:The issue of being sued can be deal with without too much trouble. Any law can be patched. But there is a Catch 22 in the Guantanamo issue: you don't want to release a terrorist, but you also don't want to release an innocent person to a country that won't recognize his innocence and might torture him. You also don't want to release an innocent who might turn into a terrorist. [[User:OsmanRF34|OsmanRF34]] ([[User talk:OsmanRF34|talk]]) 21:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
:The issue of being sued can be deal with without too much trouble. Any law can be patched. But there is a Catch 22 in the Guantanamo issue: you don't want to release a terrorist, but you also don't want to release an innocent person to a country that won't recognize his innocence and might torture him. You also don't want to release an innocent who might turn into a terrorist. [[User:OsmanRF34|OsmanRF34]] ([[User talk:OsmanRF34|talk]]) 21:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
:: What do you mean "you also don't want to release an innocent who might turn into a terrorist"? [[Special:Contributions/91.120.48.242|91.120.48.242]] ([[User talk:91.120.48.242|talk]]) 10:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
== Flat tax question ==
== Flat tax question ==
Revision as of 10:54, 16 April 2013
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
What would have the bedroom of Queen Mariam Tsitsishvili of Georgia's bedroom look like? The picture in the article depicts a more Persian/Eastern influenced setting with cushions while this documentary clip (www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5lzOotHNSQ) made by Georgians shows a more Western setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Emperor's New Spy (talk • contribs) 02:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you assuming she only had one bedroom? I'd expect a queen to have a few more. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Georgian Lovers". 1797. E. Newbery's illustration of William Mavor's rendition of "Travels of Sir John Chardin." The picture in the article is from 42 years later; the video is inaccurate in that it shows a cold-blooded stabbing whereas sources say it happened in the heat of the moment when a soldier grabbed her foot. I don't know how you evaluate what is correct.
It's hard to find contemporary artworks that show interiors. Looking in the commons category History of Georgia, I found her father-in-law with a small table and her father-in-laws' throne. The picture to the right here (The Georgian Lovers) is a 1797 drawing (so contemporary), but the artist is English and basing it on someone else's description, so I don't know if it's accurate either.
What about contacting the "Friends of the Georgian National Museum"? Phone and email are here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patron Saint of Belgium; existence and coherent identity of Belgium before 1830
...il y a 330 années, à la demande du roi Charles II d’Espagne, le pape Innocent XI proclamait saint Joseph patron de la Belgique, donc bien avant l’indépendance du pays en 1830.
(no citation given)
But did a concept of Belgium exist at all before 1830? Would it not be patron of the Netherlands or the Spanish Netherlands, or patron of Brabant, Flanders, Hainaut etc?
I'd love to see a source for any of this, but it looks from that as though the Spanish Netherlands were intended - seeing as it was Carlos II who made the request. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Southern Netherlands or Belgica Regia in Latin, was roughly analogous with modern Belgium. Netherlands troops who fought with the allies at Waterloo in 1815 were known to the British as "Dutch-Belgians". Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The United States of Belgium was a short-lived state formed when the Southern Netherlands revolted against Austrian rule. (And if the Southern Netherlands article is correct, the Latin term for the Austrian Netherlands was Belgium Austriacum). The term Belgium clearly had some traction prior to 1830. Valiantis (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How odd - I took my Latin from the Belgium article. Perhaps it changed over time. The Latin name comes from the Belgae, a group of tribes that lived in the low countries and also invaded the south coast of England. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since, historians have referred to that notorious episode as "the USB shtick". :) -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 08:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
trying to remember name of a 19th century mystic
I was obsessed with him for a while, now his name escapes me - he was a concert violinist, in Austria, maybe - he went a bit funny - got messages from god about the creatures that populate the solar system - among the animals on Jupiter, I remember, were elephants with big pyramidal feet that stamped down the earth prior to the natives making roads...
The problem here is that "criminal" is a legal definition, not a medical one. A criminal is someone who has been tried and found guilty of a crime by a court of law. That said, Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy might be of interest. --Viennese Waltz 15:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Britain has several criminal law jurisdictions. Insanity in English law explains the legal position in England and Wales. I am pretty sure that "criminally insane" would still be accurately understood by English lawyers, but not sure if there is a now a more fashionable term for the same concept. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I unable to find more about this on the internet? If true, I would expect something like this to generate much more interest.
Why is this the Queen of Denmark's business? The islands were part of the Kingdom of Norway. If anyone, her cousin the King of Norway should claim them.
Perhaps you should take another look at that article. Especially the name of its author. (Hint: try reading the name out loud). --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I thought, too strange to be true, though the supposed comment by David Starkey was enough for me not to dismiss it right away. Well, while we're at it, has it occurred to anyone to pay the dowry and claim the islands back? Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the story is a complete fabrication, including the comments by David Starkey, perhaps to put the cause of Scottish independence in a bad light (judging from the website it was posted on). There is nothing mentioned about this in Danish media anywhere, and believe me, it would have been a big story here if such a claim had ever been made by Queen Margrethe. Edit: I am no native English speaker, and even less fluent in Scottish, so what exactly is the name of the author supposed to mean when reading it out loud? "I laugh ..." something? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a native speaker and could not understand what the last name should sound like either. When Dweller suggested that I pay attention to the name of the author, I first thought Ilaf sounded somewhat Scandinavian (probably due to similarity to Olaf) - and then I pronounced it. Anyway, it would certainly be quite inappropriate for a constitutional monarch to make such a claim, but has anyone (whether in Norway, Denmark or in the UK) recently proposed paying the dowry in order to claim the islands? Surtsicna (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I laugh my head off" - 'my' = 'ma', 'head' = 'heed' in Scottish English. There is another down below - 'Gerritupyeson' = 'get it up you, son' (doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to work out what this means!) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it suggested, informally and partly in jest, that if Scotland becomes independent, Orcadians and Shetlanders might in turn secede, and consider rejoining Norway. As far as I know, no-one of any standing has made such a suggestion, though. Denmark, of course, does not feature. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<NB sorry, I should have realised that non-Brits may not 'get' that "heed" is "head" etc> --Dweller (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to comment on why it might be Denmark, rather than Norway, that the islands returned to. (Granted that the story is fake, it might not have relevance, but it does refer to enough historical documents to make this interesting.) The reason is the Kalmar Union, as mentioned in the article: Before the Kalmar Union, Norway governed also Iceland and Greenland, but as Norway was given to Sweden and then gained independence, Norway's 'dependent territories' remained under Danish rule. This could be why, if such a historic document were to exist, Denmark would be modern-day country benefitting, and not Norway.
What I reacted most to, is the use of the currency 'kroner', which didn't come into existence till the 19th century. A 16th century document would have referred to a different currency. V85 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
about find the originals of an old book Mentioned in Wikipedia
Anonymous lawyers in lawsuits or copyright complaints
I've noticed that sometimes, when people file lawsuits, DMCA complaints, or other complaints requesting the removal of copyrighted material, the lawyers filing them are anonymous, or otherwise do not give their names, simply that they are a lawyer representing the defendant. This isn't the case with all complaints, but without mentioning any legal advice, why is this sometimes the case? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true. Look at any filing in any U.S. court and you'll see a signature line accompanied by a bar number that the attorney affixes to it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said sometimes. In the vast majority of cases the lawyers do give names, but in a handful of instances (can't remember which), the lawyers don't give their names. In this tiny minority of cases, why could it be the case? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 07:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Show me one example. I don't know of any civil legal procedure in the U.S. that allows for "anonymous" lawyers, outside of maybe some FISA court or some other interesting national security issue. Shadowjams (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Culture and sport
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES CULTURE INFLUENCE SPORTS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.89.196.10 (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be sure, but this looks to me like a homework question. Please be aware of our policy called Wikipedia:Do your own homework. (Also, please avoid all capitals when you type. On the Internet that is often interpreted as shouting, and I'm sure you didn't mean that.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like homework to me too. To summarise the WP policy on h/w, do a bit of reading and come back with a more refined question. Announce the general topic, and the specific problem you are stuck with. We like helping, but we can't do your homework for you anyway - it won't come out as anything good, and your teacher only has to read this page to know you cheated. IBE (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A LOT. Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I think our work is done here[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'd encourage you to register an account - it's free and only takes about a minute. Our article on Sport is not a very good one and is lacking in information relevant to your question, and surprisingly, we don't seem to have a more specifically titled relevant article, only ones about various "Sport and culture" ministries in governments around the world. While we don't answer homework questions, we're happy to give pointers to help you work it out for yourself. I suggest you start by looking through Sport, because it will give you ideas, eg when you read the sections on Politics and Gender. For us, we should consider creating a daughter article called something like Sport and culture, to spin off from the main Sport article. Finally, you might also like to read WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know of any agreement between France and Canada that explains the shape of the EEZ for Saint Pierre et Miquelon?
I am not sure it is the shape it would have if the sctrict international law was applied, I think it would be much larger.
For example, should it not stop midway between Cap Breton and St Pierre in the detroit de Cabot? --Lgriot (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I found it, it is the Canada–France Maritime Boundary Case, which I could have found in the what links here section of the image. I am stupid for asking. --Lgriot (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say there's no such thing as a stupid question, and certainly no such thing as a stupid questioner, then I saw the question below and now I'm not so sure ... -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 21:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
I'm not so sure about that. I recall a textbook in law, touching on the philosophy of law, claiming that most murderers are against murder. I.e. they think that murder is wrong and immoral, except in their particular case where there was some reason that the murder of that particular person was justified, or unavoidable as the case may be. So, I'd think that not even all murderers can be said to be "in favor" of murder. Of course it depends on how you define "in favour of murder", if you define it as "justifiable in some extreme and very rare conditions" i think that you can find that a large proportion are in favour of it, like this guy.17:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Being a criminal doesn't imply that you find it acceptable, you just think that you can get away with it, but hopes others won't. Maybe the OP should have asked who is in favor of killing people and under what circumstances, because once you call it murder, it implies you are already stating that you are against it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sunday School
If Jews learn how to read Hebrew and learn about Jewish culture and history in Hebrew School, and Muslims learn Arabic in Islamic Sunday School, then do Christians learn how to read Hebrew and koine Greek in Christian Sunday Schools, or maybe the children learn how to recite verses in Latin? Sneazy (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you from, Sneazy? I'd like to give appropriate answers to your questions - especially as they often touch on my own areas of interest - but they often seem very naive or poorly-informed about the religions they're discussing. It would be useful to know and understand a little of the background to your enquiries, so that I can give better answers.
That said, I've attended a Church of England Sunday School, and to my disappointment, it didn't do any of the things you suggest. It's worth noting that in many cases Sunday Schools no longer pretend to offer any sort of rigorous curriculum, but just a way to keep kids entertained while the adults are attending worship - usually Holy Communion. In times past the Sunday School movement did offer a more substantial curriculum, but it tended to be scripture knowledge rather than the linguistic and critical skills needed to appreciate that scripture in its right context. These days, it tends to be the singing of song with some sort of Christian content (but not hymns), eg 'The Wise Man Built His House Upon The Rocks'. For me as a pre-teen, the last straw was when one of the Sunday School teachers wrote a song of their own, to be sung to the accompaniment of about 2 guitar chords, which was about nothing but how great it was to be at the Sunday School. I told my parents I'd rather attend the Eucharist in the church next door, where at least the hymns were good to sing and the creed provided some sort of content.
It's worth noting that churches which use Latin liturgically are now few and far between, as since the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church has moved dramatically to providing worship in the vernacular. It's therefore unlikely that any form of education aimed at children would see the use of Latin as important. However, as a student at a Roman Catholic weekday school, I did learn to pray the 'Hail Mary' in Latin; several classes opened with the Hail Mary, and in the case of Latin classes, we prayed in Latin. Pretty much all my knowledge of the Greek alphabet derives from maths classes. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am from the United States, so anything American pertains to me. Anything other than just fun? What about learning about compassion, hospitality, kindness, charity, genuine altruism, or accepting people in who are not part of any church? How are the kids kept "entertained"? Is it even relevant to the Church of England? Is the entertainment like some sort of game trying to memorize all the 613 mitzvot or the ten commandments and competing against each other (all in good humor) for whoever could get them all right? Why aren't the kids attending the worship services with the parents? They are not considered important for God? God doesn't want them? God doesn't like children? God wants children to sin? Sneazy (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Christians learn about the 613 commandments? That's a very Jewishly-slanted view of scripture, and one that most anyone but a Jew would find contrived. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 02:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A common Catholic practice, related to Sunday School, is that many parish churches offer a "children's liturgy" during one Sunday Mass a week. This means that the children start the service with their families, but before the Liturgy of the Word starts the children who don't yet receive Communion leave to attend their own version of the Liturgy of the Word. This usually means that they sing/pray simple versions of the main prayers used in that part of the Mass, and then instead of three readings and a psalm they usually hear a simple translation of the Gospel reading that the adults hear (so there isn't the same child-friendly limit to the stories, but they only get Gospel stories). Instead of a homily, they get a lay explanation and usually make or colour something. Then they rejoin their families for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Typically, children who receive Communion are not supposed to leave for the children's liturgy, because they are supposed to attend the full prayers and readings, and take part in the Penitential Rite. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These pages discuss the use of Latin in Catholic Mass.
At my Church of England church, the Sunday School generally have a theme for the week based on a simplified Bible story. Examples are "Noah's ark", "Jonah and the whale", "Daniel in the lion's den", the Good Samaritan", "the parable of the sower" "Zacchaeus and the sycamore tree", etc, etc. Associated activities tend to include art or craft work and songs (the song that Alex quotes refers to the Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders, another Sunday School staple). The children join the rest of the congregation for the end of the service. Sometimes, they perform songs or plays in the main church for special days like Mothering Sunday or Harvest Festival. But there isn't any set syllabus and different parishes do different things. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I attended a non-conformist Sunday School, lessons were at 9.45 and 2.15 on Sundays. The main Sunday services were at 11 and 6. It wasn't the "done thing" for children to be in the services, which were about twice as long (and many times more boring) than the Sunday school sessions. The explanation given was about the "milk and the meat of the Word", as given in Hebrews 5.13 and I Peter 2.2 - in other words, us kiddies wouldn't be able to understand what was being talked about and would become a distraction. The format of the Sunday school session was: "choruses" to start with, an opening hymn, short prayer, Bible reading (which was read in alternation with the Superintendent reading one verse and the rest of us reading the next), long (or should I say looooooooong) prayer, notices, tuition session in classes (year age range, lasting about 20 minutes) with a verse which we all had to memorise, closing hymn, closing prayer. The tuition usually revolved around the Parables, or the stories of the life of Moses, or of Jesus, or from Acts. We used the King James Version bible, and I believe that sect still does. Believe me, the language contained therein was archaic enough for a 70s child! I didn't learn Latin or Greek until I was 16 and chose to learn them at college. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Christianity doesn't maintain the link to their founding culture to the degree of many other religions. Why is this ? Well, first there was the period where Rome (and later Constantinople) took control of Christianity away from the founders, and remade it for their own purposes. Thus, Latin became the language of Christianity. Then there was the Protestant Reformation, which objected to this control by Rome. However, rather than emphasizing the original languages and cultural values, they emphasized local languages and values.
I don't see this as a bad thing, however. Many of the values of the cultures around at time of the founding of Christianity were immoral, by modern standards, such as slavery. I also feel that a problem with Islam is that many, but by no means all, branches try to maintain the values of the Arabic culture at the time of the founding of Islam. These values are quite extreme, including the total subjugation of women, violent jihad, etc. Those branches of Islam which reject traditional Arab culture can be far less oppressive. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sunday School taught me that a lot of the well-intentioned volunteers who ran it had no ability to effectively answer my no doubt annoying questions about Bible stories and the other stuff being presented. We were meant to accept everything on face value - all the miracles and stuff, and the idea that one had to regularly worship God to get to Heaven, etc. It began my slide away from Christianity. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question regarding Sunday Schools here. In the past, and perhaps at present, are Sunday Schools more common or more important with non-Catholic (as in Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, Baptist, Nontrinitarian or Nondenominational) denominations? Although I am a Catholic and most of the people in my country are Catholic, I never attended Sunday School and in fact, Sunday Schools are practically unheard of; the only Sunday Schools I've encountered so far are in the so-called "Born-again" (Pentecostal/Nondenominational) churches, and even then they are rare. Also, I never encountered the practice the IP mentioned above (the Children's liturgy during Catholic masses) and before I had my first communion I always attended the regular mass (although again, I have encountered seeing "youth services" at "born-again" churches). But since I did go to a Catholic school, we had regular "values education" classes that sort of served the purpose of Sunday school, but to my knowledge, "values education" is part of my country's basic education curriculum. So in general, are Sunday Schools more common and/or important in non-Catholic denominations? If so, why? I've already read our article on Sunday school but it doesn't answer my question. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was raised a Catholic, and we also didn't have Sunday School when I was a child. Children at the Catholic Church I attended received their theological education through CCD classes, which were held on a weeknight (Thursdays, IIRC) after school. Today, I am a member of a Southern Baptist church, and church on Sundays consists of about 1 hour of worship and 1 hour of Sunday School for both children and adults. Worship is a time to sing songs and worship together, as well as to hear a sermon, while Sunday School is a time to study the bible in small groups, usually 5-10 people, in open discussion facilitated by a teacher who generally leads a discussion-oriented class (rather than didactic). Children at my church have the same schedule, though through the 5th grade they have a separate children's worship service; after that they attend worship with the adults. Children's Sunday school is as rigorous as adults, usually focusing on a particular bible verse or passage; though of course with age-appropriate activities, similar to the sort of instruction they would get in their elementary school classes. --Jayron32 02:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Sunday School and Wednesday meeting are more common in Protestant churches. Catholics have Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) class for those who are not learning the subject by attending Catholic school. My spouse complained the class was more saints than Bible stories though. Rmhermen (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The theory is rather different in Catholic churches, where children participate in adult worship, taking their First Communion at the age of 7 or 8. In many protestant churches it is thought that much of it would not be understood by young children and so an age appropriate provision is made for them. Some churches have "family services" which are thought to be more child friendly. But there is wide variety in that, even within particular denominations. Traditionally, Sunday School would have been later in the day than the main service, so that children were expected to attend both; however this is no longer a common practice, in the UK at least. Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The children going through CCD (mostly an American term) or Sacramental Preparation classes are expected to hear Bible stories at home and during Mass. Therefore, there seems less point in focusing on those when there is so much else to cover in the classes, and basic familiarity with the main Bible stories is usually assumed. Focus is typically on the importance of prayer and loving one another, in my experience, which is why stories of saints tend to feature. A good class will also cover many other points of Catholic doctrine and practice, and ideally go into "why" when the children ask. Unfortunately, many classes are not good classes. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How are the classes "not good classes"? Can you be a little more specific than "not good classes"? The teaching of Catholic doctrine and practice is not good enough? The classrooms are typically not suitable or conducive to an enriched learning and social environment? The classes are typically so boring that they bore the students to death? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate the precise content of the comment you are replying to, "A good class will also cover many other points of Catholic doctrine and practice, and ideally go into "why" when the children ask. Unfortunately, many classes are not good classes." 86.161.209.128 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned before somewhere on the RD that for the church I attended in Malaysia there was sunday school for children which for most students continued until confirmation (you could continue afterwards but not many did). IIRC, at the time, mass was at 8 am and 10:30 am (and also in the evening) sunday school began at 9:10am or so and ended at 10:15am or so, so you were expected to attend mass at some stage. They did have liturgy of the word for children [1] timed to coincide with the 10:30am mass, but I believe it was introduced after I was passed the age (first eucharistcommunion I guess) so I never attended. My memory of the practice is you stayed behind after sunday school and we brought in to mass later and seated in a reserved area only joining your family after mass. The times seem to have changed a bit [2] possibly because of the introduction of an early morning mass on Sunday which I don't think used to occur and the sunday school times have of course also changed [3] (with a larger gap between the end of sunday school and the beginning of the next mass) but it doesn't sound like it's otherwise much different (although I believe a few years back they added an extra year before confirmation, I'm not sure if they still have sunday school after now). My impression is the sunday school is fairly common for most Malaysian RC churches at least as much if not more so than a number of protestant ones. Nil Einne (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Naruto's question directly, in England Sunday Schools started as a way of bringing education to poor children, who were expected to work (in fields, homes or factories) for six days a week as soon as they were able to work, in order to bring in money to the household. Sunday was the only day available for such instruction, and these schools therefore took on a more educational aspect than they are these days. Since, in the 1700s Roman Catholicism was still forbidden in England, Sunday Schools didn't happen in RC churches simply because there were none (or very few if any). We have an article on the founder of the Sunday School movement: Robert Raikes. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite lots of personal recollections, I’m not sure that there has really been an answer to the question or to the probable question behind the question.
Putting it very simply, for many Jews and Muslims scripture is the foundation of their faith. So ability to read the text in the original language is therefore fundamental. For most Christians, however, faith rests on the three pillars of scripture, tradition and reason. In this case, accessing scripture in the vernacular is considered perfectly adequate. Better, most would argue, to hear it in everyday speech than not at all.
[I know that some Christians learn Hebrew and Greek because they think translations betray the meaning of the text, but they are a small minority.]
For Anglicans "accessing scripture in the vernacular" is not only "considered perfectly adequate", it is actually an Article of Religion. "Article XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth. It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people."[4] In the last 50 years, this principle has caused the lyrical 16th and 17th century English of Anglican liturgy to be dropped in favour of more modern language. The Catholic Church has undergone a similar transformation since the Second Vatican Council. Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish Women's Archive has "Esther (Hannah Hayye) (Weltman) Antin" [5]. ---Sluzzelintalk 16:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to Sergeant William Stott?
Upon reading about the WW2 carrier pigeon discovery I immediately wondered about the fate of the message's author, but can't find any articles with information about the man himself. Can someone help me determine the fate of Sergeant Stott? Did he survive the war? The Masked Booby (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph article says that he was killed in action a few weeks later. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ranville War Cemetry; the resting place of William Stott
According to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, he was a Fusileer (private) rather than a sergeant (possibly he had a field promotion that was never confirmed); he died on 8 July 1944 aged 27 and is buried at Ranville War Cemetery, which is 10km from Caen.[6]Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say I am a natural born U.S. citizen. I eventually marry someone from overseas, and in so doing so I become a dual citizen of my spouse's nation (and my spouse becomes a dual citizen of the U.S.). Am I still allowed to run for President, assuming I am otherwise eligible? If not, can I become eligible to run for President by renouncing citizenship of my spouse's original nation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.224.251 (talk • contribs)
The Constitution's restrictions on eligibility for office are the only restrictions possible for those offices. So if you are 35 and a natural born citizen who has been resident in the US for fourteen years, you are good to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
. . . . but not if you've already been elected president twice, and not if you've been removed from the presidential office upon conviction by the Senate after impeachment by the House of Representatives. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've had questions about Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 several times during the last few years and you could check the archives. Most of the answers have boiled down to that we can't be really sure until a court makes a decision on the issue. In many places, the Constitution is rather vague and it's up to the courts to work out the details by case law. The thing is that to develop case law you need a case, and as far as I know the eligibility for POTUS re the natural born citizen clause has never been tested. Sjö (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are unlikely to have a case, as the courts would most likely rule that the political question doctrine applied. It would be, really, up to Congress in the joint session to count the electoral vote. However, if Powell v. McCormack is any guide, then my comment would be a likely outcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the voters might very well feel that your dual-citizenship means divided loyalties, and vote against you. StuRat (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Having the right to run does not ensure a "right to win". For example, there's supposed to be no "religious test", i.e. you can't be stopped from running due to your religion. But the voters can apply any test they want to. How many voted against (or for) Romney because he's a Mormon? We'll never know for sure. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expected him to win several times as many votes from women as men, based on the votes from the Mormon's and all their wives. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
They have no more extraneous wive's than you have extraneous apostrophe's. :) -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 23:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Me thinks the small font responses to the small font responses are hardly ever less entertaining than the large font responses to the large font questions are informative. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've finally understood that down here is where the real action is. Come on in, latter-day acolyte of the Church of Small But Interesting Things. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 03:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
99.72.224.251 -- Michele Bachmann went through that situation after her run for president in 2012 (causing some to sarcastically refer to her as the "Swiss Miss"). I don't think it would prevent her from running again (though the fact that she would have no chance of winning might)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpick: You don't become a citizen in another country by marriage alone. Sjö (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but that is certainly the case in some places, and has been the case in other places. Did you know, for example, that The Right Excellent Sir Garfield Sobers, despite being a National Hero of Barbados and a cricketing icon of the West Indies, also acquired dual Australian citizenship through marriage to an Australian (whom he has since divorced)? -- Jack of Oz[Talk]
The Australian government says otherwise. You still have to apply to become an Australian citizen, though it's somewhat easier if you are married to an Australian. I doubt that you become a citizen by marriage alone anywhere in the world, because that would bring all sorts of problems with it. What if you don't wan't to be a citizen of your spouse's country, for example if that means that you have to renounce your present citizenship, or if you don't want the obligations that follow with being a citizen? Sjö (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said it "has been the case" in some places. See [7], [8]. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 10:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters at all. Obama was born with dual American & British citizenship. His father was from Kenya, which was still a British colonial possession then. After Kenya gained independence, Obama then held dual American & Kenyan citizenship. Kenya will only extend duality in citizenship to children. Adults cannot hold dual citizenship. At age 23 (yeah, I know, random-seeming age), Obama had to decide if he wanted to retain his Kenyan citizsenship, which would have meant renouncing his American citizenship. Because he picked American, he then had to renounce his Kenyan citizenship. So he's not longer dual anything for the last 27 yrs or so & wasn't at the time he ran for POTUS.
Plus, every POTUS through William Henry Harrison was born a British citizen. John Tyler was the first POTUS born after 1783. Offhand I can't think who it is (a POTUS from the late 1800s, I want to say Chester Alan Arthur, maybe), but there was one who had dual British (Irish) citizenship because his parents were immigrants & had not attained US citizenship before he was born, even though he was born on US soil. He was *naturalized* when his parents became citizens because he was still a child (though around 12, I think).ScarletRibbons (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Earliest war photography
The American Civil War, or "War Between the States", of 1861–1865 was the topic of extensive photography by Mathew Brady. Was that the first war in history to get photographed while it was going on? Or perhaps the first one to get photographed extensively and systematically? Or were there earlier ones? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Crimean War of 1853-1856 was the first I believe, it was certainly earlier than the Civil War. The photography was mostly from the British side. RyanVesey 18:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Fenton's photography during the Crimean War is generally considered the first act of war photography. --Daniel(talk) 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article War PhotographyCarol Szathmari took photographs of the Crimean War prior to Fenton. Even before that, an anonymous photographer took daguerreotypes of the Mexican–American War. Some of his daguerrotypes can be seen about a third of the way down this page, photos of the Crimean War can be seen following that. It doesn't appear that the Mexican-American War was photographed extensively, but the Crimean War certainly was. A very large number of Fenton's photographs can be seen here. RyanVesey 20:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "photollecture4" link includes a couple of items labeled Attitudes Passionelles, which are quite striking, as they appear to have modern, expressive poses, rather than the stiffly formal pictures which dominated that era. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those pictures appear to come from the book "iconographie photographique de la salpêtrière" which I would presume means that the pictures come from the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, which "served as a prison for prostitutes, and a holding place for the mentally disabled, criminally insane, epileptics, and the poor" according to our article. RyanVesey 21:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Condolence gift for someone from Bangalore India
Bangalore India, I have a client whose father passed and wanted to send the appropriate gift for his culture. thanks for your help. 208.65.144.249 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that giving a gift is appropriate in that situation, in his culture. It may not be. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your best bet may be to ask this question at WikiProject India. If it turns out a gift is actually appropriate, there is a reference guide to general gift-giving etiquette in India here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How Do I Find A Free Reverese E-mail Site
I been going through reverse E-mail. Sites and had no luck. They all charge for me to look up this persons. Other E-mail accounts. I have 1 of his E-mail accounts however he does not use that one. So I to do a reverse E-mail look up. But I cant pay for it right now. Is there a way to do it for free. My question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.251.254 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You had best check with your lawyer about the legality of such an activity. As I recall, you were told this 10 or 11 days ago when you brought the same subject up. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you have no right in law (anywhere in the world, as far as I know) to acquire this data at all, asking us to tell you where you can get it for nothing is a bit much, frankly. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I don't actually understand the question. OP knows an email address (say johndoe@isp.net). What does he want to find? The owners name (Peter Piper? Another email address that the owner uses (p.piper@work.org) or what? If other email addresses for the same user, how would anyone/any organistation KNOW about other email addresses? Puzzled. --SGBailey (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
…and asking on every single reference desk also isn’t going to endear you any. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised this as a legal question at WP:ANI. I don't know which IP to notify, so this will have to do for now. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer seems to be that any such service, free or otherwise, is only legal if it has obtained and accumulated publicly-available e-mail addresses. So at any price, legally, you're only going to get a subset of possibilities. And the point was made that since the data accumulation effort requires work, why would anyone want to give it away? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
April 13
A couple of questions about the Crusades
Hello. I'm working on a small poster project about the Crusades and we want it to be accurate historically. Could you answer the following questions:
1) How organized were the Crusader knights of Europe? I've been under the impression that each feudal lord gathered some of his retainers as well as peasant men-at-arms and then proceeded to fight according to their own plans. Or were the Crusaders commanded as a single large army with all strategic orders coming from above?
2) Were the Crusaders regulated in any way? Could they just loot everything they wanted and add any territory they could occupy to their fiefs as they pleased, or did they need permissions from their superiors to do so?
3) What about clergy in the Crusades? Am I correct to assume that the crusaders were accompanied by travelling priests to provide spiritual relief to the soldiers?
4) What were the common languages used in the negotiations and other communication between the Crusaders and the Muslims? I'd imagine Latin would be a fairly plausible choice, but this is just a guess.
I will attempt to answer some of the above, but you might like to look at our article on the Crusades too.
1) They were not really unified. They all had more or less the same idea - pillaging and plundering - and in some cases they even fought a few skirmishes with each other. The muslims were also fighting each other, and in some cases different groups were switching sides. Even Byzantium, which had several problems with the crusaders at one point allied themselves with Saladdin.It was more complicated than we tend to think.
They were supposed to be, but see above. Also, their superiors generally went with them (e.g. Richard the Lionheart).
Sometimes they did, and were often present on the battlefield.
This would depend on who you mean. Peasant soldiers would not have spoken Latin. The language used by the leaders would have been whatever common language they could find, and may in extreme cases have ended up with multiple interpreters (e.g. English>Latin, Latin>French, French>German, German>Hungarian, Hungarian>Turkish, Turkish>Arabic = six interpreters).
Sorry for the short answers, but our article has more information. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I wouldn't count on those answers. The problem is that there were several crusades over a period of centuries, and a lot of variation between them. The infamous Children's Crusade was utter chaos. The infamous Fourth Crusade never even tried to reach the Holy Land -- it turned aside to attack and loot Constantinople, and never got any farther. However, there were also rigorously organized crusading armies and organizations of crusading knights such as the Knights Templar. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was generalizing - hence the link to our article for more information, Looie. I did not mention the Children's Crusade as it was only a 'crusade' by name, and there is even some doubt as to whether it actually happened or not. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Expanding on Looie's comments, the First Crusade was preached in 1095. There are plenty of arguments about what you could reasonably call the end of the last "Crusade", but an extremely conservative answer, and one implied in the lead of our article on Crusades would be 1291 and the Siege of Acre (1291) ,
It's quite reasonable to argue that the term applies well to all manner of various conflicts that took place over the succeeding several hundred years, certainly to the 1450s and perhaps even down to c.1600. You can even make an argument for 1798 (when the Knights of St John ceased ruling Malta), but that's really pushing it IMHO. But let's take the really conservative answer, which gives a time span of just under 200 years. That's like a war going on today having started in the early 1800s, albeit that society has clearly changed much more in that time than it did in the late 11th-13th centuries.
So, over such a period, I think you'll gather that the answers to your questions will vary wildly. As well as the surprising and perhaps outrageous example of the Fourth Crusade, you'll find Crusades against "heretics" (eg the Albigensian Crusade) pagans (see the Northern Crusades) and other examples (apart from the Fourth Crusade) of minor Crusades against mainstream Catholics.
It would therefore help us answer your interesting questions therefore if you picked a Crusade you're interested in. --Dweller (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latin may well be what the Crusaders tried to use, but it has never been much used in the Levant: even during the Roman Empire, the administrative language of that region was Greek, not Latin. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever people talk about the crusades they almost always mean the First and the Third, so to make things easier we can limit ourselves to those two. On the First Crusade, the knights were fairly well organized by nationality/language - there were northern French, southern French, Normans (from Normandy and from Italy), Flemish, and various other groups (although of course there were no "nations" in the modern sense, at the time). There were several expeditions though: the first mass of people who left Europe was the Peasants' Crusade (they were mostly not peasants at all, but they were certainly less organized). But basically you are right, a feudal lord who decided to go on crusade, and his vassals tended to go with him. For example, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse was one of the major leaders of the First Crusade, and any of the other major and minor nobles who lived in his territory followed him, if they decided to go too. They did try to organize under a single leader, but that never really worked out. There were separate armies who all met in Constantinople, but then they marched separately again until they got to Antioch. At one point supposedly Stephen, Count of Blois was elected leader, but he went home at Antioch. There were different factions led by Raymond of Toulouse, Bohemond of Taranto, Godfrey of Bouillon, etc, and they didn't always get along. After they got to Jerusalem, the big rivarly was between Raymond and Godfrey, and Godfrey proved to be the better leader - even though in Europe, he would have been a relatively minor lord compared to Raymond. Godfrey ended up being elected ruler of Jerusalem.
The Third Crusade was different, because the idea of crusading and the political structure of Europe had changed since the time of the First Crusade. There were no kings on the First Crusade, but kings and emperors led the Second and the Third (on the Third, Richard I of England, Philip II of France, and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, who died along the way). They were definitely more organized, and organized along "national" lines. And it remained that way in the Levant - Richard led his troops, Philip led his, and they didn't really work together as much as they could have.
And as mentioned, military orders were established during the crusades. The Templars, among others, were separate organizations which provided their own knights. They didn't always get along with the other crusaders, and they definitely didn't always get along with the other military orders (the Templars and the Hospitallers, especially).
Clergy always accompanied the crusaders. In the First Crusade there were random travelling priests, like Peter the Hermit, who was the leader of the Peasants' Crusade. But there was always a papal legate, who attempted to make sure they did what the Pope wanted them to do, although that rarely worked very well. Most of the historical accounts of the First Crusade were written by clergy - one of them, Fulcher of Chartres, actually participated in the whole crusade. The Third Crusade also had plenty of clergy and papal legates.
The languages used by crusaders is an extremely fascinating topic (well, I think so anyway). They could all communicate with each other pretty well in French, and since the majority of them were from the territory of modern France, they tended to refer to themselves as "Franks" when they talked about themselves as a group. The differences between the dialects of French, and probably between the French and Italian dialects, were probably not too strong at the time that they couldn't understand each other. There were lots of other languages too - German, English, Gaelic, there were even Scandinavian, Polish, and Russian crusaders. Anyone who had been educated (especially the clergy) could speak Latin. When they communicated with the Byzantine officials, they used Latin and French (which we can tell from the way that Byzantine writers recorded the names of crusaders). When they communicated with Muslims, they needed interpreters who spoke Arabic and Turkish, and we can also see, from the way that Arabic writers recorded European words and names, that the crusaders were speaking to them in French or in Latin. By the time of the Third Crusade, a lot of the crusaders who had been born and raised in the crusader states could speak Arabic - and they were sometimes considered suspicious by Europeans, traitors even (an interesting example of an Arabic-speaking crusader lord is Reginald of Sidon). Not everyone who ended up living under crusader rule was an Arab or a Turk, or even a Muslim. At the time (and to a lesser extent, now too), there were still lots of Christians living there, but not the same kind of Christians as the Catholic crusaders. Some of them still spoke Greek, and some Arabic (and some spoke Armenian).
I hope that is helpful, and not too longwinded... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is said that James Cook gave this tortoise to the Tongan royal family in 1777' but Tonga had no united monarchy only multiple ruling chiefly families. The question is which family was the tortoise given to: Tuʻi Tonga, Tuʻi Haʻatakalaua, Tu'i Kanokupolu or another line. And how then did it get inherited by the Queen Salote Tupou IV? Also does any the account of the voyage of James Cook mention meeting Tongan chiefs or exchanging gifts on July, 1777?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The account goes on to quote Carruthers, Joseph (Sir), Captain James Cook, R.N.; 150 Years After. New York, 1930: "Although there is no mention of the matter in Cook's journals, there is, from Tongan sources, handed down from generation to generation, the tradition that Captain Cook left two tortoises at Haapai, one of the islands in the Tongan group, during one of his two visits there between 1771 and 1777. One of these still survives and is an honored guest in the grounds of the Royal Palace at Nukualofa, in the island of Tongatabu. There is no doubt about the tradition, which was committed to writing as soon as the natives were able to do so. I received a copy of this from the Rev. R. Page, chairman of the Tonuan Wesleyan Mission, in 1927, when I first visited the Tongan islands. I then also met the Prince Consort, Tungi, the grandson of the Chief to whom Cook gave the two tortoises...". Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew slang Mizrahi Jew
What are the slang terms against Mizrahi Jews in Israel?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
There is only a remote connection between the Hebrew slang term Ars (slang) and Arse or Ass: mainly as words sound and are spelled similarly and are perjorative terms applied to almost exclusively to men. An ars is Mizrachi the same way that a tsfonbon (look it up) is Ashkenazi - both words hold socioeconomic association and perpetuate derogatory stereotypes (i.e. that the latter tend to be well-off white people and the former, lower-class colored people). They also depend on who's saying it: like the difference between whites and African Americans using the N-word in English. Understanding, let alone using, Hebrew slang without a beyond-basic knowledge of Israeli society and the language matrix in which the slang is embedded, is asking for (and probably causing) trouble. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the Ars article makes clear, this is an archaism, reflecting a time in Israeli history. It dates from a time of serious tension between the largely Ashkenazi established Israeli society and the perceived threat to their society from the large wave of immigrants from the Levant.
Since then, the term has moved on. Using Deborahjay's example, it'd like if the N-word was used today to describe a people regardless of ethnicity who dressed in a certain way and appeared to come from a low socioeconomic class. Yes, the ethnic origins remain in the history of the word, but usage has moved on.
In my experience, Israeli society today really doesn't care that much about this fairly meaningless basket pigeonhole for people. Unlike our Ref Desks, which seem to have frequent questions about them. --Dweller (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
April 14
Lil Bub and Colonel Meow
Lil Bub is another Internet feline celebrity. She was born with a deformed lower jaw and no teeth. That's why her tongue sticks out. I don't know if she's a squitten or a dwarf cat. (Lil Bub lives in Bloomington, Indiana.) Colonel Meow is also another Internet feline celebrity. He was born with an extra fur gene. That's why he has so much fur. He's also been proclaimed "The World's Angriest Cat". I don't know what to make of the extra fur gene. (Colonel Meow lives in Seattle, Washington.) Who could help me figure those types of things out?142.255.103.121 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make it clearer what you're asking? You provide some information and ask for help to "figure those types of things out" - what types of things? --ColinFine (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to find out if Lil Bub is a squitten or a dwarf cat. I also don't know what Colonel Meow's extra fur gene is actually called. Those are the types of things I'm trying to figure out.142.255.103.121 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Know Your Meme is a good site for this sort of information. According to the ABC video linked from their article on Colonel Meow, he has a "mysterious medical condition", and according to their article on Lil Bub she suffers from dwarfism; however, her front legs are in proportion to her back legs. Tevildo (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Colonel Meow) Mysterious medical condition? (Lil Bub) Front legs proportion to back legs?142.255.103.121 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Left handers in the North of England, early 20th C
This week I watched Rutherford and Son, performed by Northern Broadsides. This is a play written in 1912 and set in that time in an industrial town in the North of England. During the play two people cut bread, and in this production both of them used their left hands. Now I know that up until much later than this children were routinely forced to write with their right hands, but I don't know how far this extended to other uses of the hands. I thought, watching it, that this was anachronistic, but I may be wrong: neither handedness nor bias against left-handed people covers the history at this level of detail. Has anybody any sources which will tell me whether this was indeed inauthentic or not? --ColinFine (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At a bit of a tangent - it seems to be received wisdom that actors are more likely to be left-handed than in the general population, although I couldn't see much hard evidence on the net. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a little time, I could look to see if many Edwardian era northern cricketers were left handed batsmen and/or bowlers. Oddly, it's not something Wikipedia currently categorises, but it shouldn't be tremendously difficult to ascertain. One point to mention: the concept I'm aware of is of forcing kids to write left-handed. Did it really extend to performing all activities right-handed? --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was precisely one of the questions I intended above, Dweller, though I did not explicitly ask it as a question. --ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A little out in space and time, but my grandfather, who was born in 1913 in Northern Ireland, was left handed, but was forced to write with his right hand - but he continued to favour his left hand for everything else, and nobody was concerned about that. For all the talk of lefties being considered "sinister" or "cack-handed" in the olden days, I'm pretty sure making kids learn to write right-handed was largely a practical matter. I think we maybe take modern writing utensils for granted a bit. Writing with a nib pen dipped in an inkwell was a messy business. Writing right-handed meant much less chance of leaning your hand in wet ink and ruining what you'd just written. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a perspective I hadn't considered. But in case anyone feels the old prejudice against left-handers is dead and buried: When my younger son (now aged 28) was just learning to draw, he showed a strong preference for the left hand. My mother was quite concerned and thought we should do something about it. We thanked her for her advice, then ignored it. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 00:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nicknack009, "cack-handed" is a Yorkshire phrase that means "left handed", as also is the description of someone being a "cuddy-wifter". The latter may never have made a dictionary, as with the word "demic" or "demick" that is still commonly used in Lancashire to describe something that is "not right" (as in, "correct"). While some people probably did consider left-handers such as myself as "sinister", the cack-handed term was absolutely synonymous in its time. Of course, nowadays, "cack-handed" basically means clumsy/inept. I'll admit to being the latter, and doubtless some people on en-WP consider me sinister, albeit for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with preferred hand and everything to do with sticking to policy!
My grandfather (b. 1893) was naturally left-handed, was taught to do things right-handed by use of the strap and the ruler, and ended up being ambidextrous. He is the only person I have ever seen who could slice a loaf of bread while simultaneously buttering the round being cut. Obviously, the loaf needed a bit of assistance in sticking to the breadboard.
As for prejudice, it is alive and well. I am currently helping out at an engineering works (the scrap yard across the road is doing very well out of my demics) and, yay, all the lathes are right-handed, ditto the drill-presses, the bandsaws etc. Trying to insert new workpieces in a lathe while it is rotating at 900-1,000 rom using my right hand and across the tool-post is, well, tricky. And, yes, there were attempts to force me to be right-handed at school back in the 1960s/1970s. All of this is anecdotal, sorry: finding WP:RS might be difficult. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would distinguish between "prejudice" and "omitting to make potentially expensive accommodations that may not get used much". There clearly is such a thing as prejudice against the left-handed, but you don't need it to explain why the contracting firm might not have ordered a bunch of duplicate equipment. --Trovatore (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reference that links "cackhanded" specifically with Yorkshire - it's certainly in common use in London. OED says;; "mid 19th century: from cack, in the sense 'excrement', + hand-ed"[9] (meaning, I imagine, using the hand that you wipe yourself with). Alansplodge (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a socially unbreakable law in many so-called primitive societies throughout the world that the right hand only is used for eating, the left hand only is used for ass cleaning, and never the twain shall meet. The expression "cack-handed" may be English, but the idea behind it is universal. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any sort of evidence that Presidents of the United States tend to be more left handed than the general population? RNealK (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Airline food and cultural sensitivies
So there's a bit of a controversy in Australia at the moment because Qantas, the Australian flag carrier, has decided to eliminate pork from flight menus and alcohol from the preparation of meals (but will continue to serve alcohol to accompany the meals) on its flights to Europe, because these flights will now be stopping over in the Middle East instead of in South East Asia (as was previously the case), but perhaps also in deference to its new operational partner Emirates Airlines. A number of other changes will also accompany this - such as menus on flights to Europe now being bilingual in English and Arabic.
I'm curious about what other airlines do in equivalent situations. I know that airlines tend to use the local language / serve the local cuisine of the origin and/or destination countries, since the passengers are most likely to come from those countries. However, the same would seem to be less likely for just a brief stopover on the one flight. If I recall correctly, back when Qantas flights between Australia and Europe stopped over in Asia, the menus were not bilingual English-Chinese or English-Malay. I wonder, therefore, whether Qantas is just adopting a more culturally sensitive approach, or whether the move is more out of eagerness to please their new partner. So, are there other instances of airlines conforming to local inguistic or dietary habits of stopover countries - whether in the Middle East or elsewhere? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I flew with Quantas to and from Sydney back in 1997 (give or give a year), one stopover was in Bangkok, and they indeed served (the airline version of) Thai food on board. And it was highly welcome, too, compared to what else they served. I flew with Cathay Pacific via Hong Kong in 2008, but really cannot recall the food (funny how the brain works - back in 1997 that was my second or third flight ever, and now I fly an average of two long-haul flights per year). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I last flew Qantas between London and Sydney in 2010, and already I cannot recall how "Asian" any of the actual meals were. I flew Cathay Pacific on the same route more recently, and they always had some "Chinese" options and their menus were bilingual, but then they are a Hong Kong airline so it makes sense. (Cathay does not offer a through service with a stopover - when you buy a Europe to Australia ticket, you are buying two seaprate flights to and then from Hong Kong). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the meals are not prepared correctly, see halal and Dhabihah, then not having pork or alcohol isn't going to mean much. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. The news reports aren't very clear how strictly they will comply with the rules. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@CambridgeBay: muslins, in real life, will avoid pork at any cost. That's like~an American eating a dog. On the other hand, most do not worry that much about other food taboos. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True but the blood taboo is/can be a sticking point. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The trick to being culturally sensitive is to include choices for all cultures. Thus, including Middle-Eastern preferences like lamb is good, while excluding pork is not as good, and could cause a backlash. They seem to have reached a better compromise on alcohol. Of course, pork isn't all that important to Westerners. However, if they make other changes to show preference for the Middle-Eastern clients, especially the "conservative" ones, at the cost of offending everyone else, then the backlash would be major. For example, banning movies, separating men from women, requiring women to wear the hijab, etc. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not aware of any food tradition that requires pork. Nowadays, I often get the choice of chicken or vegetarian. That also seems to not offend anybody (and while I like a sizzling bloody steak, that's not going to happen in coach, anyways). BTW, a hotel in Singapore I stayed at had turkey "bacon" - that was a thoroughly unpleasant experience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In some places, Easter pretty much requires a ham. StuRat (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In an aircraft during travel? I seriously doubt this is a frequent use case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You won't get far into a Hawai'ian luau without pork, and Spam is extremely popular on the islands. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well given that neither Emirates or Etihad Airways require anything mentioned in StuRat's remark about movies, etc, I doubt that Quantas is going to go that far. While both Emirates and Etihad show women flight attendants conservatively dressed they are no more so than you would expect to see on any airline. However, if you look through the images there are several showing women FA's with no head coverings and short sleeves, not much like traditional Islamic dress. Of course the UAE is a bit more liberal than some of the neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia. Interesting look at Google Images again shows a lot of aircraft and only two FA's. The Saudia site shows only one picture with women FA's and they have head coving and long sleeves making it a little more difficult to tell if that is standard on their flights. By the way here is a link to Emirates dining and the special meals. Note that they say all meals are halal. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To partly answer your question about languages. Both First Air and Canadian North claim that they are multi-lingual. I know that Canadian provide the safety announcements in all four languages but I'm not sure about First Air, or if either airline always has multi-lingual FA's. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural sensitivities are seldom not commercial sensitivities. If the clients are Arabic, then expect that the product gets adapted to their tastes. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more culturally sensitive to foreigners spelling our national airline's name incorrectly. It is derived from an acronym. There is no u. And I agree with Osman - unless they think it will improve their profit (in this case increased passengers from the Middle East, or maybe supplier/contractual benefits) or it is forced upon them by regulators, they won't do it. The-Pope (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In some overseas countries, Qantas decided to have an entry at Quantas in the phone book (and presumably electronic versions thereof) because a great many people would look under Qu and not find it. That was bad for business. It works just like a redirect in Wikipedia, and has the same flaw; people find what they're looking for, but don't get re-educated about the correct spelling for the future. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 01:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgiven this time. But next time we'll get al-Quaeda onto you. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 08:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like there are several issues being discussed here. In terms of meals in flights coming from a certain destination (even if it was just a stopover) I believe it's fairly common that at least one meal option will be partially inspired by the local cuisine. Remember that even for just a stopover, the meals will usually come from a catering company from the stopover point and while they don't have to supply something inspired by local cuisine, it does make sense. Note that supplying things which are less common in the local market (like pork) or require special consideration may increase the cost. Of course this doesn't affect incoming flights. In the Qantas case, remember the Emirates alliance [10] including code sharing, I presume on all flights to and from Dubai. While the code sharing flights don't always provide the same options you'd expect in flights from the airline in question, depending on the strength of the alliance which is supposed to 'go beyond codesharing and includes integrated network collaboration with coordinated pricing, sales and scheduling as well as a benefit-sharing mode' it wouldn't be that surprising if the codesharing partner does make some attempts to ensure their codeshare flights have some of the stuff customers from the other airline will expect. Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how is effectiveness of a questionnaire is measured
I want to test the amount of life skills (such as confidence, communication skills, empathy, decision making, critical thinking etc) present among the people in my locality. To that end I have designed a questionnaire containing multiple choice questions which I feel test the level of life skills. Each option has been assigned a certain number of points. I want to total the number of points as a measure of the life skills of the person answering the questionnaire. However all this is based on my subjective understanding of what option deserves how many points, and that this questionnaire adequately measures life skills in the first place.
My question is as to how effectiveness of a questionnaire can be determined. Is there some way, my (or any one person's) subjective-ness can be removed, and the point system determined so that life skills are correctly measured?
In the terminology of experimental psychology, you are interested in knowing the test validity of your questionnaire. You believe that it has face validity; you want to know whether it has content validity and construct validity. I'm not sure whether our articles will be helpful to you, but at least the terminology might give you something to search for. Looie496 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the problematic part is how you weight each of the responses, I suggest that you skip this. Just report the raw findings. For example, you could say "While 94% of respondents claim to be able to drive a car, only 78% claim to know how to use a computer, and only 47% have successfully received a mortgage loan from a bank". StuRat (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your questionnaire results will be skewed when your repondants don't answer some questions. Sleigh (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli Jews and the Holocaust
I was recently wondering about this question: which percentage of Israeli Jews had relatives who were killed in the Holocaust? After all, many Jews immigrated to Israel from countries where the Holocaust was either much less widespread ("rump Romania," France, et cetera) or from countries where the Holocaust did not occur at all (Bulgaria, Morocco, Iraq, Ethiopia, et cetera). I know that many Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews intermarried in Israel over time, though. Does anyone have any data in regards to answering this question of mine? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you have in mind when you say "less widespread." I believe 1/4 of them died then. That would imply that most families had a victim among them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "less widespread," I mean having less casualties as a percentage of the total pre-World War II Jewish population. In regards to France, native French Jews had a death toll even lower than that--I think 10% to 15% (as stated in the Wikipedia article on Vichy France, "Whatever the Vichy government's intent initially or subsequently, the numerical outcome was that less than 15% of French Jews, vs. nearly twice that proportion of non-citizen Jews residing in France, died."). While some native French Jewish families would have had a victim among them, some native French Jewish families might have escaped the Holocaust completely intact. Also, "rump Romania" (Romania within its late 1940/early 1941 borders) would be a good example of this. Romania did not deport Jews in "rump Romania" to the Nazi death camps, and generally (with a few exceptions, such as the Iasi pogrom) did not kill them. Futurist110 (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, strictly speaking, we are all related. When the Nazis killed a Jew (or a Gay, or a Gypsy, or even a communist), they killed a relative of you and me and Genghis Khan, not to mention our MRCA. To get a meaningful answer, you must define a cut-off for what counts as a "relative". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for various definitions of relatives, I don't particularly care too much which definitions of relatives polls, surveys, et cetera use for this. I am interested in data with any definition of relatives. Maybe a good definition would be known relatives (meaning knowing one's exact relation to someone else). Futurist110 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Searching in Hebrew, I only found statistics for the number of Holocaust survivors in Israel, but nothing on the number of their relatives. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 15:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also interested in what you found. I wonder what definition of Holocaust survivors they used, though. Futurist110 (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found the clearest enumeration at the Hebrew Wikipedia: he:ניצולי השואה - though I'm not sure what definition of "Holocaust survivor" they used. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
April 15
microeconomics solution to private suit problem of guantanamo
I saw this analysis of why guantanamo prisonners wouldn't be released:
"If the prisoners are ever released without being charged or tried (which won't happen because there's no evidence), they can each file a civil suit against the U.S. Government, each worth potentially hundreds of millions. I think this plays a role as well."
And the agreement by someone, "It's the equivalent of keeping the neighbor's daughter in your basement because letting her out would get you into 'so much trouble'."
I think this analysis is correct. What is the correct resolution (how to align incentives)?
Should the value of the suit just go up incrementally, from 100M to 200M to 1Billion per prisoners after 20 years without a trial? Then nobody would wait twenty years.
Or, how would we get this analysis to be "true" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.48.242 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is to make sure that your court system agrees that enemy combatants have no legal standing. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny, but it doesn't address the broader question. Why would the the kidnapper wake up one morning and say, "Today I will turn myself in" when doing nothing will "delay the inevitable"? Where is the incentive at the margin? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The incentive is the conceit that they conclude they can "get away with it". Look at the Rutgers basketball and Penn State football situations, for example. You've got some actual dollar figures to work with there. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They could do that anyway even from Guantanamo as they can have access to lawyers, plus many have been released after spending a long time there, so the hypothesis doesn't stand up. Dmcq (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcq, that is a very good point actually. Do you have any thoughts on what separates those who have been released from those in permanent non-charged limbo? i.e. what puts them in a different category? According to the above theory, for example, the main thing that would get someone released is absolutely no interest in legal action afterward (or maybe a lack of adequate legal representation, or a bad "story" that doesn't make high-powered lawyers want to help them sue, whatever).
Also returning to the incentive to keep committing crimes, do you think this is a real effect, even if not in the gitmo case? What do you think is a solution? For example, take Lance Armstrong. Every one of his tour de france wins would be asterisked, he would lose all endorsements and his reputation. why would he ever do anything other than "postpone" coming clean?
Doesn't this lead to only external factors causing people to come clean? *even if* they're inevitable? Another example is Madoff: he had investment from charities that were only allowed to spend 5% of their endowment every year. So, he could be sure they wouldn't make a run on him and just inflate his fictional account statements to them. Of course the crash was inevitable. But it came when the financial crisis caused too many legitimate withdrawals from the rest of his customer base, and he became insolvent. The question is: given the knowledge that something is inevitable, how would we get people to stop acruing whatever utility they see in every day until that inevitable moment? (plus of course a non-zero chance that they get away with it forever or at least until their death)? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guantanamo prisoner talks about the whole subject. The main thing that seems to be stopping the release of another bunch is that nobody wants them and America won't admit them. You'll not stop a criminal wth threats of higher and higher future punishment if it never is today, and lots of the heads of these financial institutions are little better than psychos and think they will get away with things forever. And they do too, more fool the rest of us when the worst they get is a golden handshake. Dmcq (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution gives Congress the power to set jurisdiction for Federal Courts. They could simply pass a law saying the Federal Courts have no standing in civil suits brought by foreign combatants for treatment at overseas military facilities. I believe the issue was brought up early in the war, but don't remember what the outcome was. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of being sued can be deal with without too much trouble. Any law can be patched. But there is a Catch 22 in the Guantanamo issue: you don't want to release a terrorist, but you also don't want to release an innocent person to a country that won't recognize his innocence and might torture him. You also don't want to release an innocent who might turn into a terrorist. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "you also don't want to release an innocent who might turn into a terrorist"? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flat tax question
Resolved
This is quoted from the "administration and enforcement" subsection of the "tax effects" section of the article on flat tax:
"Under a pure flat tax without deductions, every tax period a company would make a single payment to the government covering the taxes on the employees and the taxes on the company profit. For example, suppose that in a given year, ACME earns a profit of 3 million, spends 2 million in wages, and spends 1 million on other expenses the IRS deems to be taxable income, such as stock options, bonuses, and certain executive privileges. Given a flat rate of 15%, ACME would then owe the IRS (3M + 2M + 1M) × 0.15 = 900,000. This payment would, in one fell swoop, settle the tax liabilities of ACME's employees as well as the corporate taxes owed by ACME. Most employees throughout the economy would never need to interact with the IRS, as all tax owed on wages, interest, dividends, royalties, etc. would be withheld at the source. The main exceptions would be employees with incomes from personal ventures. The Economist claims that such a system would reduce the number of entities required to file returns from about 130 million individuals, households, and businesses, as at present, to a mere 8 million businesses and self-employed."
If the ACME company earns 3M and spends 3M, then it generates no perceived revenue. How then could they come up with the 0.9M for tax? 64.251.40.254 (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They said 3 million in profit, not earnings. The difference is that the profit is the excess earnings above their costs. As to charging them wages paid and other business expenses, yes, this is double taxation, but that also happens now, in that the company is taxed and then the money they pay their employees is taxed again. This would just move the double taxation completely onto the employer.
It's also a pet peeve of mine when they say "flat tax" (a fixed amount) but really mean "flat rate tax" (a fixed percentage). We do have flat taxes, like garbage disposal fees ($300 a year here), so they really need to be precise in their use of the language. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How it came that this archive photo with distinct borders (sourced to NLA) appears to be cropped compared to another version, which has more details? Did Frank Hurley take two shots or is the latter photoshopped? Brandmeistertalk 19:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like one of them must be photoshopped. It isn't just the cropping, the cloud formations are completely different, and the sun is in a different place, but the poses of the people are precisely identical. It looks to me like the highlights in our version are not quite consistent with the sun position, so that's the more suspicious. Hmmm. Looie496 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's really interesting. I'm almost sure the Commons photo is the one that's altered, because the clouds in that one partially obscure features seen in the other one in a way that would be easy to do but very hard to undo. Since the photo is in the public domain, we can upload the other image you found to Commons. That leaves the question of how an altered photo ended up in the digital collection of the National Library of Australia in the first place. -- BenRG 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
It's possible that Hurley himself altered the photo. What we now call "photoshopping" existed before photoshop, so we'd need to check the publication history of the Commons version. Paul B (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's one of his composites. See here [11]. In other words both are equally "original". One is a print from the negative used for the main portion of the "artistic" version, the Commons version is the composite constructed and published by Hurley himself. i suggest that the fact that it's a combination-print should be noted in the file. Paul B (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In those days creating a more dramatic image at the time of creating a print was a common practice, though some photographers did it more than others. Frank Hurley was definitely a master of the art. He did cop some criticism for it, but his images are great. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
April 16
Funerals
Can a person unaffiliated with a church request a funeral for a deceased loved one? Or must that person seek church membership first before the church would conduct a funerary service on behalf of the deceased person? Sneazy (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to be a little more specific, given there are officially 15,472 denominations of Christian church, and many of them have independent ministries. You can try calling around, you know. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. It's too embarrassing. I am going to take it as a no. Being non-religious stinks. Well, I suppose a non-religious person could hold free-style ceremony or a cultural-based ceremony. Sneazy (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contact your local funeral home. If you've got the money, they'll accommodate you, I'm sure. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Canada, a funeral home will normally provide (for a fee, of course) a religious service in almost any denomination you can name, and a non-denominational service as well. The churches/synagogues/mosques I know are used by members first and, in some cases, by others (for a fee) where the priest/minister/rabbi decides that it would be appropriate to do so. Bielle (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was the deceased a member of a church? That might count for something. Mingmingla (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not stopped from giving my sister's eulogy in a Catholic church because I was an atheist, and they didn't stop her from being buried there because she was not amember of the congregation. If this question is anything but trolling (which is what this seems) you really need to contact a local church, and not some random person on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility exists that the OP has had no prior exposure to, or experience with, funeral situations. If so, he's got some useful answers now. Everybody can get buried, religious or not. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, I am just asking, because a thought popped into my head of how my maternal grandfather was buried. My mother mentioned that he was cremated, and his ashes were put in a jar or urn or something that stored the burnt remains of a deceased human body. And I believe that my mother kept the container in her childhood house, or at least her relatives kept it. She never mentioned that there was a burial ground. My paternal grandfather was buried, I think, in a rural area, where he had a gravestone. Not sure if he had a funeral. In any case, my ancestors are not Christian, not American, and not Westerners. Since I live in the West, I would expect that my folks would be buried with a Western-style funeral and burial. Since Western society is heavily influenced by Christianity, it sounds reasonable to ask whether or not a non-Christian would be allowed to have a Christian/Western funeral. Sneazy (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's really going to depend on what denomination you talk to and even then, it can depend on which representative (priest/rabbi/etc) that you talk to. When my parents were married (granted this was ~60 years ago), every Catholic priest refused to marry them since my dad wasn't Catholic. That is until one finally agreed. Funerals can be the same way. As far as where the ashes go, that depends on the wishes of the deceased or the family. And the laws of the state/country. Many people have their ashes scattered. A friend of mine has her brother's ashes in a cardboard box. Given your lack of detail in this hypothetical question, we can't really give you much of a definite answer. Dismas|(talk) 04:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, call a funeral home and see what the options are. Plenty of Christians nowadays do cremations, and memorial parks often have a section dedicated to cremation urns for those who don't want them in their home for whatever reason. Also, plenty of non-Christians have "western-style" funerals. Now, let me explain something about cremation: the process vaporizes everything except the bones, which are then finely-ground and placed in an appropriate container. They're not really "ashes" as such. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Bad translation of "ashes". It's "骨灰", which translates literally as "bone ash". Sneazy (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same thing, "骨灰" is the Chinese for what in English are referred to as the "ashes". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK the procedure normally follows something like this, depending on where the death takes place: you choose an undertaker to remove the body from wherever it is (at home or in hospital etc). The undertaker then carries out a basic embalming so that people can view the body and say goodbye to it. The undertaker will also discuss the funeral with the next of kin or whoever is arranging it to see what options are available. In the UK it is completely possible to have a non-religious or humanist funeral and whatever ceremony goes with disposal of the remains. It is also possible to pay in advance for your funeral. It's what my father did when he paid for my mother's funeral and I'd recommend it to anyone. You can get exactly what you want then. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the original poster is looking for information on non-religious funerals, anywhere in the world, there is some more information and links at Humanist officiant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only major Norwegian Harald I can find who's life overlapped significantly with her is Harald Hardrada, though a) I don't think he was canonized and b) his a bit too young to have been her father. --Jayron32 04:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Australian terms; what is the difference between a graduate and a post-graduate?114.75.62.217 (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A graduate (n.) is a person who has gained a tertiary degree. Post-graduate is most usually used as an adjective to describe the higher studies a graduate is now studying, such as for a Masters or Doctorate. We might say he is undertaking post-graduate research at the ANU School of Inconsequential Studies; but we do not say he is a post-graduate. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 10:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG)
Resolved
