Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 22

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 22

Entrepreneurship/business question: the success of iTunes

Why do you think iTunes succeeded? I mean, it seems pretty useless to me. It's certainly expensive (1$ a song is okay if you're just going to get 2-3 songs) and, with all that music easily available for free (though in maybe not-so-legal places sometimes)... I just can't come up with a reason for its success. So, what do you think? Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The illegal/semi-legal P2P programs are pretty crappy these days. Personally, as someone whose computer might as well be run by tiny gnomes, simple programs like Sharezaa or the like are easier to use than, say, torrents, so I imagine it is the same for other non-technically-minded people. It's much, much faster to grab something from iTunes. I would therefore guess laziness is a big reason. Also, since songs are actually 99 cents, it seems a lot cheaper than a dollar, even though it isn't. So it's the same reason anyone does anything, laziness and ignorance... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are really two questions here. First, why do people buy music when it's available for free? A lot of people either don't feel comfortable stealing, don't know reliable ways to, or are happy to pay in order to support the bands they like. Second, why do people buy music from iTunes rather than other sources? iTunes has obvious advantages over buying CDs: it's more convenient than having to go out and by a physical disc or wait for one to ship, and it also tends to be a little cheaper ($9.99 per album is usually less than elsewhere). As for other digital music stores, I would chalk it up to superior visibility and marketing that comes with being a big company like Apple. The main drawback to buying from iTunes rather than other places was the DRM until they removed it, but I think most people don't care enough. Rckrone (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. That's more or less what I was thinking. But, Rckrone, please, don't say that downloading music is "stealing". You can say "illegally copying" if you want to. --Belchman (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't illegally copying stealing? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. You aren't stopping the rightful owner from having it, which is a key component of theft. It is copyright infringement, a completely different law. --Tango (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That illegal downloading is a form of theft arises out of the downloader taking without permission some of the property rights of the owner. I don't think any number of angels dancing on a pinhead obscures that fact. I'm sorry if that is not your world view. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Theft is taking with the intention to permanently deprive. When you infringe upon someone's rights they still have those rights, so they haven't been deprived of them. They may have been deprived of the benefits of those rights, but that would be considered damages, not theft. --Tango (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)That's not exactly true. While you haven't stolen the original, you've still stolen his ability to profit from it. So it's kind of "indirect" theft. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ability to profit" isn't a tangible thing than can be stolen. If you are going to extend the definition of theft to include intangible things like that you could end up claiming most crimes are a form of theft, eg. assault is "theft of wellbeing". To say someone has stolen your profits you would have to show both that they profited from it and that you would have got those profits had they not. That is very rarely the case with the kind of thing we are talking about. --Tango (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Morally speaking, it's theft. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My morals don't use technical legal terminology. Things can be "right" and they can be "wrong" (and they can be in a grey area inbetween), words like "theft" do not appear in my moral conclusions about things. --Tango (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you try to justify it, it's still theft. It's taking something away from someone, be it the object itself, or their rights to profit from it, either way it's theft. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some people here are very sensitive about this topic. Maybe they're "selling" their music or they're not particularly brilliant and can't understand some subtleties. Anyway, that's off-topic here and that discussion should be avoided, thanks! --Belchman (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An economist might also point out that itunes is a monopoly waiting to happen. A [natural monopoly] is one where market power comes from the economies of scale inherent in the particular industry. Economies of scale occur when the fixed cost of a business are high but the variable costs are low. In this context a variable cost is one that varies with the number of units the business sells. A digital music store is a perfect example of such economies of scale. It costs Apple tonnes of money to develop itunes and the store, host the downloads and do all the advertising they do. But it costs them next to nothing to actually supply you with a song when you click purchase. The only thing they have to pay for is the additional bandwidth you use when downloading that song. No CD, no case, no labour, nothing. Once they had a large customer base (which was made easier by the success of the ipod) it was almost inevitable that they would succeed.--124.171.182.106 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also the case that in the music industry, digital rights and etc. were tied up for years and years before deals could be worked out. Only a few "buy digital music online" stores actually have catalogs that most people are interested in—basically iTunes and Amazon.com are the two players who have managed to work out the necessary legal mumbo-jumbo in order to secure the rights to sell the music on a large scale. The legal aspects of it almost guarantee that only a few large players are going to be able to break into the market itself—only they will have the negotiating power to keep their costs low so the whole thing can be profitable. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice thoughts too, thanks! --Belchman (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Truths which are allegedly created by opinions about what the truth is

Maybe this should be on the Linguistics desk, but it's also sort of philosophy-related, and I'm looking at it more from a philosophical point of view than a linguistic one. Is there a term for cases where the "correct" answer to a specific question is claimed to be entirely dependent on what people think the correct answer is? (I don't mean cases where someone says "there's no correct answer" or "it depends on how you define it", because it's being asserted that there is a correct answer — it's just that the correct answer is created by the attempt to find it, rather than existing abstractly. I also don't mean cases where someone says that all truth is a matter of opinion.)

For example, I see a lot of arguments about whether Turkey is a European country. Some say it is and some say it isn't, but some say that "Europe" is just a label and therefore means whatever we say it does, meaning that our own opinions as to whether Turkey is in Europe or not actually shape the correct answer to the question. The argument goes that if everyone considered Turkey to be European, that would by itself mean that Turkey is truly and genuinely European, and that conversely, if no-one saw Turkey as European, that fact alone would mean that Turkey wasn't European, completely regardless of anything else. Thus, the argument goes, you shouldn't really argue about the "correct" answer to the question because the aggregate or outcome of the argument is the only thing which could create such a thing as the correct answer. You could take similar approaches to questions like "is this thing red or orange?", or "is Cantonese a language or a dialect", or really, anything that involves applying labels to things. You could also come up with claims about wants correlating to good ideas — for example, someone might claim that if a country wants to abolish its monarchy, then that in and of itself makes abolishing the monarchy an objectively good idea, but that if the country doesn't want to abolish it's monarchy, then that is enough to make keeping the monarchy the objectively correct choice — that is, the chosen option is correct because it is what was chosen, and for no other reason.

Setting aside the issue of whether this is a valid line of reasoning, is there a term for it? Do we have any articles which cover concepts like that? -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophecy and begging the question gently approach this subject before backing away in fear for what they are unleashing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Can there be any doubt that "Turkey", "Europe" and "country" only have the meanings people assign to them? Surely Turkey was not a country in Europe when dinosaurs ruled the Earth? --Sean 12:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to rely on verifiability, not TRUTH, and articles are the result of consensus among editors. Therefore, all articles are examples of your thesis. -Arch dude (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as everything we perceive is filtered through our own senses, we can truly not be 100% certain that we aren't just some autistic child imagining the entire world into existance. At some level, we must accept the truth as we sense it, because it becomes impossible to operate in the world if we do not. Insofar as elements of the truth are inventions of the human mind or of human culture, Wikipedia reports those human cultural truths, such as which cultural sphere Turkey belongs to, as best as can be verified by reliable sources. Being an invention of human consciousness does not make something less real than being a rock. --Jayron32 16:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a term for it, beyond "semantics", but what I call it is the tendency of humans to invent a label that doesn't quite work, and then to argue over whether something fits the label or not. Being in Europe vs. being in Asia is one obvious example. Another is the matter of different races and who fits into them. Religion and politics also come into it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably the term you are searching for is semiotics which includes not only semantics, but every aspect of communication and obtaining meaning through words. --Jayron32 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

See social constructivism, nominalism, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And since there are Stipulative definitions it might all depend on what definition of Europe you prefer.Sjö (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We are touching on the rhetorical concept of equivocation, where the two or more different meanings of a word are deliberately or unconsciously confused so as to lead to an apparently logical but actually invalid argument or conclusion. Sticking with the "is Turkey in Europe?" example, the terms "Europe" and "European" can be applied to a strictly geographical area, a political concept, or a cultural concept; the contextual definitions and "boundaries" of the three do not coincide, nor need they — one might (and another might not) consider Turkey geographically (mostly) in Asia rather than in Europe (theoretically capable of absolute definition), politically in Europe (definition subject to treaty date), and culturally partly in both (subject to subjective measurement). Such dishonest or mistaken arguments often also mix in the unspoken, inapplicable concept of mutual exclusivity - why should Turkey not be considered to fall within the cultural spheres of both Europe and Asia?

Such rhetorical misapplications are of course ubiquitous in human discourse, particularly in politics and religion. Consider for example the uses of the words "human" in the "Right to Life v. Right to Choose", and "chance" in the "Anti- v. Pro- Evolution", controversies. (Disclaimer: I'm NOT seeking to foment any discussion of those topics here!). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

War Declarations

I am looking to build a database of official war declarations. It should be for wars between two nations (no coups, no civil wars). Is there already a database compiled, either electronically, or bound (I'd hate to reinvent it)? In addition to UN security council resolutions (such as this), I'm also interested in official declarations, such as these. Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have a large task ahead of you. As Declaration of war points out, official declarations of war have been made since the beginning of recorded history (see Epic of Gilgamesh). This site contains declarations of war for the WWII period. That is only one small period of history, though. See Lists of wars to get an idea of how many wars will fit your criteria. I've not seen a collection covering more than a small segment of history. AFAIK you'll be the first to create a general database of this nature. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right on all counts. I'm limiting myself to interstate wars, since 1800, and with at least 1000 casualties. That reduces the list to around 80. Thanks for the WWII list. Looks like it's an uphill road for me. Llamabr (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Focus on premarital sexual relations in Abrahamaic religions

Is there any research or academic opinion on why the three Abrahamic religions have such a strong focus on proscribing premarital sexual relations, and if so, what is it? I would have thought (perhaps naïvely) that, given the pleasurable experience of sex, and the strong biological urge to engage in it, plus its necessity for population growth, that declaring it "sinful" seems illogical and counterproductive - hence my question.

I am aware that this is a sensitive topic, and I sincerely hope that I have not offended anyone with my question - if I have, I apologise. I would be most interested in answers that go beyond "(insert deity of choice) said so", but you are of course at liberty to give me this response if it's a conclusion that research has come to :). — QuantumEleven 18:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons why premarital sex is a bad idea for social reasons; not the least of which is that in most human cultural situations, having a stable two-parent household presents noted advantages for the children of that household. To discourage irresponsible behavior which may have the unintended consequence of the birth of a child into a disadvantaged situation can only be seen as a positive thing. Remember, there was no birth control pill thousands of years ago, and people who actually sat down and thought about it probably realized that it was somewhat irresponsible to bring children into the world when you are unprepared to actually raise them properly. Just a thought. --Jayron32 18:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good explanation. It's important to keep in mind that the Ten Commandments do not prohibit premarital sex, but only adultery; i.e. "unfaithfulness", and that's what typically rips a marriage apart. Discouraging premarital sex also discourages "shopping around". In fact, despite the official proscription, among conservatives there is a high degree of tolerance for premarital sex of couples that stay faithful to each other in the long haul (the Palins are an obvious example). There's also the old saying about married couples: "The first child can come anytime, the second one always takes nine months." The real issue is not so much premarital sex as it is "faithfulness" - both before and after marriage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would the Ten Commandments be binding upon non-Jews? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about 'binding' but as our Ten Commandments article says "The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, are a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to Judeo-Christian tradition, were authored by God and given to Moses on the mountain referred to as "Mount Sinai" (Exodus 19:23) or "Horeb" (Deuteronomy 5:2) in the form of two stone tablets. They are recognized as a moral foundation in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[2]". The Old Testament of course "refers to the books that form the first of the two-part Christian Biblical canon. These works correspond to the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), with some variations and additions" and is therefore an essential part of most Christian faiths Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine for a Wikipedia article, based on consensus, but since this is a reference desk where people may enjoy reality devoid of consensus, I thought I'd just toss out (in the sense of "making it known," and not "place in refuse") the idea that, from a Jewish perspective, one cannot necessarily determine why non-Jews believe the Ten Commandments apply to them any more than the rest of the Old Testament. The Old Testament was, as you said, given to the Jews at Mount Sinai. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that's irrelevant to the question. The fact of the matter is most Christians believe the Ten Commandments do apply to them and Muslims follow beliefs similar to the Ten Commandments (depending on your POV, either based on, perhaps even a corrupted version of, the Ten Commandments or a more 'pure' version that wasn't corrupted by humans). Whether or not other people believe they should apply to them is an irrelevant issue since it is Christians and Muslims who determine what applies to them, not anyone else. (Many Christians and Muslims of course do believe that all people of other faiths, including Jewish people are mistaken in their beliefs and should ultimately be brought to the true God i.e. their beliefs, but these views of course are irrelevant when it comes to looking at what Jewish people and those of other religions believe.) Also, while it's been a while since Sunday School as far as I'm aware most Christians believe the entire Old Testament does apply to them. There are a large number of parts which they consider no longer necessary since they were superceeded by their convenant with God via Jesus but that's somewhat different from saying parts don't apply to them. This is mentioned for example in Passover (Christian holiday) "Most Christians simply no longer celebrate the Passover, since it is seen to belong rather to a Jewish or Old Testament tradition which is no longer necessary" and Biblical law in Christianity "Although Christianity by tradition affirms that the Five Books of Moses, also called the Pentateuch, are the inspired word of God, Christian tradition, in this case similar to Jewish tradition, denies that all biblical law (specifically the Mosaic covenant) applies directly to Christians, but different arguments are used to reach that conclusion and there are differences of opinion within Christianity as to which laws, if any, apply. The predominant Christian view is that Jesus mediates a New Covenant relationship between God and his followers". As to why Christians believe certain laws have been superceeded and certain one's haven't been, well you can start a topic on that if you want, but it doesn't seem to concern the question much (ultimately it is their belief, whether or not it makes sense, I mean if we wanted to go further we could ask where did the Ten Commandments come from in the first place). I believe however part of the belief is that the two commandments given by Jesus is a summarisation of the Ten Commandments, in other words Jesus made an explicit reference to the Ten Commandments and the importance of following them whereas it is believed many other laws Jesus directly contradicted or at least ignored as being unimportant. To some extent the apostles come into this as well particularly Peter. Those who don't believe are likely to give more human motives for why they are ignored but I think this discussion is already enough OT as it is. Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to drag this away from the original question -- I was merely questioning BaseballBugs' mention of the Ten Commandments + how that is relevant to the two Abrahamic religions of greater representation by population. The Ten Commandments, along with the other 603 commandments of the Old Testament, were given to the Jews via Moses at Mount Sinai. That's how adultery plays into that Abrahamic religion. Gentiles are subject to violations related to adultery via a different pathway, the Seven Noachide Laws. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also the issue of legitimacy. The Abrahamic religions tend to be patriarchal and patrilineal (some might even say misogynistic) - authority, heredity and standing travel down the male line. It's relatively easy to tell who someones mother is, but prior to DNA testing, it's much harder to tell who the father is. Not having an officially recognized father was a big blow to your social status - it's the original meaning of the term bastard. If people are married and only have sex within the marriage, it's easy to tell who the father is, and more importantly, it's easy for the father to be sure the child is his. One way of ensuring that no extra-marital pregnancy happens is to put *strong* prohibitions on all sex outside of marriage, which, given the morals of the day, resulted in eye for an eye type punishments. Having children wait for marriage wasn't too much of a burden, as most in those days married as teenagers* - people didn't wait 'till their late 20's/early 30's like many do now. *(Note to nit-pickers: "teenagers" encompases 17-19 year-olds as well as 14-16 year-olds - my main point is that there weren't many unmarried 22 year-olds running around.) -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Which accounts for why that one gospel goes to great lengths to lay out the lineage of Joseph as being descended from David - apparently having forgotten that Joseph was (supposedly) not the father of Jesus. The OP talks about "pleasurable", and that's where the religious conflict comes into it. You won't hear religionists talking about "pleasure", but about the need for family stability. The bottom line is that strict religionists consider the primary purpose of sex to be reproduction, and reproduction is supposed to happen only within the proper boundary, i.e. marriage - which is at least part of the reason that homosexuality is hated so much by strict religionists - because it is, by definition, connected only with pleasure, and totally disconnected with reproduction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider the role of concubines. Abraham had Ishmael by his concubine Hagar, before Sarah conceived Isaac. Obviously this pre-dated the 10 Commandments. What had changed between Abraham and Moses to make concubines illegal? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

One should also consider that the actions of every biblical character are not always supposed to be as "positive" role models. After all, in the Hebrew/Christian scripture, Ishmael was not the son God was talking about when he promised he would bless Abrahams decendentants as a chosen nation. Even King David, arguable the most important hero of the entire Old Testament, possibly excepting only Moses himself, does LOTS of stuff which is not supposed to be repeated by good boys. The deal with Isaac being the son through which the nation of Israel is born is that he was the legitimate son born within wedlock; it's a pretty obvious lesson even in the Pre-Mosaic Hebrew world. Trust in God, believe he will keep his promises, and even if you are in your 90's he will grant you the son he promised to be the father of His nation. Ishmael was NOT similarly blessed because Ishmael represented Abraham's own attempt to solve his problem outside of God's plan. Just because someone does it in the Bible does not mean it's OK... --Jayron32 20:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In Judaism (I cannot speak for Christianity), Abraham's legacy was not not established through Ishmael because he was born out of wedlock. Concubinism was and is legal from a biblical standpoint -- any modern hesitation is purely rabbinical in nature. To support this, Judah's lineage through his daughter-in-law Tamar, namely Zerah and Pharez, are not only considered legitimate while being out of wedlock, but also from a incestuous relationship! However, in Jewish law, the Torah itself is considered a closed book and cannot be understood without rabbinic commentary, the elaboration of which is perhaps too long-winded and off-the-topic for includion at this juncture. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Tangential to the original question but relevant to some of the comments is the argument put forward by Erich Fromm (and I'm sure by others) that churches find that sex tends to be something that challenges their control over their members, so they often demonise it or make it dirty or shameful. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Exact, that's the point. And it is expecially true for Abrahamaic religions, that is, war religions, created to bring people to killing and being killed, which works so efficiently when done in the name of God. (It is an old story, making love is somehow an obstacle to making war). --pma (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Some very good comments so far, touching on why it is proscribed. I wish to add, also, as a subpoint to the idea of waiting for marriage. Where one has faith that a loving, merciful God knows what is best for a person, the idea of "shopping around" means that one is not putting faith in that deity to provide that special someone. As an example, Solomon - who had all those concubines and wives - was a very noteworthy Hebrew king. He supposedly wrote Song of Solomon to the one person he met whom he really, truly loved; but someone he'd met only after "shopping around" and finding all that other stuff. If I were to put my preacher clothes on, I might say, "Imagine if he'd waited. he might never have suffered throught he depressiona nd sadness shown in Ecclesiastes, where he seems to have searched through so much, to find only emptiness."

That is what a lot of Abrahamic religous people are saying when they speak of waiting. Sex is so awesomely incredible when it's witht he right person. And, God has provided that one person who is just right for the believer, out of His love and grace.Somebody or his brother (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As a point of academic priorities, and as touched on above by BaseballBugs, premarital sex was not biblicall prohibited and remains as such -- any prohibition of the like is rabbinic in nature. As such, any followers of Reform or Karaite Judaism should, de facto have no qualms, per se, about premarital sexual relations, as they reject rabbinic Judaism. While premarital sex would be a rabbinic prohibition, niddah laws would still be biblicall applicable. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have made a mistake in your original assumption: you think because it is a pleasurable experience that it is illogical to make it a sin, but it is theologically logical, arguably even necessary for religion to do this. Name any experience that directly leads to pleasure which is not a sin? I don't mean "helping someone gives you a nice feeling", I mean an action or experience which is done for the sake of pleasure. Victimless crime and concerning yourself with what consenting adults do behind closed doors is a classic preoccupation for religion. It's not just "premarital sex" which is a sin, any sex which does not have a chance of directly causing pregnancy is a sin: oral and anal sex, also masturbation is a sin, contraception is considered as bad as abortion, and also precisely why women during their period are considered unclean and untouchable, because they are unlikely to conceive. Genital mutilation at its core is also based on the same reasoning. Sex is not a sin only when it is used as a tool to procreate. All the big three religions are all totalitarian in this way, they forbid the experience of ecstasy unless it is "thought God". If you are interested in critical analasys of religion I can recommend 2 books, End of Faith by Sam Harris and God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens both are a good read. Vespine (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason is simple: Judeaism had to "compete" with other religions/faiths and this was just one way to "set themselves apart" from their contemporaries (and adding that "God said so" adds to the validity of the "new faith."). Also, since both Christianity and Islam find their roots or foundation in Judeaism, it only makes sense that some aspects would be carried over. Just some thoughts.

What is a "scripture reader"?

I have translated Settle-Carlisle Line for the German wikipedia, but am stuck with the sentence The Midland Railway helped pay for scripture readers to counteract the effect of drunken violence in an isolated neighbourhood. There may be no direct translation for "scripture reader", but without knowledge of the meaning of these words I cannot even paraphrase them. BTW: am I right to understand that the Midland Railway paid only part of the salary of these people? --Telford (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the reference is a bit vague. I take it to mean that people were brought in to read from the Bible, as an organized activity, to try to keep the men occupied during their spare time, and keep them away from the booze. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is likely an idiomatic term, which the direct translation fails to fully capture. It could mean anything from actual people paid to read directly from the bible, to priests or ministers or deacons or religious missionaries or anything else. A native German speaker may be needed to parse the original language and give a better translation... --Jayron32 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on a google search, a scripture reader was someone paid to read edifying passages from the Bible to poor people in their usual habitat. Here is an example. -Arch dude (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Option: "Die Midland Railway beteiligte sich an den Kosten für Bibelelesungen, um Alkoholmissbrauch und Gewalttätigkeit in den isolierten Wohnlagern der Bauarbeiter vorzubeugen." If those readers were clerics you may want to use the term "Laienprediger". I assume that the relevant church - possibly the RC church, as many of these railway workers were Irish - covered a part of the expenses. Grüße aus Wien.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, that is a bit muddled. "Laienprediger" does not mean that the readers were clerics, it implies that the laymen, apart from reading from the Bible, also interpreted the scriptures in an associated "sermon". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If "laienprediger" means like it sounds "lay preacher" then that could be a good term (assuming it doesn't have too many specific connertations in german).

I'm fairly certain that the "scripture readers" were not ordained priests. That's born out by people on the web (of catholic extraction) saying that their grandfathers were scripture readers. It seems possible to me that they may have come from one of the newer faiths, specifically the evangelical - though not necessarily true.83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cum Natura Humana

I'm looking for the text of a papal bull that begins (and therefor titled) in those words. It suppose to be given by pope clement V. Every detail will be helpful, a complete version in Latin or (best) in English will be most helpful. 95.86.95.18 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Our article List of papal bulls has 12 entries for Clement V, none of which carries the title you specify. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Using google and typing "Cum Natura Humana papal bull" into it, I get these results: [1], includes several Google Books links which idicate it was a bull of Clement VI (not The Fifth) and this one in particular: [2] on the life of Clement VI notes that Cum Natura Humana was a likely forged bull, but that the bull itself supposedly provided much of the justification for the sale of indulgences. In general, a good first step in any search for information is to type the exact text of what you are looking for into Google, or play around with it for 5-10 minutes to see if any good results come up. --Jayron32 20:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, there appears to be enough source material out there to create an article about Cum Natura Humana based solely on that google search up there. It appears, though a forged document, to have still be a significant one in the history of Christianity. Even important forgeries are quite notable... --Jayron32 20:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This google search: [3] turns up some interesting leads for the text; here is a set of footnotes which cites it directly and gives a way to find a text version should you be so inclined. --Jayron32 20:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is probably not what i'm looking for. In july 6, 1348, as wikipedia itself states, clement VI (my mistake: not V) declared a certain declaration about the jews (it was the first out of two during the black death plague). I have a reason to suspect that this declaration or the other is the Cum Natura Humana. 1348, as I said, and not the 1350 papal bull about the jubilee. 95.86.89.60 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Googling confirms the existence of a 6 July 1348 bull enjoining the Black Plague-associated extrajudicial killing of Jews, but I don't find a name. Two sources you might check: the L'Histoire article that is footnote two in Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages), to which a sentence describing the bull and killings that took place notwithstanding its proscription is sourced; and Norman Cantor's In the Wake of the Plague (ISBN 978-0060014346)—a paper on the impact of the Black Death cites "Pope Clement issued a papal bull to stop the killing of Jews" to page 154 of that work, a page that is apparently not amongst those accessible via Amazon’s “search inside” function. 99.154.82.172 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that if you are going to create an article on this, the standard way of writing about these things is to capitalize only the first word, so it would be Cum natura humana. (And if there are more than one beginning that way, as is sometimes the case, then it should be disambiguated by the year.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want Quamvis perfidiam, issued Sept. 26, 1348. I found an English translation here. --Cam (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

do you have also the original latin verison? --ישראל קרול (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't been able to find it in Latin online. It is apparently available in the book Acta Salzburgo-Aquilejensia by Alois Lang (1903). --Cam (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)