comics) and literature. "184.147.128.97 (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a pretty strong tenet, I'd say: "fiction is not appropriate for an encyclopedia" ;-) thank you for your pointer, 184.147.128.97. Not quite my direction of interest at this point, but certainly a surprise which might generate new questions. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I think that even listing data about material objects like books (e.g. in infoboxes) says something like "this is the minimum you need to know about x", and especially so if the entry contains practically no other information on this work of art. Just why is this considered the minimum? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]