Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 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.

November 3

Islamic New Year

How Prophet Muhammed PBUH used to celebrate the Islamic New Year the hijri new year? like eid ul fitr or different like doing a lot of prayers or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.28 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The first month of the year is sacred in Islam to allow pilgrims to return. I'm guessing family dinners. Dualus (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any hadith about the Islamic New Year. You may want to contact an ulama through a local mosque or Islamic center. Marco polo (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Becoming famous

How to become famous on facebook and youtube? --Toiuyty (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ask Fred Figglehorn. --Jayron32 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out that many times originality is needed, though, rather than there being any given "template for fame" that works for anyone. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait for your 15 minutes to roll around? -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Self-promotion. Lots of websites display amusing videos from the internet (see e.g. Viral video#Notable viral video sites, Social bookmarking, and social networks), and many take submissions or let users post links to videos they've found. Lots of people use Facebook and twitter for promotion; if you can get some famous people re-tweeting a link to your video, you've got it made. Warning: about 99.999% of videos on the internet are dull, and there are millions if not billions of videos online, so you do actually have to have something interesting going on. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit like jazz: if you have to ask, you don't understand it. If you show even the tiniest interest in becoming famous, then you at least currently are not exhibiting any of whatever it takes to actually be famous. Be less interested in being famous, and be more interested in making a difference and being of service. One day you might wake up and discover you're famous - but you may not like it as much as you think - or, you may be famous simply for being famous, which would be a fate worse than death because it would mark you as molecularly shallow. Or you may never be famous, but you might have a fabulous and rewarding and achievement-filled life anyway. Treat fame as the icing on the steak. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

downside of fame

Follow up question... do we have an article (or a section of an article) that discusses the potential down side of becoming famous on social media sites? Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fame sucks. Example: Epic Beard Man. He was happy doing his daily thing, living as an old retired Vietnam veteran. Then, he becomes famous. His phone rings constantly. Half the calls are from people who want to kill him. Half the calls are from people who want to worship him. He gets agents pestering him to represent his media engagements. Journalists write articles about him. They interview his family - and find out he was never in the military. He spent most of his life with Vietnam veterans as friends and now he is exposed as not being a veteran himself. He eventually has to have friends go shopping for him as he becomes a shut-in because he doesn't know if a walk down the street will result in someone wanting to fight with him or follow him around taking pictures. What did he get paid for all of it? Nothing. His "agents" claimed in an interview that I read a long time ago that there was some interest in a book, but that collapsed when it turned out he was a fake veteran. I know this is just one example, but even John, Paul, George, and Ringo have made many statements about how bad fame is. It is cute when it is new, but gets old very quick. -- kainaw™ 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Kainaw is of course refering two one of the participants in a 2010 AC Transit Bus fight/ Buddy431 (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Totally OR here, but I have found that anonymous people make a far bigger difference in the world than famous people. — Michael J 00:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that America won every major battle in the Vietnam War?

Topic says it all. ScienceApe (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The situation in Vietnam doesn't really lend itself well to a fairly binary question like this. Essentially the answer is, broadly yes for an arbitrary value of "won".

From a broader perspective you'd want to ask "did the engagement deliver the desired outcomes or results?" In that case you'd say no they didn't.

Vietnam was very much what we'd now describe as an asymmetric conflict. Campaign objectives were never going to be delivered through set piece battles.

ALR (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of "major", "battle", and "won". For reference, see Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War. The USA/South Vietnam won most battles during the time the USA was there. However there were Viet Cong wins during that time, such as: Battle of Fire Support Base Ripcord, Battle of Pat To. Some battles were inconclusive: e.g. Operation Bribie, and it's hard to say who won the Tet Offensive - a tactical victory for the US but a strategic loss. After the US withdrew, the North won battles such as Battle of Phuoc Long. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The PLAF won a number of battles prior to 1964, and the PAVN won a number of battles subsequence to 1972. So it also depends on your definition of the Vietnam War. Also, and I can't reemphaise Colapeninsula enough here, the ARVN won quite a number of battles; and the Korean and Australian forces won a smaller number of battles. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the military battles that led to the U.S. withdrawal (and ultimately to the collapse of the South Vietnam government). It was two other, ultimately more important things: 1) the political battle for the allegiance of the rural majority in Vietnam, and 2) frequent and repeated skirmishes and sporadic attacks that didn't amount to "battles" but that the Viet Cong certainly "won". When the United States recognized that it had lost the political battle, it had to recognize that there was no way to end the attacks and skirmishes that were destroying U.S. morale, without committing egregious war crimes that would offend U.S. and world opinion. That's when it was decided to withdraw. Marco polo (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The USA and its friends won a lot of major battles, but wasn't so successful on the guerrilla warfare front. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that you could just about be describing our little adventure in Afghanistan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Time to bring back John Wayne. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, let's make a desert and call it peace. And make some kick-ass movies while we're at it. Yeehaw. Textorus (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Maybe we need a sequel to Charlie Wilson's War? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win." Ho Chi Minh. See also our article on General William Westmoreland, the architect of the Body count strategy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

why does china have such little debt

i just read this article

http://www.news.com.au/national/aussie-taxpayers-shouldnt-have-to-rescue-eu/story-e6frfkvr-1226184375316

and am curious, but I want a short answer.

Why is their debt so relatively small compared to the GDP/debt of other (western) countries.

thanks Ballchef (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a debt expert myself, but one reason could be that PRC had dismal relationship with Western lenders for quite a long time. Once they initiated political relationship with the west, they had already built up a quite impressive industrial production oriented for exports. This puts the PRC in quite different position than most other third-world countries. Chinese_financial_system#External_debt has some info on current debt. --Soman (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several reasons for this. 1) Until recently, China has had a rather rudimentary financial system that would not have been able to handle the financing of much debt. For reasons to do with national sovereignty, China has never had much interest in using foreign intermediaries to issue debt. 2) Very much unlike most English-speaking countries and most of the highly indebted European countries, China has for years maintained a large current account surplus. Therefore, unlike those countries, it has not needed to borrow money to finance imports. 3) China's government faces less pressure than democratic governments to spend more than it raises in taxes. Marco polo (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks Soman and Marco! Ballchef (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nor, going the other way, democratic pressure against raising taxes to pay for all the graft and corruption... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of answers: Basically, its debt is not as small as it appears. The Chinese banking system is engaged in hidden, disguised fiscal policy, by issuing loans which are not repayable, making the banks themselves formally insolvent. But banks are in essence organs of the State, and they can continue being insolvent or solvent as long as the State wants them to, and then these loans are really part of the (internal) national debt. The real economic importance is - what are these loans, what is this spending for? In China, it is basically for things like new universities, new cities, new infrastructure. The USA does the same thing, but the loans, the disguised spending is for asset bubbles, speculation & basically making rich people richer. I think it is obvious which makes for a healthier economy. So judging degree of democracy by graft & corruption, China is far more democratic than the USA. Another answer is that the current account surplus Marco Polo alludes to is not really as big as it appears, it is not as much of a creditor nation as it appears to be. James K. Galbraith has some papers on the possibly bogus accounting of Chinese firms behind this.John Z (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese chose to liberalize foreign investment early in the reform period, which provided the hard capital the country needed to import food, machinery and other foreign inputs. Contrast this with Korea, where FDI was pretty tightly controlled, and the country borrowed for its foreign purchase needs. Different strategies. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Relationships and physical/cultural distance

There's one question that has entered my head...

Do many people (especially women?) prefer relationships with those who are from a different town, city, region or even country? I suppose it adds some novelty to it, rather than having people who have grown up in exactly the same area where there is no 'mystery' to it. Like, they may have a different accent, have had a different upbringing, etc. This adds to the romantic element of the relationship as it adds a level of 'specialness', the indulgence of romance.

Like for example if I was in my hometown, people may see things as just dull and routine and no place for finding a partner. But if I was on holiday and meeting people there in bars and so on it would be a better environment for it because of exaggerated behaviour in alien culture, a different environment is perfect for change, trying new people. I am male by the way.--It's a Cow! (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. The problem with human beings is that they are infinitely variable; in other words, individuals. So no reliable statistics can be found to answer your question with. Rather than foreign-ness, believe it or not, your looks and personality have much more to do with romantic success than any other factor. Trust me on this. But just to prove it to yourself, try this simple experiment: go hang out at your local bar or pub one night and count how many girls hit on you. Then go to an out-of-town bar and do the same thing. Repeat the experiment on alternate weekends for six months, and then add up your totals to find out in which locality you are more likely to score. Textorus (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Not sure if that would always be a valid experiment... especially if you live in a small town. Prior familiarity could bias the results. In a small town, all the local women will probably already know you and your reputation (those around your age have probably known you since childhood). If you have a poor reputation, fewer local women will hit on you. On the other hand, when you go to an out of town bar or pub, your poor reputation will not have preceded you, and so more women may hit on you. It will work the other way as well... if you have a good reputation locally, you should find that the local women already think of you in a positive light, and will thus be more likely to hit on you than if you were a stranger.

That said, vacation spot hook-ups can be fun and exciting, and they occasionally do lead to lasting relationships... but on average they tend to be short term. The majority of people find lasting relationships and romance closer to home ... schools, work places, houses of worship, organizations related to an interest/hobby, places like that. Where vacation spots make the greatest impact is in moving an existing relationship into new stages of romance. The exotic/romantic setting can help reduce inhibitions that were holding back the relationship's growth. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And thus, since it works both ways as you just said, the only way for the OP to find out which locale works best for him is to get out of the house and try his luck in both places, right? Q. E. D.  :) Textorus (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a woman and believe me a good-looking guy with a foreign accent will attract more attention from females than a good-looking guy with a local accent. Clothes also count.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Looks are half the equation, at home or abroad. I can't imagine many of you ladies fawning over a stranger who looks like Michael Moore or Rupert Murdoch, even with a French accent.  :) Textorus (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Then again, there is the charisma factor which is not dependent upon looks. John Lennon and Mick Jagger are perfect examples of this phenomenon. Where I live in Sicily, the men adore foreign women (not so much as potential brides, but for casual relstionships), whereas the women overwhelmingly prefer their own men--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Personality is the other half of the equation; cf. Bill Clinton.  :) Textorus (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mystique (personality trait) redirects to charisma; I think it shouldn't. I don't think it's really a personality trait, either. Maybe it should redirect to fetishism, which might be what the OP has in mind, though that article seems to limit the concept to material objects, which also seems incorrect to me.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about modern statistics and romance, but there is a biological and historical basis for such a phenomenon, it's called exogamy and outcrossing. Increasing genetic diversity results in healthier populations in biology that are more likely to survive environmental changes that would have caused extinction in highly inbred populations. Customs like the incest taboo (which can extend from siblings only to distant cousins), bride kidnapping, and arranged marriages, among others, were/are very widespread cultural mechanisms to ensure this in human populations.

It is even more striking in other animals and plants, as they usually have very elaborate mechanisms to ensure they breed with the least related individuals if possible. Flowering plants have mechanisms to avoid self-pollination (timing or flower structure), sexual dimorphism ensures a constant internal natural selection (kind of like pitting two parts of the same species together to evolve a stronger whole by requiring each participant to contribute different parts of their genetic makeup with certain conditions; in this case the males are the "accessory gender", see Red Queen's Hypothesis), breeding grounds and timed mating seasons ensure populations still come back together to contribute to the species' gene pool no matter how far they may migrate to find food, social animals often force related male offspring to leave groups once they reach breeding age to prevent inbreeding (or else do not contain males at all, like in elephant matriarchies), females can be predisposed to be attracted to itinerant males (as in meerkats) or new arrivals to groups, only one male and female pair may be allowed to reproduce (the alpha male and female which are also oftentimes the parents of the entire group, as in wolves and marmots), etc.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are some built in assumptions to the question asked. I'm not sure if they are reasonable assumptions. The original question for instance says, "there is no 'mystery' to it", and "This adds to the romantic element", and "it adds a level of 'specialness', the indulgence of romance." Is it in fact established that the element of "mystery" enhances romance or intimacy? Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The article says that romance (love) is a "feeling of mystery" and that there is emphasis on the emotion of intimacy. This doesn't mean that mystery (surrounding a person) and intimacy enhance each other, though. Petrarch seems to know very little about the Laura with whom he was obsessed, apart from that she had nice hair and at least one lovely foot. Likewise Dante only met Beatrice Portinari twice. They are basically stalking, and the objects of their affections are nearly imaginary. In contrast to this there is Sonnet 130 where Shakespeare talks about his mistress's wiry hair and stinky breath, and claims this doesn't put him off at all, although she sounds mundane and unmysterious.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

CZ, have you never longed for someone you could not have? The poets are "stalking" only in the sense that marriage is legalized prostitution, as some people have been known to claim: a gross exaggeration and misuse of the term. Also - Shakespeare does not mean that his mistress has stinky breath, etc.; he is clearly speaking facetiously, which is precisely what makes the poem so charming. Readers in this technology-worshipping age are so very literal-minded. Sad. Textorus (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alaska, United States and Canada

Why did United States buy Alaska from Russia and etc as opposed to Canada buying it? Espcecially, giving it location. This is not the first time that I have thought about this, but it is the first time that did something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In 1867, Canada was only just constituted as an entity, and still was a British colony. Britain and Russia were not on the warmest terms, and indeed, one of the reasons Russia sold Alaska was for fear of losing it to Britain anyways. See Alaska Purchase. Also, of course, Canada has all the frozen waste it needs, and to spare (remember that Canada is slightly bigger than the US including Alaska, but has only about 10% of the population). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Russia had recently been at war with the UK (in the Crimean War), while Russia and the USA were allies (Russia supported the North in the US Civil War). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The US was concerned about coming into conflict with Russia on the west coast -- if I recall correctly, Russia had sent expeditions as far south as Oregon. The US was not really interested in Alaska at that time, but was interested in keeping the Russians from moving south. Russia, on the other hand, was concerned about being overextended -- even in Siberia their presence was very light. So both of them had motives for making a deal. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, refreshing my memory, the Russians made it a good bit farther -- they established a colony at Fort Ross, California, right next to San Francisco Bay -- the Russian River derives its name from that colony. The colony was sold in the 1840s, but it still was a worrisome precedent. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

--Jessica A Bruno 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you for all of your answers to my question here. All of them were interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For some more context, see Maritime Fur Trade. The Alaska Panhandle always struck me as an anomaly, unlike the longer division between the US & Canada, the 49th parallel. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm always pleased to see Maritime Fur Trade mentioned. I think that page is the best thing I've ever done on Wikipedia! Pfly (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Alaska panhandle makes perfect sense when you consider the money which was to be made off of fishing, which was a HUGE industry, and likely a major part of the value of Alaska. Many of the settlements on the Panhandle were Russian, and so "part of the deal", see Sitka for one example; such sites were (and still are) major salmon fisheries, not to mention the logging and fur trade in such places. The Panhandle was probably the most important part of the purchase, economically speaking; the bulk of the mainland of Alaska is basically worthless artic wastes which Russia dumped on the U.S. as part of the deal along with the more valuable coastal areas. That's why the Alaska boundary dispute centered on the Panhandle, both the Russia/the U.S. and Canada had a LOT to lose or gain depending on how the boundary was drawn there. The Panhandle was considered so important to Alaska that the eventual capital, Juneau ended up there. It's easy in modern times to tend to think of places in terms of the land they occupy; for most of history, however, the coastal areas and rivers were far more important; nations evolved along (and fought over access to) coasts and rivers far more often than interior lands, see Thalassocracy for some background on the development of states based on waterbodies rather than lands. --Jayron32 20:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As others have basically said, the long and short of it is that Russia didn't want Britain/Canada to acquire Alaska, so the offer was not extended to them. As for the panhandle, it had been defined long before the Alaska Purchase. Britain/Canada had controlled the interior ("New Caledonia") since the early 19th century. Russia controlled the maritime coast down to 54-40 (the current boundary between Alaska and British Columbia). There was a short-lived, saber-rattling attempt by Russia to claim the coast down to about the northern end of Vancouver Island. That attempt resulted in treaties cementing 54-40 as the southern boundary. Fort Ross was an anomoly, and one which all sides knew could not be duplicated or expanded upon. Pfly (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Alaska Boundary Dispute centered on the panhandle not just because it was the most important region, but also because its boundary was the least well-defined. The northern boundary was unambiguously defined as the 141st meridian west. The panhandle's boundary was much less clear, as the Alaska Boundary Dispute page describes. Pfly (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the further context, Pfly and Jayron. So the interior of Alaska used to be called "New Caledonia" -- I always thought that was that part of France stuck in the West Pacific, inhabited by Kanak people, not to be confused with Canucks, nor with Acadians in the other Canadian New Scotland. How etymology makes (armchair) travellers of us all! BrainyBabe (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

3 questions about Charles Francis Adams, Jr.

Hello learned ones ! I translated Charles Francis Adams, Jr. into french (& BTW thanks awfully for the text), but I still wonder :

1/ I couldn't find where CFAJr pronounced his 1913 adress "'Tis 60 years since" on Founders' Day. I assumed it was at Harvard. Right ?

2/ I found only one source saying he was lieutenant colonel of the 5th US Colored Cavalry. Is it true ?

3/ As for the book written in 1965 by Edward C. Kirkland Charles F. Adams, Jr.: The Patrician at Bay (which I have no hope whatsoever to get here in France) does the enticing title infer that CFAJr has been cornered (in monetary or judiciary domains, which could occur, since he was also a wealthy businessman) - or that he conceived bays (i.e. railroad branch-lines) ?

Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers .T.y. Arapaima (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer #3: "At bay" has nothing to do with railroads. It means he was cornered, like a pursued animal. Textorus (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Metaphorically, it means "rendered harmless" or "put on the defensive". This may have to do with his work attempting to regulate rail firms, in which he faced opposition from various parties. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(2) He's not listed on this "Complete Roster". I'm a bit intrigued by Elvira Adams though. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Number 1: The speech was at the University of South Carolina in Columbia on January 16, 1913.--Cam (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I should note that in this context Founders' Day refers to a holiday specific to that university (near the anniversary of its founding).--Cam (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #2: List of United States Colored Troops Civil War units has 6 "colored" cavalry units listed, only the 5th has an article. He could have served in another. However, in the Civil War, most regiments were organized geographically, and the 5th United States Colored Cavalry was organized in Kentucky; it would have been somewhat unusual for a Massachusetts officer to serve in it. Maybe he served in one of the other cavalry units. --Jayron32 04:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this list, there is a Charles F. Adams Jr. listed for the 1st Massachusetts Cavalry, and a Charles F. Adams (no Jr.) listed for the 5th Colored Cavalry. There are also numerous other Charles F. Adams entries and many Charles Adams (no middle initial) listed. It is entirely unclear how many of these entries refer to the Charles F. Adams, Jr. we are interested in here. --Jayron32 04:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This book I found on Google Books says that he was a brevet brigadier general in command of the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry, which was a unit of African American troops. This appears to be a different unit than the 5th Colored Cavalry. That may be the source of confusion. --Jayron32 04:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks awfully to all ! T.y., Arapaima (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Jewish law

Jewish law prohibits doing all sorts of things on the Sabbath, but what if someone's life is in danger? Are Jews required to let him/her die in order to avoid working on the Sabbath? --70.134.52.4 (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Pikuach nefesh#Shabbat and holidays addresses this question. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One way to look at it is what I've heard/seen referred to as the "greater sin" rule. It may be a sin to violate the Sabbath, but it's a greater sin to endanger human life. In contrast, Jesus was presumably only healing on the Sabbath, not lifesaving, hence the temple pooh-bahs objected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"...whosoever preserves a single soul..., scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world." Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a.[1] Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If 'working' is really so imperative as to save lives then surely it will not be regarded as work at all -- more 'emergency measures' such as repairing a dyke or defending your village from marauding brigands. And if you've gotta pick a zucchini for use in your dinner, well picking just one isn't really work now is it. In fact you might be able to get away with picking two or three before the full force of the law comes crashing down on your head. Vranak (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think picking zucchini would be considered reaping. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the rules prohibit cooking on the Sabbath, among a very long list of other things. Textorus (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable! What about eating? Vranak (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's why they make ovens. --Sean 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Is it just me or are these kinds of arcane restrictions totally neurotic? I mean, what's the point of avoiding these things? How is a man expected to profit -- spiritually or otherwise -- from not lighting fires on the Sabbath? Vranak (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Presumably by devoting his thoughts to God instead of to worldly things for one day of the week, but I'm no expert. You probably would need to ask an Orthodox rabbi to get a good answer to that question. But note that other branches of Judaism do not necessarily follow all these rules. Other religions have their own rules which may seem odd to outsiders: e.g., abstaining from meat on certain days (Catholicism), abstaining totally from alcohol (Islam), males never cutting their hair (Sikhism), etc., etc.

Vranak, the "profit" is mostly stored up for the world to come, but there are some benefits in this life too. Ask most Orthodox Jews, men, women, children, even women in very traditional roles and they'll mostly tell you it's the best day of the week, by far. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

wikifying Fasting and abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church which has a redirect from Meatless Friday, but not Meatless Fridays or Friday penance; Haraam and Islamic dietary laws which latter has a rediect from Islamic prohibition against alcohol but not Islamic prohibition on alcohol or Islamic prohibition of alcohol; Kesh (Sikhism), which is one of the 5 Ks. Uncut hair in Sikhism might be a handy redirect? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the prohibition against lighting fires on Shabbat is specifically mentioned in the Torah (Exodus 35:3), so it's been a Jewish tradition for quite a long time. Part of the pull of religion is doing something that one's biological or adoptive ancestors have done since time immemorial. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that that is a very equal-opportunity prohibition: it would give the women (who tended the hearth and cooked everything from scratch for the family, daily) a day of rest from their labors, just like the men rested from theirs. Textorus (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, it gives them half again as much work on Friday and Sunday. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Damn, it's a man's world after all, isn't it?  ;) Though actually, I don't see how Sunday would be different from any other day of the week. Friday, she would have to make extra food to cover the Sabbath - but when you're already used to making family-sized batches of stuff from scratch, it's not that much work to make an extra loaf of bread and save some leftovers in a pot for one day, I suspect. Textorus (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it not a sin, it's a mitzvah. The article Hatzolah may also be of interest. Hatzalah (spelled differently in different places) volunteer paramedic crews operate on Shabbat (and Yom Tov and receive special training in how to do so. --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)