Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 1

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 1

Why Buddhism no more in India?

Buddism come from India, now big in China, Korea, Japan and South East Asia countrys, but no more in India. Why? Other religions still big in the place they come from, like Muslim in Arab countrys. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Because Buddhism in India was concentrated in monasteries, easy targets for Muslim conquerors – or so I've been told. —Tamfang (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

See Decline of Buddhism in India. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

And Pushyamitra_Shunga#Alleged_persecution_of_Buddhists. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's incorrect to say that Buddhism is "no more in India". There are millions of Buddhists in India today. See Dalit Buddhist movement.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

While it's true that it's not nonexistent, it's a tiny minority. The U.S. has the same percentage of Buddhists as India. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

One might also ask why there are so few Christians in Israel, the birthplace of Christianity. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Bethlehem and Nazareth have significant Christian populations, though Bethlehem's in particular, has shrunk over the years, I believe. Blame the Palestinians, not Israel for this, I say. Fighting between rival Christian factions in Israel may also be in issue - see our articles on Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Church of the Nativity, where things got so bad at times that Muslims had to step in to save the situation. (The keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre have been held by a Muslim family for generations. And it was the Muslim Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas who pleaded with the rival Christian factions who control the Church of the Nativity to agree on funding desperately-needed renovations to the historic building). Christianity in Israel is the relevant article. The Romans have long gone, almost all of Israel's Christians today are either Arab (though labelling some, like the Copts and Marionites, as "Arab" is controversial), or immigrants. Note that Israel's northern neighbour, Lebanon, has a significant Christian population, who claim (truly or otherwise) descent from the days of Phonecia. Eliyohub (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. So Buddhist groups fight each other, Hindu ideas become closer to Buddhist teachings, then Muslims from other countrys come and harm the Buddhists? Few Christians in Israel cause they share Israel with the Jewish people? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Parmailitaries killing each other during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland

I have specific question. The Troubles involved many participants, but for the purpose of this question, I'm focussing purely on paramilitary groups and their members and associates. Both on the one side, the Ulster Loyalist ones and other other side, the various groups calling themselves Irish Republican Army. Note there were various groups using this title, but all are included for the sake of my question. The British army is explicitly not included.

My question is, how many paramilitary fighters died at the hands of rival or enemy paramilitaries? As I said exclude casualties suffered by or from the British army, or "sectarian" or politically-motivated murders (of political figures in the troubles who were not involved in paramilitary activity), even if carried out by one of these gangs. I'm solely interested in how much these gangs managed to kill of each other. Do we have any data on this question, preferably for each gang vs gang? (e.g, how many members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army were killed by members of the Ulster Volunteer Force, and vice versa? And ditto for other groups?) Eliyohub (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You might get some information from Timeline of Ulster Volunteer Force actions and List of chronologies of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (there may be similar articles for other groups). From what I remember, IRA actions tended to be directed towards British soldiers, and to "economic targets", though (from a quick glance) the IRA articles also list some killings of UVF members. Likewise, the UVF attacks seem to have been mostly towards Catholics in general, presumably on the assumption that they might be IRA sympathisers if not actual members. "At the time, the attitude was that if you couldn't get an IRA man you should shoot a Taig [catholic], he's your last resort". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

[ec] The Troubles#Casualties gives the raw figures - between 1969 and 2001, Loyalist paramilitaries killed 41 Republican paramilitaries, and Republican paramilitaries killed 57 Loyalist paramilitaries. See the article for the difficulties involved in narrowing down the numbers to specific paramilitary groups. Tevildo (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't get those figures. Both loyalist and republican paramilitaries killed significantly more of those of their "own side", than those of "the enemy"? Republican paramilitaries killed 187 of their own, but only 57 loyalists? And loyalist paramilitaries killed 84 of their own, but only 41 Republicans? Can someone point me to an explanation of this, or explain it themselves?

As a comparison, ISIS and Al Qaida spend most of their effort killing other Muslims, Anders Brevik decided to protest the Islamification of Europe by killing white Norwegians, and one of the first acts of mass murder by the Nazis was killing other Nazis. It seems to be pretty common for extremists to spend more effort targeting "traitors" / "sell-outs" / "apostates" / "heretics" on their "own" side than they do on the nominal enemy. Iapetus (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems also that loyalist paramilitaries were not particularly effective in hurting the IRA, if all they could nail was 41 of them? Targeting the IRA was the loyalists' stated goal. Our article claims:

Thus while republican paramilitaries caused the greatest number of deaths overall, they caused fewer civilian deaths than loyalist paramilitaries, and had a lower civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio than either of the other two belligerents.

The IRA, had the British army to target. The loyalists' raison d'etre was supposedly destroying the IRA, a very different task. so it isn't really a fair comparison, considering their different aims? The IRA had easily identifiable targets, as in the British army, whilst loyalist paramilitaries did not. Eliyohub (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Both groups used violence as much to exert control over their own communities as to pursue any political ends. A lot of the people they killed were informers or suspected informers within their own communities. They tried to control crime in their own communities through punishment beatings and shootings, and there were groups like Direct Action Against Drugs, an IRA front that killed drug dealers within the Catholic community. Rival groups within the same community vied for control of territory - there were various feuds between different loyalist groups that cost lives within the Protestant community - there were power struggles within paramilitary groups, and people like Robert McCartney, killed simply for getting on the wrong side of paramilitaries. Also, a lot of the sectarian killings were claimed to have been against paramilitary targets - loyalists and elements within the security forces thought Pat Finucane was in the IRA, for example, and when the IRA bombed Frizzell's Fish Shop on the Shankill Road in 1993, they said they were targeting an upstairs room where UDA leaders met. Such attacks would be counted objectively as being against civilians, but from the point of view of the people who carried them out, they would have been against paramilitary targets.--Nicknack009 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not a Republican sympathizer, but the fish shop WAS used as a UDA meeting spot. It just so happened that the meeting ended early. Or they switched meeting spots, believing the police had bugged the room. But clearly, most of those killed in the attack were civilians. (There was only one UDA member amongst the dead). Michael Stone (loyalist) would also have seen himself attacking an IRA funeral as hitting people who were logically presumed to be IRA members and sympathizers. However, most of those killed and wounded were not in fact IRA members. POV, the British should not have returned the bodies - end IRA funerals cold. That's what Israel now does to deal with the problem.Eliyohub (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Eliyohub, you may be interested in What if British had treated Northern Irish like Israel treats Palestine? by Mira Bar Hillel (perhaps equally POV but let's see both sides of the coin). Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: I don't think the Israel-Palestinian conflict has ever had any true parallel actors to Northern Ireland's "loyalist paramilitaries". Acts of violence by non-army Israelis towards Arabs (or fellow Jews whom they view as sympathetic to Arabs, such as Rabin's assassin) are sadly not unheard of, by any means. But the sort of organization and scale NI's loyalist paramilitaries showed is totally lacking, I'd say. The Altalena Affair was pretty much the end point in organized paramilitaries outside the army in Israel, the leader of the Irgun, Menachem Begin went into self-imposed political exile for two decades or so, to avoid a civil war. Modern-day Jewish extremism is mostly associated with Kahanism, but as I said, nothing of the scale of loyalist paramilitaries. The most violent act by a supporter of it was carried out by Baruch Goldstein, but I'd say though his victims were Palestinians, his bitterness was more against the Israeli Government for (in his eyes) surrendering to them. And an act of this scale was absolutely a one-off, and never occurred since.

(Raises an interesting question I'd love if you could answer: what was the most violent act done in an attempt to sabotage the Good Friday Agreement, may I ask? Whichever side it came from, did any such act occur?) Eliyohub (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be the Omagh bombing. Alansplodge (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) On the Republican side, yes, that would be the worst. What about on the loyalist side? Were there any significant violent attempts to derail the agreement? Eliyohub (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, most of the Loyalist paramilitaries observed ceasefires during and after the talks. The Loyalist Volunteer Force, a hardline splinter group of the Ulster Volunteer Force (which had largely observed a ceasefire since 1994), continued a campaign of murders and other attacks; but on 15 May 1998, the LVF announced an "unequivocal ceasefire" in support of a "no" vote in the referendum. However, they were implicated in a concerted arson attack on 12 Catholic churches on 15 July, before announcing "the war is over" on 8 August. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the oldest patriotic song in the world?

One at least kind of well known in its country. My country's national songs aren't that old (Yankee Doodle Dandy, the Star Spangled Banner, My Country, 'Tis Of Thee.. (=God Save the King with different words)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle, actually. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably the hymn Bhoomi Sukta from Atharvaveda (around 12th century BC which at least makes it one of the oldest anyway). Anthem-wise, Kimigayo (in terms of lyrics) and Wilhelmus, according to our list. Brandmeister^talk 22:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Won't be American, as whites only arrived in America not that long ago. Native Americans would have no "national" song, as they were separate tribes, but would a Native American song about their attachment to the land count? If you mean "national" songs as in countries, you'd have to look at nations which have existed as such in some form for many centuries or more than a Millenium, obviously, like England, maybe? Or some other old civilisation, which later became a nation? Sorry I don't know the answer, just giving you some pointers as to where not to bother looking. But perhaps Brandmeister has the right idea. Eliyohub (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The article Kimigayo, which is the national anthem of Japan, states that it is among the oldest anthems. Now the question is about patriotic songs in general so I will be interested to see what other editors research comes up with. MarnetteD|Talk 22:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Kimigayo has the oldest lyrics as a song, but was only adopted as a national anthem in 1922, so it may not be the "oldest anthem" by some definitions. But the OP is not limiting the question to anthems, so Kimigayo it may just be. Eliyohub (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The American national anthem wasn't officially so designated until 1931, although by then it was the de facto anthem. The Japanese anthem is kind of an odd one, in that it seems to stop short of actually finishing. But maybe it makes sense within the language. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wilhelmus is, according to our article, "the oldest known national anthem in the world. The national anthem of Japan, Kimigayo, has the oldest lyrics, dating from the 9th century. However, a melody was only added in the late 19th century, making it a poem rather than an anthem for most of its lifespan". God Save the King is widely credited as the first song to actually be used as a national anthem [1] although it only dates from the mid-18th century in its present form. But we digress... Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Our article on Bhumi Sukta redirects, but you can read the lyrics here - it certainly seems to qualify to me. More than a thousand years later, Roman hymns such as Carmen Saeculare have also been described as patriotic. 184.147.116.111 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with very ancient songs is that you can't tell how long people might have been singing them before someone actually wrote them down for the first time. Some of the Psalms probably go back three thousand years, and have a patriotic element to them. Wymspen (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Not quite so old but in Ancient Greece: "...at about 1000 BC when the Homeric poems began to be chanted or sung by travelling minstrels called Rhapsodists.The schools of rhapsodists lasted for about 250 years, when choral and patriotic song began to be developed". A Popular History of the Art of Music by W.S. Mathews (pp. 48-49). Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There are two songs whose authorship is traditionally credited to Saint Adalbert of Prague (d. 997), a Czech bishop who became missionary (and martyr) to what is now northern Poland. One of them, Bogurodzica, a prayer to Mary as Mother of God, has been since then quite popular as a patriotic hymn in Poland, serving as a de facto national anthem on some occasions in the past, be it before battles or during coronations. However its language reflects somewhat later medieval Polish (the oldest surviving manuscript containing Bogurodzica dates from 1407), thus casting doubts upon alleged Adalbertine origins. A 14th century dating of the lyrics seems more plausible. The other song, Hospodine, pomiluj ny (God, Have Mercy Upon Us), once fulfilled the same functions in medieval Bohemia (present Czech Republic) around 11th-12th centuries (first attested 1056), but since then dropped out of prominence and its use remains limited to religious services. It retains pretty much archaic language features, close to Old Church Slavonic. The current Czech counterpart to Bogurodzica is the Saint Wenceslas Chorale, attested 1368 as an already "ancient and well known" song, presumably originating in 13th century, more specifically in the turmoil after death of King Přemysl II Ottokar (d. 1278) - the period referred to as The Brandenburgers in Bohemia. While the above mentioned couple of songs are essentially purely religious hymns without country- or ethnic- specific wording, the Saint Wenceslas Chorale, is also a religious hymn, but heavily stuffed with patriotic references to Bohemia, kinship of the whole Czech ethnic to Saint Wenceslas and names of other regional patron saints. Perhaps because of these explicitly patriotic lyrics it has retained quite undiminished appeal through centuries. Its text, a prayer to Duke Saint Wenceslas (d. 935) as an idealized perpetual ruler of Bohemia and heavenly protector of Czech people is quite well known among generally irreligious Czech populace even today (thanks to being included in school curriculum) and (apart from being regularly used in churches) the song functions as an unofficial national anthem on very solemn or very critical occasions that are considered important for the Czech lands and Czech people. In short: In Poland the oldest popularly "living" patriotic song is about 650-700 years old, in the Czech Republic about 750 years. Not so impressive as the Classical Antiquity but an example of the genre anyway. GCZPN3 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

What Wymspen says above about some Psalms being used as a sort of patriotic song is definitely true, and they were sung by the levites as part of the daily temple service in Jerusalem. See Shir shel yom. The one used on Mondays (Psalm 48) is probably sort of patriotic. It was apparently written by the Korahites, so it in fact predates king David, though he was the one who recorded it in his collection of Psalms. Modern Jews still sing songs from psalms, but the old tunes used in the temple have long been lost, even though we know the words perfectly. Eliyohub (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Solomon and the baby

Am I right in thinking that, in the story of Solomon and the baby, we never actually find out which of the two women in the dispute was the mother?

As in, I understand the ending and the wisdom of Solomon etc.

But the dispute was: 'A says B lost her baby and swapped them in the night so that B ended up with the live one. B says A completely made that up.'

The story doesn't seem to disclose which of A and B was the true mother? In other words, did the nighttime switch actually happen or do we never find out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisom (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

According to [2] it seems to be B. Eliyohub (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's not how I read it, but I suppose either interpretation is possible. Dbfirs 00:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Solomon concluded that B was the mother, because she cared about the child, whereas A didn't seem to care. A's true child was already dead, so she had nothing to lose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Where in the text is the basis for that assertion? Amisom (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The way I read the text, it was A who cared for the child, and the dead child belonged to B. Dbfirs 12:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Solomon's judgment was that the woman who begged not to kill the child was the real mother. That would be B, as I understand it. But no matter what letter or number you assign to them, the real mother is the one who implored Solomon not to kill the child. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously! That was the point of the story! Dbfirs 15:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

One point that seems to need further elaboration - Baruch Cohen's argument (linked by Eliyohub) for the real mother being B is based on his analysis of their relationship as mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, and its legal consequences. He cites various medieval and modern sources for this. However, the actual text describes the women as "harlots" (KJV/RSV) or "prostitutes" (NIV/TEV), which seems (to me) incompatible with the respectable situation Cohen posits. Are the English translations all inaccurate? Tevildo (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The word used in the Hebrew bible is "זֹנות", which all modern translations of the language turn into "prositute" or something of similar meaning. I wouldn't know if there is any basis to believe this word had a different meaning thousands of years ago. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

An analysis based on nonsense is bound to be nonsense. Cohen's argument is predicated in part on the "fact" that "no normal mother lies on her own child and crushes him in her sleep" which is, of course, ridiculous. (It also seems to put the Talmud cart before the Tanakh horse, but nevermind...) - Nunh-huh 02:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw that JLaw piece but the author seems to have ascribed the labels 1 and 2 to the outbursts at the suggestion of dividing the child without any basis? Amisom (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I don't know any Hebrew, but unless there is something in Hebrew grammar that the English translations aren't rendering, the text seems to contain no hint whatsoever which of the two responses at the end is to be ascribed to which of the two women presented in the beginning. (Oh, and I agree with Nunh-huh that the argument about "no normal mother" accidentally killing her child in her sleep is nonsense – accidental "overlying" was an often-cited and commonly supposed cause of infant mortality throughout history.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It actually can still be a problem. See [3] [4] for example. Note that while the risk can be increased by things that people may consider shouldn't be the case with a "normal mother" (like alcohol consumption and smoking) others are realisticly perfectly expected of a normal mother especially if the info isn't known (i.e. historically) or isn't easily available (e.g. poor people in developing countries) [5]. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

... so may we conclude that, despite Baruch Cohen's argument, Amisom was correct that there is nothing in the story to tell us whether or not the switch actually happened? Dbfirs 12:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

All we have to go on is Solomon's judgment as to who the real mother is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've always assumed that he doesn't know which was which until he sees and hears the reactions to his proposed action, and when he does know, he doesn't tell us which claim was the lie. Dbfirs 14:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, you're not getting the point. Of course we all assume that for the purposes of the story, Solomon's judgment is correct – the true mother is the one who (in 3.26) rejects the proposal to cut the baby in half. What we don't know, because apparently the story doesn't tell us, is whether the speaker in 3.26 is the same as the initial plaintiff, who (in 3.17–21) was accusing the other of exchanging the dead child for hers, or whether it's the other one (who was claiming she kept her own living child with her all along). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Another possible reading is that Solomon is making no judgement whatsoever as to which of the women is the biological mother of the child, but only as to which of them comports herself as, and therefore is, a true mother to the infant. - Nunh-huh 17:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article (by L. H. LaRue of W&L Law, and therefore likely to be a fairly reliable source), analyzes the judgement as a (common-law) trial. LaRue doesn't make a definite statement of the identity of the parties, but he makes the interesting point that Solomon being wrong (that is, the real mother was the one who said "cut up the baby") is more consistent with A being the successful litigant: she's clever enough to both accuse B of the theft and know what to say to convince Solomon. This would imply, assuming Solomon was right, that B was in fact the mother (as Cohen concludes on rather more doubtful grounds). But, for our purposes, I think we can say that it's not possible to determine the issue from the Biblical text alone. Tevildo (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a very interesting essay, and it's fascinating to consider such duplicity, but the suggestion that Solomon got it wrong is not supported by 1Kings3:26 Dbfirs 19:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Reading the link posted by Eliyohub, A awakes with a dead child and B awakes with a live child. So B has possession of the live child, but is willing to give the child to A to spare its life, whereas A is like "whatever". Solomon concludes that B is the real mother, and B retains possession of the child. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, please, read what people are saying here. That's Cohen's assertion. It's not backed up by the text. Tevildo (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It is always interesting to see the debate that arises over this. For other takes on it some of you might be interested in the article for the Brecht play The Caucasian Chalk Circle and the Chinese play The Chalk Circle. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've always understood it to be the way I explained it above. I don't know who this Cohen guy is, and I didn't read his commentary, just his quotation of the scripture. I guess you could say that we don't know absolutely because there isn't a "narrator" (i.e. God) saying "this is how it really was." The best information we have is Solomon's judgment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, Solomon does not give a judgement on the question here. He does not declare whether (a) the night-time switch happened, or (b) it was totally invented by a mendacious claimant. I know you say you "always understood" it to be the latter but is there any reason for that that you can point to? Solomon didn't say it was the latter. Amisom (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The "question" was "we never actually find out which of the two women in the dispute was the mother." Sure we do. Solomon declares that the woman who begged for the child's life is the mother. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the question was, "Did the nighttime switch actually happen?" Amisom (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me reframe it thus: Alice said that, during the night, Betty stole her live baby and claimed it as her own. Betty says that Alice's baby died and now she's inventing stories to try to get hold of Betty's live baby. Solomon was about to cut the child in half when Miss Smith called out, "No, let Miss Jones have it!" – but Miss Jones is all in favour of it being cut. Solomon declares that Miss Smith is the real mother. But what is Miss Smith's first name, Alice or Betty? Amisom (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this elegant restatement of the problem. But I honestly don't think this is needed at this point. Bugs is evidently hell-bent on not getting the point, and if he hasn't by now, he won't. Everybody else seems to be already on the same page, so let's just leave it at that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, everyone, I did not particularly screen the link I posted to make sure it meets WP:RS, and am not endorsing Cohen's interpretation. I had until just now not studied the tale personally in the original text (I just looked it up now), and Cohen may well be wrong. The interpretation I have heard from another source: And the other woman said: 'Nay; but the living is my son, and the dead is thy son.' And this said: 'No; but the dead is thy son, and the living is my son.' Thus they spoke before the king.. The woman who began by saying "the living is my son" was the real mother, for that was the point she sought to emphasise (I want my child!). To read the text yourself, see [6] verse 22. So it was still B, as I see it, since she was the one who said this. The liar was A who began with "the dead is thy son" (she had other issues to chew the bone over, rather than a craving for the child). I don't recall the source for this, sorry. Eliyohub (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Following your logic, I still see A as the real mother. There is nothing in the text to distinguish who spoke which words in verse 26. Dbfirs 19:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Solomon-like, the best decision. Mothers-in-law to the left, daughters-in-law to the right... the discussion has clearly run its course.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know. Let's cut User:Baseball Bugs in half. That might just stop him proffering his personal opinions on this matter inter alia, when everyone else has provided what's required here, viz. references. Except maybe he'd become the Headless Chicken of the Ref Desks and continue to run around wildly opinionating, only there'd be two of him then, one speaking out his mouth and the other from ... somewhere else. Nah, best to limit the damage and keep him down to one entity who speaks from ... somewhere else. Happy New Year, BB. You'd make it a happy one for the rest of us if you would vow to play by the rules of the ref desks and provide references for most responses and not just your personal, private opinions on stuff. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC) The citation was already given, I merely referred to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Let's close this thread; there's nothing more to be had here; everybody except one person seems to be in agreement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC) The OP's other question was, "Did the nighttime switch actually happen or do we never find out?" The answer is that Solomon did not directly address that question. Maybe he didn't consider it important. His sole interest was in identifying the real mother. But logical reasoning would indicate that the switch did not occur. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC) BB, can't we just drop this because we are obviously not going to convince you? Dbfirs 22:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Maybe it was important to characterize the women as "harlots", implying that their word could not be trusted, but their emotions could be trusted. So the answer remains, no, we don't know for sure. It might be more instructive to look at earlier versions of the story and see if it's less ambiguous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)