Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Shortcut:
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


July 24[edit]

Washington Street, Boston[edit]

I have a photograph said to be taken "on Washington Street, Boston" maybe 1860 to 1863 (the date of the subjects death) or around the time of the Civil War. Were there any photographers or photography companies active during this time with their businesses located on Washington Street, Boston?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Washington Street was at that time the main commercial street of Boston. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Was Carte de visite the most popular form of photography at this period?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No. While carte de visite were a popular fad, larger portraits were still the mainstay of the photographer's business. For example in William Burton's A.B.C. of Modern Photography (1886) he mentions the popular carte de viste only once, and then just for their small size. You might take a look at the 1876 British article Photographic Portraiture Chapter IV — Some Lessons from Leslie. Or William Heighway's Practical portrait photography. A handbook for the dark room, the skylight, and the printing room (1876), or the earlier Treatise on Photography (1863) by Charles Waldac. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A contemporary Russian author?[edit]

Just a bit of a background. I recommended someone to read Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" to sharpen his writing skills. The man is an amateur writer. He liked the novel of course. Now he is asking me if I know of a contemporary Russian novel of the same magnitude set in the background of Perestroika (1989), pretty much like the Tolstoy's work, translated in English of course. I don't know if such a work exists, so am posting here. Solzhenitsyn does not qualify, though. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You might try a "search inside" this book for suggestions:  Encyclopedia of contemporary Russian culture (1. publ. ed.). London [u.a.]: Routledge. 2007. ISBN 0415320941.   —Valentin Rasputin seems to come up often as novelist from this period, (perhaps not in the same category as Tolstoy; but who is?). Sources seem to recommend Rasputin's 1979 novel Farewell to Matyora which has been translated into English (ISBN 0810113295); however, this predates perestroika.
See also: Russian Literature after Perestroika (authors are interviewed) here: (http://www.jstor.org/stable/i359852) although JSTOR access required to read full interviews (or $44); it does list several authors:
  • et al...

...I hope this helps, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Your knowledge base is very impressive! Thank you very much. It helps. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • He's a bit dead, but isn't Bulgakov's Magister and Margarita considered worth reading? Ayn Rand and Vladimir Nabakov are also highly praised, even if they emigrated and died. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • If you friend is looking for a Tolstoyan novel from the 20th century, you may recommend Life and Fate or In the First Circle. Both novels are set in the Stalinist period, however, and both novelists are far inferior to Tolstoy. The major contemporary Russian authors are not interested in imitating Tolstoy's approach. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This person asked me specifically about a novel reflecting the Russian life after Perestroika. Bulgakov obviously won't qualify since Master and Margarita is set in the 20th. Nabokov was an emigrant, and also he wrote in a different epoch. But your suggestion is appreciated. Thanks --2601:7:6580:49D:E86C:234D:728C:7088 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Eleventh Annual Report of the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society[edit]

Can anybody help me find an online version of the Eleventh Annual Report of the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society or volume 11 of Annual Report of the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you know the the year? Since the 61st was in 1913 (archived here), presumably the 11th would have been 50 years earlier (1863). Archive.org might be your best bet: https://archive.org/details/texts ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Strangely, this one is dated 1853, yet it references the "Eleventh Annual Report"[1] on page 42 [further research required] ... ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That's the first. Yes the Eleventh was published in 1863. I need to use page 15 of that book. It doesn't seem to be on google book or archive.org. I wonder if there is any other sites that have these in more complete forms since the Eleventh Annual Report isn't the only one that is hard to find.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Here it is → [2]   — (p. 15)  ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No -- actually, page 15 of the 11th is here: [3] —There seems to be some sort of computer compilation error.   ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Here is a better link to that page. It seems to be a compilation of many volumes. I hate it when it does that on google book. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Who is this Corresponding Secretary of the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society Martha or Mattie A. Chamberlain mentioned in these reports? Was she a daughter of sister of Levi Chamberlain and what did the A stand for In her name?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

Anime and manga with pregnancy as a major theme?[edit]

  • I just finished reading/writing an article on Kodomo no Kodomo, and was trying to populate a new category with works in which teen pregnancy is a major part of the narrative: Category:Teenage pregnancy in anime and manga. Looking through the teen pregnancy trope at TV Tropes, I only found Bitter Virgin to add. Is anybody aware of other manga/anime which have (pre-)teen pregnancy as an important or even central theme? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've never seen it and know nothing about it, but Tide-Line Blue may qualify. -- BenRG (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. From what I've been able to find on Google, that doesn't look to be central to the narrative. :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
        • (It's more common to use colons rather than asterisks to indent on the refdesks) Crisco, you might have been better asking on the Entertainment refdesk. If that fails, then the folks at Anime/Manga wikiproject will surely know. 62.56.70.233 (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
          • The thought of going to the ent desk struck me only after posting here... I will try the anime project though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Did/does this type of language exist?[edit]

I was wondering if there are any languages that are not sequential i.e start from the beginning of a sentence and ending at the end of the script. Rather, a mass of information, a bit like a map. The meaning is the same but the way the language is expressed is in its entirety rather than a start and a finish. With bits of the map added on whenever new information needs to be expressed. Is there any validity in this. Or perhaps its beyond our intelligence to communicate in this way. I just had this dream that a yet to be discovered alien civilization communicates in this way. -- 15:05, 25 July 2014 82.12.252.148

Cephalopods may be able to communicate non-sequentially by altering the colouration / patterns of their skin. Maybe an expert can direct you to relevant references.. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
PS: Of, course, this (Cave of Altamira)
Parallel information
is an example. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Many sign languages are able to express various elements of a "sentence" simultaneously, as opposed to the strictly one word after another sequential nature of spoken or written language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

82.12.252.148 -- Maybe you should look at Charles F. Hockett's list of design features of human language to see why the short answer to your question is "No". A feature not included in Hockett's list is hierarchical structuring (i.e. syntactic constituents are embedded in nested Immediate constituent structures)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

How are Jewish and Christian values different from each other?[edit]

Can someone provide a brief summary of Jewish values and Christian values? (I recently saw an episode of the "Prager University" on Youtube, in which it asked whether or not belief in God or atheism was "more rational", and concluded that belief in God was "more rational". Then, I did a Google search, which led me to Dennis Prager's wiki page, which told me that he's Jewish, with "Judeo-Christian values". If Judeo-Christian values are shared by Judaism and Christianity, then what values distinguish them?) 140.254.45.33 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

See Christian–Jewish reconciliation. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
What does that tell me about values? 140.254.45.33 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Define "values". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
wiktionary:values 186.91.201.236 (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I want to know what the poster thinks "values" means, not what wiktionary thinks it means. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
All I did was rephrase what I read on Dennis Prager's wikipedia page, and surprisingly, he uses the term, "Judeo-Christian values". I find it surprising, because I often hear Christians use the term, not (observant) Jews. His wikipedia page says his religion is Judaism, though. 140.254.45.33 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently you'd have to ask Prager what he thinks "Judeo-Christian values" means. But at least on a high level, it includes belief in God, belief in the Ten Commandments, i.e. belief in morality, etc. Those would be values generally shared by all three Abrahamic religions Obviously there is a wide variety of opinions on the details. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Some might say that Christianity would side with mercy and Judaism with justice, but in practice it tends to be the other way around. Because of long-term Jews' minority position, being accepting of non-Jewish otherness was the best way to stay sane (and alive). Judaism tends to hold itself to some pretty high (but fairly definite) standards, while it kindly asks everyone else to consider some fairly simple guidelines on not being evil. From what I've read, the concept of Tikkun olam ("repairing the world") tends to be influential even in branches of Judaism that aren't particularly interested in Kabbalah. Israel causes some exceptions to this, but that's an discussion I'm not touching. There's also plenty of finer points (such as distinctions between Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, and Orthodox Judaism) I lack the experience to comment on.
Meanwhile, almost all of Christianity accepts that there's something like right and wrong (certain interpretations of Kierkegaard and Calvinism can get pretty Antinomian), but what defines morality isn't as firmly nailed down beyond the idea that it should fulfill "Love others," "Love God," and that the values should be in some way Biblical (the latter two used to shoehorn in a lot of ideas). Consequently, many Christians tend to look at what they believe in the here and now, find some way it matches some part of the Bible, and call it Christian values, without comparing them to other Christian values throughout the world and its history (which may or may not be the same as or different from Inculturation, phrasing Christian values using another culture's terms). Since Christianity makes up about a third of the world's population, and has existed in a number of cultures, this raises questions that we can't answer here about whether there are unified Christian values, whether certain groups are right or wrong, etc... (plus no one wants me to make Jeremiah Wright's sermon about America sound like mild mannered patriotism).
The American Religious right tends to favor Young Earth Creationism (source), indicating an overall belief that the world already works the way it's supposed to, in law, society, and nature (whatever the root is of this is a matter of debate). At the other end of the spectrum, there's a lot of overlap between Christians who believe in Theistic evolution, socially progressive Christians, and those who use terms like "Social Gospel". These are very broad and extreme examples, most people falling inbetween. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Who said values must be mutually exclusive? Every religion or ethical philosophy may teach values, and these values have their similarities and nuances. This does not necessarily mean they are derived from each other, and may mean they have evolved independently. A person may call something "Christian values", because it is a body of values that (a certain group of) Christians (however defined) may hold. 140.254.45.33 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There are many good points raised in Wright's sermon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Who are the "Some people" here? 140.254.45.33 (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"Some who do" as opposed to "some who don't". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the "Some people" at the beginning of the sentence. 140.254.45.33 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Some do, and some don't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
what are judeo-christian values? that eating people's brains is wrong. that r**ping a woman is an offence first and foremost against her, not against her male relatives who are invested with guarding her chastity. that a handicapped or a pauper are people who had bad luck, not born-again miscreants serving their karmic punishment. you know, that stuff that made Europe great and that you only notice when you see how others got it wrong. I'm an atheist, btw. Asmrulz (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"A lot of nuns are born-again Mafiosi." -- Father Guido Sarducci. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"The word was celebrate!" :) Asmrulz (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses have published "The Early Christians and the Mosaic Law" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003205.
Wavelength (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It isn't possible to generalize about "Jewish values" or "Christian values", because not all members of either group hold the same values. That is to say, there is no such thing as a uniform set of Jewish values or a uniform set of Christian values. Since Jewish values are in theory codified in the Talmud and the Rabbinic literature, one might expect the values of Jews to be more uniform than those of Christians, and maybe they are, but even among Jews, the values of, say young, gay Reconstructionist Jews are likely to be vastly different from those of elderly Hasidic Jews, even within New York City, let alone in other parts of the world. If anything, there is even more diversity among the value sets of different groups of Christians. For example, the values of Jehovah's Witnesses are very different from those of other Christian groups. Even if it is possible to identify ways in which early Christians' values were different from those of neighboring Jews because of Christians' partial departure from Mosaic law, that has little relevance to differences in values among Jews and Christians today, beyond the trivial observation that some Jews continue to observe dietary and ritual rules laid down in the Jewish scripture while hardly any Christians do. There is much more to a person's or group's set of values than that. Marco polo (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Asmrulz: "eating people's brains is wrong" is a pretty universal value. And Leviticus would seem to disagree about who rape is primarily an offence against. (And there are also some Christian movements that seem to think poverty and wealth are signs of God's favour or judgement, and/or a sign of Godly living - although that seems to me to be so at odds with the Gosples that I'd be inclined to consider that heretical). Iapetus (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Our article Judeo-Christian is quite informative. In a nutshell, the ethical values of Judaism and Christianity have a broad overlap, since both are based on the Ten Commandments. The moral code of Judaism is somewhat more formalised than in Christianity (dietary restrictions, Sabbath observance, circumcision etc.). The biggest differences between the two religions are in the area of theology, especially around the means of salvation, the status of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You may want to look at the articles on Sermon on the plain & Sermon on the mount. There is, of course, a fundamental difference in the way God is perceived in Judaism and the way Jesus is perceived in Christianity. Also bear in mind the vastly differing historical context of the development of Christianity vs the history of Judaism and the Jewish diaspora. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Also be aware that "Judeo-Christian values" is fairly common code word, often meaning "conservative" with overtones of "you can trust me; I hate [fill in scapegoat du jour] just like you do". --NellieBly (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Some differences between Jewish and Christian mythology and values:
Jews Christians
effectively worshiping Mammon worshipping God (JHWH/YHWH, Jehova/Yahuwah, Jahve/Jahwe/Yahweh) and Jesus (Jesus Christ(us), Jesus of Nazareth)
an eye for an eye, death penaltys (cf. Torah/Pentateuch), mass murdering & killings of women and children (e.g. Amalekites), genital cuttings for males, racism (e.g. "God's choosen [racial/ethnic] people"), inherited guilt forgiveness, brotherly love, a free religion (everyone can become a Christian, if he wants to and believes)
no pork meat, brutal "kosher" butchering of animals eating pork meat is fine, brutal butchering is not necesary
"Judeo-christian values" might mean, that he accepts some Christian values, e.g. forgiveness instead of inherited guilt. -IP, 20:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.196.245.147 (talk)
This is an extremely Christian-centric explanation and offers no citations for where you're getting these claims. Jewish Principles of Faith may help to clarify some things.
It is entirely possibly to convert to Judaism; you don't need to be born into the religion. Plenty of Christians support the death penalty and plenty of Jews do not. It's a complicated and difficult issue that most large groups of people can't agree on. It is also important to note that just because something is described as happening in the Biblical narrative, it doesn't mean that all Jews -- or all Christians -- either believe it literally happened or approve of the concept. Judaism and violence has a good discussion of the diversity of Jewish thought on passages such as Amalek.
What are you referring to by "inherited guilt"? The concept of original sin is a predominantly Christian doctrine.
SarahTheEntwife (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
(As a Jew raised Catholic, I found Robinson's Judaism' quiteuseful, and there are the works of Geza Vermes for more technical reading.) μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

American white supremacist[edit]

I desperately need help trying to remember the name of an American white supremacist as I just can't recall it and Google has been no help so far. My exact recollections are hazy but this guy was a figure in either the KKK, one of the sundry other far-right groups or both until he announced that he was done with all that. He subsequently turned up on Geraldo and similar shows discussing his decision to give up racism, meeting African American activists and the like. In this case however he then returned to white supremacy, possibly claiming that his initial abandonment of the ideology had been all a ruse in the first place. I've gone through every article in Category:Ku Klux Klan members and none of them seem to match up so can anybody help or did I just imagine all this? Keresaspa (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

David Duke maybe? --Jayron32 03:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Tom Metzger famously met with Louis Farrakhan in 1985 and claimed to find common ground, but he never renounced racism. AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I know both of them and neither of them were the guy I'm thinking of. If memory serves me right he had a big cowboy-style moustache if that helps. Keresaspa (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it Buford Furrow you're thinking of? Mogism (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No, don't think that's him either. This guy was pretty thin (assuming I'm not imagining him). Keresaspa (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I might have found it: [4] mentions a Greg Withrow (a name also mentioned in Tom Metzger (white supremacist)), though I should emphasize I have not looked into this and have no idea where this story went from that time. The cool thing is, Rivera kept his efforts going, and eventually Johnny Lee Clary appeared on his show expressing a conversion which appears to be genuine and enduring. Wnt (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry[edit]

Where can I find this but in book form? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that regiment was known as "Henry Wilson's Regiment", and there is a book by that name, which includes the chapter:  Alphabetical Roll —which I suspect would replicate the roster you linked (but haven't checked):
  • Parker, John Lord (1887). HENRY WILSON'S REGIMENT. Boston: Franklin Press. (Google eBook)
~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks. This is a tremendous help. It even has a biographical sketch of the person I am researching.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg You're welcome! ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Mosby referred to in this book is John S. Mosby, right?

It seems so; the book mentions "Mosby's guerrillas" which was an alternate nickname for "Mosby's Rangers" (a.k.a.: "Mosby's Raiders"). ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

November 18, 1862 letter at Fort Tillinghast[edit]

Can anybody tell me who wrote the November 18, 1862 letter at Fort Tillinghast, shown in the sources below? The sources says "Our brothers of the artillery writes." Is the letter's writer identifiable or is it just a collection of letters with the name of writers not mentioned? Also a letter dated to November 18, 1862 couldn't possibly be talking about reading a newspaper article about a funeral that didn't take place until March, 1863 (Henry's died around this time), so what is the explanation for that? The letter can be found here:

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

2K14[edit]

2K14 is a redirect to 2014, but not explained there. Where is this notation used, and where does it come from? Google search is riddled with computer games and confusing. --KnightMove (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, before it was a redirect, someone tried to pretend that it was a common thing, and not just a branding ploy by the company 2K Games. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be one of those hatnote-things:  " 2K14 redirects here; for the sports video game, see: NBA 2K14.  "  (?) 71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be a once only thing by a user who didn't know about WP:Notability. There's no 2K13, 2K10, 2K06, and so on. (There are redirects for 2k12 and 2k11, but those are for surface to air missiles). If the brand thing was anything beyond 2K Games's cutesy titling gag, I'd be more open to it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Presumably it's an outgrowth of Y2K, which was hugely notable (until it proved to be the greatest fizzer of all time. Granted, we'll never know how many aircraft would have "fallen out of the sky" had the companies ignored the issue ...) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Jack, some of us put in a _great_ deal of work to ensure that sort of thing didn't happen. The way people go on about it nowadays, I get the impression we shouldn't have bothered. I can hope that people will be more appreciative in 2038, but I doubt it'll be the case. Tevildo (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
My "Granted" sentence was acknowledgment that the problem was not ignored and disasters were averted, for which I'm sure we're all grateful. But you know what humans are like: they're attracted to disaster and make a big deal out of it, whereas when people act proactively and consequently nothing happens, it's not news. "Fizzer" was a poor choice of word, for which I am flagellating my naked body with a spiked rawhide whip using my left hand while I type this with my right. That is surely an image to die for. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
They say that kangaroo hide makes a very good whip for this purpose. Not that I have any contact with them, oh no. :) Tevildo (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, it was a fizzer, and many innocent but less well informed business people, and even home computer users, were ripped off unmercifully by unethical IT practitioners. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and 2K14 should not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to change the redirect to point to the video game. I agree that it's very unlikely anyone will enter "2K14" if they're looking for the article on the year. Tevildo (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the origin of it, but there seem to be many non-computer-game uses of 2K14 to mean the year 2014. Likewise 2K13 and 2K12. I didn't try any earlier years. -- BenRG (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, for each of those years there are at least two games with 2Kxx in the title, so it is probably a bad idea to redirect to one of them. -- BenRG (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed 2K14 to a proper dab page, in the light of the above. Tevildo (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
2K Sports might clear things up. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

Iambic trimeter[edit]

  • did I do those lines right? I can't truly know if ε in the words "τερπνοῖς" and "καθῆντ" is long or short, right?
 -    -  u  -\  -  -  u   -\ u u  uu u  x
ν δ’ ἄγκος ἀ\μφίκρημνον, ὕ\δασι διάβροχον,
x  -    u -\  -   -  u  - \  x    -   u   x
καθντ’ ἔχουαι χεῖρας ἐν \τερπνοῖς πόνοις.

and "τά" has short vowel? or I can't know? thanks! --84.108.213.48 (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In ancient Greek in standard Ionic orthography, ε not part of ει is always short, while the vowel of τα is short in the neuter nominative/accusative plural, but long in the (rather rare) feminine nominative/accusative dual. AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The "ε" in "τερπνοῖς" is short as a vowel, but its syllable is long by position because of the consonant cluster following it. As for the "α" in "καθῆντ(ο)", if that's what you were asking about, it's also short, the word being an inflectional form of wikt:κάθημαι. Your scanning of the metre seems correct to me. Fut.Perf. 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Christian denominations which do not receive the Eucharist[edit]

Are there Christian groups which do not practice receiving Communion? If so, what are their reasons for doing so? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Quakers do not recognize any formal sacraments. According to our article Sacrament#Non-sacramental churches, they believe "that all activities should be considered holy", and consider it inappropriate to single out any particular activity as being "more sacred" than another. See this article from a Quaker meeting-house in Philadelphia. Tevildo (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The Jehovah's Witnesses don't receive it either, from what I understand. Apparently, they think themselves unworthy, and instead pass it from person to person. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
According to our Eucharist article, Jehovah's Witnesses observe an annual feast of "The Memorial" on a date corresponding to Passover. Tevildo (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses have published "The Eucharist—The Facts Behind the Ritual" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008249.
Wavelength (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That depends entirely on who you ask. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course they are Christians. See No True Scotsman to understand why... --Jayron32 01:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The requirements for being rightfully called a 'Christian', varies from one denomination to the next. So, it does depend on who you ask. There is no absolute right or wrong answer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus can consider themselves Christian. And the verbiage in the JW link provided by Wavelength a little ways up certainly sounds like "Christian talk" to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The different requirements stems from the disagreement over the exact teachings of Jesus. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Certainly. The "requirements" established by any particular denomination for itself, carry no weight with other denominations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If anyone who reveres Jesus is a "Christian", then JW's are Christian (but so are Muslims and Bahais). If you only include "mainstream" Christianity which is "orthodox" according to traditional definitions (which means accepting the decrees of all recognized church councils from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., among other things), then they're not Christian. There's no one definition of "Christian" which will satisfy all people, but things aren't quite as squishily subjective as you seemed to imply (at least when applying definitions to church bodies with formally-defined doctrines)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So how do we get the numbers for Christianity? HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to the statement "2.2 billion adherents"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep. It's nonsense to start with. And if we removed every group another "Christian" says aren't proper Christians, we have a much smaller number. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Those numbers come from adding up each denomination's claims as to the number of adherents within their sect. Various sources will break that number down, and one thing that's kind of amazing after all these centuries is that Catholicism still claims about half of that 2+ billion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a bit like the number of extrasolar planets dilemma. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It depends whether you're looking from the inside or the outside. If you're a Christian, you know what you believe the true meaning of Christianity is, and anyone who doesn't conform to that can't really be Christian. If I was a Christian I'd probably be very keen to distance myself from the Westboro Baptists, for example. But if you're not a Christian, as I'm not, then which ones are right and which ones aren't isn't an issue, so every kind of religion that claims to be Christian is Christian. I just note that there are differences between them and that some of them are weirder than others. Muslims and Baha'is aren't Christian, because they don't claim to be (and as far as I know don't consider Jesus to the the Christ or Messiah, which I would have thought is the diagnostic of Christianity). --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There's an exception to your view about who Christians think is a Christian. For the total numbers in the Christianity article, they're happy to claim anyone who has ever been near a church. I find it pretty hypocritical. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Who does "they" in your sentence refer to?? Most such estimates of world religiously-affiliated populations are made by sociologists or demographers working with rough-and-ready definitions of major religions, not by Christians anxious to inflate the Christian population... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The absence of ego that Christians (and other religions) are enjoined to live by would mean that, whatever Christian denomination you may belong to, you would accept that those who adhere to other denominations are not "wrong" just because their interpretation of the Scriptures differs from your own. It's supposed to be about you living your life in accordance with the rules as you understand them; not about judging others for daring to live by a different understanding of the rules. Nowhere in the New Testament does it talk about people needing to join any particular version of Christianity. Now, some people use, or abuse, a religion to give some legitimacy to their bigoted attitudes; but there are those who truly and sincerely believe that such attitudes are divinely inspired, and others can no more say they are "wrong" than vice-versa. I'm sure the Westboro Baptists contain examples of both. That isn't to say that anyone should be allowed to practise illegal discrimination or vilification. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Contrasting ideas cannot be right simultaneously, as much as a single coin cannot simultaneously land on heads and tails. Accordingly, if one promotes one idea to be correct, the other must inherently be wrong. The Bible does mention the existence of a particular "version of Christianity" - the Nicolaitans. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Err - this is the fallacy of false dilemma. One can only make this sort of statement if the ideas in question are genuine logical contraries, which doesn't apply to most real-life statements, and certainly doesn't apply to the views of Jehovah's Witnesses and mainstream Chalcedonian Christianity. Many Christians, of course, don't consider JW's (or Mormons, or Roman Catholics, etc etc ad nauseam) to be "real" Christians, but nobody can validly make this assertion on purely logical grounds, as you appear to be. Apologies if I've misrepresented your position. Tevildo (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Tevildo --Things are simply not as subjective and indeterminately ultra-relativistic as you seem to imply. JW-ism and Mormonism factually and objectively fall outside the traditional definitions of "mainstream"/"orthodox" Christianity, which means accepting the decrees of all recognized church councils from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., among other things. Groups which were not already in existence in 451 A.D. (such as the Coptic and Armenian churches were), but instead were founded in the 19th or 20th centuries with doctrines strongly divergent from traditional "orthodoxy", are likely to be rejected as Christian by mainstream Christians. Calling Catholicism not true Christianity has nothing to do with any of this, but instead goes back to the bitterness of reformation/counter-reformation disputes. Most of the people vocally maintaining that position nowadays are either semi-weirdos (such as Jack Chick) or semi-extremists on the sharp edge of sectarian disputes (such as Ian Paisley), or are none too traditionally orthodox/mainstream themselves... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they are, because I say so! So nyah! My main intention was to highlight the logical fallacy in Plasmic's statement, rather than to address the issue "Are JW's real Christians?" I agree that their beliefs do not coincide with those decided on at Chalcedon, and that this takes them outside "traditional mainstream" Christianity. I would take issue with the view that this takes them outside Christianity altogether, or that there is an objective test for "Christianity" that they fail. Why stop at Chalcedon? We can go all the way to Vatican II and allow the Pope to make the decision - a view to which many of my Roman Catholic friends would subscribe. However, although the Pope has the authority to make such rulings in the context of Catholicism, I would argue that no individual or organization is in a position to do the same for Christianity as a whole, and, if a particular group of people consider themselves Christian, there isn't anyone that should (legitimately) prevent them from so doing. Tevildo (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Baptists are among the largest denominations in America. They were started in the 1600s, but they definitely qualify as part of "mainstream", at least in America. They are quick to claim that Mormonism is not "true" Christianity. But they don't much care for Catholicism either. Christianity is about believing in the teachings of Jesus, not about whatever those characters decided at the First Council of Nicaea. The "fundamentals" of "true" Christianity are faith, hope and love. And the core belief was stated by the apostle Simon/Peter: "You are the Christ, the son of God." Anyone who adheres to those biblical tenets can call themselves Christian, whether the First Council of Nicaea or "mainstream" Christians would approve or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, traditionally (not including the Southern Baptist Convention in recent decades) the Baptists have placed greater emphasis on sola scriptura and "the priesthood of all believers" than on formal credal statements. However, completely discarding such things means unmooring from Christian history and traditions. Some splinter-of-splinter-of-splinter Baptist mini-subgroups have ended up in very strange places, which could perhaps be taken as an argument for not indiscriminately jettisoning all traditions overboard... AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Tevildo, please note that I have not assumed a position in this discussion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The point being that there are really no human-invented "requirements" restricting who can consider themselves Christian and who can't. There is no world governing body of Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Then we are in agreement, since that is what I have been saying. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
However, there are a number of criteria (such as ... 451 A.D. etc. etc.) which can be used to evaluate groups fairly objectively to see how closely their doctrines approach towards traditionally-defined "mainstream" or "orthodox" Christianity. There's no one definition of the word "Christian" which will satisfy everyone, but in most cases it's not too hard to distinguish groups which would be considered more core or mainstream according to traditional definitions from more peripheral or fringe groups. AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Traditional vs. non-traditional... a lot of those "non-traditional" denominations included a communion ritual at various times. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Edison, Jehovah's Witnesses have answered your question at http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/.
Wavelength (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Mormon Church at Kealia, Hawaii[edit]

Is there a Mormon Church at Kealia, Hawaii? There was one in 1895 and 1906.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Latter-Day Saints Churches located in and around Kealia, Hawaii 96751   —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... this one is very close, (3.3 miles, walking) but doesn't show up on that list:  4561 Ohia St, Kapa‘a, HI 96746   71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The source seems to indicate it was in Kealia, not in the neighboring towns. It might no longer exist.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Kealia is an unincorporated community, containing about 10 buildings; [I can't find where I read that] so on maps it shows up as a single location (most likely the post office). And, the coordinates that I used were from the Wikipedia article (Kealia, Hawaii) -and Google maps put that location out in the middle of nowhere in a farm field. ~Anyway, ... 71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Piéton a tributary of the Sambre[edit]

Several of the detailed histories of the Waterloo Campaign written in the 1900s mention the Piéton a tributary of the Sambre (eg here). It does not appear that any Wikipedia language has an article on it. There is a village in the vicinity called fr:Gouy-lez-Piéton, and it is possible that it is now a feeder steam into the Brussels Charleroi Canal.

The trouble is that in looking for reliable sources for Piéton is more difficult than for some words because "piéton" apparently means "pedestrian" in French, so lots of false positives appear in searches. I am hoping someone who's French is better than mine can find out what has happened to the river and write a small stub on it (in either French or English). If it is placed on French Wikipedia then I will translate it. If there is a better place to post this request please let me know. -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have any luck here, you might try over at Wikipedia: WikiProject European history, or Wikipedia: WikiProject France.   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea I have placed a link to here on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France page. -- PBS (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hope this helps: http://www.pieton.eu/le-ruisseau-le-pieton.html and http://environnement.wallonie.be/contrat_riviere/contriv/sambre.htm Akseli9 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Salut PBS, you could have a look in french at fr:Piéton (ruisseau) and in dutch at nl:Piéton (rivier). Alvar 08:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks to all who contributed. The article now exists Piéton and I was able to use the information to add a list of tributaries to the Sambre article. -- PBS (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Why do every piece of land have to be owned by a country?[edit]

Why do every piece of land on Earth have to be owned by a country? Are there any human colonies in Antarctica or in the deep seas? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Every piece of land is not owned by a country. See Antarctic Treaty System. That being said, if there is some plot of land which is not under the control of a state, who is to keep people living there from lawlessness and the like? --Jayron32 01:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
More to the point, who is to stop the people living there making it a state? Iapetus (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The Antarctic Treaty only suspends the operation of national claims to Antarctica, but they still exist. However, a large section of Antartica is not claimed by any country. This is mentioned deep in the article under Antarctic Treaty System#Legal system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.189.29 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
See also Bir Tawil - 2,060 km2 of land on the Egypt-Sudan border, claimed by neither state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That's because each of them thinks it belongs to the other (so that the 'winning' side can claim Hala'ib) - not because it's really part of no country. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The Congo Free State was not owned by Belgium, but was effectively the personal property of King Leopold II of Belgium. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
And ask the Congolese how well that went for them... --Jayron32 02:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a strange question and appears to treat the term "piece of land" as if it can't also be a "country", which it can, because some countries are very small indeed. Wherever there is a human population, some form of government arrives, even if it is only a personal dictatorship. Every human community is subject to some sovereign power, and if a piece of land with people on it has no state above it (as, for instance, Easter Island has Chile), then the local power is also the sovereign power. In the case of a piece of land with no people on it, it is almost certain to be claimed as part of the territory of one or more countries, and the whole of Antarctica is subject to territorial claims, some of them overlapping. I wasn't aware of the exception of Bir Tawil mentioned by AndyTheGrump, and I shall be surprised if even two or three more exceptions can be identified, but of course large areas of the world have little effective control, because they are so remote from security forces. However, with regard to the law of the sea, much of the world's surface is not claimed as any country's territorial waters. Moonraker (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

65.24.105.132 -- Land not owned by anybody would be terra nullius. Libertarians have been looking for places outside the jurisdiction of any state to set up a libertarian utopia since at least the 1970s (see Minerva Reefs) but without much luck... AnonMoos (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Australia was settled in 1788 on the legal basis of terra nullius, and it took till 1992 for that fiction to be turned on its head. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Even trivial little rocks just barely sticking up above the ocean surface are subject to fiercely contested ownership, which may even become violent. Such competition occurs not because the rocks themselves have any value, but because they come with large exclusive economic zones attached, where the sovereign has the sole right to determine who may catch fish, drill for oil, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
As the Flanders and Swann song goes:
Though we're thrown out of Malta,
Though Spain should take Gibraltar,
Why should we flinch or falter,
When England's got Rockall.
There is no most islands have an economic value because of their seabed potential it is extremely unlikely that such potential will not be wanted by some state or other. This is the or at least the predominant underlying reason for the disputes over ownership of islands such as the Falklands, Liancourt Rocks and the Pinnacle islands the last of which could become a hot war at any moment. [All most] all islands were claimed by imperial powers in the rush for empire in the late 19th and early 20th century, those claims have be continued by successor states. The neutral territories between states are often recognition that no agreement has yet been reached, there is nothing new in this see for example Debatable Lands that used to exist between England and Scotland (plus ça change, plus c'est la même) and more modern examples suh as Saudi–Iraqi neutral zone where the border is still not precisely agreed. Also the unfortunate boarder wars that Eritrea has been involved Eritrean–Ethiopian War, Hanish Islands conflict and the Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict are example not of no claims to ownership but what can happens when two more more states claim the land. At the moment the closest the world gets to unclaimed land is territory under the [temporary] protection of the United Nations, but of course such areas are inhabited it is just that the members of the UN have not agreed to whom the territory belongs. -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
PBS, I don't understand the sentence starting "There is no most islands have an economic value", particularly the first 5 words. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Surely Scotland's got Rockall? —Tamfang (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Even Sealand tried to set up a government. StuRat (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Some DMZ's might qualify as "not owned by any country", in that everyone avoids them completely. StuRat (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The question seems philosophically malformed. I mean, I hereby claim the planets and other appurtenances of Tau Ceti on behalf of Wikipedia. Voila! A claim. To prevent such claims being made you'd have to shut up everyone in the world; or more likely, pretend that their claims don't count, that only certain claims made in a certain way count. (Like is proposed for asteroid mining where some rich guy can afford to spray radio transmitters at asteroids. For some reason sending a signal from a certain kind of probe would make it Officially Theirs. For millennia afterward their heirs and descendants will probably be making and losing fortunes speculating in the ownership of these asteroids and their hypothetical resources, like those English lords without lands people were talking about here a few weeks ago, long after all hope of mining them had been given up and even the idea that the ancients had once gone into space had been dismissed by reputable authorities as a myth. (OTOH it's a stronger basis than Bitcoins) Wnt (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your claim to Tau Ceti would not be allowed under the Outer Space Treaty... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Joining two political parties in the US[edit]

Is there any reason I can't be both a Democrat and a Republican and vote in both of their primaries? Isn't there an absolute right to freedom of association? 72.130.118.207 (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When registering to vote, we choose which party to 'belong to" (dem, rep or ind)... though I assume this might vary according to state or county jurisdiction(?). not sure how that affects primary voting, i've heard of ppl voting in primaries outside of their registered affiliation. El duderino (abides) 09:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Some states have an open primary, which means you can vote in either primary, or both, regardless of your party affiliation. The concern is that some may use their vote to sabotage the opposite party, by voting for a nut job who they don't expect to be elected in the general election. This could result in both primaries selecting "unelectable" candidates, which would be a bad situation. StuRat (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this what happens anyway? Mingmingla (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes. And if the parties don't like it, they can work on getting the given state's laws changed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
As our article says, Freedom of association generally implies that someone else can't stop you from associating with other people if they want to associate with you, such as being part of or forming a party of willing participants. It doesn't imply others have to associate with you if they don't want to or that a party has to accept you.
Actually that would frequently be considered the opposite of freedom of association when you're forcing people to associate with you when they don't want to, such as preventing a party from setting conditions on your acceptance as a member.
To put it a different way, if you are preventing from forming a party which accepts Republicans and Democrats, some may consider that a violation of freedom of association. If the Republican Party or Democrat Party chooses to expel/reject the membership of anyone who joins your party that's considered them exercising their right to freedom of association, not a violation of it.
Note as our article says, current intepretation of the constitution in the US generally implies there isn't an absolute right of freedom of association since there are restrictions such as considering race in making or enforcming private contracts.
Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Why do Americans need to declare their party preference when registering as voters - is there no secrecy of the ballot in America? If a South African government or civil service official were to demand to know my political affiliation they would in fact be committing a crime. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Declaring a party affiliation does not constitute violating secrecy of ballot. All it does is increase the chance of spam mailings and phone calls from politicians' staffs. Some primaries will also contain non-partisan candidates or issues, which will appear on both parties' primary ballots. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to explain the difference between a Party election (primary) and a General election. First we have the Party elections - The voter officially joins a party (registers), which gives him/her the right to decide who the party's candidates will be. Republicans get to decide who will be the Republican candidates... Democrats get to decide who will be the Democratic candidates... etc. The voter shows up at the polling place, is asked which party he/she belongs to and votes in the appropriate primary... but who he/she votes for is secret.
Then there is the general election. Here, the voter is no longer voting as a Democrat or as a Republican... but as a Citizen. The voter is not asked which party he/she belongs to. The voter is free to vote for anyone, regardless of party affiliation. The ballot is secret. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Further, the system for primary elections varies between states. Not all require voters to declare a preference at registration. See Primary election#Types. --50.100.189.29 (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Corrected a few typos above.
Also I should clarify I'm not saying that it's impossible for a primary election system to be seen to violate freedom of association. I meant simply not in the simplistic case outlined by the OP. For example if a closed primary is the only legal option and not the choice of the party, then that may be seen as problematic. That said, although as with many outsiders I find much of primary system in the US including the administration weird, I don't think anywhere forbids non closed primaries. I suspect if anything the more likely problem is that a closed primary is required if you want govermental support for your primary which is a more complicated issue.
Of course the high level of governmental involvement in the primary system is one thing I find weird. Particularly since in some states there seems to be weird stuff like the that mentioned a few weeks ago, ability of the government workers to challenge someone's eligibility based on fairly loose criteria and how neutrality is enforced for such challenges. And there does seem to be a weird disconnect between the parties and the primaries. I recall that during the 2008 election cycle, some states held primaries in violation of what the parties themselves wanted and so the parties were reluctant to accept the primaries.
Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
72.130.118.207 -- In Texas, the only way you declare your party affiliation to the state is to show up at a primary election and vote. If you vote in the Republican party primary, then trying to vote in the Democratic primary would be double voting, and vice versa. Further, the poll worker may stamp your voter registration card (which are mailed out to registered voters every two years) to prevent a Republican primary voter from voting in the Democratic primary runoffs and vice versa (though with instant poll-worker access to computerized vote records, the card stamping now seems to be optional)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the primaries is to allow members of parties to nominate their candidates. No one forces you to vote in a primary. But if you do, it's only fair to declare your party affiliation. Every state's laws are different, as noted many times here. In the general election, you can be "both Democrat and Republican" by splitting your vote among members of different parties. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't assume party declarations are sincere, let alone binding declarations of association. Game theory applies to all games, including American electoral politics. See party raiding (which article helpfully disambiguates this common practice from the reportedly equally fun, though now politically unpopular, practice of the Great All American panty raid), citing a couple of recent examples of non-party members' strategic use of an opposed party's primary elections. Game on! Paulscrawl (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If the political parties were concerned about this loophole, they would work on getting it closed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
They have indeed. Political parties have long sued for preferential clarification of the ever-ambiguous and controversial public/private nature of political parties and the applicability of freedom of association, the OP's question.
A recent review of party efforts to retain control is Robert C. Wigton, The Parties in Court: American Political Parties Under the Constitution (Lexington Books, 2013 ISBN 978-0739189672 ). A freely accessible source of one such party effort to close one such party raiding loophole (cited in Wigton) is Gary L. Scott and Craig L. Car, Political Parties Before, the Bar: The Controversy Over Associational Rights (Seattle University Law Review, 1982). The blanket primary at issue in that Washington case has resurfaced in that state and others (California) as the nonpartisan blanket primary (in Louisiana, its origin, the "jungle primary.")
So yes, political parties are aware and care about these loopholes, as a long history of party litigation attests. Paulscrawl (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to switch back and forth, I want to vote in both parties' primaries. If it's illegal, why? If it's legal, how do I do it? I live in Hawaii. 72.130.118.207 (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Stu's link to open primary redirects to a section that seems to have been removed. I've never voted elsewhere, but in Massachusetts registered independents (that is, registered voters who declined to declare affiliation with either major party) may cast a ballot in a primary election for either party. The poll worker asks which primary you wish to vote in, hands you the appropriate ballot, and you may vote without declaring for the party you pick. Of course you can only pick one (i.e. vote once) per election, but nothing stops you from going back and forth from one party to the other in consecutive primaries. To 72.130, voting in both primaries would be illegal because voting more than one time in a single election is illegal (as it should be). Where the two parties have separate primary ballots, you don't get to have more than one ballot. In a non-partisan primary you can vote for whoever you like and the two top candidates will have a run-off election, but that's almost always a local rather than a state election.
Now, I think the danger of bad-faith voters trying to pick a nutty or unelectable candidate in their "enemy" party's primary is exaggerated - most voters have bigger fish to fry picking their own party's eventual candidate. Or, in cases where their own favorite is an incumbent who doesn't face a primary challenger, they may cast a ballot for him/her anyway or just not vote at all.all of which [citation needed] In any case, it may either fail or backfire: I know people who openly wondered if they should vote for George W. Bush in the 2000 MA Republican primary, because he was "obviously unelectable," while a John McCain presidency would be a distinct but mildly unpleasant possibility. Now - "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 20:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If you live in Hawaii, you must ask Hawaii legal history, the Hawaii legislature, and/or the Hawaii courts for "why", but administrative rules are plainly stated:
The Primary Election is a nomination process to choose candidates who will represent the political parties at the General Election. You, the voter, select the candidates of the political party of your choice. Your choice of party and candidates remains secret.
When voting in the primary, you must select only one party in the Select a Party section of the ballot card, then vote for the party you selected. If you do not select a party and you vote in more than one party ballot, your vote will not be counted.
http://hawaii.gov/elections/factsheets/fsvs522.pdf
More at http://hawaii.gov/elections
Paulscrawl (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • NY has closed elections, meaning to vote in a primary the voter must be registered in some party before the election, and those registered independent will be turned away. Interesting, though, in the general election the same candidate may show up under more than one party line. For example, NY has a Conservative Party, which sometimes has the same candidate as the Republican Party (Giuliani was both the GOP and Conservative candidate) and a vote for him under either party counts as a vote for him. For example John Smith gets 35,000 GOP votes and Bob Jones gets 41,000 votes as a Democrat, but John Smith also gets 7,000 votes as the Conservative Party candidate, then John Smith wins the election.
NJ, however, while it has "closed" primaries, allows voters, unlike in NY, to declare for a different party at the polling place. Registered as an independent, I was able to vote in the Republican party ballot simply by signing a form of change of party affiliation right outside the booth. Neither does NJ have multiple line candidacy, so only one (and not the same) person can appear under any party line. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is Australia part of the "West"?[edit]

Australia is located near Asia. Why is it not called "The Far East", even though it's closer to the other Far Eastern countries than any "Western" country? Who invented the directional naming (Far East, Near East, the West, the Byzantine, etc.) anyway? Or maybe Australia is considered the "West", because it's located farther west than the United States of America? Does the Western world cover Central and South Americas too, since they were previously under Spain and Portugal's control? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See western world. Australia was colonized by (and retains close ties to) Great Britain, and culturally speaking it is part of the West despite its geographical location. Colonized nations that retain fewer elements of their colonizers' culture are less/are less seen as part of the West. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on Australia's close ties with Britain. We share a queen with them (as does Canada), and the Union Jack is part of our flag. Many Australians want those factors to change. The most popular Test Cricket series are those between Australia and England, but that's a massive rivalry. What else is there? HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There's language and capital. Given what I know about the long run structure of Australian capital, I'd put more emphasis on the capital than language. Australians seem to consume a higher volume of UK media than, for example USians, though this might be long run ABC contracts. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Some shared UK/Australia culture in no particular order: pubs, meat pies, rhyming slang, military tradition, fish and chips, sausages, Anglicanism, tea drinking, trade unionism and the Westminster system. A bit subjective, but we also seem to share a laconic sense of humour. Alansplodge (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It is more of a geopolitical designation than a geographical one, (as inferred above).   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as Central and South America (and the Caribbean), if the world is solely divided into East and West, then yes, they are "the West". However, "the Third World" is often used as a category, too, which would include many of the less developed nations there, as well as in Africa and Asia. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The OP may be amused to learn that Australia is also sometimes described as being part of the North. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Getting back to central America, the correct reference is the Western Hemisphere, which is different from the geopolitical "West". --Xuxl (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ever tried getting there from California by going east? μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

July 29[edit]

Median earnings and wealth[edit]

I see articles like List of countries by wealth per adult with wealth shown per adult and per capita. Does Wikipedia have articles with median figures? If so, I can't find them.

With insane inequality these days (The 85 richest people in the world own the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion people. -- Source: Conference on Inclusive Capitalism), would articles about this sort of thing be more useful if median figures were used? I'm bad at maths, so tell me if this is a stupid question. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

See Middle Class Political Economist: U.S. Trails at Least 15 OECD Countries in Median Wealth (Thursday, July 19, 2012)
Wavelength (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
See List of countries by income equality and List of countries by distribution of wealth.
Wavelength (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
See "Median household income".—Wavelength (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
See BBC News - What is the world's average wage? (29 March 2012)
and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 May 20#Global net worth.
Wavelength (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Actually, only Median household income shows median. The other links don't. And middleclasspoliticaleconomist and BBC are blocked here in China. Thank you, though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
And yes, medians are quite useful when something is as wildly skewed as incomes or wealth. If you use averages, the population appears to be much wealthier than they really are. For example, if we have a group of 101 people, 100 of which have a $20,000 yearly income, and 1 of which has a hundred million dollar annual income, the average is $1,009,901, and the median is $20,000. If the income of the majority drop in half to $10,000 a year, while the rich guy's income doubles to 200 million a year, the average then climbs to $1,990,099, while the median drops to $10,000. So, FOX News would use the average, and say everything is going great, as average incomes have almost doubled to nearly two million dollars. However, the situation is far from rosy for the 99%, as median incomes show. StuRat (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The numbers in the various sources fpr median income are discrepant, with some showing the US near the top. The GINI chart shows the US with less income disparity than many of the countries claimed to be more equitable. What gives? Edison (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hail, hail Fredonia, land of the brave and free[edit]

Fans of the Marx Brothers are well aware of the incident regarding Duck Soup in which Fredonia, New York attempted to get the Marxist country renamed. As far as we know, did any other Fredonias make official statements about the name of the country in the movie? Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've wondered why Sylvania didn't complain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Roman ball game (Follis)[edit]

I'm looking for information about a Roman ball game called Follis (described in our article at Balloon (game), but not very usefully). Anything which would help to create a playable version would be appreciated! My googling has so far only revealed that the objective was not to let the ball touch the ground. (This is for a LARP event, so perfect authenticity is not required, but it's nice to keep it close if we can). Other suggestions for ancient world (around the Mediterranean) games played with a roughly football sized object (in this case, the head of Medusa*) also appreciated.

*I never said it was a sensible idea... MChesterMC (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

for whatever reason the catalan wiki gives more information, https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hist%C3%B2ria_de_la_pilota_valenciana talks about how it was a heavy leather ball filled with air and kept up using the arms (fists or armbands) and played in small enclosures perhaps as to avoid injury..the source in the article you linked to gives some additional information on follis http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gcv4WxCSK0gC&pg=PA606#v=onepage&q&f=false such as that the armband is a wooden bracer/gauntlet thing idek??~Helicopter Llama~ 13:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
also this marcus guy called it "the least violent game"
That's not Martial's characterization, that's an endnote written by the editor: in this case Rev. H.M. Stevenson, M.A. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems like a volleyball-type game. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19"[edit]

Please quote this for me/us at Biblical cosmology...
Bautch, Kelley Coblentz (2003). A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19. Brill. ISBN 9789004131033., pp. 233–234.
As you may guess I do not have access to this work.
This work is cited at the end of Biblical cosmology#Cosmic geography (currently note 54) in Biblical cosmology. I had to change the article text here and now I am wondering if the text is accurate. Does Bautch really say "Enoch traveled to the ends of the earth" or the like? All I can find is a text in 1 Enoch saying that such and such will happen "even to the ends of the earth"... and for this Wikipedia article, that is something very different. tahc chat 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If you have JSTOR access (I don't), the answer might be found in: A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19: "No One Has Seen What I Have Seen" by Kelley Coblentz Bautch —in:
71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:71.20.250.51-- that is just a review of the book I am asking about. Does anyone have access to pages 233–234 of the book (A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19) itself? tahc chat 19:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
One search referenced that review with something like: "...Enoch then traveled north, to the ends of the earth" (paraphrase: mine). Although this doesn't relate to that citation, there is an additional reference for [1 Enoch: Chapter 23; 1,2]: "From thence I went to another place to the west of the ends of the earth." — Book of Enoch. From- The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament R.H. Charles Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Section I. Chapters I-XXXVI on: Wesley Center Online; Wesley Center for Applied Theology, Northwest Nazarene University   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Lane's personal slave[edit]

Joseph Lane kept a personal slave until 1878. Do we know who he/she was named, where they came from, how Lane bought or came to enslave him/her and the person's ultimate fate?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're feeling ambitious (unlike myself), you could check out the Northwest Digital Archives:
71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)  —P.s.—  ...or maybe not. The "digital" part of the archive is just a description of the (non-digital) content of the archive: so, unless you happen to be in Eugene, Oregon... 71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is J. Howard Marshall's money?[edit]

Both Anna Nicole AND the son who was fighting her for the nearly $50 million inheritance died before the case was settled. What happened to the money? Is it still in limbo? Has anyone received the money? What will likely happen to it? Bali88 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"The case is currently pending before the 9th circuit court of appeals"Mogism (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Have relevant newspaper clippings but incomplete citation data[edit]

I've been given a scrapbook with many newspaper and journal clippings about a notable family company established in 1889 in Seattle, Washington, USA. I've drafted an article on the company's history, but the clippings are presenting me with some citation difficulties. Some are hand-labeled with citation information, but others have incomplete data--only dates published, or no date or title of source at all. Is there a way to verify/find information for complete citations from the titles of the clippings from the early 1900's? Some of the clippings are from the larger newspapers---Seattle Times, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Tacoma News Tribune and Ledger. Others are from industry journals like Barrel and Box, Daily Journal of Commerce, Wood and Wood Products, and some appear to be from church-related newspapers. I appreciate any advice you can provide. --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You may be able to plug phrases from the articles into a search (in a newspaper database or the like) and find the dates/sources that way. It's similar to putting a line from a song into a search engine in order to find its title.--Cam (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

British Daughters of the American Revolution[edit]

Are there any members of the Daughters of the American Revolution who are from the British side of the war (Not talking about British chapters of the DAR, though)? I am guessing not unless they have other ancestors who fought on the American side. But is there an organization for descendants of British combatants and loyalists?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Also have their been any descendants of American Indians who have sought membership in the DAR? According to American Revolutionary War, five tribes fought on the side of the Americans.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the DAR, you should review the website,[5] which indicates you need to be a female, descended from someone who fought on the American side. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Also this Daughters of the American Revolution#Eligibility, which is why I assumed it wouldn't be, but there is always outspoken individuals who don't abide by rules and lawsuits and everything. This question might be farfetched as asking if African Americans can join the DAR fifty years ago.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There's also the older but perhaps less well known Sons of the American Revolution, which has essentially the same requirements as the DAR.[6]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You may be interested inUnited Empire Loyalist, the honorific awarded to British sympathizers (an award accompanied by a land allotment) who resettled in Canada following the Revolutionary War. It does not apply to their descendants, though, only to the original Brits. --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Cargo ship[edit]

Not sure where to post this. Anyhoo, wha t sort of cargo does a ship like thus carry? Also thisLihaas (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Vehicles apparently. Though I'm not sure what type just yet. Dismas|(talk) 00:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen a ship like that docked in my city, offloading Japanese cars. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be a vehicle carrier built in 2010.[7] Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)