Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• 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.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 10

Muslim contributions to geography and science and mathematics

Who are the famous or not so famous Muslims of Golden Age of Islam who have made contributions to geography and science and mathematics?--Donmust90 (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Science in the medieval Islamic world should be a good start - there are links to several sub-articles, and lists of scientists. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It'd be a huge list, probably too big to retype it all here. You could start with Islamic Golden Age and Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and Science in the medieval Islamic world and List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world and List of Muslim scientists. Each of those articles contains links to more detailed articles on specific sciences. It wasn't a "Golden Age" for nothing; the Caliphate was the most powerful and stable empire in the west for hundreds of years, and the prosperity and stability it brought was known to allow for a flourishing in the sciences. --Jayron32 04:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note that although Islamic scientific discoveries were very impressive for the time, almost none of it had an influence on modern science, meaning science since Kepler and Newton. For example, Islamic astronomy mostly refined the Ptolemaic model, developed spherical trigonometry for finding the qiblah, and improved a few devices like the sundial and astrolabe. Of course the entire Ptolemaic model being thrown out the window is the definitive event of the Scientific Revolution. Today, the Islamic legacy in astronomy is limited to nomenclature--most star names are Arabic in origin.

In general, it's important to remember that Western science after the Scientific Revolution is drastically different from any earlier form of science. Science, as we know it today, is an exclusively European development, and far surpasses in accuracy and objectivity any other "science" invented by any other civilization. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean the "Western science" whose practitioners wrote it down using a modified semitic alphabet, using Arabic numerals based on the Hindu–Arabic numeral system and manipulated formulas using Algebra? All while drinking distilled alcohol and later coffee to get the brain going? Science has a lot more continuity that you seem to think, and it's pretty hopeless to try to cut it off from its many different roots. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

How are the alphabet, Arabic numerals, algebra, alcohol, and coffee in any way science? I was expecting you to give actual examples of science, not mathematics or popular beverages. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

1) The OP asked about mathematics 2) The methods of distillation and extraction developed by early Islamic chemists are still vital to science today, and these Islamic sources are among the earliest descriptions of them; some of their earliest uses were in the distillation of alcohol and in the brewing of coffee. The basic techniques to do each are not functionally different from what a chemist in a modern laboratory may do, and some of their earliest descriptions come from Islamic sources. --Jayron32 18:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

How can someone not consider algebra the basis of science? And even compare mathematics with popular beverages (like if it were as useless as Coke).OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about physics there. There was more continuity in chemistry, and don't forget the technologies in everyday use, like paper-making and sugar refining. Also, the philosophical approaches that we call Western, and that allowed the scientific outlook to develop, had thei roots in Islamic theology. The books and TV programmes of Jim Al-Khalili are a good introduction to the topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

See also Medicine in the medieval Islamic world. Alansplodge (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree there was slightly more continuity in chemistry, as revealed by Chemistry#History. Paper making and sugar refining are technologies, not sciences. I haven't read anything by Jim Al-Khalili, but a priori I highly doubt that the scientific outlook had their roots in Islamic theology. I see no reason why Christian Europeans during the Scientific Revolution would have cared about Islamic theology, and no evidence that Bacon, Newton, Kepler et al. were influenced by it. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Technological development and scientific development are linked, cf the steam engine. The scientific revolution could hardly have got off the ground without paper. Distillation, as mentioned by Stephan, led the Arabs to understand more about the properties of medicinal plants, and we wouldn't have the key pharmaceutical concept of "active ingredient" without it. Pharmaceutical and chemical research went together in Europe at least till the time of Luke Howard. As for the theology, the trajectory usually described is this: Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics including William of Ockham (Occam's Razor) developed their ideas by engaging with the works of Islamic philosophers like Avicenna and Averroes. Critique of the Scholastics gave us Renaissance Humanism, and critique of Renaissance Humanism gave us the Enlightenment. These connections can be sourced, although I expect they are also debated. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, one of the later prevailing elaborations of Islamic theology (Occasionalism) was highly inimical to science, if taken seriously... AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

On geography we have Geography and cartography in medieval Islam, although there seems to be more info at History_of_geodesy#Islamic_world. There were a few new techniques, like spherical trigonometry, useful for measuring the circumference of the Earth, apparently quite accurately. I think I've read about some connection between these Persian and Arabic circumference calculations and Columbus's mistake about the size of the Earth, but I can't recall quite what it was. Something about Columbus assuming the "Arabic mile" used by Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Kathīr al-Farghānī was the same as a Roman mile... Pfly (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Son of Francis II, Duke of Brittany

Was the son of Francis II, Duke of Brittany and his first wife Margaret of Brittany named John or Francis. The French wiki says Jean (John). http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BRITTANY.htm#_Toc284059595 says Francois (Francis). Also is he buried in the same part of Nantes Cathedral his parents were buried in?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the only bones in there are Francis, his two wives, and some other bones which may or may not be his uncle Arthur III. I'm not sure about the name of his son...Medieval Lands is often wrong or wildly out of date. For example it says Francis II is buried in the Carmelite convent. Well, originally, yeah, but the tomb is now in the Cathedral. I would trust the French Wikipedia, but neither site has a source for the name. I could ask about it over there, if you'd like (and you can always e-mail the guy in charge of Medieval Lands, Charles Cawley). If Francis' son was buried in the cathedral, this would have been the old Romanesque cathedral, which was just beginning to be replaced by the current Gothic one. The Romanesque building is completely gone now, so it's conceivable that anyone who was buried there is gone too (the only surviving part is the crypt, but no one is buried there now). If he is still buried in the cathedral, he's not in his parents' tomb, and there is nothing marking his grave. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

AFP anonymity question

Just now, I read a news by AFP (the news doesn't appear to be on their website yet, so here's a link). The news was disclosed by an unnamed US official, who wished to remain anonymous for reasons that are neither mentioned nor implied in the news report. Usually, when anyone asks to be anonymous in news reports, it's usually because: 1. He/she is not authorized to speak to the media, and/or 2. The news in question had something to do with particularly sensitive topics, such as North Korea, Syria, or any military-related news. However, the nature of the news report (It's about the top diplomat of the US in Asia, Kurt Campbell, who doesn't appear to have an article here, stepping down) implies that the nature of anonymity is neither of the two aforementioned cases. What is likely to be the reason why the official wants to be anonymous? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why you're ruling out "not authorized to provide this particular bit of information to the media". Note that there's a related reason, "doesn't want to be known as the guy who provides information to the media". — Lomn 13:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Usually, if it's because their not authorized to speak, it would be explicitly mentioned (e.g. "wishes to remain anonymous because he is not authorized to speak to the media"). In this case, no reason is given, so it's possible that that's not the case. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A person with a sensitive position or a prominent public profile may simply not wish to be identified in public with a quote because it could generate unwanted attention on that person. I have not read the article you quote, but if for example you are a highly placed official who sometimes appears publicly, you may not want to have to field questions about this issue the next time you speak because it could distract from what you are supposed to be talking about. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It could also be a method for getting the news out there before making an official statement. This gives the public a false sense of empowerment. Businesses use this tactic all the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Leaks are a standard way for an administration to get something out there into the papers with minimal blowback to themselves. For an extreme instance, Dick Cheney leaking to Judith Miller at the NYTimes re WMD in Iraq, then quoting the resulting articles as independent support for his contention that there were WMD in Iraq. Gzuckier (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Meat traceability etc.

Political economy question. Should these rules have applied to the French companies in Findus' supply chain? Or are they just best practice? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Me again. No, they didn't apply. They relate to minced beef that has the label "100% muscle". [1]. If anyone can help me quickly get to the EU rules for minced beef in general, that would be good. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What does this have to do with political economy? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this answers your question PalaceGuard, but the question relates to the "Findus beef lasagne ready meal was up to 100 per cent horse meat" story. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I understood that part Alansplodge, it was the "political economy" part that confused me. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Political economy approaches in food studies include looking at supply chains. As opposed to sociology of consumption, which has a different focus.Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a bit, I can see how this can make your interest in the scandal political-economic (if indeed that's the case), but the question you asked here is definitely legal/regulatory. Understanding or applying political economy is not relevant to answering whether certain regulations are mandatory. Anyway, I've gone far off-topic.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to make it clear that I wanted Humanities Desk type responses rather than Science Desk type responses or any other. Didn't work. :-( Itsmejudith (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware all meat in Europe should be traceable and that includes in places like Poland. Some horse meat was already held up in Northern Ireland because of documentary irregularities even before the DNA testing was done but they seem to have been slow in checking back where the problems arose. Regulation needs to be properly backed up with checking and stiff penalties. Dmcq (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that except for beef traceability is not mandatory in Europe even though it is increasingly being implemented. Or rather there is legislation for traceability for all food from 2002] but it is taking a long time being fully implemented. Perhaps wider traceability would have made the problem easier to spot - and then maybe not considering the gangs at work and the convoluted supply chains. Dmcq (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems pretty certain that very few of the traceability regulations were followed. For example Spanghero say in their press release how the product was labelled - as beef. They don't say that the names of the breeder and the abbatoir were on the labels - they should have been. The provenance should have been checked at every point in the chain. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

All that should be available for beef - they would have documents but there are errors or more likely deliberate falsifications of the records. Beef already has the regulations implemented because of BSE. What I meant by wider traceability would be the same for horse and other meat as well. Dmcq (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it why Japan didn't deploy major troops in Iraq?

Al Qaeda promised to strike the heart of Tokyo if troops sent to Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there treaties prohibiting Japan from involving their military in actions that aren't strictly defensive? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a treaty, but the current Japanese Constitution contains very strict rules about what Japan can and (mostly) can't do in situations which are not strictly defensive. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Japan did send warships to the gulf. Granted, this may not count as a "major troop deployment", but they were there... and protecting the oil supply was in their national interest. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What Al Qaeda "promises" to do and what it's actually capable of doing are very different things. Towards the end of WWII, Hitler fantasized about New York going up in flames, but it was nothing more than a delusion. Today, "Germany" is a tiny ragtag group of uneducated fanatics who can barely manage to kill several people every few years, while "the Allies" are many orders of magnitude more sophisticated and powerful than they were in WWII. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Are countries taking part in the Mali conflict at risk of terror attack?

My country Japan has taken a side now and is sending money to Mali troops. Kotjap (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Any country that participates in world politics in any way is at risk from somebody. The more nations take sides against al-qaeda, the better chance there is of exterminating them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Any country that opposes terrorists are at risk of terror attacks, even countries that support terrorism (if there are any) are at risk of terror attacks from terrorists who don't agree with them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that countries which don't confront terrorists may be at even more of a long-term risk from terrorists. Once they figure out that your nation won't fight back, they may well start taking your people hostage, etc. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Kissing up to terrorists in hopes they won't attack you could be called the "Chamberlain Theory". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Appeasement is the relevant article, I think. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How many bus driving hours between Michigan and LA?

I may visit the U.S. and would like to know that. Kotjap (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Greyhound Bus website says that their quickest trip from Detroit to Los Angeles takes 2 days, 3 hours and 25 minutes. There are transfers in Dayton, Ohio, St. Louis, Missouri, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Phoenix, Arizona. All of the schedules take over 2 days. RNealK (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

From an eating-and-drinking perspective, how practical are these long-haul itineraries that the Greyhound website generates? With very brief layovers, at odd hours of the night, in dingy bus depots often in scary parts of town, it doesn't seem practical to find anything to eat (except maybe chips and candy from a kiosk). So if someone wanted to do a trip like this, and wanted to eat anything resembling sane food (even sandwiches) wouldn't they have to essentially pack a mega brown-bag for the whole trip? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Depending on your route, there are often 30 minute meal breaks that take you to nicer truck stops, bus depots with hot food, or places of that sort. In my bus traveling days, I lived on beef jerky and bottled lemonade - Both of which can be picked up at just about any stop, and tend to not taste awful if you don't eat/drink right away. 24.229.178.39 (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

For any point-to-point question in the US, there are various websites that do that for you. One is Google Maps. I entered [detroit to los angeles] and they list 3 options, the shortest of which is basically I-80 all the way: 2,282 miles, 33 hours. That supposes an average speed of 70, if no stops, so take that with a grain of salt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I-94 to I-80 to I-15 to I-10. I-80 doesn't go to Detroit, and you'd have to get off I-80 about 2/3rds of the way there since I-80 goes to San Francisco and not L.A. The PCH is pretty, but it's a bit of a roundabout way to go all the way on I-80 and then head south. I-15 from Salt Lake City goes more-or-less directly towards L.A. --Jayron32 00:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On what basis is anyone here assuming LA means other than Louisiana? And are we to assume Kotjap has a commercial driving license? Should amphetamine use figure in? μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC) You're not really serious about the Louisiana thing, right? LA is the postal code for Louisiana, but it's pretty rare to use it that way outside that context. The abbreviation "La.", with the lowercase a and the period afterwards, I would probably take to mean Louisiana. --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) The saddest thing is, she absolutely is serious. --Jayron32 03:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note that it is actually cheaper to fly from Detroit to LA than to travel by Greyhound, if you can book well ahead of time. People from Europe or Japan often have a hard time grasping how far apart things are in the US. Looie496 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Greyhound website says tickets from Detroit to Los Angeles can cost anywhere from $193 to $270, I don't think you can get a flight for that. RNealK (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In a few minutes searching, I found a Delta flight for $285. With more work you might find something cheaper. And even if not, it's probably worth the extra money to not be on a bus for 2 days. RudolfRed (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Southwest shows one-way flights for less than $130, if you pick the right day. Looie496 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@ Trovatore, Yes, I am totally serious. Los Angeles is known as L.A., not LA. If I am entitled to read Kotjap's mind then I am entitled to tell you he's a troll, as per Wikipedia:Competence is required and the fact that 34 of his last less than 100 edits have been the creation of threads that are almost universally nonsensical, hysterical, or just lazy. Googling "travel time from detroit to los angeles" is beyond easy and below kotjap's obvious skill level, not above it--he knows how to give a link when he wants to. But I am not entitled to assume kotjap is a troll who's wasting space here and taking willing victims for a ride, so I will take him utterly seriously. Does he mean from the state of Michigan to the state of Louisiana like he implies, or not? μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Plenty of people (including me, a sometime Angeleno) frequently drop the periods and refer to the City of Angels as LA. It's not an error. If he were using postal codes (who does that?) to refer to the states, then why didn't he call Michigan MI? --Trovatore (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I don't know. I have suggested to him at least half a dozen times (in this incarnation--I don't know about his previous user names) that he use google first, provide links, and be clear in what he says and asks. And he's promised to do so, see my talk page and his unsolicited responses. I don't think that's so unreasonable for someone with such a mastery of how to edit, ask questions at the ref desk, and provide good links and create and upload material as he is, who has supposedly only been around for about a month and less than 100 edits. I think you also know I am not one to shirk spending hours on good faith questions by occasional actual questioners when they are posed, Trovatore. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC) The OP's post here was the last post he made. Maybe he'll come back here and clarify. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not all that interested in the question, frankly. But LA is a perfectly normal abbreviation for Los Angeles, and an unlikely one for Louisiana, unless in a postal address or at the very least preceded by a city name. --Trovatore (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) My immediate assumption was that LA meant Los Angeles, although it could be Louisiana; also, it's a bit odd to talk about driving from a state to a city. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I normally don't like to leave comments in permanently closed discussions but I felt it worth pointing out I had no idea La was even the 2 letter abbreviation for Louisiana. If someone typed LA and they were obviously referring to the US, my assumption would be Los Angeles with or without the period. I'd probably assume the same thing even if I had no idea what country they were referring to unless it was implied to be another country. In fact, I wouldn't think anything of the absence of the period although myself I normally prefer specificity so I'm more likely to just write Los Angeles. Also when did Kotjap ever suggest they lived in Vancouver or British Columbia or anywhere in Canada? I did a search and can't find any time Kotjap suggested that, although they do seem to have quite an interest in Canada in general. They are continuously calling Japan their country and talking about stuff in Japan as if they have personal experience and while I don't know if they ever said they live there at the moment, they have expressed a high level of concern about attacks on Japan. Is μηδείς getting confused with Iowafromiowa and the numerous other identities that person has gone under? I know μηδείς has accused Kotjap of being Iowafromiowa but that clearly hasn't be established otherwise they'd be blocked. If there was one time when Kotjap implied they lived in Canada, let me know in my talk page as this may be relevant in the event of a SPI. In fact to avoid continuing discussion on this in a closed section, I'd prefer any discussion relating to Kotjap in relation to this comment to be on my talk page or somewhere else like the RD talk page but obviously can't dictate that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Note that Michigan is a large state. As such, which city within Michigan you choose will make quite a difference. It's something like a 4 hour drive from Detroit to the South-Western corner of Michigan. It's something like a 12 hour drive from either of those to the westernmost tip of the Upper Peninsula (although at some point you would change your route to go to Los Angeles via Wisconsin). StuRat (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Agreed, which is why I arbitrarily picked Detroit, and another reason why I am sure Kotjap's "question" (he is supposedly from British Columbia) is utter bullshit. But maybe I am wrong. My calling his suggestion that someone would fly from Vancouver to to Michigan to LA (whether that means Louisiana like it says, or Los Angeles) bullshit should certainly not prejudice anyone here against assuming he didn't mean what he typed. All answers should be in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Does good faith account for the amphetamine reference? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 04:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Presumably he's referring to drastic methods drivers have been known to use to stay awake on very long drives. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I know what she's referring to. "All answers should be in good faith", and yet there's an assumption the law is being broken. Those two statements don't seem to belong in the same conversation, at least from the same author. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Yes. I don't think KJ was planning to drive the bus himself, but maybe I overlooked something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC) play nice! the other kids won't want to play with you if you are mean to them ;) ---- nonsense ferret 13:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the bus-travel issue in general; I did a Pittsburgh-Denver round trip a few years ago (as well as numerous Pittsburgh-Columbus and Indianapolis-Columbus trips), and I can confirm that you get reasonable breaks at mealtimes as well as stops at stations. What's more, drivers are prohibited from driving more than a certain number of hours, so awakeness isn't generally a problem. Accordingly, they don't go as fast as you would in a car, but since they go overnight, you're probably going to get there sooner than if you're driving, and without hotel bills too. However, it's still quite hard to argue with the Southwest Airlines ticket price. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Royals who visited Hawaii in the 19th century

Besides Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Prince Henry of Prussia (1862–1929), Prince Henry, Count of Bardi and Prince Henry, Count of Bardi, did any other foreign royals visit Hawaii before 1898? And what exactly was the Count and Countess of Bardi doing in Hawaii in 1889?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What, Royals can't go Surfing? Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

February 11

Golden Rule buyout in fiction

"In a Golden Rule buyout, the parties agree that in the event they disagree to such an extent that the company effectively cannot function, each partner can offer to buy the other out for a price determined by the offering partner. The other partner then has a period of time (usually thirty days) in which to do one of two things: he or she can either agree to the price and terms offered by the offering partner and sell their ownership stake, or he or she can turn around and buy the offering partner's stake in the company for the same price and terms that the offering partner proposed."[2]

Basically applying Divide and choose on a company.

I'm looking for works of fiction that contain a Golden Rule buyout between two partners, preferably as a major plot element. Dncsky (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Would Science Fiction suffice? Consider Irvine, A (2009) Buyout Del Ray --Senra (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your question, "... the parties agree that ..." reminds me of Pratchett (2007) Making Money p. 9 where "Mr Blister the lawyer" was thinking that "[w]hen parties are interested in unprepossessing land, it might pay for smaller parties to buy up any neighbouring plots, just in case the party of the first part had heard something, possibly at a party" --Senra (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I love SF. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.Dncsky (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

what was Robert Ludlum writing about when he died?

Our article says, "Ludlum died on March 12, 2001, at his home in Naples, Florida, whilst recovering from severe burns caused by a mysterious fire which occurred on February 10."

What was he writing about (at home) or working on at this time? --Curiouserandlesscurious (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Prolific writers, as Ludlum was, are likely to have a few manuscripts in-progress at any one time. This article may answer your question: Sandomir, Richard (30 July 2007). "The Ludlum Conundrum: A Dead Novelist Provides New Thrills". NYT. Retrieved February 11, 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) --Senra (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this connected to some sort of conspiracy theory about the "mysterious fire" (THEY wanted to stop him writing about Area X etc)? Paul B (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The only thing suggestion a "mysterious fire" is our very own wikipedia article! It doesn't sound very neutral - was that sentence added by a troll? At any rate, I'm not very interested in the mysteries behind the fire. I'd just like to know what main project Robert Ludlum was working on. Thanks!! Curiouserandlesscurious (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

From the New York Times article linked above, it seems that Ludlum was not one of those writers who works on one book, completes it, has it published, and then moves on to the next one. He had various projects at work at once, in various states of advancement. Many of these projects which were still incomplete at the time of his death have since been completed by others but published under Ludlum's name. Some of these projects may have been untouched by Ludlum for years before his death, however, lying among his papers somewhere. These books are distinct from new books featuring characters created by Ludlum, like the more recent installments of the Jason Bourne novels, which have been entirely written by other writers like Eric van Lustbader. --Xuxl (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• The "mysterious fire" seems to be sourced and appears to have been reported after Ludlum's death, as I cannot find it reported in his obituaries. See for example: Allen-Mills, Tony (21 February 2011). "The Robert Ludlum controversy: nephew raises questions about top thriller writer's death". The Australian. Retrieved February 11, 2013. Thirteen days after revising his will, Ludlum was sitting in a reclining armchair in his $US3 million beachfront apartment in Naples, Florida, when he suddenly became engulfed in flames. An ambulance was called and he was taken to hospital with serious burns {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Sounds like a clear-cut case of spontaneous human combustion. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• As to "what was Robert Ludlum writing about when he died?", we may never really know. According to our article on The Sigma Protocol, published posthumously, it was "the last novel written completely by Robert Ludlum". His obituary by Williams, John (14 March 2001) of The Guardian reports "At the time of his death, his publishers were quick to announce that he had been working on several books, which they were going to continue to publish" and his obituary in The Telegraph (14 March 2001) says "He completed at least three books which have still to be published". You could try asking this question on one his his publisher's forums --Senra (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

where can I sign up to be the next Pope?

the current pope is resigning, announced today, as of the end of the month.

assuming I'm an estranged pontiff who has been living in a distant village in Tibet and have had no contact with the modern world since 1962, but until that time was a catholic in good standing, and since that time have led a small (local) catholic revolution with what scarce materials were available to me... where would I sign up to be the next Pope? Assume I'm 76, and have a story such that anyone who reads it would say, "wow, this guy needs to be the next pope!" The question is about where such a person would sign up. Assume loss of contact with the vatican, so that contact would have to be made anew. Please be detailed, concise, and specific. This is not homework. --Totallynotaboutme (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Start with the Pope article and see if it gets into the details of requirements or prerequisites for becoming the Pope. Given from the obvious fact that you would need to be elected by the College of Cardinals, unless you're a Cardinal yourself your odds are not good. You would probably need to start out as a priest and work your way up the ladder to Bishop and then Cardinal - all in the next 2 weeks. As an alternative, you could write to your favorite Cardinal and ask for advice. Hey, the worst they could do is say "Nay". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the exclusive means of becoming Pope is election by the College of Cardinals to fill the vacant seat, first of all, your remedy lies there. Obviously you'd have to have a member of the College of Cardinals of appropriate age (i.e., under 80) onside to boost your candidacy. After that, it's up to the College and the Holy Spirit. I recall a book, The Vicar of Christ with a similar theme, a man becomes pope although only a monk, but he has previously served in high secular office before retreating to a monastery after a personal tragedy, and is proposed by a cardinal who was impressed by him to a deadlocked College.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope Gregory XVI. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, the only formal requirements are that the candidate is catholic, and male. If a layman is elected, he will automatically be consecrated as a bishop. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz is right in terms of the formal qualifications. However, someone who is already a cardinal has a huge advantage, that of being known by the small caste of voters. For a candidate who is not a cardinal, he would either need someone to orchestrate a brilliant publicity campaign in his favor, or have an influential cardinal lobby on his behalf to other members of the College of Cardinals. A pretty long shot. And the question the Cardinals would ask is not "Does this guy 'need' to be Pope ?", but rather, "Is he the best person to be the next Pope ?" --Xuxl (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Distinctions need to be made between what the rules say, and what is possible. The rules are what Stephan Schulz notes: The candidate for the papacy must be a catholic male in good standing. However, it is essentially impossible that the College of Cardinals would elevate someone to the Papacy who isn't themselves a well-respected member of their own number with leadership experience within the Catholic church. There's no reason for the Conclave to look outside of that for its leader, and while there are any number of likely candidates, all of them are Cardinals, and all hold major positions within the Catholic hierarchy, either as important leaders of major diocese or archdiocese, or as administrators within the structure of the Vatican itself. Considering that some Joe Shmoe from some local catholic parish somewhere would be elected Pope is just silly. --Jayron32 16:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Marco Polo's Pope, Gregory X, was one of the last to be selected without being a bishop or cardinal... AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Much more recent than that. It was Pope Gregory XVI in the 19th century, still he was both a priest and an abbot and had been vicar general of the Camaldolese order and had been one of the chief missionaries and inquisitors within the church; so he had demonstrated the sort of leadership that candidates for Pope expect to show. --Jayron32 18:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's article, as well as the Catholic Encyclopedia, Gregory XVI was made a cardinal in 1825/1826, at least five years before he was elected pope. - Lindert (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I see. He was a Cardinal but not a Bishop. Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that detail. --Jayron32 18:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Papal conclave. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

News reports are already saying the Cardinals will "go into lockdown" to elect the new Pope. I just can't wait to be flooded with this breathless, over-dramatised 21st-century-journo-speak. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You think 21st century journalism is over-dramatised? Check out yellow journalism, specifically Frank Mott's criteria, and you'll marvel at how objective and reliable modern news is. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, lockdown is such a great hairy masculine Teutonic word both visually and aurally pleasing with its hard and clashing medial stops, its lyrical, almost epic liquid and nasal termini, and its wonderful low and back vowels. Seclusion is just a nambipambic overpaid Latinism with its two lazy schwas and its effeminate medial /ʒ/. You could name your first son Lockdown and he'd never get beat up on the blacktop. I wouldn't even name a goldfish I didn't like "seclusion". μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What's it called when someone is intellectually so far above their audience in terms of understanding, that they can just list what they know, knowing it will sound as though it's satire. (An example might be if someone knows exactly what the government is up to while their technical audience does not, and so simply lists it, knowing it will sound like 'obvious' satire - since it has no shared context with anything the audience actually knows or understands). So, what is that technique called, because I think Medeis just employed it. 86.101.32.82 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

you guys! you're all so funny ---- _nonsense ferret 00:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ex-Pope

In a related question... What happens to an Ex-Pope as far as protocol and titles go? Does he continue to be addressed as "Your Holiness"?... Is he still "Pope Benectict" or does he revert back to being "Cardinal Ratzinger"? etc. etc. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian reports, that he will revert to his old title(s). Source. Since no Pope has stepped down since 1415, there will probably not be current (written) protocol for the issue. --Abracus (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... that is interesting. (I assumed that the protocol from 1415 would be the "current" protocol... we are talking about the Catholic Church after all, where just because something is "old" does not necessarily make it "obsolete".) Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it was a pronouncement from an Ecumenical Council or anything. Protocols, like canon law, are less... eternal. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

True... then again, we are talking about an organization that still wears ceremonial outfits designed during the reign of Emperor Diocletian. A protocol devised as recently as 1415 might still be considered a "recent innovation".  :>) Anyway, my question has been answered. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So it wouldn't be an ecumenical matter? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how reliable The Guardian is in this matter. Typically, when a bishop retires due to old age, he just adds "Emeritus" to his title and that's it. I can't see why Pope Benedict XVI could not become Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"Pope" is a bit different than Bishop... I supposed Benny could style himself Bishop (Emeritus) of Rome, but Cardinal is a higher rank than Bishop. Blueboar (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, his rank is still "Bishop". Cardinal is not a rank, it is an honor; kinda-sorta like "knighthood". Any member of the clergy of any rank can be named a cardinal. The only explicit privilege of Cardinals is electing the pope. A clergy member's place in the official Catholic heirarchy doesn't change when they are named "Cardinal", though many cardinals are given important positions within the church, including leading prominent diocese or congregations, or serving official functions for the Vatican itself. Pope is also not a "rank" per se, the Pope's highest official title is Bishop of Rome. --Jayron32 23:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems logical to me that he be Joseph Ratzinger, Bishop Emeritus of Rome.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that seems to me to be the most logical style for him to carry. I don't think he'd lose his Cardinalship, however, so I imagine he'd be Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Bishop Emeritus of Rome. But this is all speculation until we have some official statement to that end. As noted, he's going to be the first living ex-Pope we've had in over half a millennium. Allowances should be made while they work these details out. --Jayron32 23:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't certain if he was "still" a Cardinal, and our article didn't help me much :( . I imagine one of the first acts of his successor, if not, would be to make him one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that, like Pope Celestine V issued a decree making it clear that a Pope could resign before he did so, Benedict XVI could issue a decree making it clear that Popes who resign should be known as X, if he wanted to. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. It should be an interesting few weeks. And for us political junkies, entertaining.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

One thing to bear in mind here is that when cardinals, bishops and even priests reach their mandatory retirement age, they don't suddenly cease having any of their "powers" (for want of a better word). They simply cease to exercise their offices and cease to be involved in the running of parishes, dioceses or primacies or whatever. A retired cardinal is still a cardinal; he may be barred from electing a pope, but he could, if the occasion demanded it, consecrate a bishop. A retired bishop is still a bishop and could, if the occasion demanded it, ordain a priest. A retired priest is still a priest and could, if the occasion demanded it, baptise children, hear confessions, consecrate hosts and give communion etc etc. There's no such thing as a retired pope, because the office is for life, barring abdication. An abdicated pope is NOT still a pope, just as an abdicated king is not still a king. The whole point of him resigning his papacy is that he doesn't want to be pope anymore, so continuing to call him "<anything> pope" seems a bit odd to me. Kings always lose their kingly titles on abdication; so will the pope, imo. Ratzinger was named a cardinal, and I believe that is what he will revert to. But we'll have to wait and see. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

However, the pope is also the president of Vatican. A former President of the Republic of Hungary is still styled president, and gets some pension, but no power or function on the account of being an ex-president itself. I imagine this works similar in some other countries. – b_jonas 08:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"President"? He's head of state and absolute monarch. The only official I can find called "president" is Giuseppe Bertello (see http://www.vaticanstate.va/IT/Stato_e_Governo/StrutturadelGovernatorato/Presidenza/ ) .--Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ex-Benedict... --TammyMoet (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, a Cardinal is not a 'rank' above Bishop. A bishop is exactly as capable of ordaining someone as a bishop as a cardinal (who is a bishop) is: there are no "powers" a cardinal has which a bishop does not. Is it even usual for a cardinals to go around ordaining? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Pope is selected strictly by Cardinals, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one power reserved for the Cardinals. Oh, and all clergy can be named cardinals, not just bishops. --Jayron32 14:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a legal "power" which can be withdrawn. I assumed Jack was referring to supernatural "powers" (hence the quotation marks) which are considered to be given through ordination (in Catholic teaching) and cannot be withdrawn, because Sacraments cannot be reversed. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the latter power.

Update: I've been advised at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI#Pope Emeritus? that a Cardinal elected pope ceases to be a cardinal because cardinals are always assigned to a church in Rome, and the church is re-assigned once the cardinal become the Bishop of Rome (which is the Pope's primary title). Hence Ratzinger's status upon resignation will become Bishop Emeritus of Rome, unless the new Pope reappoints him as a Cardinal, which would be a hollow gesture as he's above the age of retirement anyway. He may just be Bishop Ratzinger for the rest of his life. (Caveat: That was from en editor who sounded like he knows what he's talking about, which of course trumps any old reference.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a reference at hand either, but what Gugganij wrote on that talkpage makes perfect sense and I actually wanted to write here more or less of the same: Benedict will most certainly become a bishop emeritus of Rome (or pope emeritus for short), but will not automatically revert to his previous cardinal title (cardinal bishop of Ostia), which is currently assigned to Cardinal Sodano. There remains the question of the ex-pope's name; as far as I'm aware, assumption of a papal name is a matter of tradition, not a legal requirement, so there's no legal requirement to revert to one's birth name upon resignation either. And there's no tradition to do so, as this is a completely new situation. Most likely, this will be left to Joseph/Benedict's personal preference. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm presuming it's correct that answers a question of mine, namely is it possible based on current law that a former pope may take part in the election of his immediate successor, the answer apparently being no. Of course that would not have happened here since the pope is older then 80 years old although interesting enough [3] specifically notes he won't take part. I say 'current law' because of course any pope still being pope could change the law to enable him to take part, or I'm presuming even to completely eliminate the papal conclave and enable himself to directly appoint his successor even if she's a 17 year old transgendered lesbian atheist. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Lord moves in mysterious ways her wonders to perform. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We have an article about that. Alansplodge (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The question of the title of the former pope is now solved. Quoting our article Pope Benedict XVI:

As pope emeritus, he retains the style of His Holiness, and the title of Pope, and will continue to dress in the papal colour of white.

See references in that article. – b_jonas 17:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

you probos have to be a cardinal Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Seven Deadly Sins Citation Question

I am researching the history of the seven deadly sins and was looking at you article regarding that topic. I came across a citation that I have not been able to track down and was wondering if there was any additional information available. The specific citation I am referring to is number 8: Refoule 1967. That's all the information given and I need to be able to actually track down this primary source. Is it possible to contact the author for more information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpediem42276 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You can find the information on print references in the "Bibliography" section of the article in question. In this case, it appears, from the article seven deadly sins, that that text is:

• Refoule, F. (1967) Evagrius Ponticus. In Staff of Catholic University of America (Eds.) New Catholic Encyclopaedia. Volume 5, pp644–645. New York: McGrawHill.

I hope that helps! --Jayron32 13:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

An earlier version is viewable online, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917). It may or may not help, but good luck with your research. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Debate-only question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to some theorists, the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane. My question is, where are, accordging to them, Barbara Olson and the rest of American Airlines Flight 77. Kotjap (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC) The best place to find out what conspiracy theorists say is to wade through the various conspiracy theory websites. No need for us to give them any attention. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Bear in mind also that 9/11 conspiracy theorists rarely agree on any details. filelakeshoe (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) ...or even bother defining the details in the first place. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC) The psychology of the conspiratorially minded is complicated. In general, they'll latch onto an explanation that vilifies those they perceive as the masterminds, and which suggests information manipulation to the greatest degree. To that end, I'm guessing(entirely hypothetical) that the most common explanation would be that there was no such flight, and the passengers listed are non-persons, and any public display of grief is by actors. That's part of why there's a missile theory in the first place, because they have a need for something to be covered up, for there to "obvious" misinformation only the enlightened can see through. i kan reed (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I do recall reading a psychology textbook about some psychological disorder that contrives conspiracy theories. One example of a conspiracy theory is displayed as a picture to illustrate the complexity of the ludicrous idea. 140.254.226.229 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, the stereotypical one seems to be a homeless man who insists that the CIA has implanted a microchip in his brain so they can read his thoughts. Why the CIA would care about the thoughts of a homeless man is never explained. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Do you know the name of the actual psychological disorder, though? 140.254.226.229 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this provocative?

Clearly an opinion question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am Japanese so my opinion would be completely biased. After this picture was published, anti-Japan protests erupted in China. Is the picture that provocative? Kotjap (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Are you asking us for our opinions? We don't do that. If you want us to help you look for published opinion we'd need the source of that picture. Please provide the link. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC) As I'm sure you're aware, that's a photo of two people waving Japanese flags on an island claimed by both Japan and China. So yes, that would be provocative to some Chinese people. thx1138 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Turn it around. If Chinese citizens planted their flag on the same disputed islands, what would the reaction be? Also consider your country's actions prior to 1945. CS Miller (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/world/asia/japanese-activists-display-flag-on-disputed-island.html?pagewanted=all Kotjap (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC) The act doesn't have to be particularly provocative to result in counterclaims of territorial sovereignty over the islands. A flag symbolizes territorial sovereignty. Those who disagree are obviously going to express disagreement. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Thank that we have the U.S. as ally to protect us in case of conflict. Kotjap (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Kotjap, how can you possibly argue this is not a request for opinion? You asked "is the picture that provocative?" If that's not an opinion question, I don't know what is. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Finally answered.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kotjap should not post any more questions here until he explains what "LA" is intended to mean, a few sections above here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Baseball Bugs, I think that most Americans call Los Angeles LA. Kotjap (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Have you even read the comments in that section above? Your question was unclear. Clarify that question before you ask any more questions, please! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC) For one thing, supposing you mean Los Angeles, what does driving from the state of Michigan to the city of Los Angeles mean? Michigan is a good-sized state and is in two time zones. Where in Michigan is your starting point? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

St Andrews Sarcophagus

What is/was in the St Andrews Sarcophagus?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

this maybe helps [4] ---- _nonsense ferret 21:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Unust" in the BBC article seems to be (from the dates given) Óengus I. Our article says; "It is generally presumed that the St Andrews Sarcophagus was executed at the command of Óengus." The reference for that is: Henderson, George & Isabel Henderson. The Art of the Picts. London: Thames and Hudson, 2004. 0-500-23807-3 pp. 155–156; MacLean, Douglas. "The Northumbrian Perspective" in Simon Taylor (ed.) op. cit. pp. 200–201; Woolf, Alex. "Ungus (Onuist), son of Uurgust" in M. Lynch (ed.). It is less certain whose remains the sarcophagus contained. Woolf and MacLean argue for Óengus while Henderson favours Nechtan mac Der Ilei. Clancy, "Caustantín", favours a 9th century date. Alansplodge (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note to our article, with the info and refs above. Alansplodge (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Priesthood

I am a 20 year old boy from the Philippines, I want to know if taking up the celibacy vow is mandatory and if it's needed to be a virgin at entering priesthood. Thank you. Martyrofus (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally not. According to this official website of a Catholic diocese, as long as you remain chaste after you begin your process of becoming a priest, you are not required to be a virgin. A search on google pretty much confirms that. --Jayron32 22:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We are assuming, of course, that you are a Catholic. Protestant clergy (such as Episcopal priests) do not have to be celibate, even after ordination. Chaste yes... Celibate no. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, most Protestant clergy don't even have to be chaste. They can have sexual relations with their spouse, for example. They are expected to not have sexual relations outside of marriage, but many if not most protestant clergy have children, which is generally hard to do if one abstains entirely from sexual relations. --Jayron32 23:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Having sex with your spouse is entirely in keeping with chastity, which is not at all the same as celibacy. Blueboar was exactly right. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In which case we should point out to the OP that celibacy (i.e. complete sexual abstinence) is required of Catholic priests. Rojomoke (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A vow of celibacy is generally required from Western Rite Catholics being ordained as priests, if they are not already married. Married candidates are usually only accepted in the Western Rite in exceptional circumstances. If a Western Catholic man feels that he is not called to celibacy, but is instead called to marriage, then the Church generally feels he is not called to be a priest, although he could still have an important role to play in the Church. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rojomoke, that definition of celibacy "(i.e. complete sexual abstinence)" is a very new one. Traditionally, celibacy meant choosing not to marry. Of course, that also meant being sexually abstinent, because sexual relations could only legitimately occur within marriage. Hence a decision to not marry effectively meant a decision not to have sex, but they're still distinct things. The modern age with its acceptance of sex everywhere with everyone at all times has blurred things; having sex and being married are no longer connected (as any married person can confirm) . People sometimes talk about "celibate marriage"; that's a contradiction in terms as far as I'm concerned, and what they mean is "abstinent marriage". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are a Catholic looking to learn more about vocations, this page is probably the most helpful reference to start with: http://www.vocation.com/

You can also speak to your parish priest, and ask him about how you could learn more. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Looking for permission from random people on the internet to fornicate before you get serious about your vocation is not the best way to start, which I am sure your parish priest will tell you when you next go to confession--perhaps this Saturday. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Lecturing our OPs on their personal morality is not what we do here. I read his question about virginity to mean that he's already had sex and was wondering whether that meant he's disbarred from the priesthood. But whatever. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What Jack said. According to the source I provided above from an official Catholic Church source (what a novel concept, answering the direct question with an actual reference, and without further comment!) he was sufficiently provided the answer it seemed he was looking for. --Jayron32 04:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care who he fucks, but if he is serious about a vocation as priest he should talk to his priest and not ask us about his sex habits, past, present, or future. Assuming he wants to be a Catholic priest, confession would be appropriate--"Bless me father, I think I have a vocation, but I have done so and so...or am tempted to do so and so..." That should be quite clear and it's silly to think wikipedia's relativistic morality will be relevant to him as a Catholic priest. Bottom line, get to a priest, not some guys on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What? No, Confession isn't the time to ask about vocations, generally. Talking to his priest is useful, because he can receive a more personal answer that takes into account vocations resources in his area and how the local seminaries work, and can guide him through the next step of inquiry. This doesn't at all need to be during Confession, and probably shouldn't be (among other reasons, because his priest will need to talk to other people about his vocation, and his priest cannot do that based on things said in Confession). And there is absolutely no reason to assume he hasn't already Confessed anything he needs to Confess, so it never needs to be brought up in Confession again.

The Catholic Church does not require virginity from candidates for the priesthood. Martyrofus will almost certainly need to take a vow of celibacy before beibg ordained. Links have been provided with further information, and Martyrofus should probably ask his priest about this (not in Confession). 86.163.209.18 (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

February 12

Horst Wessel

I'm in love with the picture of him on the article Horst-Wessel-Lied though I'm staunchly anti-Nazi. My question is, he died far before the beginning of World War II. My question is, was he anti-Jewish or what was he anti-what? Thank and hope you understand me. My English sucks. Kotjap (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I do find him attractive (physically only), but from his article he is clearly an early Nazi, so he must have believed in the ideology. Not a nice guy. --Lgriot (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess there's no accounting for taste. Not only were his values atrocious, the guy had no chin! Marco polo (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Be careful, or Lomn will remove the non-answers of you two just as he removed mine (unless he's playing favorites). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, so to answer your question more directly, the Nazis during the 1920s were quite overtly anti-Jewish, as well as anti-Communist, and Wessel was a leader in a group (the Sturmabteilung) that violently attacked members of both of those groups. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And according to the German article on Horst Wessel he was head of a group of SA, namely Sturm 5 in Friedrichshain, Berlin, which was known at the time for their extraordinary brutality even for an SA-group. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Poem from a mother to her daughter (?)

Hi everyone, I am looking for a poem I was shown in a university lecture on feminism in literature years ago. I have been trying to google it but I haven't been able to produce any useful results so far. As far as I can remember it was a poem from a mother to her daughter, recommending or wishing she would not be wearing high-heeled shoes in the future but stand firmly and confidently on the ground. I thought the poem might be by Sylvia Plath or Adrienne Rich (Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law?), but including these keywords in my search did not improve results. I'd greatly appreciate any help. Groogokk (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't sound very Plath-like, more in the mode of Wendy Cope. There's a poem called "High Heels" by Carole Oles, but it only partly fits your description. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, Paul. You guessed it right, Oles' poem isn't the one I'm looking for. It is shorter than "High Heels", maybe just two stanzas of five or so lines each. Groogokk (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well then, the best I can come up with is Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Cripple, an attack on high-heels wearers, but with no heavy-handed feminist pronouncement at the end about daughters walking tall on their own two feet etc. Paul B (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again (and sorry I couldn't answer you sooner). The Cripple is not it either, unfortunately. Part of the trouble is that I don't even know how well-known the poem is, because this professor used to talk about very popular as well as rather obscure poems... Still puzzled... Groogokk (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't the Pope an Archbishop/Why is Rome a diocese instead of an archdiocese?

Being a Roman Catholic, and the fact that Pope Benedict XVI is stepping down at the end of this month, this question came into my mind. Basically, an archbishop is a more important bishop, and the head of an archdiocese, which is a particularly important diocese. However, Rome's diocese is just a diocese, rather than an archdiocese, despite Rome's importance as a center of Catholicism throughout the centuries. Thus, is there any particular reason why Rome only has a diocese rather than an archdiocese, and thus the Pope is the Bishop of Rome rather than the "Archbishop of Rome?" By contrast, his Anglican equivalent (well not really, since Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Church of England, although the analogy is close) is an archbishop. Why is this the case? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason that the CEO of a large corporation is not generally also the head of one of the departments. You might find our article Catholic Church hierarchy helpful. "Archdiocese" doesn't just mean "more important diocese", and "archbishop" doesn't just mean "more important bishop": it has an organisational meaning. The Pope's "rank" on an organisational level is more that of a Patriarch than that of an Archbishop, although of course he is above other patriarchs. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As to the Archbishop of Canterbury: the role was created back when the Church of England was part of the wider Catholic Church, and hence the role was a standard one of head bishop in a given territory, under the Pope. When the Church of England split with Rome, they didn't rename the role. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Because Rome is a diocese and not an archdiocese. The title "Bishop of Rome" is a "lesser included title" underneath his title of Pope. Many monarchs have these lesser included titles because of historical reasons. Rome is a Metropolitan Diocese and Patriarchate. In the early years of the Church, the Bishop of Rome was on equal footing with the other Patriarchates, such as Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, each of whom was leader of a large province of the Church, whose organization mimicked that of the Roman Empire in some ways (even the concept of Diocese was based on Roman administrative organization). The thing to remember is that Rome was, by the 4th century, not even the capital of the Empire. The eastern capital was Constantinople and the Western Capital alternated between Ravenna and Mediolanum, Rome had a certain historical significance, and still acted as the seat of the (symbolic and entirely powerless) Senate, but it really wasn't that important of a city to either the administrator or economy of the Empire over the last few centuries of its existence. The Bishop of Rome didn't really become Pope until the 8th century or so, when he started asserting his primacy over the other Patriarchs under the authority of the Donation of Constantine, a document that was later shown to be a forgery, but one which was used for a long time to establish the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The title "Pope" comes from "Papa", meaning "Father", as the office came to be seen as the "father of the church". Once the Pope began asserting his primacy, and Pope became a title in itself, the title of "Bishop of Rome" came to be merely one of his lesser included titles, he accumulated and exerted real power under the name of Pope itself, and it wasn't important or necessary to "upgrade" his See to an archbishopric. So, the title is an artifact of the time when the office of Bishop of Rome was first established, and there's just been no impetus to change it in all that time. --Jayron32 14:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, the history of Papal primacy is one of the things which is disputed between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, although I don't think I've ever seen an Orthodox Christian claim that Papal primacy was in dispute or a late arrival, only that Papal supremacy was. People bring up a lot of very early Christian quotations to argue both sides (much earlier than the 8th century), many of which I assume will be in our article. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

See the religion section of Primus inter pares for a little additional background on this issue. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on the primacy vs. supremacy thing, so long as you mean primacy in terms of temporal relationship and not hierarchy. It isn't much in dispute that the Bishop of Rome is the heir to the Primacy of Simon Peter; Peter as the first recognized leader of the Church after Jesus, and the Bishop of Rome as his seat established that sort of temporal primacy. The schism came about in part because the Bishop of Rome claimed a hierarchical primacy over the other Patriarch, that is his position as Patriarch of Rome granted him authority (and not merely seniority) over the others. --Jayron32 18:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The situation seems to be more complex than this. Our article Diocese of Rome says that one of the pope's titles is "Metropolitan and Archbishop of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome" so maybe he's both a bishop and an archbishop. There's a further complication in that the diocese (rather than the province) has subordinate (suburbicarian) dioceses within it, each headed nominally by a Cardinal Bishop: I presume this is a unique situation. rossb (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetically, any male Catholic in good standing can be elected Pope, even Narutolovehinata5. If he is not already a bishop, he would be immediately consecrated a bishop. He then becomes the Bishop of Rome, by virtue of which he gets to head the entire Catholic Church. This person is of lower ecclesiastical rank than the cardinals who elected him, but he still gets to be their boss. Work that out. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is no less illogical than the Queen of the U.K. also simultaneously being Duke of Lancaster and the Holy Roman Emperor also being King of Germany. Many historical monarchs had lesser titles which had merged into their highest office, that the Pope has such a lesser title is quite in keeping with the practice. And has been noted before, Cardinals don't outrank Bishops, since Cardinal is not a hierarchical rank, but it's irrelevant to the idea that the Pope is also the Bishop of Rome. --Jayron32 22:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Small nitpick but as I'm guessing Narutolovehinata5 is not a deacon or priest. According to Papal conclave, in such a case technically Narutolovehinata5 would not be immediately consecrated a bishop. Rather he would be ordained a deacon, then a priest then consecrated a bishop. It's unsourced but it sounds like it may be true to me. BTW, there are some sources which dispute the claim any Catholic male can be elected which may be of relevance here. My impression is Narutolovehinata5 is young, I don't know his exact age and it's none of our business what his age is but at least one source suggest 25 is the minimum age to be a pope [5] as it's the minimum age to be a priest or deacon, but not a bishop. But the minimum age for a bishop has well established exceptions which have been used before so it's probably not a barrier. (Of course the pope could establish exceptions, the problem is this issue only arises when there is no pope.) There are a bunch of other source but I'm not sure if they've come to the conclusion themselves or just linking to the other source. I'm not sure if you'll find better sources discussion this since it's such an irrelevant consideration as no one genuine expects it to come up. Has anyone even come across any info on how the conclave is supposed to be notify someone nowadays who isn't one of their members like some random Catholic person in the Philippines? Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edward I of England

The article says The baronial and royalist forces finally met at the Battle of Lewes, on 14 May 1264. Edward, commanding the right wing, performed well, and soon defeated the London contingent of Montfort's forces. Unwisely, however, he followed the scattered enemy in pursuit, and on his return found the rest of the royal army defeated. Did Prince Edward follow the enemy on foot or on horseback? How many men did Prince Edward lead? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this source, Prince Edward commanded roughly a third of the royal army, or about 500 cavalrymen and 3,000 infantry. The prince would certainly have been on horseback, as all commanders were at that time. Marco polo (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not the case that all late medieval commanders were on horseback all the time, though they would have had horses available. See the Battle of Poitiers and Battle of Crecy in the previous next century. Johnbod (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Men-at-arms fighting on foot with massive archery support was a tactical innovation of Edward III - I was watching BBC 4 on Monday night - highly recommended.[6] BTW, Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356) were in the following, rather than the previous century. Alansplodge (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Knights also liked fighting on foot, not least because it offered the best opportunity for taking surrenders and picking up huge ransoms. Much of their training was for fighting on foot, and I'd resist the temptation to make any general assumptions. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Although if you are chasing after a fleeing army and you are wearing full armour, you would probably want to be on a horse. Our article on Crecy says that Edward III had to order his knights to fight on foot, which suggests that they would have preferred to be mounted. Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"In a strong defensive position, the English King ordered that everybody fight on foot..." - he was the commander, he gave orders for the disposition of the forces. This is a non-point, even if WP were an RS. I agree pursuit beyond the immediate field of battle would normally be easiest on horse. Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but to be fair, you didn't cite any references, even from WP, in support of your contentions. However, I think we've almost reached agreement. Truce? Alansplodge (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought Edward had command of cavalry. But it doesn't seem that the cavalry disappearing would constitute a third of the army. In any case, I agree with Marco polo that you can assume that Edward himself was on horseback. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

salary scale of professors in Xiver university school of medicine, Aruba

Dear help desk, Could you be able to provide the likely salary scale of professors in Xiver University school of medicine in Aruba. Is it worth applying/ Thank you. DHK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.167.211 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Xavier University School of Medicine in Aruba? Its website says its official name is "Xavier University School of Medicine Foundation, a non-profit organization under the laws of Aruba". You could check the Aruba government's website and see whether there's a contact tab for asking questions; you could ask whether non-profits in Aruba are required to publicly post their employees' salaries, and if so where. But if they're not required to post them publicly, then my guess is that there would be no way to find out, unless you can find where they advertise their vacancies -- an advertisement for a faculty position may or may not mention a salary range. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "Apothem"

Good morning, good evening, and good night! I came across a quite unexpected problem while writing a neat little paper on John Keats' poem "Ode on a Grecian Urn". One of the literary critics I am citing calls that famous line "Beauty is truth, truth beauty" an apothem. I take it to mean something along the lines of "commonly used phrase of wisdom", but the relevant definition is nowhere to be found.

Here is literary critic Raymond Havens' use of the line for context: "As to the quotation marks, if they are Keats's own and not a mistake they may have been intended to indicate, not the words of the urn, but an apothem, the kind of thing that is usually quoted. That is, they may mean: "The maxim, 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' contains all you know or need to know." "

The only definition of apothem I have been able to find is the math one. My question is (thank God, right?): what is the difference in meaning between apothem and maxim (which Havens uses as a synonym for apothem)? Just so I can come up with some examples. Examples would be welcome as well, to make this fun. Maybe "Early to bed, early to rise" or something of that sort.

Thanks for all your help! No rush, paper isn't due till Friday. The Reader who Writes (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They mean "apothegm", which we call adage. A saying or set phrase. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It seems 'apothem' here is an alternative spelling of apothegm (or apophthegm), according to the OED "A terse, pointed saying, embodying an important truth in few words; a pithy or sententious maxim." There are some examples here. - Lindert (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody that knows the correct template could add a "for apothegm, a linguistic phrase, see Adage" (or something similar) to the Apothem page. Would Aphorism be a better article to link to? "Apothegm" currently redirects to "Adage", which is a stub. Alansplodge (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added the {{confused}} template, pointing to apothegm, which is a redirect (and that's fine; in fact it's excellent). If anyone wants to retarget the redirect, or write a separate article, the template will still point to the right place. --Trovatore (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The mayors of Benahavis, Spain

Searching for details relating to either José Ruiz Flores, or Salvador Ruiz Flores, one of whom was mayor of Benahavis, Málaga, Spain, during the 1930s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.138.242.86 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

With a quick look, I don't find anything in WP on either man. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And a very quick check of Google Books does not seem to turn up anything either, sorry. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The closest I could find is a newspaper article from January 1928 about a certain hunter called José Ruiz Flores, who in a fit of madness shot someone in Benahavis, Málaga and then hanged himself. Obviously he couldn't have been mayor in the 1930s, but it's the closest I could find. - Lindert (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Bible believer"

I am not too sure about Wikipedia's article on Bible believer. Initially it had some unverified data, so I cleaned it up a little. As it stands, I am keeping the part about the preference for the King James Version, even though I am not very certain on that information on whether or not Bible believers really do read the King James Version. I know one example of a self-identified Bible believer: Sarah Palin, ex-governor of Alaska. However, I may need to collect more Bible believers to get an accurate position of their worldview or theological position. In addition, I am getting the impression that the term "Bible believer" is synonymous with "Christian fundamentalist", so it is suggestable that the short article on Bible believer may be merged with the larger, more developed article on Christian fundamentalist, if they are truly synonymous.

Any thoughts on this? By the way, what is a Bible believer? From a conversation I had with a liberal Presbyterian (affiliated with the PCUSA), he describes "Bible believer" to mean a person who does not accept complexity. 140.254.226.233 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I clicked the first reference in the list of references, and it gave the following:

Bible believer (also Bible-believer, Bible-believing Christian, Bible-believing Church) is a self-description by conservative Christians to differentiate their teachings from others who see non- or extrabiblical tradition as higher or equal in authority.

In normal usage, "Bible believer" means an individual or organisation that believes the Christian Bible is true in some significant way. However, this combination of words is given a unique meaning in fundamentalist Protestant circles, where it is equated with the belief that the Christian Bible "contains no theological contradictions, historical discrepancies, or other such 'errors'", otherwise known as biblical inerrancy.

Nothing here about specifically the King James Bible, so I'm guessing that our article's specification of only the King James Bible was just some editor's OR. And from this there are two meanings -- "believer that the Bible is true in some significant way" and "believer in Biblical inerrancy". So the article should reflect the existence of dual uses. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, it is simply a term used with more or less thought, by various very different Christians, to describe themselves. Sometimes it comes with an implicit "unlike all those other Christians", sometimes it is used to imply that the speaker doesn't identify their beliefs any more specifically (and often would not consider themselves to belong to any formal Christian group). I don't know that it can be usefully considered to define a group or category. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Mostly, I'd be skeptical of any value that can be drawn from the article without significant referencing. Is there a group of Christians that strongly prefers the KJV? Sure. There are churches down the road from me that prominently plaster "1611" on their signage. However, suggesting without citations that those, then, are "Bible believers" to the exclusion of all others is a vast insult to the bulk of Christianity. Likewise an attempt to equate the phrase with "Christian fundamentalist" (whatever that might mean) -- but conservative Christians are by no means united behind the exclusive use of the KJV, even if you artificially restrict yourself to English-speaking Christians. I expect there are sources where one group or another will self-claim the title of "Bible believer", and that might be good info in the article about that group, but that strikes me as a really poor foundation for the "Bible believer" article itself. Personally, I'd be inclined to delete the sucker and start over. — Lomn 16:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion? 140.254.226.233 (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They'd have problems with some of the Bible errata in the KJV. Personally my favourite Bble believers are the 'Seventh Day Advent Hoppists' described in the section Fictional Bible errata. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to convert it into a redirect to sola scriptura. It's typically used by people who believe that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth, typically used in contrast to those such as your liberal Presbyterian who believe that some or many parts of the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt. I've heard it frequently in the conservative Presbyterian circles in which I grew up and am a member; many members of my denomination and related denominations (myself included) will describe themselves as Bible-believing but do not associate themselves or their churches with the fundamentalist movement. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A redirect and merger into sola scriptura would make sense. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this may discount a significant group of people who consider themselves to believe in the Bible, without necessarily adhering to any formalized Latin-named doctrine about it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, I don't think the concepts match. Sola scriptura is a Protestant idea, rejecting all authority except for the bible. That does not imply adherence to a literal inerrant interpretation of the bible - indeed, strictly, it requires neither literal nor inerrant interpretation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So these are two different concepts, neither of which necessarily match all "Bible believers". I think the best thing to do with the search term is delete it. This is an encyclopedia; not every plausible phrase has to come up as a bluelink. The search box will no doubt find some relevant hits for anyone looking for them. --Trovatore (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Does it have any connection with Christian fundamentalism? If so it could be merged into that article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, see, that's the problem. Of course there is a connection — for some people who call themselves "Bible believers". But if the search term redirects there, then you're slighting folks who call themselves "Bible believers" but not "fundamentalists".

Michael Hardy proposes something called a cross-reference page for this sort of situation, and maybe that will catch on. But my preferred solution is really that these things be deleted. There's nothing wrong with not having a target for a search term! That's what the search feature is for. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Article King James Only movement for that specifically... AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent popularity of the term "rape culture" in internet searches

Can anyone explain why the use of "rape culture" in books peaked in 1998 but its use in internet searches doubled in 2011 and tripled in 2012? What is causing that? Farrah Watkins (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a guess, but probably the recent spate of gang-rape related major news stories, such as the one in India recently. --Jayron32 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe also something to do with the Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 (I can't believe we have an article on that, but on the other hand, I totally can). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

but neither of those would explain increase in 2011. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The 2011 rise might be related to the SlutWalks, but there are really very few newshits in 2011 that would seem to reflect any catalyst event. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of new shits, however.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to know my brain wasn't the only one which parsed that in such a manner for a second. Snow (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ngram only goes up to 2008, so it can't show whether the recent online peak is also reflected in books.-gadfium 22:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

February 13

Ethnic makeup of Ottoman imperial spouses

It seem that the Ottoman emperors married Greeks, Eastern European or Caucasian as in from the Caucasus region. How did the they choose their wives, was it through bride shows, matchmaking by nobles or their own parents? Also were any wives, who were former Christian, allow to keep their faith or if not did any practice it secretly.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know a whole lot about the the Sultan's household, but my understanding from skimming the relevent Wikipedia articles is that the organization of the Imperial Harem was complex; one member of that harem was often elevated to Haseki sultan who was the designated concubine to whom was given the dignity of being mother to the heir, I think Haseki sultan is sometimes translated as "wife", but I don't know if that's really accurate and if the Haseki was a legal wife, or just the top concubine in the pecking order. I've browsed the articles, and it isn't always clear the difference between Haseki and Wife; if they were really different concepts or merely different translations of the same idea. For example, Turhan Hatice is described as Haseki and NOT wife, while Amina Mihr-i Shah is described as "spouse" and Roxelana is described as both "wife" and "Haseki" in ways that make it seem as those were different concepts. Regarding the choosing of concubines and wives, my understanding is that that job went to the Valide Sultan, who was the mother of the Sultan. --Jayron32 05:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, most of them most of the time were slave concubines from the point of view of Islamic law (not wives), and the only real female position of authority in the harem was the Valide Sultan or mother of the reigning Sultan (which you mentioned). The process of adding to the harem was more a matter of slave procurement than matchmaking... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What were the biggest bluffs ever made?

Not that they have to be successful. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In many cases, we may never know if they were bluffs or would have really been followed through on, like Mutually Assured Destruction. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What do you mean by bluff? Could you explain in more detail? In what context? --Jayron32 05:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As well as defining bluff you need to define "successful". Can 2.2 billion people be wrong?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris Moneymaker against Sam Farha[7], a key successful bluff in the Main Event of the World Series of Poker on his way to winning the championship. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Operation Bodyguard - although it might be classed as a bait-and-switch rather than a bluff in the conventional sense of the term. Roger (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would define the most common general use of "bluff" as a poker metaphor: A bluff is a statement "If you don't do what I want, then I will do what you don't want" uttered when the reality is that I will not or cannot do what I'm threatening. The bluff is successful if the recipient accedes to the demand. Example 1: "If you don't fold your poker hand, I'll top your hand" (spoken when I know I have a bad hand). Example 2: Mutual assured destruction: "If you don't refrain from nuking the US, we'll respond by nuking the USSR" (or vice versa), if spoken in the knowledge that we won't really retaliate. We'll never know whether the US or the USSR was bluffing about that -- that's the hallmark of a good successful bluff: if the other party follows the dictates of the bluffer ("don't nuke me in the first place"), then ex post no one ever finds out if the threat was real or a bluff. Example 3: possibly the Cuban missile crisis: "We might start a war that could spin out of control if you don't take the missiles out of Cuba". (Again, since the dictate was followed, albeit with compensating concessions, we don't know what would have happened if the missilies had been kept in Cuba, so we don't know if Kennedy was bluffing.) Example 4: possibly North Korea saying that they'll use a nuclear response if the US and South Korea invade. (Again, we don't know if they're bluffing or not.) Example 5: "We (the US) might invade you (Iran) if you don't dismantle your nuclear program" (again, in progress, so we don't know whether that implied threat is a bluff or not). Example 6: "If you (China) don't refrain from invading Taiwan, we (the US) will defend Taiwan militarily." (Maybe a bluff, maybe a true threat. If a bluff, maybe successful so far or maybe China wouldn't have invaded Taiwan by now anyway.) So there are lots of examples from the military and diplomatic sphere.

I wonder if there are any military/diplomatic examples that caused someone to obey the dictate but which archives have subsequently shown were bluffs. And I wonder if there are any non-military/diplomatic, non-poker examples. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Mutually Assured Destruction, fiat currency. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A non-example: apparently Donald Trump was not bluffing when he threatened to sue Bill Maher if Maher didn't pay up on his "promise" to donate money if Trump could prove his father is not an orangutan. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm I'm reluctant to mention this for BLP reasons but I guess it's no worse then what's already mentioned. May be it's still a bluff? From what I see, Donald Trump hasn't actually provided useful evidence to counter the claim (if we ignore whether such evidence is needed). All he's provided is a birth certificate, but we know how easy those are to fake; even if not fake, birth certificates are sometimes wrong about who the biological father is; in any case, the birth certificate even if true only tells us his father's name not his genus. And I don't see that his father's genus is established anymore then Donald's himself, probably less so since we don't have videos of him telling people they're fired, although depending on how we interpret the claim the father will have the be mostly 100% orangutan but Donald only around 50%. Why has he avoided a DNA test which while not telling us who his actual father is in the absence of someone's DNA to compare it to, should tell us whether there's any sign of any orangutan ancestors. Unless perhaps he has something to hide ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lavon Affair accounts

Is Ben Gurion's Spy generally well-regarded by historians? Are there works on the Lavon Affair which are better regarded than this book? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least one historian isn't impressed; "Teveth presents a systematic apology for Ben Gurion. He does not deign to engage and refute arguments that differ from his own. Therefore, Teveth should be used with great caution despite his access to many documents unavailable to others." From: Joel Beinin, The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora, University of California Press 1998, ISBN 0-520-211175-8 (p.278). Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I hadn't seen anything negative (from historians) until yours.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright in Canadian films?

Hi all,

Does anyone know when films (ie, movies, or "cinematograph productions" to use the contemporary term) gained copyright protection in Canada?

In the UK, they seem to have first been covered by the Copyright Act 1911. It seems likely to me that they were brought under protection in Canada by the Copyright Act of Canada in 1921, brought into force in 1924, as this was essentially a local adoption of the 1911 Act; however, there were 1900 and 1905 amendments to existing legislation which may have covered them. On the other hand, there wasn't a Canadian film industry in any real sense before WWI, so there'd be no domestic impetus for protection.

Any ideas? I'm not completely sure where to look, and my cursory researches haven't been very productive. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany question

Horst Wessel was made a martyr of the Nazi cause, he belonged to the Sturmabteilung and was murdered by a Red in 1930. In 1934 Hitler murdered all the Sturmabteilung right?. My question is, so why Wessel remained as hero until the end of the Reich? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The article you linked says there were 3,000,000 members of the SA in 1934, and that the number of people killed in the purge was estimated at "between 150 and 200 persons". So "Hitler murdered all the Sturmabteilung" isn't true. Those 2,999,800 remainders either stayed in the SA (which the article says continued to exist) or were incorporated into the SS. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

3 million is a lot. Are you sure about that? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia claims it was 3.5 million. Röhm himself bragged about there being 4 million members. There is a reason nazism is termed a mass movement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I missed the point, I thought the rest were already in the other side of the river. Kotjap (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Worst Popes ever?

The outgoing Pope has come in for criticism about his Nazi past - however, I don't really suppose that the guy was really doing anything that wasn't expected of him at the time, as a young man in Germany and I've never really heard much evidence that he actually believed the nonsense that the Nazis were spouting - more that he went along with it because he had no real choice, along with millions of other German citizens.

Anyway - it got me thiking that in the grand scheme of things, in terms of 'popes who have done bad things', Benedict XVI's transgressions are pretty insignificant. Over the years I've heard stories about the nefarious deeds of previous popes throughout history (murder, rape, incest, bestiality, sodomy, financial impropriety, theft, devil worship, desecrating corpses, etc.), though most of the details escape me at present (the names tend to blend into each other for me), and I'm wondering now... Which popes are generally considered by historians to be the worst popes of all time? --91.125.221.136 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE. See The Bad Popes. RNealK (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Some historians have criticized Pius XII for not condemning the Holocaust enough and for being too vague in the instances when he did condemn the Holocaust. Futurist110 (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the first pope to resign (basically selling the papacy) was Benedict IX. One of his successors, pope Victor III referred to his "rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it". Some possible candidates here. - Lindert (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The first to resign was Pope Pontian, in the year 235. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Two candidates are Pope Alexander VI, who led a life of lavish luxury and self-indulgence combined with cut-throat politics, at a time when thoughtful people were calling for church reform (and fearing what might happen if there was no reform), and Pope Pius V, who issued the infamous bull Regnans in Excelsis which required English Catholics to choose between being political traitors and bad Catholics -- this did basically nothing to depose Elizabeth, but together with the foamings and frothings at the mouth of Cardinal Allen it managed to set Catholicism in England back many decades. The next Pope after Pius V, Gregory XIII had to scale back on Regnans because it was self-evidently counter-productive (however, he apparently issued a medal in celebration of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me suggest Urban II, who kicked off the Crusades. Sort of a Catholic Osama bin Laden. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't think so -- he incited straightforward army-against-army open declared warfare (not surprise terrorist attacks), at a time when serious people were worried about Christian Europe being caught up in a pincer movement of aggressive Muslim attacks along two fronts at once (a western front in Spain and an eastern front in Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert, threatening Greece and the Balkans), and Christians had a number of legitimate religious grievances in the Holy Land (such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre having been destroyed in 1009, and the Turks blocking Christian pilgrimages). The sleazy side of the first Crusade manifested itself much more against Jews than Muslims... AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And that was nothing compared to the Fourth Crusade, which did a very good job of breaking down resistance by a Christian state that had fought Islam since Muhammad was in living memory. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't the pope's idea, at least...but the same pope (Innocent III) was big on eradicating the Cathars, if you are looking for something to pin on him. It would be amusing if you tried to argue that Innocent III is the worst pope ever though (he is clearly the best pope ever). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Royal inbreeding

Where the Habsburg jaw originate in the family? I mean it got worse with each generation of inbreeding but there must have one individual farther up the line who had a pronounce jaw and the trait slowlying as his or her descendants intermarried. Also we hear a lot of the Habsburg inbreeding and the British but he Portuguese Braganzas were inbreeding along the same scale as the Habsburgs, did their descendants acquire any distinguishing disabilities or traits from this?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Try reading The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty. Alansplodge (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

de:Habsburger Unterlippe gives several possibilities, in other words: it is unknown. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Lewes

Is there records someplace as to the length of the battle lines and how many?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Try reading English Heritage Battlefield Report: Lewes 1264. Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like an excellent source at first glance. Will have to study it. Thanks for lead.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Religious conversion to Catholicism

What and how does a person say to a priest in order to convert to Roman Catholicism? Once converted, can the person attend and participate in an Eastern Orthodox or Protestant church, or must only be affiliated with the Roman Catholic church at all times? How hard is it to convert to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Protestantism? Do the priests ask the potential convert an exhaustive list of questions, detailing the rigorous and disciplined life of a Christian in order to persuade the non-Christian that the Christian life is not as glamourous as he/she thinks it is? Would a child being born in a Christian household have an easier time being a Christian than someone who converts as an adult? 140.254.121.60 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

These days, conversion to Catholicism generally involves RCIA. Typically, this involves a fairly lengthy process (ideally, it is supposed to take at least a year), and is supposed to prepare the candidate and ensure they are making an informed decision. Technically, RCIA itself is only really for unbaptised adults, with slightly different (shorter) processes for candidates who are baptised. RCIA will involve an unbaptised person being baptised, confirmed, receiving reconciliation and communion (the Sacraments of Initiation). Conversion will involve a baptised person being confirmed, and receiving reconciliation and communion.

One of the duties of a Catholic is to try to make it to a Catholic Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation when reasonably possible. This could be at a Roman Catholic church, or an Eastern Catholic church, but it cannot be at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy or a Protestant service. That doesn't mean Catholics cannot attend those services, but they still need to attend Mass at a Catholic church as well. When a Catholic attends a service at a non-Catholic church, they shouldn't receive Communion there, so that it doesn't look like they think Communion in a Catholic church is the same as people in that church think theirs is, and so that it doesn't look like the churches are in more agreement than they are.

A good, accessible resource for learning about how people convert to Catholicism is www.beginningcatholic.com. Warning: this is a website aimed at converts to Catholicism and is written from a Catholic perspective, so treat accordingly. I am sure others will provide similar guides for converts to the main forms of Orthodoxy and Protestantism: I gather it is highly variable, so specifics will probably be interesting. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

These days? How did people convert back in the olden days? During the Middle Ages or Dark Ages? How did the missionaries manage to convert populations in Central and South America and the Phillippines? 140.254.229.147 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Way, way back in early Christianity, people converted by a long secretive process. The modern RCIA process is supposed to be modelled on this in some ways, but much more open. Through the Middle Ages until the late 20th century, there wasn't really a properly formalised route for converts, because adult converts weren't really expected for the most part: the Church was established, and people were generally born into the faith. The conversion process was much more variable and depended on the convert chatting to a priest over a period of time in which they learnt about Catholicism and thought about what converting would mean, followed by the Sacraments of Initiation as discussed above. RCIA was created as a more formalised modern process with a set structure because of an awareness that the Church was getting more adult converts in established areas. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In the Middle Ages there were tons of adult converts. There were lots of Jews, Muslims, and pagans who converted...often by force, of course, but that was different. Sometimes they converted willingly, and there certainly was a formalized process for them. Basically you just have to be a catechumen for a certain amount of time first...not quite so formalized as it is now, but not too different. This happened a lot in Spain, Sicily, the crusader states, anywhere where Catholics lived with non-Catholics. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

140.254.229.147 -- for the early days of Christianity, see article Catechumen. Collective group conversions would have been less individually rigorous. AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Cuius regio eius religio for the old method. My maternal grandparents woke up one day and found out they were Catholic instead of Orthodox when their Eparchate switched from Russian to Romish. Their priest was married, and they kept the Eastern Rite in which I was baptized and confirmed at the same time as an infant. My Lutheran grandfather spent a year converting to Catholicism on his deathbed. I witnessed his confirmation. Anyone can baptize in extremis. μηδείς (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If your maternal grandparents belong to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, that's not really a conversion, and they never became Roman Catholic. Their Church just moved into a full Communion with the Church in Rome, and potentially out of Communion with the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches (if they started out in Communion with one of those groups). Historically, the various ancient Particular Churches have moved in and out of communion with each other repeatedly, without anyone involved 'converting' to or from anything. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't need to tell me that, and you will notice I didn't say that my maternal grandparents converted or that they became Roman Catholic. But yes, what you say is correct. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

February 14

Are the people from Equatorial Guinea in the U.S Hispanics?

Since Spanish is the most widely Spoken language in Equatorial Guinea, would the Spanish-speaking Equatoguinean people living in the U.S be considered not only as African Americans, but also as Hispanic Americans or even Latinos (after all, they come from a country where the majority of the people speak a Latin-based language known as Spanish)? Would it then be appropriate, acceptable, and accurate or not for a person from Equatorial Guinea to serve as the national Hispanic campaign chairperson or co-chairperson for the campaign of some U.S presidential candidate? In other words, can Equatoguineans in the U.S run for and hold positions that are ONLY meant for Hispanics and Latinos? Willminator (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of blacks in other "Hispanic" nations, like Brazil, so I don't see a problem. They should try it and see if they are accepted (would this make them Equatorial Guinea pigs ?). StuRat (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S. context, Hispanic just means that you come from a Spanish and/or Portuguese background, without regard for skin tone or race. There are a large number of Black Hispanics from the Caribbean, for example. See Manny Ramirez, Roberto Clemente, Al Horford. Also, I have no idea what is meant by "in the U.S run for and hold positions that are ONLY meant for Hispanics and Latinos?" There are no public offices in the U.S. which are reserved for people of a specific racial or national or ethnic background. --Jayron32 04:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there even are any such people. It's a tiny little country with a total population of less than a million. Looie496 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I just checked through the U.S. census website, [8]. There was literally no one who reported "Equatorial Guinea" as either their country of birth (implying they were born there) or their ancestry (implying they identified with the country historically). It's an option when searching (Equatorial Guinea is country code 632, so the census is at least prepared for collecting said data) and the search turns up no data in any of the Census's files which has any information about people from Equatorial Guinea. By contrast, if you turn off "Equatorial Guinea" and turn on "Mexico", you get plenty of data on Mexicans in the U.S. So, it seams that there just aren't any, or at least no one who self-reported as such on the American Community Survey. Now, since the ACS is a representative sample, and not a formal census, very well could miss a very small number of people from Equatorial Guinea who do live in the U.S., but those people would be a very tiny number indeed, and the definition of "not statistically significant". Still, it is possible there are at least a handful of such people living in the U.S. right now. --Jayron32 05:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a few dozens. The US State Department's reports ("Immigrant Visas Issued by Foreign State Chargeability (All Categories): Fiscal Years 2003-2012") say that over the last 10 years, about 30 immigrant visas were issued by US consulates abroad to people born in Equatorial Guinea. (From 1 to 7 visa per fiscal year). Besides this, there must have been also a few people from that country who came to the US as non-immigrants (students [F and J visas], visitors for pleasure or for business [B], diplomats [A] - about 1200 non-immigrant visas were issued to EG-ans in 2012) and then managed to obtain an "adjustment of status" to permanent residence (e.g., due to a marriage, or as a result of claiming asylum), or just overstayed their admission period, becoming, in American parlance, "illegal aliens". -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A "few dozens" would indeed be statistically insignificant, which is why the ACS hasn't picked them up, given the sample size of the ACS. --Jayron32 20:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure where the idea comes from that Brazilians are Hispanics, since Brazil is not Spanish in any way. Neither are Philipinos or Catalonians usually described as Hispanic, even though they are or have been under the Spanish crown. The term in English is usually used to refer to native Spanish speakers in Spanish speaking countries outside Spain--where they are just called Spanish. But fullblooded non-assimilated Quechua in Peru would normally be called Native Americans, rather than Hispanics. Given French and Portuguese are also official languages of Equatorial Guinea, and well over 90% of its inhabitants belong to an indigenous tribe speaking a Bantu language as their mother tongue, calling them Hispanic would be an odd choice. μηδείς (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The term "Hispanic" (at least in my experience; i.e., common American usage) is one of the slipperiest ethnic definitions in existence. It is most commonly used in reference to those native to Latin America and their descendants. In practice, those described by the term are generally of mixed descent from both Spanish colonists and the Native Americans of Central and South America (we had a specific word for this -- mestizo -- but it is now practically obsolete). This is the case so much that any Spanish person with light or olive-tone skin is highly unlikely to be described as "Hispanic" by an average American, even though they could be considered the archetype by which the term should be measured. I have never been sure as to whether Hispanic-ness is measured by Spanish descent (i.e., having ancestors native to Spain) or merely cultural roots in a Spanish-speaking country -- a definition that would include those from Equatorial Guinea and other countries with absolutely no European ancestry.

As far as the Portuguese are concerned, our article Hispanic defines the term as "an ethnonym that denotes a relationship to Spain or, in some definitions, to ancient Hispania, which comprised the Iberian Peninsula including the modern states of Andorra, Portugal, and Spain and the British Crown Dependency of Gibraltar." So that would mean... maybe. Kind of... A little bit. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Brazilians are indeed called Latins or Latinos, but not Hispanics except by Americans who think they speak Spanish, as that usually refers to the Spanish speaking natives of Spain's new world colonies. (Of course Italians are Latins but not Latinos in the US.) One is entitled to use a word how one likes if one defines it within reason and is consistent. None of this really matters, but Americans are simply not going to call Bantu speakers from EG Hispanics. μηδείς (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea. Just call them people. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if the government just calls them people, it does not prevent the other people within the country, and the political, social and economic systems of that country from discriminating against such social groups. Being able to identify what groups of people are being so discriminated against is a necessary prerequisite to providing relief for said discrimination. In other words, Hispanic people in the U.S. would still be treated poorly even if the Government refused to identify them and collect data on them, except that the government wouldn't be as well informed about the nature of the problem and wouldn't be able to respond to said problems. --Jayron32 13:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This US Census site (first page after acknowledgements) (dating back to 2004, but I doubt they would have changed their definitions much since then) says

The federal government defines Hispanic or Latino as a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.

How's that for clarity -- the wording implies that anything Central or South American is "Spanish" in culture or origin. (Suriname? Guyana? French Guiana? Brazil?) But since it does eventually narrow it down to Spanish culture or origin, that would preclude Brazil etc. On the other hand, it includes Spain, and the list in the table includes "Spaniard". Duoduoduo (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So, where would the people of Equatorial Guinea fall under the federal government definition? So, would it be right for a Equatoguinean in the U.S (if there are any) to put in the Race section of a job application or other applications any of the following options other than the "Black or African American" option: "Hispanic or Latino," "Two or more races," or "Other?" Willminator (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As others have said, the concept of "Hispanic" is not well defined, but it normally involves Spanish ancestry or cultural heritage. I think that an Equatorial Guinean with Spanish ancestors or who is a native speaker of Spanish could qualify as Hispanic, but probably only a small percentage of Equatorial Guineans meet this criterion. On the other hand, the United States doesn't regulate individuals' racial or ethnic status. (That is, individuals are not registered with racial or ethnic categories by the government, though government workers might label individuals by race for purposes of identification.) On job applications and census forms, people are generally accepted to be whatever they claim to be, though a blond-haired blue-eyed person without any obvious African American or Hispanic cultural attributes might have trouble being accepted as African American or Hispanic for affirmative action purposes when they show up for a job or school admissions interview. So Equatorial Guineans, especially those who speak Spanish, could probably get away with claiming to be Hispanic, "two or more races", or "other", according to their whims. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is no qualification of such terms. The U.S. census doesn't require people to prove their ethnicity by documentation or anything. It's all about how a person identifies themselves, because a person knows best how they relate to various cultures, and which culture they think of themself as belonging to. There's no qualification to be had. The census asks you if you're Hispanic, you say yes if you think you are. That's it. --Jayron32 20:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Jewish population

How many jews live in this world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.88.221 (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article titled Jews. --Jayron32 04:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Given I'm unaware of any offworld colonies, I suspect they all do. Althoughμηδείς (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch line again! OK, here's another one, from Myron Cohen. I'll keep it short: A Martian lands in a Jewish section of New York. His spacecraft has a flat tire, so he buys a bagel to replace it. The store manager asks, "Do you all you Martians have green skin?" "Yes." "Do you all have 3 eyes?" "Yes." "Do you all wear those little beanies?" "No, only the orthodox." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Life is hard. It would be better never to be born at all. But how many are so lucky? Maybe 1 in a hundred." Gzuckier (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this source -- http://books.google.com/books?id=-MChymxEfdsC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=jewish+population+world+2012+13,746,100&source=bl&ots=J4ALyZzalY&sig=vvHeAA11wpXiWSLi0gpEB-698_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-pEcUZnjJIrliwLn64GwBA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jewish%20population%20world%202012%2013%2C746%2C100&f=false -- 13,746,100 at the beginning of 2012. Futurist110 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between political philosophy and political theory? Or, is there?

The two titles have been used interchangeably. In one reference, for example, Aristotle was referred to as a political theorist and a political philosopher. In graduate schools' websites, political theory and political philosophy are both used to refer the ideas of Marx and Kant. And according to some other references which points out the difference between PP and PT, political philosophy is more on the metaphysical and ethical side, while political theory is on the realist side. But, in my very humble opinion, they may have different ways of arriving to a conclusion, but they are basically talking about the same thing. So what exactly is the difference? Or, are they just the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Try clicking this blue link: Political theory and you'll get your answer. --Jayron32 04:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A theory seeks to explain; a philosophy to convince. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Other ethnic-dominanted gang in Europe

36 Boys in Kreuzberg, Berlin, Germany mostly of Turkish background. Is there any gang in Europe that are of an ethnic dominant group like Bangladeshis, Indians, Sikhs, Pakistanis, Iranian, Arabs, Somalis and etc?--Donmust90 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

The Sicilian Mafia of course. Scotland Yard says 47% of 180 crime gangs it has identified have members "bound by a common language or homeland".[9] The Black Cobras "are mostly of Turkish, Albanian or Russian origin."[10] In Scotland, there have Albanian, Chinese, Bangladeshi and Czech gangs.[11] Gangs in the United Kingdom says that "in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, the majority of the gangs are Bangladeshi". Etc. etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Somalis are apparently the latest addition to the British gang scene.[12] [13] [14] Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if Scotland Yard's 47% includes gangs whose members' "common language or homeland" is English and England, or Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Is "ethnic" here being used to mean "having a foreign ethnic background"? According to the standard definition of ethnic, a gang of ethnically English young men who share the English language (and perhaps a regional variety of that language) would be an ethnic gang too, right? In fact, as described, the Black Cobras don't qualify, since Albanians, Turks, and Russians do not share a common language or homeland. I would think that the Black Cobras are an exception, and that most gangs do share a common language and homeland (such as English and England), since a common culture would ease communication and bind gang members together. Marco polo (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But being from the locality's majority culture, language, or homeland, while easing communication, is not going to bind the members of the English-speaking gangs together. "What we share in common is the culture of most of the people in our city/region -- it's us against the world!" isn't going to bind them together. That's why in common usage "ethnic gang" refers to a gang of a minority ethnicity. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. There are plenty of racist or xenophobic gangs whose binding ideology if you will is their majority ethnicity, culture or point of origin. Kicking out, bashing or burning the homes or shops of people of minority or different ethnicities have been heard as rallying cries everywhere and throughout history.

The kind of approach used by Scotland Yard begs the question: are they policing for everyone, or just the "majority" (however they see that concept)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the key classifier in that case is "hate group". When they talk about ethnic gangs I don't think hate crimes is the usual activity that they're trying to police. They may well have a separate list of hate groups. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I get the distinction you're making here, D³, but at the same time there are plenty of cases where the two overlap; as one example, many of the more violent white supremacist groups, especially the ones with really refined hate-genetics, are, more or less by design and definition, going to be ethnically based, even if they are also based on a shared philosophy, rather than more general cultural adhesion. There are also plenty of white gangs in the U.K. that aren't particularly activist in their racial beliefs but a little more racist than the usual (which in the U.K. can translate to "still pretty damn racist") that are nonetheless all-white (and typically all from a much more specific white ethnicity who none-the-less think of themselves as British-descended) and speak only English. This is all without taking ethnic polarization in Northern Ireland into account, mind you. Snow (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI's Name

Once Pope Benedict XVI leaves the Papacy, will his official name remain Benedict XVI, will it become something like "The Former Benedict XVI", or will he receive the same name that he had before he became Pope in 2005? Futurist110 (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See the sub-question titled "Ex-Pope" above. (Or, if you prefer, "Ex Benedict"). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I'm not a big fan of Hollandaise sauce. --Jayron32 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Snow (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(I expect we will get this question several more times over the next few weeks. Please be patient with those who don't look to see that it has already been asked and answered.) Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Why have I not heard of a single lady composer before 1900?

To anyone uninitiated in pop-music, and who does not read the title to clue them in, this piece sounds like it's from 1811, although in reality, it was made about 200 years later.

We hear so much about Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Handel, Tchaikovsky, and so many others.

However, can you think of any major women composers before 1900? Me neither, so why not?

Why couldn't women get musically prominent until recent times? Or did they get prominent without my knowledge? I would hope that Madame Germanotta here was inspired by prior women composers who did their pieces before her time. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

For examples of female composers in history, see List of female composers by birth year. For women to compose music was contrary to societal norms for a long time, although there were no such restrictions on performing music. And even today there are some musical areas where women are quite underrepresented, for example, this top 20 of film music composers alive consists entirely of men. It's hard to give a definitive reason for this, whether it's purely cultural or if there is some biological factor to it. - Lindert (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) We have an article: List of female composers by birth year. The only names whose music I know that I have heard are Hildegard of Bingen and Elena Kats-Chernin (of the British Lloyds Bank advert fame).

I don't know the answer to your question - although there was a strong bias against creative women in earlier centuries, that hasn't applied for a while. Several really famous male composers, Vivaldi for instance, were barely known before the mid-20th century, so there really isn't a bar on earlier women's music being "rediscovered". Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Maria Anna Mozart might give you some idea of the challenges faced by female musicians and composers at certain periods. From that article: According to New Grove, "from 1769 onwards she was no longer permitted to show her artistic talent on travels with her brother, as she had reached a marriageable age." OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just this past week I heard a radio program about Fanny Mendelssohn, a composer in her own right. None of her own work was published during her lifetime under her name; she primarily composed for her own performances and kept her own manuscripts of her compositions, though a few of her works were published by her brother Felix under his name. --Jayron32 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The puzzle is why we aren't listening to their music today. Is it because it's not terribly good? Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(e/c - refers to Jayron's comment on Fanny Mendelssohn) Likewise, Clara Schumann composed a lot of music, but, in addition to the societal effects mentioned above, was somewhat overshadowed by her more famous husband. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

OP, I'm not sure where you got 1811 from with that baroque-sounding fugue. 1711 would be closer to the mark. 1811 was the year of Beethoven's Emperor Concerto and Archduke Trio, and Weber's Clarinet Concertos. We were at the birth of the Romantic period. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is SPY trading at 13 cents above the index?

Half a quarter until ex-div, so shouldn't it have accrued half the dividend, or 55 cents, by now? 67.243.3.6 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Care to tell us what company "SPY" is, and what exchange they trade on ? StuRat (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if this is what the OP is talking about. It's daily and commonly referred to in Australian media and financial circles simply as SPI (or SPY?). Although the OP's IP address says New York, so I dunno. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

SPY is also the NYSE ticker symbol for one of the Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

who discovered air

I even searched in the page about air and it all mentioned what is air but no where it is mentioned who discovered. Hope you bring the answer. Thanking you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashas.ameeplanet (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Either the first person who saw tree branches moving in the wind and thought about what was going on, or Lavoisier... AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But I wonder when was the first time that people realized or seriously hypothesized that air is the same kind of substance as liquids or solids, just thinner and invisible, as opposed to something that's not really there but can make things happen anyway. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, but gadgets such as bellows that make air behave in a similar way to a fluid (maybe?) must have been a big clue, and they have been around for thousands of years. But I'm not an expert, perhaps someone who knows more than me about early science could comment? Alansplodge (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thales (c. 570 BC) seems to have known that air was comparable to water (see Aristotle's report in De Caelo II, 13; 294a). At any rate, it's clear that Aristotle (c. 350 BC) understood that air was a fluid with inertia (see Physics IV, 8; 215b). Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Air has been known about since ancient times, although their understanding of it seems a bit odd today - see Air (classical element). Joseph Priestley is generally agreed to have discovered oxygen, which he called "dephlogisticated air". Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Occultism / Vril

God Day, If I may trouble you for information on an author of, the Vril Society by Theo Paijman. The publisher states of this book that "After more than two decades of painstaking research, this book unveils the darkest innermost secrets and history of a secret Nazi occult order, The Vril Society." Publication date is 2008. Whom is this author, his background, his religious beliefs, etc. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.55.218 (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, his name is Theo Paijmans - you may have better luck finding information about him via internet searches if you're using the right spelling. Wikipedia does not have an article devoted to him, but he is mentioned in 4 of our articles, as you will see by inputting his name into the "Search" box at the top right of this page: some of their references to him have links to items elsewhere on the internet.

We have an article section on the Vril Society if anybody is interested. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I used to participate in a Usenet group in which Theo also participated, but I don't really know anything about him other than that he's Dutch and seemed like a nice guy. He may even be a dog. Deor (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany question

I'm like obsessed with the history of Horst-Wessel-Lied because at 22 he already was important within Nazi ranges. And he was made a martyr after his death in 1930. My question is, why was he killed? because of the song he wrote against the Reds and rebels? or what? Thank.Kotjap (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully you have read our article: Horst Wessel? If so, you will have seen that it might have been a political assassination or the result of an argument over unpaid rent. Perhaps we'll never know. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The song article does say "Wessel was murdered by Albrecht Höhler, a Communist party member, in February 1930, and Joseph Goebbels made him a martyr of the Nazi movement", but there is more in the last paragraph of Horst Wessel#Nazi activist like Alan says.

Note that the Nazi party of 1930 was violently anti-communist so it is not hard to believe that the communists fought back. Murdering the writer of the Nazi party's anthem was almost certainly a good choice to act against the Nazis and probably a lot easier than trying to hit at someone higher up in the party, a member of the "Leadership Corps" (Korps der politischen Leiter) for example. Astronaut (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

However, the song didn't become the Nazi anthem until 1933 and had only been published three months before Wessels' death in a party magazine, so my guess is that the Communists didn't even know about the song. I suspect that they were more exercised about Wessels' beating-people-up-in-the-street activities than his supposed musical talents. Personally, I prefer the rent money story. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh Thank you, I had read Horst-Wessel-Lied but not Horst Wessel. Kotjap (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So, in the Horst Wessel article, you only got as far as the picture? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes Kotjap, you inserted a link to that article in your question yesterday. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically of this item from Monday,[15] where the OP was asking about the picture. I guess he didn't actually read the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. BTW, my previous comments were addressed to the OP too, I didn't phrase it very well. Now corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Heinz merger and shareholders

In hearing that Heinz's board of directors approved the buyout offer by Berkshire Hathaway, I was confused that nothing was written about the shareholders approving the deal. Do the Heinz shareholders have to approve the deal or is that not necessary because it's clear that it is more of an acquisition for Berkshire Hathaway than a true merger?71.229.194.243 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

erm, wouldn't it have involved buying the shares from the shareholders? ---- _nonsense ferret 21:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are being paid a premium, but there was nothing about them actually voting on it.71.229.194.243 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's because the actual vote has yet to take place.

"The takeover has been approved by the company's board, but still needs to be voted on by shareholders."[16]

"The deal is subject to approval by Heinz shareholders, and is expected to be completed in the third quarter of this year."[17]Dncsky (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That answers that, thanks Dncsky. 71.229.194.243 (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.Dncsky (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To cut through all of this to the central point, this depends on the rules in the State of incorporation, often Delaware, but occasionally other places. Those rules have specific requirements about various corporate changes, and it also depends on the way the "merger" is structured. Reverse mergers, and buyouts are all possible variations. Almost all large companies will have shareholder say on critical decisions like this, as a general rule. But if you want to get detailed, you need a lawyer who's familiar with the particular state's corporate law. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

February 15

What is this game called in English?

When I was in Japan, I was the leader of a squad playing 'Survival', where two (or more) teams attack each other with BB guns. In Japanese, they use the English word 'survival' as the name of the game. What is the English name? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see Airsoft.Dncsky (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can never remember the English name for it. Getting old now. Cheers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Cost of execution vs cost of life in prison around the world

The cost of a death penalty case is much more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case in the US. (If you disagree on this point then please don't respond. I have no interest in debates.)

I suspect this is also true in most of the developed world (that practice death penalty). However, for less-developed countries the opposite is probably true. Take the extreme case of North Korea for example.

I am looking for a dataset that compares the cost of death penalty cases versus comparable non-death penalty cases worldwide. I am interested in where the breakeven point lies.

I tried googling but no matter what keywords I choose I keep getting pages about debates in the US. Even when I tried to focus the search on particular countries I still get US data: "According to American statistics (no Japanese statistics are available)"[18]. Dncsky (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Afaik China doesn't even release the total number of executions, let alone the detail you're after. I don't know about Japan. North Korea is obviously not even worth discussing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are very few countries that operate a death penalty with any significant degree of transparency. The US does, but that's about it (there may be a few others, but they generally have very few executions). That's why you can only find statistics based on the US. The high cost in the US comes from the large number of appeals that are generally involved. If you can find any statistics on time between the death penalty being passed and the execution actually taking place (which may be slightly easier to find that direct cost statistics), that would be a pretty good proxy for cost - the longer it takes, the more time there is to spend money. --Tango (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust question

During the Holocaust, were there any attempts by the victims to actually break out en masse from the gas chambers? I don't mean the "state of the art" ones like the one at Auschwitz-Birkenau where the Nazis used Zyklon-B, which kills quickly -- but surely in older or mobile ones, where diesel exhaust was the asphyxiating agent used, the victims knew right away that they were being suffocated, and had a few minutes to try to break out? Especially in the case of the death vans used in the T-4 program, which were basically converted city buses with sealed and painted-over windows and with the exhaust pipe directed into the passenger compartment, wouldn't it have been very much possible in those few minutes to smash a window and jump out (preferably when the bus is not moving, but even at speed if need be)? I mean, other than being burned alive (which was practiced at some of the death camps, as well), is there anything worse than being slowly suffocated to death? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether you're being suffocated by nitrogen: I am reliably informed that it makes you extremely happy just before you succumb. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That actually has nothing to do with the nitrogen - any relatively inert gas will have the same effect. The urge to take a breath is determined by build up of CO2, rather than lack of oxygen, so as long as you are still able to breathe out the CO2 you won't get the panic usually associated with asphyxiation. When you are strangled, you can't breathe out the CO2, so you feel the desperate need to take a breath and panic as a result. Exhaust fumes kill by carbon monoxide poisoning, I think, which starts with a nasty headache and then causes drowsiness and you fall unconcious. I don't think it's particularly unpleasant in itself (people often don't notice it is happening to them), although the other things in exhaust would probably be unpleasant even though they aren't killing you. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any nihilist thinker today?

Is this philosophy still existing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are seven billion people in the world, so the answer to pretty any question of the form "is there anyone that believes X?" is going to be "yes". --Tango (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Religious order for scientifically minded

I am not even a religious believer, but I am sort of idly wondering what sort of (male) religious order I would join if I were religious (perhaps Catholic). What appeals to me is something like Stasheff's fictional Order of St. Vidicon. What's the closest real equivalent? I.e. a primarily teaching or intellectually oriented order with lots of scientists and engineers? My guess is that Jesuits might be one, but it has a very ambiguous history, not one I would especially like to be associated with. What are some other ones? --50.136.244.171 (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You might like to explore Buddhism. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Deism in general, and Freemasonry in particular both have a long history of a rational approach to the theistic view of the universe, though I'm not sure either of them can be described as a "religious order". Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

For Catholic orders, the Society of Jesus (perhaps better known as "Jesuits") have a very intellectual bent, with a focus on science and education. See List of Jesuit scientists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The OP more or less ruled the Jesuits out in his question. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I should read more carefully... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You might investigate Chaos Magic, some of whose practitioners (ObPersonal) have been described as pursuing or being associated with Techno-magic(k) (the latter term is also used in (more) explicitly fictional settings). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Five American presidents

The lead of the article Encyclopædia Britannica states (without a source, I will add), that among the Encyclopedia's thousands of contributors have been "five American presidents". The article itself doesn't mention this (which makes the statement constitute a violation of WP:SUMMARY, but that's not the point), and a cursory check of Google turns up no results for the claim. Does anyone have further info on this? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Manhattan Phone Number 1942

Hello. What would a phone number look like, which was current in Manhattan in the year 1942? Thanks. --Logograph (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That would depend on where in Manhattan you were: [19]. The 7 digit number would be the same, except that the first two digits would be given as letters, with a word used to remember it. See PEnnsylvania 6-5000 for an interesting example of a song based on such a number. Note that area codes did not exist at the time. So, to call from out of state, you'd dial 0 for the operator, then say "Long distance please, New York City, PEnnsylvania 6-5000 ... thank you". StuRat (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)